Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2015, 50(4), 371–387
© Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities
A Critique of Presuming Competence of Learners with Autism
or Other Developmental Disabilities
Jason Travers
Kevin M. Ayres
University of Kansas
The University of Georgia
Abstract: Democratic education and the dignity it affords should create opportunities for students
to achieve their most desired outcomes. Some of the current thought and rhetoric in the field of special education
and disability studies impinges upon these opportunities by approaching the education of children with autism
and other developmental disabilities from a philosophical standpoint based on presumption rather than
evidence, hope rather than data, and pseudoscience rather than science. The premise of presumed competence
has evolved from earlier concepts like the criterion of the least dangerous assumption and serves to support such
therapeutic quackery as facilitated communication. This paper provides a critique of arguments surrounding
presumed competence and suggests an alternative position free of presumption along with a model built on
empiricism to pursue the best possible educational outcomes for individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities.
Empirical support for practical interventions
for students with autism and other developmental disabilities (ASD/DDs) during the
1970s and 1980s was significantly more limited
than the current body of evidence. During this
earlier era of special education, the field’s
ignorance about effective practices gave rise
to various philosophies intended to inform
and support practical decisions. One, put
forth by Brown, Nietupski, and Hamre-Nietupski (1976) was the criterion of ultimate
functioning, which suggested that curricular
decisions be made so as to maximize the likelihood that individuals with disabilities would
be able to fulfill their potential in the least
restrictive environments with their peers without disabilities. The scarcity of data on how to
achieve this led Donnellan’s (1984) counterpoint of the least dangerous assumption,
wherein she stated, “in the absence of conclusive data, educational decisions should be
based on the assumptions which, if incorrect,
will have the least dangerous effect on the
student” (p. 142). This position was supported
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Jason Travers, Department of Special Education, University of Kansas, Joseph R Pearson Hall, Room 547, 1122 W. Campus Rd, Lawrence, KS 66045. E-mail: [email protected]
with reasons including: (1) inclusive education was potentially less harmful than segregated settings, (2) contextually relevant instruction was less harmful than artificial
instruction, (3) independence was less harmful than dependence, and (4) empirical (i.e.
behavior-based) methods that emphasized
chronological age were less harmful than unverified methods that emphasized developmental models.
More recently, the notion of presumed
competence (PC) has been used with increasing frequency in the special education
and disability studies literature. Donnellan’s
(1984) least dangerous assumption foreshadowed PC as an ethical concept intended to
serve as a sort of philosophical bedrock for
ensuring the dignity of individuals with disabilities. However, it appears no empirical research on PC has been conducted to substantiate the claim it preserves dignity. Conversely,
no critical examination of the PC philosophy
has been published in the literature. Nevertheless, PC has become popular during a time
of continued dissemination of pseudoscientific, controversial, and fad interventions for
learners with ASD/DDs. For example, PC has
emerged while facilitated communication
(FC) began experiencing resurgence in popularity due to its strategic rebranding as “sup-
Discarding Presumptions of Competence
/
371
ported typing” and other marketing tactics
(Travers, Tincani, & Lang, in press). The recent adoption of PC and returning popularity
of FC does not appear to be coincidental.
Biklen (1990) was the first to suggest that
practitioners and leaders presume competence in his endorsement of and guide to
facilitated communication (FC). Biklen outlined attitudinal dimensions of FC, including
Assume the person’s competence. ‘It’s far
better to overestimate than to underestimate a person’s ability.’ Believe communication is important; conveying this belief
will help convey to the person that you see
him or her as important, as your peer, as
someone worthy of being ‘heard.’ Respond
to what is typed as if it were spoken (p. 306).
Biklen explained that FC founder Rosemary
Crossley’s intent “is not to test competence
but to find ways for them to reveal the competence” (p. 313). Importantly, although FC
remains thoroughly debunked, it continues to
proliferate and PC appears to have become a
principal rhetorical tactic of proponents. In
his treatise on wishful thinking, Biklen (2005)
explained:
In its simplest articulation, presuming competence means that the outsider regards the
person labeled autistic as a thinking, feeling
person. This is precisely the stance that every educator must take–failing to adopt this
posture, the teacher would forever doubt
whether to educate at all, and would likely
be quick to give up the effort. Aside from
the optimism it implies, another benefit of
the presuming competence framework over
a deficit orientation–where particular levels
of incompetence (e.g., belief that the person is incapable of learning to read or lack
the ability to approach other people’s perspectives) are presumed–is that when a student does not reveal the competence a
teacher expects, the teacher is required to
turn inward and ask “What other approach
can I try?” (pp. 72–73).
Biklen and Burke (2006) elaborate on this
false dichotomy (more later on fallacies) by
explaining that presuming competence provides
372
/
A choice to determine either that a person
is incompetent (i.e., severely retarded by
the APA definition) or to admit that one
cannot know another’s thinking unless the
other can reveal it. The latter is actually the
more conservative choice. It refuses to limit
opportunity; by presuming competence, it
casts the teachers, parents, and others in
the role of finding ways to support the person to demonstrate his or her agency (p.
167).
An initial and perhaps uncritical reading may
lead some to conclude that PC is at best a
good general rule to follow or at worse a benign suggestion. However, judicious analysis
suggests neither is apropos.
Competence is defined as “a sufficiency of
means for the necessities and conveniences of
life; the quality or state of being competent;
the knowledge that enables a person to speak
and understand a language” (Merriam-Webster). The term is used in various contexts
including biology, geology, law, and linguistics. Presume means “To think that something
is true without knowing that it is true; to accept legally or officially that something is true
until it is proved not true; to do something
that you do not have the right or permission
to do (Merriam-Webster). Accordingly, when
special education professionals and leaders
presume competence in a person with a significant disability, they are suggesting that we
should believe without evidence that the person has sufficient means for understanding
what and how to attain their desired outcomes. Presumed competence essentially suggests professionals adhere to a belief in the
absence of evidence to support it. We believe
this credulity is not only without merit, but
also invites professionals and leaders to adopt
pseudoscientific interventions (Anastasiou &
Kauffman, 2013; Kauffman, 2011; Kauffman &
Sasso, 2006).
Problems with Presuming Competence
PC is becoming a frequent theme of the neurodiversity movement, full inclusion advocates, and disability studies literature. The
adoption of a position without supporting reasons is troubling. Special education has since
its inception been rife with fad interventions
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-December 2015
(Kozloff, 2005) and persons serving learners
with ASD/DDs have been particularly credulous (Jacobson, Foxx, & Mulick, 2005; Travers,
Ayers, Simpson, & Crutchfield, in press). The
recent movement to identify and disseminate
evidence-based practices (National Autism
Center, 2009; Wong et al., 2014) is an attempt
to minimize possible and actual harm to, maximize potential of, and attain the best possible
outcomes for learners with ASD/DD. The evidence-based movement may make some uncomfortable, but reliance on reasoning coupled with responsible skepticism is the best
way to ensure access to effective interventions
and supports. Accordingly, the least dangerous assumption offered by Donnelan (1984) is
obsolete, replaced by values for evidence, empiricism, experimentation, and logical consistency in a science of special education. Given
the least dangerous assumption is superseded
by these values, an analysis of evidence for and
related arguments offered by proponents of
PC appears pertinent.
Presuming Competence, Pseudoscientists, and
Pseudoscience
The PC literature reveals a pattern of speakers
and rhetoric that serve as red flags for leaders
and practitioners alike. Biklen (1990; 2000a;
2000b) is the original and primary proponent,
but Donnellan and others have relentlessly
disseminated PC (Biklen & Burke, 2006;
Broderick & Kasa-Hendrickson, 2001; Donnellan, 2006; Donnellan, Hill, & Leary,
2012; Jorgenson, McSheehan, & Sonnenmeier, 2007; Kliewer, Biklen, & Kasa-Hendrickson, 2006; Kliewer & Biklen, 2001;
Kluth & Chandler-Olcott, 2008; Robledo &
Donnellan, 2008; Rosetti, Ashby, Arndt,
Chadwick, & Kasahara 2008; Rubin, Biklen,
Kasa-Hendrickson, Kluth, Cardinal, & Broderick, 2001). The arguments offered for PC
follow the same suit as those offered for FC,
including fallacious reasoning (Mostert,
2001; 2010) and marketing tactics (Todd,
2012; Travers, Tincani et al., in press). We
see this list of proponents as cause for concern, skepticism, and scrutiny because of
their reputation for promoting FC with PC
and, more importantly, they use fallacies
(e.g., argument from authority) to advance
their agenda.
Questionable Motives behind Presuming
Competence
Jamie Burke, a person with autism who reads
aloud messages attributed to him generated
via FC, coauthored with Biklen portions of an
interview that centered on PC (Biklen &
Burke, 2006). In their essay, Burke allegedly
offers his insight about the ideal school (i.e.,
settings, peers, teachers, stimuli). They offer
no evidence for the efficacy of PC, choosing
instead to use an argument from authority
and an appeal to emotion. Responsible skepticism requires that we discard or, at the very
least, maintain doubt about the authenticity of
any message generated during FC because
overwhelming evidence indicates facilitators
are the authors of messages produced with the
method (Mostert, 2001; 2010). Conclusions
drawn from false premises or flawed data (i.e.,
facilitated messages) are inherently ineffectual. Nevertheless, Biklen (with Burke) expand the fallacious reasoning. For example,
they suggested (see quote above) that failing
to adopt PC is a slippery slope toward forever
doubting whether we should teach at all followed by the false dichotomy that failing to
embrace PC means non-subscribers must believe students are inherently and therefore
eternally incompetent. They conclude the PC
philosophy is valuable due to: (a) a commitment to inclusion, (b) that different ability
does not mean deficit, (c) changes to rules
and systems that confer benefits for some and
disadvantages for others are needed, and (d)
schools should focus on transforming social
constructs of normalcy and, presumably, disability. These conclusions about PC may appear positive and praiseworthy to some leaders and practitioners, but they are drawn from
FC and fallacy, not evidence or ethical or
moral argument. Importantly, FC has never
been demonstrated to be valid and, given the
extensive investigation afforded FC, we must
conclude that words attributed to Burke are
not reflective of his own true thoughts, opinions, or experiences; they instead represent
the subconscious thoughts of his facilitator(s).
Unfortunately, this is not the only exploitation
of Burke to promote PC.
Broderick and Kasa-Hendrickson (2001)
studied statements attributed to Burke and
depicted PC as a necessary means for acquir-
Discarding Presumptions of Competence
/
373
ing independent communication skills (i.e.,
PC is an indirect, albeit critical component of
FC). These authors use argument from authority (i.e., Burke) and false attribution fallacies. Kasa-Hendrickson (2005) advised that intellectual disability (ID) is socially constructed
(i.e., ID is a disability without physiological
etiology) that dehumanizes, restricts, and perpetuates false identity. They assert that embracement of PC and abandonment of disability labels is a philosophical waypoint toward
inclusive classrooms, schools, and society. Not
only is this a non sequitur, but “if disabilities are
socially constructed we should be able to
deconstruct them” (Kavale & Mostert, 2003,
p. 193).
Rubin et al. (2001) presented a litany of
fallacies to conclude that competence should
always be presumed. Statements generated via
FC and attributed to Rubin are presented as
core reasons to endorse PC, but this argument
from authority fallacy is doubly flawed because the rationale is rooted in pseudoscience. In other words, no steps were taken to
ascertain the authenticity of premises foundational to Rubin et al.’s conclusions about PC.
Further, these authors advance PC with appeals to emotion by repeatedly using a stigmatic and harmful term (i.e., retarded) to
advance PC (and FC) and an erroneous notion that ID is an oppressive social construct.
Importantly, leaders and practitioners have a
moral obligation to be empirical (Todd,
2012), but these authors seem only concerned
with using a dishonest agenda to advance PC
and FC.
Jorgenson et al. (2007) explained that educators who subscribe to beliefs that disability is
a social construction “may be more likely to
presume competence and support students’
full membership, participation, and learning
within the (general education) classroom . . .
(and that) they many look for and expect to
find competence in spite of the student’s label” (p. 251). No evidence is offered to support this assertion. Similarly, Kluth and Chandler-Olcott (2008) included numerous quotes
from FC users and explained that PC is part of
the theoretical framework informing their
textbook on holistic (i.e., whole language) literacy approaches for learners with ASD/DD.
Despite decades of literacy research, there exists no evidence that a whole-language literacy
374
/
approach benefits learners with disabilities,
including learners with ASD/DD. To the contrary, ample evidence indicates explicit, systematic approaches to literacy instruction are
effective for learners with disabilities that
affect language and communication (e.g.,
Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2002) and emerging
research this approach benefits learners with
ASD/DD (Fredrick, Davis, Alberto, & Waugh,
2013; Whalon, Otaiba, & Delano, 2009). Unfortunately, leading scholars in special education and autism disciplines endorsed the textbook with positive reviews, thereby (perhaps
inadvertently) lending undue credence to PC
and, to a lesser but notable extent, FC.
These primary proponents of PC represent
a “Who’s who” list of FC sophists and illustrates the substantial pseudoscientific overtones associated with the presumption of competence. Their consistent message is that we
should presume competence because people
with ASD/DD have intact minds trapped in
defective bodies and that their minds can be
revealed via FC (e.g., Stubblefield, 2011).
Such claims are diametrically opposed to everything currently known about the biological
and environmental conditions that give rise
ASD/DDs. Further, an echo chamber of PC
(and FC) advocates has clearly emerged and is
comprised of a cohort well known for dogmatic adherence to unsubstantiated and disproven claims. The association between pseudoscience and PC proponents represent red
flags for special education professionals and
experts dedicated to improving the outcomes
of learners with ASD/DDs. Thus, the deficient
credibility of PC advocates seems ample justification for discarding PC until compelling
evidence is available. Nevertheless, an examination of evidence proponents have offered in
support of PC seems important for ascertaining the utility of this viewpoint.
Insufficient Evidence and Bad Reasons for
Presuming Competence
As far as we can tell, no published experimental study of PC is available in the professional
literature. Thus, there exists no evidence to
support PC as a practical idea. Accordingly,
adopting PC to make educational decisions
(e.g., placement) or implement interventions
(e.g., communication) appears unwarranted.
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-December 2015
Given that no empirical literature is available
for analysis and from which conclusions about
PC can be drawn, an examination of the arguments for PC in the literature appears the
only recourse for examining its legitimacy and
utility. It is important to point out the problem of forming an opinion prior to or in the
absence of evidence supporting that belief.
People who believe in phenomenon without
evidence or regard true that which has been
disproven often resort to explanations that are
not falsifiable or rely on fallacy to defend their
position. Confirmation bias (Davies, 1993;
Nickerson, 1998) certainly plays a role in this
type of irrational thinking. The essence of
confirmation bias entails the a priori formation
an opinion followed by searching for evidence
to confirm that opinion. This is not an auspicious or benign suggestion. Indeed, abandoning skepticism to formulate an opinion prior
to the acquisition of tangible evidence is contrary to and incompatible with a scientific
worldview that values logic, evidence, empiricism, and experimentation. Nevertheless,
Biklen and Kliewer (2006) state
In adopting a presuming competence
stance, the outsider regards the other as a
peer, as someone with whom to interact and
communicate and from who (sic) one can
learn, if only a means of interaction can be
discovered. More simply stated, if you are
interested in seeing another’s competence,
it helps to look for it. As the work of (FC
users) Frugone, Rubin, Burke, and Bissonnette attest, this optimistic stance holds substantial rewards. It is a necessary condition
of meaningful inclusion (p. 184).
This quote is an argument from authority
(i.e., FC users) to promote drawing conclusions about an individual’s actual skills prior
to acquiring and examining any evidence.
Further, it illustrates a utilitarian position that
PC is a pseudoscientific means to a legitimate
end (i.e., inclusion). The anecdotes offered by
FC users (Biklen & Burke, 2006) were obtained using invalidated methods and are insufficient for substantiating claims that PC is
requisite for meaningful inclusion (or that
failure to adopt PC will result in failed inclusion). This assertion supplants reason with
willful ignorance disguised as compassion and
does not preserve the dignity of the person
with ASD/DD. Rather, presumptions of competence endorse wishful thinking, self-deception, and confirmation bias. PC advocates
affirm non-scientific, pseudoscientific, and anti-scientific beliefs as equally valuable as those
rooted in evidence and reason. This rejection
of scientific thought harms rather than aids
the inclusive education movement because
empiricists expect evidence that demonstrates
support for inclusive education. Researchers
and professionals who base decisions on evidence are instead offered pseudoscience and
fallacy. Such arguments for PC contaminate
legitimate debate about inclusive education
and further polarize an already controversial
issue (Kauffman & Hallahan, 2005). PC advocates use it as a means to an end rather than
legitimately examining its potential as a useful
perspective for ensuring procurement of specialized educational programming and better
student outcomes. We disagree that the end
(inclusion) justifies the means (pseudoscience, anti-science, illogic) and see PC as harmful because it illegitimately advances inclusion
and advocates restricting the continuum of
special education services where reasonable
means (i.e., experimentation; argumentation)
are available.
PC proponents also have continued to use
fallacious appeals to emotion. An appeal to
emotion is a type of red herring fallacy that
exploits the tendency of an individual to rely
on emotional response to draw conclusions
rather than facts; they draw an individual’s
attention away from the relevant facts or
premises by making other irrelevant features
of the situation more salient. The powerful
effects of this fallacy are attributed to the inaccurate belief that visceral responses are superior to reasoning. This error in thinking is,
at least in part, responsible for the proliferation of pseudoscientific fads in developmental
disabilities (Vyse, 2005) because it exploits
well-meaning parents desperate to improve
their child’s condition (Travers, Ayers, et al.,
in press).
Biklen (1990) asserted that presuming a
person to be a competent communicator was
a necessary prerequisite belief for applying
FC. FC is the quintessential exemplar of the
dangers associated with confirmation bias
(i.e., wishful thinking, self-deception) and log-
Discarding Presumptions of Competence
/
375
ical fallacy. Biklen claimed that people with
ASD/DDs were intellectually intact individuals with average to superior intelligence
trapped in bodies that did not respond to
mental intention. This unjustified seed of expected communicative ability contributed to
rapid dissemination of FC and widespread belief that people with ASD (and, to a lesser
extent, DD) have trapped minds in need of
liberation (Palfreman, 1993; Stubblefield,
2011). Many consumers expected FC to produce miraculous results and conformed their
observations to meet those expectations. Various other pseudoscientific and fad interventions capitalize on the belief that people with
ASD/DDs can be freed from imprisoned
minds, although no credible evidence has
ever substantiated this belief. This belief gives
credence to a range of fad, pseudoscientific,
and controversial practices. For example,
rapid prompting method is a pseudoscientific
communication technique that shares several
characteristics with FC (Tostanoski, Lang,
Raulston, Carnett, & Davis, 2014). The
method has been directly and indirectly promoted in the popular media with stories
strikingly similar to those associated with
FC. Pseudoscientific biomedical treatments
also exploit this belief by promising sudden
and dramatic improvements using various vitamins and supplements, special diets, heavy
metal removal, and/or others. PC is a deployment of the same tactics. It generates expectations fueled by compassion conducive to
confirmation bias and suggests advocacy for
an issue rather than a person (i.e., appeal to
emotion). PC also perpetuates the baseless
notion that willful belief and good intentions
are foundational to, if not entirely sufficient
for, improving outcomes of learners with
ASD/DDs (i.e., science denial).
Proponents have used other appeals to
emotion to prop up PC. For example, Rubin
et al. (2001), emphasized that FC and PC are
liberating and necessary for “democracy, action, freedom, and identity” (p. 415). Rubin
et al. also strategically and repeatedly used
the stigmatic term “retarded” to invoke emotional responses associated with prejudice,
oppression, and inferiority. Kasa-Hendrickson (2005) explained the label of mental
retardation “should be eliminated as it
serves only to dehumanize, restrict educa-
376
/
tional opportunity and perpetuate false
identity” (p. 67). She further suggested that
PC and FC were useful for achieving that
outcome. We agree (for different reasons)
the term should be abandoned, but these
authors give no attention to the need for
objective assessment nor the function of special education eligibility categories, namely
that they serve as access points to highly
specialized supports and services while simultaneously preserving the education and
civil rights of children with disabilities and
their families. Rather, special education is
inappropriately viewed as an oppressive system devoid of value and worthy of dispersion (c.f., Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2011).
Rubin et al.’s assertions were not only
deeply flawed, but illuminated the reliance
on fallacy to advance an ideological agenda
uncoupled from improving outcomes of
learners with ASD/DDs.
Proponents also use a false dichotomy fallacy to promote PC. False dichotomy is an
inductive (i.e., informal) fallacy that presents
two extreme positions of an issue as the only
options to consider when other actual or potential positions exist. With regard to PC, a
false dichotomy entails concluding that a failure to presume an individual’s competence
means embracing the position that the person
is incompetent. Such maneuvers lend well to
other fallacies. For example, Biklen and Burke
(2006) presented a false dichotomy (quoted
above) to lead to an ad hominem fallacy. They
argue that professionals who do not embrace
PC can only be oppressors who presume incompetence. They continue by insinuating
that members of society who reject PC and/or
the social construction of disability actually
cause intellectual disability:
Students “become” mentally retarded on
the basis of their performance on intelligence tests and adaptive behavior scales. As
an illustration, consider how the American
Psychiatric Association’s (APA, 2000) definition of severe retardation declares a person retarded because of difficulties in performance . . . in short, the outside observer
(e.g., teacher, parent, diagnostician, associate) has a choice, to determine either that
the person is incompetent (i.e., severely retarded by the APA definition) or to admit
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-December 2015
that one cannot know another’s thinking
unless the other can reveal it (p. 167, italics
and quotes in original).
Administration of an intelligence test or adaptive behavior scale has never caused intellectual disability. Related, Stubblefield (2011)
suggested that questioning authorship and/or
insisting on demonstrations (i.e., evidence) of
authorship by FC users rather than presuming
them to be competent qualifies the skeptic as
an oppressor using hate speech. Again, no
evidence or coherent reasoning is offered in
support of PC. Instead, PC proponents enforce black-and-white thinking (e.g., a person
is either good or bad, with us or against us)
without considering alternative, truly conservative, and more rational positions. These PC
proponents posit there only are professionals
who presume competence or incompetence
and rejection of PC (or FC) implicates participation in hate-fueled oppression.
A third option (of perhaps many) is to refrain from presumptions entirely and instead
insist on evidence to ascertain current functioning and alignment with current and future environments (i.e., goals). It is plausible a
person with ASD/DD could learn anything
under ideal conditions, but current limitations in our technology of teaching and finite
resources (e.g., financial, time, human) must
be considered in conjunction with individual
strengths, interests, and preferences in order
to prioritize instruction necessary for attaining
best possible outcomes. Professionals need
not presuppose anything to effectively support
student attainment of meaningful progress
and can maintain ideals while dealing with less
than ideal resources. This philosophy implicates the environment as the problem to solve
rather than changing the person. Behavior
analysis pioneer Ogden Lindsley (1964) suggested this decades ago: “Children are not
retarded. Only their behavior in average environments is sometimes retarded. In fact, it is
modern science’s ability to design suitable environments for these children that is retarded”
(p. 147, italics in original). This compassionate and pragmatic perspective aligns with an
agnostic philosophy of ability and is derived
from well-established scientific values.
Agnosticism of Ability
Rather than presuming competence, professionals instead may remain agnostic about the
person’s ability until sound (i.e., verifiable,
valid, and reliable) evidence of current functioning in specified domains gathered from
formal assessment results, progress monitoring data, behavior observation data, and etcetera has been collected and evaluated. Such
evidence should be used instead of PC to inform delivery of instruction and supports congruent with the individual’s (and/or family’s)
vision and values. Individuals and groups that
subscribe to pseudoscientific or anti-scientific
beliefs promote PC primarily with fallacy and,
more importantly, there appears no credible
evidence or defensible reason illustrating the
utility or benefit of PC. It therefore seems
pertinent to cease promoting the idea until
empirical evidence of the PC philosophy is
available. Instead, professionals and teacher
educators should refrain from unwarranted
presumptions and insist on evidence before
endorsing any theoretical framework or practical intervention. This responsible skepticism
could be considered the contemporary equivalent and more functional, utilitarian, and serviceable version of Donnelan’s (1984) least
dangerous assumption.
Autism spectrum disorder and intellectual
disabilities are real phenomenon with various
genetic, physiologic, and environmental etiologies (Batshaw, 2013). Regardless of definition or measure, people with ASD/DDs experience limitations in functioning that require
specialized intervention and support. The PC
perspective is problematic because it (a) has
no empirical evidence to support it as an established or useful position, (b) is derived
from fallacious reasoning, (c) is a tactic used
by FC proponents to disseminate pseudoscience, and (d) seems more detrimental than
beneficial to people with ASD/DD. Alternatively, suspending judgment about a person’s
knowledge, skills, strengths, interests, preferences, and support needs until provided with
sufficient evidence is more rational, less dangerous, and better preserves dignity of the
person with the disability. We propose this
agnosticism of ability as an alternative to PC.
Agnostic means “a person is unwilling to
commit to an opinion about something” (Me-
Discarding Presumptions of Competence
/
377
riam-Webster). Typically associated with religious philosophy, the term also can be applied
in various contexts to illustrate an absence of
opinion (i.e., suspending judgment about a
claim) until evidence sufficient for drawing
conclusions is available. Suspending beliefs
about a person’s competence is more conservative than drawing uninformed conclusions
because such agnosticism inhibits wishful
thinking associated with pseudoscience. Presumptions of competence (and incompetence) are made without evidence and therefore are inherently irrational. Remaining
agnostic of ability is a reasonable position
when sufficient evidence is unavailable.
Agnosticism of ability simply means refraining from concluding whether a person is or is
not capable of performing some skill until
sufficient evidence is available to inform a
decision. Non-prejudicial people consistently
apply this perspective to their daily experiences, usually without noticing. For example,
suppose you need to hire a wedding photographer. You do not presume anybody with a
camera can reliably take high quality photographs to help remember the day. Rather, you
look for evidence that the person can take the
types of photographs you want (e.g., a portfolio of traditional, contemporary, artistic,
and/or improvisational photographs). You
might also solicit information from references, read online reviews, peruse their website, and/or visit their office prior to deciding
whether to hire. A prejudicial attitude might
be to dismiss the person as incapable based on
something arbitrary (e.g., hairstyle, clothing,
accent). Reasonable people, however, suspend judgment and look for evidence before
making decisions. We may ask friends for suggestions, read online reviews, or observe the
behavior of others for almost every decision
we make ranging from restaurants to cardiologists.
In the absence of evidence, the best modus
operandi is to withhold judgment. Many people
likely practice this philosophy implicitly and
without malice. The previous example can be
applied to education settings. Educators refrain from judging whether a student is capable of performing specific skills based on arbitrary factors such as race, ethnicity, weight,
height, clothing, and etc. In fact, teacher educators train future educators in recognizing
378
/
their own implicit biases about particular students, especially students from diverse cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and economic backgrounds. Effective teachers do not rely on
prejudiced decision-making processes and instead rely on objective measures of student
performance to determine whether students
have learned. When students have not
learned, teachers are expected to accept responsibility for their student’s failure (i.e., accountability). Special educators and related
professionals are no different. They are
trained to identify through objective measures
what their students with disabilities can and
cannot do. Whether teaching communication, social, academic, motor, daily living, or
other skills, baseless judgments are suspended
and evidence is sought to inform and support
conclusions about student needs. Presumptions are discounted in favor of demonstrable
facts and seeking evidence to support conclusions should not be construed as an attempt to
oppress. There is no harm done by withholding judgment about a person’s ability (to take
photographs or count coins, for example) unless we refuse to accept evidence without good
reason. Problems arise when we presume a
person (a) cannot when they in fact are capable or (b) can when they are incapable. Both
problems (false negative and false positive)
are reasons for insisting on evidence and withholding judgment until sufficient evidence is
available.
Decisions made without evidence, including presumptions of competence, are inherently prejudicial and therefore hazardous.
However, adopting agnosticism of ability represents only partial requisite for supporting
student attainment of the best possible outcomes. In complete absence of evidence, we
suggest professionals refrain from judging
whether a person is or is not capable of anything and instead seek objective evidence to
inform conclusions. We further suggest this
agnosticism of ability be combined with a
model for attaining desirable outcomes that
relies on various forms of evidence, incorporation of self-determination, stakeholder values, alignment of evidence and values with
functional focus curricula, and deployment of
evidence-based practices.
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-December 2015
A Model for Desirable Outcomes
Epistemic (i.e., theory of knowledge) debates
can be almost as complicated as trying to convince someone to change political affiliation.
Nevertheless, the preference for one paradigm over another should not hinder a discussion of how to approach the education (and
treatment) of individuals (with or without disabilities). We propose that, while not free of
epistemological baggage, a more productive
and fruitful approach should center on simple
(but not simplistic) concrete, rational, and
easily verifiable behavior analytic premises.
This does not require any sort of behavioral
performance as a pre-requisite to access curricula or environments. We are neither segregationists nor ideologues. Rather, our suggestion is that professionals should refrain from
presuming anything, including competence,
and remain agnostic about student knowledge, skills, and support needs until reliable
evidence is collected and evaluated. We believe this approach is fundamentally compatible with assuring the dignity of people with
ASD/DD. We also believe that PC compromises that value by supplanting effective approaches with unproven, ineffective, and/or
harmful pseudoscientific methods advanced
with flawed logic. Preserving dignity and promoting acceptance of each person as a valuable participant in a plural democracy is the
priority.
Each person is an individual who has something to contribute and confers benefit to the
lives of others. From a behavior analytic standpoint, people with disabilities reinforce the
behavior of others (like any caring and cared
about person). The PC notion seems an attempt to promote this value (albeit illegitimately), but simply agreeing and convincing
others that each person has value is insufficient for planning instructional programming. As illustrated above, presumptions are
potentially hazardous and certainly incompatible with an evidence-based approach to education. Multiple reliable data sources must be
obtained and evaluated prior to delivering instruction or providing supports. Good intentions aside, adhering to PC and ignorantly
proceeding with curriculum design and delivery of instruction is incompatible with the
spirit of specialized education (i.e., individu-
alized, effective, and meaningful instruction).
Figure 1 illustrates how evidence is combined
with critical considerations for stakeholder
values and self-determination to inform the
development of a meaningful curriculum to
be taught via evidence-based practices. Each
of these elements is described in detail below.
Data and Evidence
Professionals must have satisfactory confidence about current functioning and desired
outcomes of the individual with ASD/DD. Accordingly, we believe that teams must integrate evidence with concepts of self-determination, stakeholder values, and functionally
focused curriculum in order to select the evidence-based practices necessary to attain the
best possible outcomes. Importantly, evidence
should be collected using a variety of methods
and from relevant sources in order to increase
reliability. We suggest that all relevant stakeholders evaluate data and evidence from standardized assessments, objective observation,
progress monitoring graphs, and, when possible, experimental analysis.
Impartial educators should insist on observations, interviews, and assessments in various
settings (e.g., home, school, classroom, community) to ascertain what the student can and
cannot do independently or with supports
and proceed accordingly. The more data we
have that converge on a similar conclusion,
and the more reliable the data appear to be,
the more confident we can be about the accuracy of conclusions about the person’s current
level of functioning. This value has informed
the development and application of a variety
of assessment technologies including anecdotal reports, structured interviews, rating
scales, and functional analysis, to name a few.
However, the validity and reliability of results
from these and other sources of evidence varies considerably and therefore requires additional evidence from which conclusions can
be drawn with increasing degrees of certainty.
Some sources yield more valuable (i.e., reliable, valid) evidence than others and, accordingly, should be weighted differently. Specifically, conclusions about student skills based
on prolonged interaction with the reporting
teacher are less credible than direct observation conducted in natural environments by
Discarding Presumptions of Competence
/
379
Figure 1. Model for Improving Outcomes.
impartial but knowledgeable, objective, and
benevolent observers (i.e., those that have a
genuine interest in the best possible outcome
but have no relation to or history with the
380
/
individual). Direct observations are potentially enhanced via corroboration through experimental analysis because experiments account/control for confirmation bias, a priori
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-December 2015
conclusions, ad hoc modification, or other
problems related to emotional investment. Experimental analysis, when possible, allows
drawing causal conclusions that may assist in
planning intervention. The extent one can
truly be objective or impartial is debatable, but
accurate results are dependent on efforts to
avoid these pitfalls of thinking (Kauffman &
Sasso, 2006). Collecting and considering various types and sources of data act as insurance
against invalid results.
Standardized assessment. Historically, specialized instruction was gleaned primarily
from standardized assessment results and, to a
lesser extent, direct observation. The use of
standardized assessment has been particularly
problematic in special education. Biases in
intelligence testing design, including non-representative normative sampling, culturally
laden test items, and interpretation of results
are at least partly responsible for educational
inequities. Although many shortcomings have
been identified and some have been rectified
(e.g., elimination of or decreased emphasis on
IQ test results), standardized measures (e.g.,
adaptive behavior, behavior rating scales, developmental profiles) remain useful for ascertaining various student needs and are useful
primarily when considered in conjunction
with other sources of data. These other
sources include objective observation, progress monitoring, and experimental analysis.
Objective observation. We suggest focused attention on observed gaps between what a
learner with ASD/DD currently does in natural (i.e., expected or desired) environments
and what s/he needs to do to achieve the most
desirable outcomes. This authentic approach
to understanding how to proceed sufficiently
fills the gaps identified by Brown et al. (1976)
and eliminates the need for the least dangerous assumption offered by Donnelan (1984).
To reliably identify gaps between expected
and desired behavior, we suggest the premise
that objective observation and anecdotal evidence be comprised of a description of observations of specific, observable, and measurable behavior in relevant contexts. These
descriptions may vary from narratives (e.g.,
running record) to notes about relevant aspects of behavior (e.g., antecedent-behaviorconsequence data) and graphed measures
(e.g., frequency per hour; minutes per day).
However, anecdotal reports are typically influenced by the observer (both by their presence
and perspectives) and the difficulty conducting objective observation can result in emotionally-laden and prejudicial conclusions
about the person’s functioning. Accordingly,
these data should be interpreted in conjunction with formal standardized assessment as
well as progress monitoring data.
Progress monitoring data. Progress monitoring entails frequent collection and graphing
of quantitative behavioral data (e.g., count,
rate, duration, percent, etc.) for regular evaluation of student progress toward a goal
(Snell & Brown, 2006). From these data, rate
of improvement over time (i.e., trend) can be
projected, average performance calculated,
and effectiveness of interventions and supports determined to inform team decisions
regarding curriculum. While more commonly
applied to academic contexts (c.f., Stecker,
Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2008) progress monitoring is
rooted in empiricism and has for decades
been a fundamental element of special education for learners with ASD/DDs (Alberto &
Troutman, 2013).
Experimental analysis. When possible or
necessary, an experimental approach to understanding the person’s current functioning
can yield valid and reliable evidence that no
other sources can provide. In an experimental
analysis, the active altering of environmental
events and continuous measurement of the
phenomena of interest further assuage threat
of confirmation bias via recording behavior
using methods that yield robust data confering high levels of certainty (e.g., a multi-element design used in a functional analysis).
Highly skilled practitioners may organize experimental conditions to obtain these data,
but consultation with a behavioral researcher
may be necessary when student behavior is
highly complex, progress is stagnate or unsatisfactory, or when regression occurs.
Critical Considerations
With evidence, teams can begin to consider
the larger picture, usually a web of intersecting and mutually influential factors (e.g., values, concerns, vision, etc.) that influence decisions about instructional goals, placement,
curriculum, and teaching methodologies. We
Discarding Presumptions of Competence
/
381
propose that the self-determination construct
is the best available model for augmenting
stakeholder values, followed by a discussion of
the complex interplay between the each. We
then discuss a function-based focus of curriculum and the importance of employing evidenced-based practices to attain desired outcomes. Importantly, function-based focus is
not synonymous with a functional curriculum
in the traditional sense. Rather, a functionbased focus denotes an outcome oriented
planning process that considers quantifiable
outcomes in authentic environments. These
four elements effectively replace the PC philosophy because they are less dangerous than
presuming competence and are substantiated
by a body of empirical research.
Stakeholder values. Given that functioning
(i.e., skills, behavior) is dependent on contexts, bringing together multiple stakeholders
will increase reliability and validity of conclusions about current functioning by (1) incorporating results from highly skilled professionals who also have limited history with
results from less-skilled team members with
extensive history with the focus person and
(2) exposing and/or keeping in check the
potential influence of confirmation bias.
From here, the team can proceed with greater
confidence that the information it has will
adequately inform instructional decisions. Incorporation of other sources of information
helps to contextualize what has been acquired
through direct observation and interaction
with other stakeholders and often suggests
other avenues to explore. Presumptions of
competence have no bearing or value in the
process.
Stakeholder values refer to what is valued by
the focus person as well as their friends, family, teacher, therapists, care-providers, and so
on. This broad constituency does not always
achieve consensus, but their different perspectives should and do inform the development
of educational programming. Because each
stakeholder has had unique experiences with
and without the learner, their evaluation of
current and future needs provides the entire
team with comprehensive assessment (to the
extent possible) for educational programming. Each stakeholder brings to bear their
own knowledge including, for example, (a)
the learner sharing his or her dreams and
382
/
primary obstacles, (b) parent dreams, fears,
and relating anecdotes and experiences, and
(c) professionals debriefing on formal and/or
informal assessment results. These unique experiences and perspectives cause disagreement, but different values and perspectives
are critical in curriculum design because they
are derived (at least in part) from evidence of
what an individual can and/or needs to do to
achieve the most desirable outcomes. Such
information begins to form the basis for understanding individual needs and the direction the team needs to go. All of this occurs
without any presumption except that things
can change, the student will learn, and the
team will work to achieve common goals without compromising worth and dignity.
Self-determination. A powerful and philosophical underpinning in curriculum planning, the concept of self-determination and
the emphasis placed on preparing individuals
to act as the “primary causal agent” (Wehmeyer, 1996, p. 24) shape many of the actions
of transition teams in middle and high school.
Unlike PC, self-determination has been found
to confer positive outcomes in learners with
disabilities (Shogren, Wehmeyer, Palmer,
Rifenbark, & Little, 2013; Wehmeyer &
Palmer, 2003; Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997;
1998; Wehmeyer et al., 2012). Details of the
theoretical constructs and practical application of self-determination are beyond the
scope of this paper. However, self-determination posits that individuals have the opportunity
to act on their own behalf and the capacity (or
skills) to make informed decisions (Wehmeyer, 1999). This value transcends epistemic
beliefs and underscores needed contemporary attitudes and practices in special education. Adopting a philosophy of educational
programming that maximizes student skills
requisite for agency does not require presumption of competence. Rather, self-determination values that an individual can learn
and their capacities to exercise self-determination are amenable to change. Further, when
goals and objectives are derived from evidence and aligned with self-determination to
maximize outcomes, professionals need not
make presumptions about a learner. They instead approach each learner with confidence
in the rational trajectory to establish goals
related to self-determination and stakeholder
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-December 2015
values. The only presumptions required are
individual worth, dignity, and a right to effective interventions and supports.
Functional focus. We propose the term
“functional focus” to refer to a set of learning
objectives or implementation of curricula that
are meaningful to the individual. We recognize this term invites comparison with “functional curriculum” or “life-skills curriculum,”
but it is technically incomplete. Ayres, Lowrey,
Douglas, and Sievers (2010) argued for a
“meaningful curriculum” that focuses on
teaching skills that are meaningful and useful
to the learner in current or future environments. The learned skills/behaviors allow
the student to better engage in activities that
are naturally reinforcing, thereby reducing
dependency and improving quality of life.
In short, Ayers et al. recommended teaching
skills that directly relate to students getting
what they want (e.g., communicating simple
request or complex ideas, reading to enjoy
popular or technical literature, writing to
generate stories or update a Facebook status). In alignment with this philosophy,
Hunt, McDonnell, and Crockett (2012) suggested that curricular foci should be determined by contributions to an individual’s
quality of life. Functional focus, meaningful
curriculum, or alignment with quality of life
all suggest centering an individual’s education needs on what they want and need to
maximize their life outcomes. After self-determination, stakeholder values, and a
meaningful focus are accounted for, teams
proceed with deciding how to achieve the
curricular goals.
Evidence-based practice. More than half a
century of empirical scholarship has led to the
identification of effective educational and
therapeutic interventions (i.e., evidence-based
practice [EBP]) for teaching a wide range of
content and skills to individuals with significant disabilities. One primary responsibility of
educators is to identify appropriate EBPs that
will most likely result in progress toward and
achievement of curriculum mastery (i.e.,
learning objectives). Professionals must take
into account five critical factors. First, they
must acknowledge that an EBP may not work
for all learners, skills, and/or contexts. Second, they must acknowledge that an EBP may
not be effective or acceptable for the specific
learner. These first two considerations follow
in the same agnostic vein with which educators should approach learner competence.
That is, they should not presume an EBP will
or will not work (or that they are adequately
knowledgeable or skilled to deliver the intervention) and instead insist on evidence to
draw conclusions about effectiveness. Thus,
the third consideration relates to how to proceed once an EBP is selected. Professionals
must plan for and actually collect data to evaluate the effects of the selected intervention
(i.e., progress monitoring). Fourth, when a
treatment or practice fails to produce intended effects, educators must use a different
EBP rather than resorting to unsubstantiated
interventions (i.e., fads, pseudoscientific
methods). Despite the accumulation of knowledge to fill gaps identified by Brown et al.
(1976) and Donnelon (1984), the field remains inundated with new questions while
others remain unknown to us. Accordingly, a
fifth consideration relates to procedures to
follow if educators cannot identify an EBP or
if all EBP’s have failed. When initial attempts
do not produce desirable gains (i.e., improvement trends, mastery of skills, generalized behavior, naturally reinforcing consequences),
educators should refer to the best available
evidence (Council for Exceptional Children
Interdivisional Research Group, 2014) to select interventions that align with a science of
learning as well as data collection to evaluate
the impact of intervention.
Though progress toward optimal outcomes
can occur in the absence of EBP, professional
organizations such as the Council for Exceptional Children (2011), the Behavior Analysis
Certification Board (2013), and the American
Speech and Hearing Association (2005) as
well as education law (No Child Left Behind,
2001; Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act, 2004) advise deployment of EBPs.
Despite this, students may not have access to
EBPs either because their team members are
ignorant of EBPs pertinent to the learner’s
need or they choose to ignore EBP mandates.
In these cases, harm is done to the learner by
way of lost instructional/learning time, possible or actual skill regression, and loss of dignity, among others. These problems mirror
damage done when professionals proceed
based on presumption and conjecture.
Discarding Presumptions of Competence
/
383
Model Summary
Each component of this model relies on the
gathering and careful and objective consideration of evidence (i.e., data) to make decisions. The voice of the individual learner
serves as a critical piece of evidence. Sometimes this voice requires the assistance of others to understand the desires (e.g., preference
assessments, stimulus avoidance assessments,
ecological assessments, etc.) but in any case,
the abilities of the individual are verified
rather than presumed. The observations, anecdotes, assessments, and other information
shared by all stakeholders help to provide context for the voice of the learner and help drive
a curriculum with a functional focus. No one
presumes what a parent wants for his or her
child. In terms of curricular focus, it relies
directly on evidence gathered from stakeholders (e.g., needs in current and future environments). Presuming that a skill is likely to be
useful to a student without understanding
where the person wants want to live, work,
attend school, etc. wastes valuable time and
resources. Finally, achieving optimal outcomes requires the employment of EBP as
outlined above and this itself requires evidence and evaluation. Presuming that an unproven practice will lead to optimal outcomes
and presuming that all EBP works for all students in all contexts minimizes the dignity of
the student. Like any of these other presumptions, PC is problematic and troublesome specifically because it perpetuates the stereotype
that people with ASD/DDs need only to overcome physical (i.e., “movement”) problems;
that intellectually intact individuals are trapped
in broken bodies and that a teacher’s primary
charge is to “unlock” them.
Concluding Remarks
Presuming competence is an idea without evidence and is a hazardous invitation to pseudoscience and other flawed thinking. Presuming competence confers little direct benefit to
learners with ASD/DDs and suggests esoteric
priorities unrelated to improving individual
outcomes. The responsible position is to suspend judgment about the person’s competence and insist on sound (i.e., reliable, valid,
verifiable) and objective evidence of current
384
/
functioning in specified domains in order to
deliver instruction and supports congruent
with the individual’s (and/or family’s) vision
and values. This evidence-based approach to
specialized education is more likely to confer
better outcomes for learners with ASD/DD,
but also seems an ethically superior and honest framework.
We recognize that the slow progress of a
science of special education is complicated by
the legacy of the eugenics movement including mass institutionalization, biased and otherwise flawed measures, and the maintenance
of constructs that marginalize and oppress.
Indeed, past and current generations have
caused irreparable harm to uncounted numbers of our fellow human beings. Nevertheless, abandonment of the scientific method
cannot result in meaningful advancement,
even if a supporting ethical argument suggests
otherwise. Perspectives that consider ASD/
DDs a mere social construct diminishes the
very real impact they have on the lives of
affected people and imply a priority of changing attitudes through fantasy rather than improving outcomes. Conversely, ASD/DDs are
authentic, limiting conditions that command
compassionate responses characterized by validated interventions and supports that increase participation in society and attainment
of the good life. Early attempts to apply empirical methods to solve problems confronting
people with disabilities were hamstrung by
deficit-focused perspectives that represented
only a general approximation of the natural
phenomenon of disability, but they were starting points for an advancing field. This flawed
residual is set aside in favor of models and
practices derived from scientific (i.e., humanistic) values that benefit people with disabilities and include skepticism of any claim, insistence on evidence, and critical (i.e., reasoned)
analysis of ideas.
Donnellan’s (1984) least dangerous assumption served a useful and practical purpose but is obsolete. Current and prospective
special education practitioners and leaders
can set aside PC or other assumptions that do
not directly translate to improved outcomes
for learners with ASD/DDs for practices and
frameworks that more likely will lead to better
quality of life. These include but are not limited to (a) insistence on reliable and valid
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-December 2015
evidence of student performance, (b) consideration of self-determination and stakeholder
values, (c) functional focus that emphasizes
improved quality of life, and (d) evidencebased practices. We submit this is the way to
resolve past transgressions, promote inclusion, and secure a better future for people
with ASD/DDs. Presuming competence seems
to be a retreat from, rather than progression
toward, a more just society.
References
Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2013). Applied
behavior analysis for teachers. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
(2005). Evidence-based practice in communication disorders [Position Statement]. Retrieved from www.
asha.org/policy
Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2011). A social
constructionist approach to disability: Implications for special education. Exceptional Children,
77, 367–384.
Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2013). The social
model of disability: Dichotomy between impairment and disability. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 38, 441– 459. doi:10.1093/jmp/jht026.
Ayres, K. M., Lowrey, K. A., Douglas, K. H., & Sievers, C. (2010). I can identify Saturn but I can’t
brush my teeth: What happens when the curricular focus for students with severe disabilities shifts.
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental
Disabilities, 46, 11–21.
Batshaw, M. L., Roizen, N. J., & Lotrecchiano, G. R.
(2013). Children with disabilities. Baltimore:
Brookes.
Biklen, D. (1990). Communication unbound: Autism and praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 60,
291–315.
Biklen, D. (2000a). Constructing inclusion: Lessons
from critical, disability narratives. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 4, 337–353.
Biklen, D. (2000b). Lessons from the margins, narrating mental retardation: A review essay. Mental
retardation, 38, 444 – 456.
Biklen, D., & Attfield, R. (Eds.). (2005). Autism and
the myth of the person alone. NYU Press.
Biklen, D., & Burke, J. (2006). Presuming competence. Equity & Excellence in Education, 39, 166 –
175.
Behavior Analysis Certification Board. (2013).
Guidelines for responsible conduct for behavior analysts. Retrieved from http://www.bacb.com/index.
php?page⫽100165#guidelines
Broderick, A. A., & Kasa-Hendrickson, C. (2001).
Say just one word at first: The emergence of
reliable speech in a student labeled with autism.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 26, 13–24.
Brown, L., Nietupski, J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S.
(1976). Criterion of ultimate functioning. In
M. A. Thomas (Ed.), Hey, don’t forget about me (pp.
2–15). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. J. (2002). A
synthesis of research on effective interventions for
building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 35, 386 – 406.
Council for Exceptional Children’s Interdivisional
Research Group. (2014). Evidence-based special
education in the context of scarce evidence-based
practices. TEACHING Exceptional Children.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2011). Council
for Exceptional Children Special Education Professional Practice Standards. Retrieved from http://
www.cec.sped.org/Standards/Ethical-Principlesand-Practice-Standards
Davies, M. F. (1993). Dogmatism and the persistence of discredited beliefs. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 19, 692– 699.
Donnellan, A. M. (1984). The criterion of the least
dangerous assumption. Behavioral Disorders, 9,
141–150.
Donnellan, A. (2006). Autism and the myth of the
person alone, by Douglas Biklen. Mental Retardation, 44, 447– 449.
Donnellan, A. M., Hill, D. A., & Leary, M. R. (2012).
Rethinking autism: Implications of sensory and
movement differences for understanding and
support. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 6.
Harris, J. (2000). Is there a coherent social conception of disability? Journal of Medical Ethics, 26,
95–100.
Harris, J. (2001). One principle and three fallacies
of disability studies. Journal of Medical Ethics, 27,
383–387.
Hunt, P., McDonnell, J., & Crockett, M. A. (2012).
Reconciling an ecological curricular framework
focusing on quality of life outcomes with the development and instruction of standards-based academic goals. Research and Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 37, 139 –152.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004,
P.L. 108-446
Jacobson, J. W., Foxx, R. M., & Mulick, J. A. (Eds.).
(2005). Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities: Fad, fashion, and science in professional practice. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Jorgensen, C. M., McSheehan, M., & Sonnenmeier,
R. M. (2007). Presumed competence reflected in
the educational programs of students with IDD
before and after the Beyond Access professional
Discarding Presumptions of Competence
/
385
development intervention. Journal of Intellectual
and Developmental Disability, 32, 248 –262.
Kasa-Hendrickson, C. (2005). ‘There’s no way this
kid’s retarded’: Teachers’ optimistic constructions of students’ ability. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 9, 55– 69.
Kauffman, J. M. (2011). Toward a science of education:
The battle between rogue and real science. Verona, WI:
Attainment.
Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.). (2005).
The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique
of a current special education bandwagon (2nd ed.).
Texas: ProEd.
Kauffman, J. M., & Sasso, G. M. (2006). Certainty,
doubt, and the reduction of uncertainty: A rejoinder. Exceptionality, 14, 109 –120. doi:10.1207/
s15327035ex1402_4
Kavale, K. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2003). River of
ideology, islands of evidence. Exceptionality, 11,
191–208.
Kliewer, C., & Biklen, D. (2001). School’s not really
a place for reading: A research synthesis of the
literate lives of students with severe disabilities.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 26, 1–12.
Kliewer, C., Biklen, D., & Kasa-Hendrickson, C.
(2006). Who may be literate? Disability and resistance to the cultural denial of competence. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 163–192.
Kluth, P., & Chandler-Olcott, K. (2008). A land we
can share: Teaching literacy to students with autism.
Baltimore: Brookes.
Kozloff, M. A. (2005). Fads in general education:
Fad, fraud, and folly. In J. W. Jacobson, R. M.
Foxx, & J. A. Mulick (Eds.). Controversial therapies
for developmental disabilities: Fad, fashion, and science
in professional practice (pp. 159 –173). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lindsley, O. (1964). Direct measurement and prosthesis of retarded behavior. Journal of Education,
147, 62– 81.
Mostert, M. P. (2001) Facilitated Communication
since 1995: A review of published studies. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 287–313.
Mostert, M. P. (2010). Facilitated Communication
and its legitimacy---Twenty-first century developments. Exceptionality, 18, 31– 41.
National Autism Center. (2009). National Standards
Project. Randolf, MA: Author.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of
General Psychology, 2, 175–220.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 §
6301 et seq.
Palfreman, J. (Producer). (1993, October 19). Frontline: Prisoners of silence. Boston, MA: WGBH Public
Television.
Robledo, J. A., & Donnellan, A. M. (2008). Proper-
386
/
ties of supportive relationships from the perspective of academically successful individuals with
autism. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities,
46, 299 –310.
Rosetti, Z., Ashby, C., Arndt, K., Chadwick, M., &
Kasahara, M. (2008). I like others to not try to fix
me: Agency, independence, and autism. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 5, 374 –375.
Rubin, S., Biklen, D., Kasa-Hendrickson, C., Kluth,
P., Cardinal, D. N., & Broderick, A. (2001). Independence, participation, and the meaning of intellectual ability. Disability & Society, 16, 415– 429.
Snell, M. E., & Brown, F. (2006). Designing and
implementing instructional programs. Instruction
of Students with Severe Disabilities, 6th Ed. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008).
Progress monitoring as essential practice within
response to intervention. Rural Special Education
Quarterly, 27, 4.
Stubblefield, A. (2011). Sound and fury: When opposition to facilitated communication functions
as hate speech. Disability Studies Quarterly, 31(4).
Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B.,
Rifenbark, G. G., & Little, T. D. (2013). Relationships between self-determination and postschool
outcomes for youth with disabilities. The Journal of
Special Education, Advance online publication.
doi: 10.1177/0022466913489733
Todd, J. T. (2012). The moral obligation to be
empirical: Comments on Boynton’s “Facilitated
communication–what harm it can do: Confessions of a former facilitator.” Evidence- based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6, 36 –57.
Tostanoski, A., Lang, R., Raulston, T., Carnett, A., &
Davis, T (2014). Voices from the past: Comparing
the rapid prompting method and facilitated communication. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 17,
219 –223.
Travers, J. C., Ayers, K., Simpson, R. L., & Crutchfield, S. (in press). Fad, pseudoscientific, and controversial interventions. In R. Lang, T. Hancock,
& N. Singh (Eds.). Early intervention for young children with autism spectrum disorder. Springer.
Travers, J. C., Tincani, M., & Lang, R (in press).
Facilitated communication denies people with
disabilities their voice. Research and Practice in Severe Disabilities.
Vyse, S. (2005). Where do fads come from? In J. W.
Jacobson, R. M. Foxx, & J. A. Mulick (Eds.). Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities: Fad,
fashion, and science in professional practice (pp.
3–17). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wehmeyer, M. (1996). Self-determination as an educational outcome: Why is it important to children, youth, and adults with disabilities. In D. J.
Sands & M. L. Wehmeyer (Eds), Self-determination
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-December 2015
across the life span: Independence and choice for people
with disabilities (pp. 15–34). Baltimore: Brookes.
Wehmeyer, M. L. (1999). A functional model of
self-determination: Describing development and
implementing instruction. Focus on Autism and
Other Developmental disabilities, 14, 53– 61.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Palmer, S. B. (2003). Adult
outcomes for students with cognitive disabilities
three-years after high school: The impact of selfdetermination. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 131–144.
Wehmeyer, M., & Schwartz, M. (1997). Self-determination and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation or
learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 245–
256.
Wehmeyer, M., & Schwartz, M. (1998). The relationship between self-determination and quality of
life for adults with mental retardation. Education
and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 3–12.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Shogren, K. A., Palmer, S. B.,
Williams-Diehm, K. L., Little, T. D., & Boulton, A.
(2012). The impact of the self-determined learning model of instruction on student self-determination. Exceptional Children, 78, 135–153.
Whalon, K. J., Al Otaiba, S., & Delano, M. E.
(2009). Evidence-based reading instruction for
individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,
24, 3–16.
Wong, C., Odom, S. L., Hume, K. Cox, A. W., Fettig,
A., Kucharczyk, S., . . . Schultz, T. R. (2014). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young
adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Chapel Hill:
The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter
Graham Child Development Institute, Autism Evidence-Based Practice Review Group.
Received: 9 September 2014
Initial Acceptance: 10 November 2014
Final Acceptance: 16 February 2015
Discarding Presumptions of Competence
/
387