Spelling to Communicate (S2C) and the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM): What Parents Should Know

What is Spelling to Communicate?

RPM was developed by Soma Mukhopadhyay, and S2C was later developed from RPM and is taught by the International Association for Spelling as Communication (I-ASC). Both start from the belief that many nonspeaking autistic people understand far more than they can show, and that their main barrier is motor planning (sometimes described as apraxia), not thinking or language.

In a typical session, a practitioner or trained 'communication regulation partner' holds a stencil or laminated letterboard. The speller points to letters to answer questions, starting with lesson-based questions and, over time, moving toward open conversation. The partner gives verbal, visual, and rhythmic prompts and holds and moves the board. I-ASC describes the goal as building purposeful motor skills and, for some, moving toward typing on a keyboard.

The central scientific concern is authorship. Because the partner holds and moves the board and prompts the speller, critics say the partner can unknowingly guide which letters are chosen, a concern well documented with the older method facilitated communication (FC).

Who is it for?

Who provides it?

S2C and RPM practitioners are trained and certified by private organizations, such as I-ASC for S2C, which is the sole source of 'Certified S2C Practitioner' training. These are not state licenses, and Illinois does not license S2C or RPM. Some practitioners are also licensed speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, or teachers, but many are not. Licensed SLPs are bound by professional standards, and ASHA's 2018 position statements discourage SLPs from using RPM or FC. For evidence-based augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), look for a licensed SLP (in Illinois, licensed by IDFPR) with AAC experience.

What do families and practitioners report?

Many families describe S2C or RPM as life-changing. Parents say their nonspeaking child spelled out thoughts, jokes, and feelings they never knew were there, and that it changed how others treat their child. A number of spellers, including some who now type with less support, speak publicly about the method and ask to be believed. Supporters stress presuming competence, point to a 2020 eye-tracking study in Scientific Reports that its authors say suggests letterboard users select letters themselves, and a 2026 commentary in Autism Research by researchers including Vikram Jaswal argued that assisted methods for teaching typing deserve fresh study.

Does it work? What the research says

No controlled studies have shown that S2C or RPM produce messages authored by the speller. A 2019 systematic review of RPM (Schlosser and colleagues, Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders) found no studies that met basic research standards, producing an 'empty review.' ASHA's 2018 position statement says RPM is not recommended because of prompt dependency and lack of scientific validity, and that information obtained through RPM should not be assumed to be the person's own communication. ASHA separately calls facilitated communication a discredited technique. The International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC, 2014) does not support FC as a valid form of AAC. In 2026, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities updated its position not supporting FC or RPM, and the National Autism Center at May Institute stated that S2C, RPM, and other forms of FC lack established empirical evidence.

The 2020 eye-tracking study of nine letterboard users (Jaswal and colleagues) found fast, accurate pointing with eyes landing on letters before pointing, which its authors argued makes cueing unlikely. Critics respond that such studies do not test authorship directly. ASHA says authorship testing should be done independently and in a controlled way, for example with 'message passing,' where the board holder does not know the answer. That kind of test has not been published for S2C or RPM. The debate continued in 2026 in Autism Research, with replies from other researchers arguing that validation must come before further use.

Is it covered by insurance in Illinois?

S2C and RPM are generally not covered by commercial insurance or Illinois Medicaid/All Kids, and families usually pay out of pocket. They are not recognized as evidence-based services in Illinois Early Intervention, and school districts often decline to include them in IEPs because of professional position statements, though families sometimes request them. By contrast, AAC evaluations and speech-generating devices from a licensed SLP are often covered by insurance and Medicaid when medically necessary, and schools must consider assistive technology for every child with an IEP.

What to consider and ask

• Ask the practitioner how they would check that messages are your child's own, and whether they would support an independent, controlled authorship check.
• Make sure your child also has access to evidence-based AAC (such as a speech-generating device or picture system) that they can use without someone holding it.
• Ask whether the practitioner is a licensed professional or holds only a private certification.
• Build toward independence: track whether your child can communicate without a partner holding or moving the board.
• Be careful about basing medical, legal, or safety decisions on messages that have not been independently confirmed.
• Get costs in writing, and ask how progress will be measured objectively.