Newsgroups: bit.listserv.autism
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:08:07 EDT
              <AUTISM@SJUVM.BITNET>
From:         RJKOPP@SUVM.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Facilitated Communication Question

I know most people here know my feelings on Facilitated Communication but
I am seeing how some serious problems are arising on the validation issue.
There are more and more court cases (Abuse usually) where the lawyers are
depending on Facilitation for the case of the abused and most judges are
not allowing it, due to a lack of authentication.  There are tests that
have been done that some feel disprove it.  Proponents say that these tests
don't prove it is not valid and I agree.  Although I think the need for
authentication is arising more and more.  I think many of the professionals
who advocate it are finally begining to see the need.  In the abuse cases
it may mean the difference between people continueing in an abusive situation
and not, but you run into some other problems in false accusations too.
The thing that I think needs to be stressed is that in cases such as this
don't stop with Facilitation being the only evidence look for other evidence
to be used as a fail-safe.

I know it works because I have seen it, and I have seen results with my
daughter as many others on this list have.  It definitly shows much more
intellegence than anyone ever guesses exists.  The attitude of the child
in the unchallenging world without facilitation, where everyone assumes
retardation produces frustration and boredom in the child who has more
inside.  The child may like the teachers, but they also realize they are
not doing the same work as they should be, whether they are in a self-
contained setting or inclusive, they still know.  The change when the
child gets challenged and is in a typical classroom situation with some
consideration given for more response time, allows the child to partake
in the class and the class winds up being more rewarding to the child.
This is my experience with my daughter.

Other ways that I fully beleive it are in ways that are not what a court
may not consider valid but they are enough to convince me.  There are many
cases of facilitators who have been told via FC something about the childs
life or home situation that the Facilitator couldn't have known.  And
the facilitators who I have met that have told me this are people I would
beleive explicitly, they have no purpose for lying.  One is someone who
rejected taking on the task of being someone to spread and teach Facilitation
because she realized that her own teaching and resource work to her was more
important.  So like many opponents like to refer to, this person is not
seeking fortune or fame, quite the opposite.

Many districts probably still hinge on validation before allowing it in
their curriculums, regardless of the phychological effects it may have on
children given the tool.  I think we need to think of it as a tool and not
a cure.  It's not going to make the autistic not autistic, it's just one
more tool to be used to help that child reach the world.


Thanks,
Ray Kopp
Syracuse, New York
Internet:rjkopp@mailbox.syr.edu
Bitnet:RJKOPP@SUVM.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU