FAQs & Resources
An incomplete, but still helpful, list
The “spellerverse” (broadly: the community of anyone who spells or types to communicate) is rapidly expanding, and so are the number of resources available - and the number of people who are growing curious about this thing called “spelling.”
For those of you who are considering joining the spellerverse, or who are new to it, I’ve put together some responses to Frequently Asked Questions about spelling, as well as some of my favorite online resources where you can learn more!
Some Useful Resources
There are many out there, but these are among the ones I recommend most often (this is not a complete list, and I apologize for any inadvertent snubs):
International Association for Spelling as Communication (I-ASC): The organization that oversees Spelling to Communicate, but also offers resources (lessons, blog posts, links to research) and hosts community-building events for spellers using any method; they also have a CRP training program
The Autism + Apraxia Doctor Newsletter by Dr. Dana Johnson
True North Connect: Great website for a spelling clinic in MI
Facebook community for families and practitioners, Spellerverse Connect
Danny With Words: my brother, award-winning nonspeaking advocate Danny Whitty; the website includes his blog, links to social media, and links to his other projects, including a literary magazine for spellers and our All Our Brave Hearts podcast
Gregory C. Tino’s blog, The Autistic Mind Finally Speaks: a speller powerhouse, Gregory has authored several children’s books about apraxia and spelling, and has also produced great informational videos on these topics
Sofia Ghassaei: a speller playwright-poet-advocate
On Facebook: Niko Boskovic, Noah Seback, Bri Guerra; On Intagram: Tom Watson
Frequently Asked Questions
Please note that my answers are written by, well, me - they are not endorsed by I-ASC or any other enttiy.
What…is spelling?
“Spelling” is, basically, a mode of communication for nonspeaking individuals, including (but not limited to) nonspeaking autistic and Down Syndrome individuals. It is based on the understanding that these individuals have apraxia (oversimplified as “brain-body disconnect”), meaning that complex motor movements are extremely challenging; it trains them to use a relatively simple motor skill (pointing) to spell out their chosen words, letter by letter. It includes Rapid Prompting Method (RPM), Spelling to Communicate (S2C), Spellers Method, as well as other practices that choose to not go by a specific label. It is a form of AAC (Augmentative and Alternative Communication).
What’s the difference between RPM, S2C, and Spellers Method? Which is best for my nonspeaking loved one?
I’m only trained in S2C, so I can’t speak in detail on the other two methods. What I can say is that they all started as RPM (and then Spellers Method branched off from S2C), and they are all based on the same basic principles. There are excellent practitioners across all three methods, and we have speller friends across these methods (and some spellers who have worked across multiple methods). On a practical level, I’d venture to say that there’s not much of a difference from the point of view of individual spellers and their families: all three methods have helped nonspeakers gain life-changing access to communication. I recommend going with the method that has a practitioner that is (a) in your geographic area, and/or (b) that you and your nonspeaker really click with.
I personally chose to be trained as an S2C practitioner because Danny was introduced to spelling via Elizabeth Vosseller, director of I-ASC (which oversees S2C), and because, with my background in research, I appreciated I-ASC’s collaborations with researchers.
So do we need to teach our nonspeaker how to spell words before we try “spelling” as a communication method?
Unless you’ve kept your nonspeaker under a rock, it’s very probable that they already know how to spell words very, very well. If you’ve exposed them to reading in any form, they know. The spellers that I know are intellectually sophisticated, describing their brains as “sponges” (which makes sense considering their hypersensitivity to sensory inputs, e.g., many have extremely acute hearing). Many families of spellers describe how their speller would regularly choose to watch YouTube videos in foreign languages, seeking cognitive stimulation even before they began using spelling as a communication method.
Exposing your nonspeaker to age-appropriate (or even higher!) (yes, this means their actual age) reading materials as well as audio/video materials will certainly help them feel more cognitively engaged, and can help them observe diverse forms of expression that could inspire them when they’re finding their own spelling voice.
Helpful things to do in preparation for spelling, or to incorporate in the nonspeaker’s therapies alongside spelling, include building relevant motor skills (particularly with arm movement, pointing, gripping (for gripping a pencil in the earliest stages of spelling), and eye movements). It’s highly recommended that you do this with the guidance of an apraxia-informed Occupational Therapist and a Vision Therapist.
So do I need to be certified to spell with my nonspeaker?
Nope :) There is often confusion between practitioners, who do indeed need to be certified (and regularly re-certified), and communication partners, which is anyone who has learned how to spell with a specific nonspeaker. Communication partners (or Communication Regulation Partners, CRPs, as we say in S2C) do not need any official certification, and they usually are family members of the speller or hired staff/aides. But it is very highly recommended that CRPs undergo some training with a certified practitioner. There are CRP training courses available, which can be helpful, but are not necessary. A big part of the practitioner role is to train CRPs for the speller.
Note: Each new CRP must start at the beginning of the spelling learning process with each speller, even if the speller has already reached fluency with a different CRP.
So my nonspeaker will be able to communicate independently with spelling?
Not quite. They will be able to communicate their own authentic words, but they will need a trained CRP (by trained, I mean someone who has practiced and gone through the proper progression of skills with that speller) with them in order to do so. This includes spellers who are able to type on a keyboard that is held on a stand and not by the CRP. They need a trusted, trained CRP who they can rely on to support their regulation and coach their bodies through their apraxia (note: this does not mean “coach them to specific letters” - this means neutral coaching to help the speller engage their eyes and hand so that the speller can find their own letters).
We tried spelling once, and we just didn’t vibe with the practitioner. Is it just not for us?
That’s not uncommon. Interpersonal dynamics can be very different between the speller (and speller’s family) and different practitioners. We all have different styles, personalities, and areas of expertise and amounts of experience. Danny went to two inexperienced (at the time) practitioners without any success, and then became fluent within two days with Elizabeth Vosseller, one of the best practitioners out there (note: this is a ridiculously short time for gaining fluency, and not a realistic expectation for most speller-CRP partnerships). Please don’t give up - please try to find another practitioner!
No one in our family will be able to be trained as a CRP, and we don’t have funding to hire staff. Is it worth trying spelling?
It’s a hard reality that spelling is an energy-intensive endeavor, not only for the speller, but for the CRP. The speller will only be able to incorporate spelling meaningfully into their regular life with a CRP who is able to be there on a regular, frequent basis. However, not every family is in a position where someone can pivot from their current career to focus on being a CRP for what can be the equivalent of a part-time ‘job’.
It’s still worth exploring spelling, though! Some communication access is infinitely better than no communication access. Even if the speller can only express their words during a weekly session with a practitioner, it will be a meaningful, positive change to their lives.
To consider:
Practitioner sessions are probably the most expensive way to access spelling, and practitioners actually prefer to work themselves “out of a job” and to graduate spellers, meaning that they’ve trained the speller and a CRP to spell with that speller.
Even if no one in the family can convert into a full-time CRP, having a part-time CRP for a few hours a week will be a huge change for the speller (and for the CRP and family as well)! Most spellers I know don’t have a full-time CRP; e.g., I usually only spell with my brother Danny 3 days a week, for an average of around 3 hours a day (though I put in a lot more time coordinating his social media and podcast). You could make progress with your speller practicing, say, 20 minute sessions, 3 days a week (more would be better, but some is better than none).
Many, many families have managed to have at least 1 family CRP gain fluency and be available to the speller for a meaningful amount of time, even while juggling other kids and work. That’s not to say it’s easy, but there might be some configuration of energy allotment that you could possibly explore.
Will spelling interfere with my nonspeaker’s ability to speak?
There’s a common concern that access to spelling will somehow prevent a speller from trying to, or being able to, use speech as communication. (1) Speech is an incredibly complex motor skill, and achieving functional, fluent speech is much more challenging than achieving fluent spelled communication; (2) Denying access to spelling for (likely) many years while the nonspeaker works on speech (which might not ever be feasible for many nonspeakers) is basically denying them years of potential communication, almost certainly causing emotional trauma; (3) Many spellers, anecdotally, actually show an increased tendency toward using speech (mouth words), likely due to the motor pathways that are strengthened via spelling; Danny has definitely started using speech more since spelling, though it almost certainly will never be his main form of communication (not because of spelling, but because of his disability).
I’m concerned that I’ve heard that the communication partner just points to the letters. Is this true?
This is a common misunderstanding of the training process. The very beginning stages of learning spelling often does involve showing the speller which way to go to get to the right letters, but this is faded out before the speller gets anywhere near what we call “open” spelling, i.e., where the speller is spelling their own thoughts. This “directional prompting” is used only during the “training wheels” phase of learning how to spell, where only closed questions (questions with a fixed answer directly from the lesson) are used; there is only 1 correct answer, and the speller and CRP know what it is. So, at that stage, there is no “influencing the speller’s words,” because we’re not spelling the speller’s words - we’re spelling a specific answer from the lesson. We’re also only using this when the speller is on “the 3 boards,” which are the training wheel boards.
By the time we move to a board with all 26 letters, such “directional” prompting has been faded away. We will still use neutral prompts to support the speller’s motor coordination (“look with your eyes,” “watch yourself poke it”), but these do not tell the speller anything about where to move. If you see someone showing the speller where to go and claiming that it’s the “speller’s communication,” that’s a case of bad practice.
Is this even real? I heard that it’s not “evidence-based.”
It’s very, very real. I changed my life - moved across an ocean and left a thriving, exciting career in which I had a PhD - because of spelling. It changed my brother’s, and our family’s, life forever.
The skepticism around spelling has complex roots, including: (1) horrible, high-profile cases of Facilitated Communication (FC) being abused by some facilitators in the 1990s, (2) ableism, i.e., “experts” not being willing to consider that “nonspeaking doesn’t mean non-thinking,” and (3) inertia and, perhaps, unwillingness to face the enormous guilt of being mistaken about this population. FC is a valid form of communication, and, like pretty much any other field, it has suffered from individual bad actors engaging in malpractice. It’s a tragedy that, sadly, still drives widely-held misconceptions about FC and spelling (which is different from FC in that there is no touch support).
As far as evidence-based: this is an interesting term, and one that I’m familiar with as a researcher with a PhD, albeit in a very different field. (1) Research costs money, which requires grants, which are often much more difficult to obtain if you’re studying anything “controversial”; (2) research takes time to conduct, analyze, write up, and publish; (3) the types of evidence that are accepted as an “evidence base” are actually quite limited, and don’t include very real, meaningful anecdotal accounts of how spelling has had positive impacts on nonspeakers’ motor coordination in other areas of their lives, as well as their general well-being and regulation. The evidence base for spelling is, thankfully, building. As for the evidence base against spelling: it’s actually fairly weak, based on highly artificial, out-of-context tests.
And there are therapies for autism that are widely approved that are not rigorously evidence-based… Anyway, see this article by David Kaufer for more.
This seems like a lot of effort. Is it worth it?
Absolutely.
Let me know if you have other suggested Qs to add to the FAQs!
Let me know in the comments, please :)
This was the monthly free post. To learn more about what I offer on this Substack, start here. Most of the posts are only open to paid subscribers; if you’re on your spelling journey and think it might be helpful, try a free 14-day trial! Or, if you’re ready to dive in ($5/month - automatically renews, so keep an eye on it! - or $55/year), become a paid subscriber!