Interviews with Educators and Skeptics

Much of the feedback we get from proponents about FC/S2C/RPM centers around this question: Why would critics want to prevent nonspeaking individuals with profound autism and other developmental disabilities from “Spelling?” And, although proponents don’t make a distinction between the use of facilitator dependent techniques and the independent language and literacy skills of those who are subjected to the techniques, critics of these techniques do. The problem isn’t with the high-or low-technology and equipment being used with these methods, but with the interference from facilitators who, in using FC/S2C/RPM, influence and control letter selection through physical, visual, and auditory cueing. Since these cues are built into facilitator-dependent techniques, many facilitators are unaware of the extent to which these cues influence and control their clients’ interaction with the keyboard or letter board. Critics of FC/S2C/RPM and the so-called “modern spelling methods” are often accused by proponents of not caring about people with disabilities, of being ableist and/or materialists, but what do these people really say about FC/S2C/RPM and the people being subjected to these techniques? Here are links to interviews with critics in their own words.