Segregation is not an ideology?

Non-verbal shouldn't equate to non-capable, but often it is perceived that way. Non-verbal/non-conversational individuals are often excluded from opportunities, as many programs and activities are aimed exclusively at those who use verbal communication. Behaviour is communication, but it can be harder to understand than speech. Applied behaviour analysis can be very helpful with non-verbal/non-conversational individuals especially, in the research I've seen and in practical experience.

I was struck by the distinction between presumed competence and presumed to be competent. It seems to me that presumed competence refers to the presumption that everyone has a wide range of ability. That is, they are able to understand and communicate that understanding in similar ways to everyone else. Presumed to be competent, on the other hand, implies to me that, as educators, we see individuals as having some level of competence when they come to us. The distinction is, to me, that we see all individuals as having some level of competence, but we do not, and SHOULD not, see all individuals as having the same competencies, or even similar, competencies. I see there being a distinction between a blanket statement that students are universally  competent (which presumed competence seems to imply) and presuming competence, which seems to imply that teachers presume that all individuals come to the classroom with at least some competence in some area.

Thanks for your replies. My concern stems primarily from the ideological perspective that embracing full inclusion (and the social construction perspective of disability) rather than the continuum of supports and services that are the bedrock of special education will (allegedly) result in better outcomes for people with disabilities. A substantial body of literature examines the philosophical differences between the two camps (i.e., constructivsm and positivism). Unfortunately, much of the full inclusion arguments offered by proponents are are not supported by data. I am not "anti-inclusion" (or, as Mr. Goodey implies above, a segregationist) and do not think that insisting on evidence for full inclusion before adopting a position qualifies me as such. Rather, my concern is that the field advances an agenda fueled by emotion and wishful thinking rather than one informed by empiricism and experimentation. Perhaps the data on inclusive education are mixed because it is dependent on different contexts. Rather than admitting this shortcoming, constructivists turn to logical and rhetorical fallacy, including science denial, ad-hominem attacks, strawman, and false dichotomy.

The notion that we presume competence is one tactic of full inclusion proponents that seems to have increased in volume over the past 20 years, but also appears to emanate exclusively from constructivists (and pseudoscience peddlers) who popularized and/or embraced unfounded notions of undisclosed literacy (i.e.., Biklen and facilitated communication; TASH) as a means to an ideological end. This problem, although complicated and nuanced, was what stimulated my question. Your follow up replies are appreciated.

Very interesting read, Mr. Travers. Correct me if I am wrong - and this is a very non-nuanced response - but it seems to me that the frameworks and ideas you mentioned in your last paragraph Biklen and TASH) are derived from an assumption of universal competence.  According to that argument, it seems to me, all individuals, no matter their life circumstances (poverty, mental/physical/emotional infirmity, etc.,, have the same abilities, and it is essentially their fault if they do not succeed as others do.  Taken to extremes, the argument seems to imply, for instance, that everyone has the ability to dig ditches.

Isn't that a pretty debilitating and demoralizing way to look at humanity?

As you stated, science (and general logic) doesn't support the idea that all individuals can succeed and flourish in the same environment.  This is why there are so many different, for example, housing designs.  Individuals like to express their individuality and to set themselves somewhat apart. 

In the United States, the federal special education law exists to require the consideration of full inclusion, which many jurisdictions are loathe to do. The "Least Restrictive Environment" concept in this law does not preclude supports required to achieve inclusion.  I believe that the word inclusion is not even written in the law. There are many levels of "least restrictive environments."  However, there is no parallel "special" universe for individuals with disabilities to graduate into. If students have only ever been in "special education" settings, it is harder for them to integrate into society as it exists.  If one has never been allowed (or presumed competent or to be competent) to access one's community - be it school, recreation, or other locations/activities, it is infinitely harder to do so as an adult.  There is research to support this that focuses on lack of vocational participation by those who come from less inclusive school settings.  (I am a former trainer on federal special education law for a state Parent Training and Information Center.)

It sounds as if two concept are being conflated: inclusion/exclusion and competent/not-competent.  Those who assume neurologically impaired children are really "normal" kids who just need a way to "let it out" (e.g., facilitated communication) typically do not supply any real evidence that stands up to empirical test. This does not mean that such folks should be denied supports that actually work (e.g., sign language, PECS), and the ability to participate in mainstream experiences, to the extent they can. Much evidence supports the notion that both "normal"  and "disabled" children can reap some benefits from exposure to each other.

Thank you Gerald. The conflation generates not from me, but the PC proponents. I'm currently working on a manuscript that details the progression starting with Biklen (1990) (where Biklen introduces FC to the U.S.). It seems that PC and inclusion has become an indirect method for advancing FC. While not all supporters of PC are also advancing an FC agenda, it appears that FC supporters are primary proponents of PC. Unsuspecting or undiscerning adopters of PC may be unaware of this connection, which is part of my concern. 

Laurel, the (seemingly endless) debate about what LRE means has relevance here, albeit tangentially. On one hand, LRE can be considered a place/setting (e.g., resource room, specialized classroom, separate school, and etc.). From this perspective, the LRE is the general education classroom (or community, as you implied) and all other settings are more restrictive. Alternatively, LRE can be considered a set of services (including setting) that maximize student learning outcomes. In that regard, LRE is relative to the learner's needs, strengths, preferences, and interests. I often find myself wavering between these two positions, perhaps because I am wrestling with emotional and logical thinking (I'm not suggesting that this reflects the thought processes of all participants in the debate; just my own here). 

Scott, you are correct that Biklen and his ilk implicitly and explicitly argue that all people with disabilities are capable of doing anything a non-disabled person can do. Not only is this absurd (i.e., not all non-disabled people can or ought to do the same things), but also reflects a lack of value and understanding that disabilities, particularly autism and other developmental disabilities, are legitimate conditions that have limiting effects on a person's functioning. Biklen and his ilk promote a social constructionist explanation of disability that flies in the face of facts that have accumulated over centuries. While there appears some potential for middle ground between the two camps (e.g. Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2012), the reality is that simply changing attitudes and beliefs of society at large is not going to eliminate these disorders from existence. Indeed, “if disabilities are socially constructed we should be able to deconstruct them” (Kavale & Mostert, 2003, p. 193).

So, I return to the original question. What is the value of presumptions of competence? Is the notion contaminated by facilitated communication and is it tainting legitimate progress in inclusive education? I see logical, empirical, and moral shortcomings in the PC position and am in search of a different perspective. One idea is that PC can be considered useful in the same way that legal presumptions of innocence is a conservative and useful idea. However, I think that remaining agnostic about a person's ability is more useful in special education because the field has been rife with pseudoscientific and anti-scientific dogma and practices. Presuming competence may open the door to wishful thinking and confirmation bias. Suspending judgement about a person's ability seems more compassionate and logical. If PC can be conserved, under what conditions is it useful? Again, your thoughts/replies are greatly appreciated. 

I guess I have to disagree that remaining agnostic about a person's abilities is useful.  We go by what we see. We make judgements by what we feel they can and cannot do. We judge them because they cannot communicate verbally or at all or because they cannot control their muscles. I do not agree that anyone can be good at everything or anything as Biklen may suggest but I do believe that we have not been able to tap the potential of many people with disabilities.  A good book that depicts assuming competence is "I Raise My Eyes to Say Yes".  Ruth S (cannot remember last name) is the author.

Hi Ruth. Your comment is actually aligns well with what I had in mind but failed to make clear. Remaining agnostic about ability simply means suspending judgment until evidence is available to draw conclusions. Thus, no presumption of competence (or incompetence) is needed, but the educator's job is to seek out accurate information about the gap between what the student can do and what s/he needs to do to attain ideal outcomes. Presuming competence seems to open the door to wishful thinking because it starts from the idea that the person can do what s/he needs to do, but is not being given the opportunity. This is the backdoor for facilitated communication because it suggests that a person with autism or developmental disability is an intellectually intact person trapped in a broken body (e.g., Stubblefield, 2011). The compassionate position is to refrain from drawing conclusions, seek out and evaluate evidence, and align that evidence with stakeholder values, evidence-based practices, and a meaningful curriculum that contribute to best possible outcomes. 

Actually, there is some empirical evidence on the educational benefits of inclusive education, or at least for the educational benefits of placing of students with certain disabilities in regular education. I wrote a systematic review of research in this field regards students with Down syndrome. It is downloadable as pdf :  http://www.downsyndroom.nl/reviewinclusive . It shows that if schools and parents succeed in supporting regular classroom placement for a student with DS, in general these students learn more academics, and develop better language skills, than their counterparts in special schools, also after controlling for differences in moderating variables (like IQ of the child, and parental characteristics). Of course that doesn't prove that regular classroom placement will lead to favorable outcomes for any student with a disability. However, that will always be impossible to prove. As, at the end of the day scientific evidence yields statements that are true on a group level, but might be wrong on an individual level for certain individuals belonging to that group.  Yet, let us realize, that it has never been proven that special school placement is educational beneficial, or at least the evidence for benefits of special schools are even more meager than that for benefits of regular placement. The advantage of special schools is just assumed as special school placement  is the status quo. I would agree with Goodey that segregated schools are based on ideology as well. As regards "presuming competence", I believe it is better to err on the side of being too optimistic than too pessimistic about hidden competences, as low expectations, followed by not even trying, tend to come true.

"Consider that members of society generally do not presume anyone to be competent " Actually, as parents (or grandparents, or anyone interacting with small children) we all do as if babies and small children are more competent than they actually are. For instance, we pretend that they mean mummy if they babble "mamamamam". And, we talk to them as if they understand a lot more than that they actually can understand at that moment. That makes them grow. If we were to wait with talking to a child and thus presuming or pretending some understanding till the moment the child can really prove it understands what we mean, we wouldn't talk to them at all, and they wouldn't learn to talk. In natural education in a family it is not that we start believing a child has an understanding until we can see with our own eyes that it has. We start by believing there is a developing competence, we act as if there is more understanding than the child can show, and as a result the child gets the information needed to develop more understanding. We start with believing and end up with seeing. It is not the other way around. 

This is a complicated issue, since every child with special needs is unique.  Can you truly produce scientific evidence, which compares the outcomes of those who participate within inclusive classroom settings, and those in "special education" programs?

Laurel wrote, "However, there is no parallel "special" universe for individuals with disabilities to graduate into."  This is an interesting point.  On the one hand, many children benefit by participating in inclusive settings; because they will (hopefully) be prepared to "work" within an inclusive society, and their peers will be accustomed to "including" them.  However, those who are "severely" disabled will be lost.  I often wonder why we invest so much time and money in those, who will never be able to support themselves.  Perhaps more funding should be geared toward those with the greatest potential, and/or invested in long-term care for those who will not be able to care for themselves.  Recent generations have been having children much later; which means many individuals with special needs will be "orphaned" by elderly parents at a younger age than in the past.  Our social security system has not been set up to account for such societal changes.

It seems rather illogical not to use a concept like "Presume competence" just because it has been used to, for example, justify the use of "assisted" typing in people who have shown no signs that they understand written language, and in some cases not even many signs of consciousness ("Coma man", anyone?). That's like saying, "Testing for lead poisoning is useless because sometime quacks use bogus heavy-metal-poisoning tests to sell their miracle cures."

And, anyway, that's not what "presume competence" means. If you have a non-verbal autistic child, and you're trying to teach them to communicate, it means exposing them to all kinds of ways to communicate--pictures, signs, pointing, and yes, text. It means read to them; it means talk to them; it means respond to their actions. It's entirely possible for a non-verbal child to learn to read before they learn to speak, especially if their visual processing is better than their auditory processing. And say it happens--say you have a non-verbal child who can understand the difference between two written words, because they can tell the difference between two identical boxes by what labels are on them. You'd never have learned what they could do if you wrote them off and spent all that time teaching them how to look you in the eye instead, or if you didn't bother to label those boxes and expose them to the use of text in everyday life.

It's not that unusual for an autistic person to need assistance with using an AAC device, and when they do, sometimes you do risk having a "facilitator"-type aide communicating instead of the actual autistic person. FC and similar methods risk silencing your autistic client by assuming that they are communicating already, and it's absolutely critical to blind the facilitator to the actual content of the conversation, and ideally to have a facilitator who is a service animal, or no facilitator at all. Any speech therapist who helps someone communicate, whether by physical contact or by "making suggestions", needs to be aware of that tendency and needs to take steps to ensure it is actual communication. Because to let someone speak for your client, means your client is no longer communicating; and that's the opposite of what a speech therapist should want.

But then, to deny a person a communication method that works; that also silences them pretty effectively, doesn't it? We can't depend on simple algorithms like, "If it's called FC, it's bogus," because life isn't that simple and people aren't that simple; nor are people's minds so simple that you can predict one skill from knowing another, especially when the person's mind is highly atypical. Case by case, person by person, and never assume "can't".

Its convenient to label what you believe as "empirical" while claiming that those who have different viewpoints are ideological--such a predictable move! Traditional special education likes to deflect attention to its own lack of efficacy, particularly associated with segregated placements. As far as presuming competence, it simply means that we should presume capabilities--that students have the capacity to learn and grow and develop. All students communicate--even if that communication is non-verbal or behavior-related. As far as presuming competence, it is simply the least dangerous assumption we can make about a student.

As far as FC goes and I am no expert, but its interesting to see how the debate has remained stuck, while many of those who started out needing facilitation have developed independence in their typing--or need such minimal support (like a hand on the back or shoulder or leg)--for emotional or sensory support. Instead of considering that perhaps there was and is something of value in augmentative forms of communication and FC, those who do achieve more independent or fully independent typing are seen as exceptions to the rule. How many exceptions does it take to make us question the "rule." I have seen many people use typing to communicate--I have seen young people need varying supports over time or in more/less stressful contexts. Its important to offer scaffolds of all kinds as students develop more independence--this is a hallmark of constructivist teaching (Vygotsky). How is this different?

Beth and Lisa, Thank you for your replies. I appreciate your perspectives, but this thread is nearly a year old. I posted the question and replies while working on the manuscript as a way to get some feedback about the ideas we were considering. I've since co-authored a paper with Kevin Ayres on presuming competence. The paper was accepted for publication in Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities and will be printed this winter.

We discuss in the paper Donnelan's (1984) concept of "least dangerous assumption" as well as Brown et al.'s (1976) "criterion of ultimate functioning" as they relate to PC. I originally set out to understand where the PC philosophy came from after having heard the term mentioned at a conference. I truly was surprised to learn the extent it was connected to facilitated communication, a topic that I began to monitor over the past few years. We critically examine the philosophy in the paper and conclude PC is not useful. We instead offer an alternative framework that incorporates self-determination, stakeholder values, evidence-based practices, and functional-focused curriculum to support attainment of the best possible outcomes for learners with autism and other developmental disabilities. 

If either of you are interested, you may contact the editor about drafting a reply to our paper. ETADD has published similar exchanges previously, but usually allow a rejoinder. I would be willing to write a rejoinder if you are interested writing a reply. Such discussions/exchanges are critical for the development of knowledge, but have become exceedingly rare in academia. If the editor is amenable, I will send to you our final draft.

To clarify, this thread was not about facilitated communication or AAC. I support AAC and have authored papers to advance the delivery of authentic AAC (see my recent paper in RPSD, for example). I have stated and written elsewhere that communication skills should always be a top priority of intervention and support teams. Lisa, to claim I want to silence the voices of people with disabilities because I reject FC constitutes an equivocation fallacy. FC is not a form of AAC, plain and simple. 

Lastly, to reject the evidence against FC is to engage in science denial. We have yet to obtain verifiable, objective, and replicable empirical evidence that FC produces authentic communication. The people who are allegedly typing "independently" are dependent on nuanced prompts to produce messages. If you are able to arrange a simple message passing test (e.g., Shane & Kearns, 1994) for one or any of the individuals who are portrayed by the ICI as typing independently, I would gladly conduct the study with you. Please feel free to contact me via email if interested. 

I know this thread is more than a year old, but I feel compelled to weigh in. First of all, to maintain  that "verifiable, objective, replicable empirical evidence" is the only thing that counts as scientific evidence seems narrow and dogmatic. How about field studies that observe messages being passed that the provide new information to people in the participant's life? Jason, you explicitly dismissed the authorial voice of Jamie Burke in the paper he co-authored with Douglas Biklen. You use logic and previous studies to do this, but you throw individuals under the bus. I'd love to write a rejoinder to your articles that may not be about FC but shoot it down in flames with seeming arrogance.  When you say " FC is not a form of ACC, plain and simple," you overstep yourself. You can really only acknowledge it is problematic. I could say more, but must go for now.

Gordon: the definition of science is that it is verifiable, objective, replicable. Field studies actually are that: and other researchers attempt to verify and replicate them under reasonbly similar conditions. If they can, then we are more confident in the result. If they can't, we are less so. The notion of "authorial voice" is one I haven't heard since the bad old days of postmodernist thinking (for an enjoyable take on that Google 'Sokol hoax'). Jason is correct to reject FC as it has failed to produce results that stand up to empirical study. That is how we make progress in this world.

I got my first postgraduate degree in philosophy in 1986. If the term postmodern seems "old," I can assure you the spirit of resisting the hegemony of empiricism in modern western culture and questioning the value of striving for "objectivity" is very much alive. That’s at least part of what postmodernism continues to stand for. I got my second post graduate degree in critical social work at the University of Victoria in 2014. Rest assured there is a large community of scholars, activists, and regular folks who feel that over-reliance on empiricism and the narrow focus on "objectivity" as a kind of holy grail for attaining human knowledge may lead to a kind of progress but is also leading to social injustice, elitism, and other bad things worse than postmodernism. I don't know what the “Sokol hoax" is, but I was talking about dismissing a person's contribution as co-author of a book because they communicate differently. I also see that "experts" who reject FC too often further marginalize the voices of an oppressed population. For me, this is what is absolutely unacceptable. Addressing social injustice is the kind of progress I would like to see. Science can become a tool of oppression when it applied dogmatically. A healthy respect for science means considering evidence of all kinds whether it agrees with accepted conventions or not. One of the most important kinds of evidence is found in people's voices rather than the controlled conditions of "objective" study. Not recognizing this is what bothers me most about the flavour of much anti-FC narrative. As for presumed competence, which originally emerged from FC, it is less a method of service provision that needs to be scientifically validated than an attitude that helps keep us from disrespecting and underestimating others we don’t understand. Disagreement and discussion is good, as long as everyone's voice is heard. That’s how we make real progress in the world.

What is the definition of competence?

Very good question!  It's always good to define our terms so we know what we're talking about. In the hospital setting where I work, "competence" is a technical term referring to the person's ability to make their own  medical care decisions. A doctor can make this assessment in the course of treatment in order to determine if a family member needs to give consent. Outside demands for immediate treatment,  in order to declare a person incompetent a strict, legally established procedure is needed. This society is generally very careful about declaring a person incompetent because it takes away a person's freedom and autonomy. 

The kind of "presumed competence" being discussed in this forum more generally refers to intellectual competence. It's not that presuming competence means we have to assume a person can do anything (including write poetry), but that we assume they are able to think for themselves. Here the two definitions of "competence" are linked in a crucial way because presuming competence most importantly means the person is treated with their autonomy intact.

Presuming competence helps to keep us from lapsing into a disrespectful stance with a person we don't understand. As someone pointed out, we presume competence with children all the time. It's how they learn. We should also presume competence with dying and unconscious people, talking to them and around them with the assumption that they can  hear and understand. This preserves respectful behaviour towards them and around them.

In an educational setting, presuming competence does not mean we assume that everyone has equal abilities. It certainly does not mean we have to assume everyone is at the peak of the bell curve. Rather, it means that we approach every individual with the assumption that they are capable of learning., that they understand what we are saying, and that we relate to them as autonomous individuals capable of thought and feeling. Unless assessment can show otherwise, we begin teaching at their age level so we do not underestimate them based on our assumptions about them. 

What people with pervasive autism (and other conditions) who have learned to communicate tell us over and over is that  they felt disrespected by others who assumed they were "retarded."  They also tell us that educators underestimated them and "bored them to tears" with basic, repetitive learning tasks.

Presuming competence means we never dismiss the voice of anyone because of our assumptions about them.

Assuming competence does not mean that some "magic" or instant learning takes place. It remains a difficult, challenging process for people to develop their skills. When we assume competence, however, at least we start them on a road of learning that has the potential to build on their autonomy.

Presuming competence in this sense does not mean we abandon science. Science builds on our understanding and often gives us tools we would never have imagined.  We must not, however, make science into a  narrow dogmatic Procrustean bed that is put before people. We have to be especially careful not to allow science  to further marginalize vulnerable populations. For example, it is ethically problematic and morally reprehensible to withhold validation from anyone's attempts to communicate. No one in this discussion had the validity of their contribution subjected to scientific scrutiny before their post was taken into account. We would respect a small child or a 101 year old man it they contributed to a conversation. We would learn from  their perspective and our understanding would grow  from what they had to say.  If we do not presume competence, we put ourselves at risk of not honouring, or helping develop, the voice of people who do not fit our assumptions of what a person is supposed to be like.

If we do not yet have scientific evidence that presuming competence is an effective tool for human relations, that does not mean we can't recognize it's value. Did people avoid smiling or being kind to each other before scientific studies demonstrated the value of these things for human well-being?  Besides the intuitive value of presuming competence, we also have the reports of people who have found that not presuming competence leads to disrespect and stagnation (for example see the link below. If we dismiss such voices due to lack of scientific evidence or because they contravene scientific convention, we are putting science before people. This can  lead to all manner of atrocity and social injustice.

This all goes beyond the strict definition of competence and  reaches into the ethical realm where we discuss the kind of humans we want to be.

http://ollibean.com/presuming-competence/