Joint resolution urging the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) to reconsider its opposition to the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) of communication instruction for students with apraxia of speech (AOS) or autism
J.R.H. 9 is a joint resolution, not a substantive regulatory bill, that urges the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) to reconsider its opposition to the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) as a communication instruction approach for students with apraxia of speech (AOS) or autism. The resolution lays out background on apraxia, autism, and RPM, describing RPM as a graduated teaching method that moves students from choosing among written options to composing responses by pointing to letters on a card, stencil, or keyboard.
The resolution argues that Vermont schools are required to provide a comprehensive system of education and accommodations, but that RPM has not been widely recognized or funded by state education agencies or school districts because ASHA has rejected its scientific legitimacy. It emphasizes that some parents strongly support RPM and believe it has helped their children, and it asks ASHA to revisit its position in light of possible academic and life benefits for students.
Because this is a joint resolution, it does not directly amend Vermont statutes, create new rights, or mandate services in schools. Its practical effect is advisory and expressive: it directs the Secretary of State to send the resolution to ASHA and formally communicates the General Assembly’s view that RPM should be reconsidered as a communication instruction method for students with AOS or autism. The resolution may influence advocacy, professional debate, and future education policy discussions, but it does not itself require school districts to adopt RPM or change special education obligations under state law.
The overall sentiment in the bill text is supportive of RPM and skeptical of ASHA’s current opposition. The resolution is framed as an appeal to reconsider a professional stance that the sponsors view as overly dismissive of a method that some families say has been beneficial. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no additional evidence of legislative debate, amendments, or recorded support/opposition beyond the sponsors’ expressed position in the resolution itself.
The central point of contention is whether RPM has sufficient scientific legitimacy and educational value to warrant broader acceptance. Supporters, including parents referenced in the resolution, view RPM as a potentially meaningful communication tool for children with apraxia of speech or autism. Opponents, represented here by ASHA’s position, reject RPM’s scientific validity and therefore do not support its recognition or funding. The resolution does not resolve that dispute; it simply urges ASHA to revisit its opposition.