NSW Teachers and FC—Too Much of a Helping Hand?
Many of our readers, by now, recognize a common trope in the titles used by reporters to promote Facilitated Communication (FC). Journalists who report miraculous breakthroughs while typing or being freed from a cage generally signal that a pro-FC, feel-good miracle autism story will follow.
A recent news story out of New South Wales titled “Charlie emerges as an advocate from a cocoon of silence” is no different.
The student looks at a box containing snacks while his facilitator holds the pen, looks at the notebook, and writes. The student puts his hand on the facilitator’s hand, but apparently doesn’t need to pay attention. (9News, 2022)
From the reports I could find, the parents and educators involved in the story do not blatantly call their technique FC. However, the student’s mother describes the technique as her son “putting his hand on her hand” to write. Whether she was aware of this when she started working with her son or “invented” the technique on her own, “hand-over-hand,” is just one of the many names for FC used by proponents. This rebranding of FC is designed to deflect attention away from the fact that FC has long since been discredited. (See A History of FC)
The common denominator with FC in any of its variant forms (e.g., hand-over-hand, supported typing, typing to communicate, spelling to communicate, rapid prompting method) is facilitator cuing and control, which, in my opinion, is the case in this particular story.
The news report has traction because it features Charles Mury, a non-speaking individual with severe autism, who was given a Minister’s Award for Student Achievement. Nominations were, presumably, submitted by school staff and Sarah Mitchell, the Minister for Education and Early Learning presented the award.
It is not clear from the reports how many of the school’s staff facilitate with Mury. Lucy Neilson is named as his “scribe and teacher” (a new twist on the term “facilitator”). Regardless, all of these trained professional educators should have recognized the very real possibility that Mury was being subjected to FC and ruled out facilitator control before making nominations and awarding prizes.
The student looks off into the distance while the facilitator holds the pen and forms the letter shapes. All the student needs to do is hold her hand. Apparently, he doesn’t need to learn how to hold the pen or make letter shapes independently in order to be “successful.” (9News, 2022)
It is always uncomfortable discussing student achievement when FC is involved, especially when the parents and educators are emotionally invested in the technique (See How Motivated Reasoning Enables Support for Facilitated Communication). But, as much as I would love the claims in this story to be true, I find it difficult to believe that Mury is the sole author of the FCed messages.
I am not saying Mury does not have some abilities. Rather, it is difficult to tell what his independent (verbal and non-verbal) communication and academic skills are when the assistants are integrally involved with the writing/facilitation process. He holds onto their hands while they look at the notebook, hold the pen and form the strokes of the letters—almost as if the facilitators are human planchettes.
Illustration of a planchette (public domain), used in automatic writing, and an image of the student (in the red shirt) holding onto his facilitator’s hand in a similar manner (9News, 2022)
In the video provided with the news story, there are times Mury is not looking at the notebook and appears disengaged (e.g., standing or pulling away from the activity). Even while sitting beside the facilitators, he plays with an iPad, looks at a box of snacks, or stares off into space while they continue to write. Facilitator cuing can be subtle in well-practiced facilitator-client pairs. In this case, however, instances signaling the likelihood of facilitator control were easily detectable.
It is difficult to say whether anyone purposefully set out to deceive the judges for the award. Ideally educators would know about FC and that it is not evidence-based. But it seems a tone of “‘never make assumptions,” set by the school administrator, may have resulted in taking the FCed messages on faith. Proponents, largely, believe FC works because people using FC say it works, despite all evidence against it. Significant and, largely unexpected, leaps in student literacy skills upon the introduction of FC is just one of the documented “red flags” for facilitator influence.
It is also well documented that facilitators are often unaware of how much they control facilitated messages. (See Ideomotor Response) As previously noted, the emotional desire to believe in FC, in many cases, overrides any rational thought about the technique.
And, while we repeatedly emphasize on this website that our criticisms are directed to the technique of FC, and not the individuals being subjected to it, there will be a percentage of our readers who will not like what I am about to say.
The student looks at and interacts with an iPad while the facilitator looks at the board, holds the pen, and forms letter shapes. He holds onto her hand while she appears to be doing most of the work. (9News, 2022)
Not all individuals with autism have average to above average language, math, and literacy skills. Some, like those with profound autism, have limited intellectual and language abilities, inconsistent areas of competency (e.g., low comprehension skills, but high math skills), and can exhibit aggression, self-injury, property-destruction, elopement, pica, and other dangerous behaviors. Many need life-long, 24/7 care. (See The Lancet Commissions Report on Autism). Historically, individuals with profound autism have been targets for FC use (See Anguished Silence and Helping Hands).
The facilitator—not the student—types the handwritten notes into the computer. Does the student know how to recognize letters and/or read what has been written in the notebook? (9News, 2022)
I presume the video example(s) of Mury working with his facilitators are supposed to be proof of independent communication. But, to me, this story, sadly, raises more questions than it answers:
Is there any scientific evidence to suggest a traumatic event can suddenly trigger language comprehension and literacy skills in individuals with severe autism? Mury, purportedly, started writing with a pen and paper (and help from his mother) after his grandmother died. Before that, his skills were estimated to be at the kindergarten level.
How is it that Mury, who, as reported, has a diagnosis of severe autism and received “no formal instruction in the mainstream curriculum” can, within 18 months of being introduced to FC, “do Extension 2 maths, biology, English standard, physics and talk 32 languages”? He’s also, reportedly, interested in agriculture and advocacy work for individuals with disabilities. These grand-canyon-like leaps are unusual and, for reasons explained earlier, should raise concerns about authorship.
How is it that Mury learned Russian, Polish and Japanese by watching dubbed versions of Bob the Builder? Language and literacy skills need to be taught. How is it he seemed to intuitively know higher math and score 100% on his exams? (Note: He might have the potential to learn complex math, but there's no evidence that he received direct instruction in this subject. The news that Mury knew any math at all seemed a complete surprise to his father). What are the educational backgrounds of the facilitators who helped him complete course assignments and exams?
How is it that Mury can write without looking at the notebook? In the videos, Mury stands with his body turned away from the facilitator or sits beside the facilitator looking at a computer screen or other object. The facilitators’ eye gazes are almost exclusively on the notebook when they are writing.
Why does the facilitator, and not Mury, input the written messages into the computer? He’s shown pointing to letters on a keyboard by himself (though with gestural prompts from the facilitator sitting in front of him. He seems to need help to spell out “my name is Charles Mury”). Can Mury actually read the words written in the notebook? Does he know his letters and the sounds they make? Likewise, can he recognize numbers and math symbols without facilitator “assistance”?
Did the staff receive training in the “hand-over-hand” technique? What were the certification or licensing requirements? Are there plans to fade support or is the support “indefinite”? Is there scientific evidence to support the long-term use of the technique? What happens to his written language abilities when the facilitators are not within auditory or visual range?
Did the educators put into place any measures to make sure the messages being produced hand-over-hand were independent and not the words of the facilitators? (e.g., blinded tests) Surely, if the student can pass rigorous maths tests and “talk 32 languages,” he would have no problem passing a reliably controlled test where he knew the answers but his facilitators did not.
Is the staff or administration aware that many organizations have positions opposing the use of FC? Are they concerned about possible malpractice and the use of fad techniques in the classroom?
By credulously using FC themselves or allowing it to be practiced within the school, the staff at Hunt River Community School at Metford near Newcastle are (perhaps inadvertently) doing exactly the opposite of what I think they intend to do: champion Neurodiversity. Instead of providing appropriate supports for their student to access, and potentially expand upon, his extant communication and academic abilities, they are implementing a technique that, in all likelihood, usurps his voice and cannot be faded. Their hands—and the words resulting from the activity--are inextricably entwined. How do they think Mury is going to learn to write independently (e.g., without facilitator control) and use his “voice” authentically if the facilitators do all the work and he never gets to hold the pen or learn how to form the letters on his own?
It seems their purpose for pursuing FC and sending in the nomination primarily reflects the hopes and dreams of the facilitators as they (metaphorically) look away from the fact that FC builds dependence on the facilitator, not independence for those being subjected to it. All the while, the student (literally) looks away from the notebook during the facilitated sessions.
Sarah Mitchell, NSW’s Minister for Education and Early Learning, may have been fooled by this miraculous, feel-good story, but, until the facilitators demonstrate that they were not the authors of the FCed messages using reliably controlled methods, I’m not buying the tale they are spinning.
Note: Reportedly, Mury has plans to attend Newcastle University to study pure maths. I am interested to see what the university staff do if/when faced with a student being subjected to FC.