We are deeply concerned about HB1553-FN, a bill in New Hampshire that aims to implement a pilot program teaching the debunked and dangerous program Spelling2Communicate (S2C) to vulnerable children with autism and apraxia. As people who understand the needs and strengths of individuals who are non-speaking or minimally speaking, we believe this bill ignores the science of reading, the evidence around alternative and augmentative communication and attempts to fit these individuals into an ableist paradigm.  

Spelling2Communicate (S2C) has been repeatedly proven fraudulent, with major organizations like the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and International Society for Augmentative Alternative Communication (ISAAC) condemning its use.  There is not even one major organization that backs S2C.  

Research around S2C and its twin, Rapid Prompting Method (RPM), as well as Facilitated Communication (FC), on which both are based, is clear that these practices do not work and are dangerous. 

The implementation of S2C would not only be detrimental for our children's education but also their overall well-being. We must prioritize evidence-based teaching and intervention methods that respect individual differences. We must follow the science on how to teach reading and spelling as well as communication.  Across the country there is a call for Science of Reading to be used, but S2C makes false claims that children with autism do not need reading instruction at all. Our children deserve better than this.

Instead of creating a pilot program for this bogus program, it would be better if the state of New Hampshire used funds to support legitimate Augmentative and Alternative Communication implementation in its schools by better training teachers, SLPs, paraprofessionals, parents and future educators.  Additionally, money could be spent creating and implementing a Science of Reading based program for individuals with autism and apraxia to ensure they become literate as well as learn to communicate. 

We urge you to stand against HB1553-FN. Let's ensure we provide our children with safe, effective educational practices that truly meet their needs. Sign this petition today to stop Spelling2Communicate from being implemented in New Hampshire schools.

Research:

Schlosser, R.W., Hemsley, B., Shane, H. et al. (2019). Rapid prompting method and autism spectrum disorder: Systematic review exposes lack of evidence. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 6, 403–412. 

Hemsley, B., Bryant, L., Schlosser, R.W., Shane, H.C., Lang, R., Paul, D, Banajee, M., Ireland, M. (2018). Systematic review of facilitated communication 2014-2018 finds no new evidence that messages delivered using facilitated communication are authored by the person with disability. Autism and Developmental Language Impairments, 3, 1-8. DOI: 10.1177/2396941518821570

Saloviita, T. (2018). Does Linguistic Analysis Confirm the Validity of Facilitated Communication? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities. 33 (2), 91-99. DOI: 10.1177/1088357616646075

Schlosser, R.W., Balandin, S., Hemsley, B., Iacono, T., Probst, P., Von Tetzchner, S. (2014). Facilitated communication and authorship: A systematic review, Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 30 (4), 359-368. DOI: 10.3109/07434618.2014.971490

Mostert, M. (2010). Facilitated communication and Its legitimacy — Twenty-first century developments. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 18 (1), 31-41. DOI: 10.1080/09362830903462524

Mostert, M. (2001, June). Facilitated communication since 1995: A review of published studies. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31 (3), 287-313. DOI: 10.1023/A:1010795219886

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/decision-against-spelling-to-communicate-a-small-victory-for-science/​

https://www.facilitatedcommunication.org/blog/a-review-of-the-movie-spellers-a-documercial-for-spelling-to-communicate