Support Your Autistic Students: Just Say No to the NASET
I’ve had enough of the National Association of Special Education Teachers. This afternoon, I sent the membership department a letter cancelling my membership. Here’s what sent me over the edge.
Indeed, as an autistic advocate and educator, I’ve long sought to align my professional affiliations with organisations that respect and support neurodiversity. Unfortunately, my recent experiences with NASET have revealed a troubling disconnect between their approach and the values I hold dear.
In a field where progress should be driven by inclusion and an understanding of diverse neurotypes, NASET continues to promote outdated, harmful strategies like ABA that pathologise autistic individuals. Their reliance on behaviourism, lack of awareness of concepts like alexithymia, and failure to acknowledge Gestalt Language Processing have cemented my decision to part ways with the organisation.
Below is the letter I wrote to NASET today requesting to cancel my membership. I hope it serves as a reflection of my commitment to advocating for a better, more neurodiversity-affirming future in special education. It’s time for educators and organisations to move beyond antiquated models and embrace approaches that truly support autistic individuals as they are, without seeking to “fix” them.
Subject: Request for Cancellation of Membership Due to Incompatibility with NASET’s Approach to Neurodiversity
Dear NASET Membership Department,
I am writing to formally request the cancellation of my membership with the National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET). After carefully reviewing the organisation’s resources, publications, and overall approach to neurodiversity, I have come to the conclusion that NASET’s philosophy and practices are incompatible with my own values and understanding of how to support neurodivergent individuals, especially autistic students.
One of the main reasons for my decision is NASET’s continued endorsement of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) as the primary method for addressing the needs of autistic students. The most recent issue of the Autism Spectrum Disorder Series, titled “Unlocking Effective Interventions: The Role of Applied Behavior Analysis in Autism Spectrum Disorder,” exemplifies a larger problem: NASET promotes a reductive, behaviourist approach that fails to respect the autonomy, agency, and humanity of autistic individuals. ABA remains controversial within the autistic community because it seeks to alter behaviours to fit neurotypical expectations, often without addressing the underlying needs, emotions, or sensory experiences of the person.
The article describes ABA as an “effective approach” for increasing skills and decreasing challenging behaviours, but this framing ignores the harmful impact ABA can have. This approach is deeply rooted in outdated behavioural theories, specifically those of B.F. Skinner and Albert Bandura, who did not view autistic individuals as having a valid neurotype. They saw behaviour as something to be controlled or modified, rather than understanding the person’s underlying communication, sensory, and emotional needs. NASET’s failure to recognise this is troubling, particularly given the broader shift in many educational and therapeutic fields towards neurodiversity-affirming practices that focus on accepting autistic people as they are, rather than trying to change them.
Moreover, the reliance on ABA reflects NASET’s continued commitment to the medical model of disability. This model pathologises autistic people, treating their differences as deficits that need to be corrected. This is in direct contrast to the social model of disability, which views disability as the result of a mismatch between the individual and their environment. In advocating for ABA, NASET perpetuates the harmful narrative that autistic behaviours are inherently “problematic” and must be changed to conform to neurotypical standards, rather than promoting environments that accommodate autistic ways of being.
Additionally, NASET’s publications are glaringly absent in their discussion of alexithymia, a significant issue for many autistic individuals. Alexithymia, the difficulty in identifying, sourcing, and describing one’s own emotions, is a critical part of understanding autistic behaviour, particularly in situations where an autistic person is experiencing stress, sensory overload, or panic. Instead of acknowledging this and exploring ways to support autistic individuals in processing and expressing their emotions, NASET’s materials continue to rely on superficial behaviourist interpretations of actions, ignoring the deeper emotional and sensory experiences that drive behaviour.
An illustrative example of NASET’s failure to move beyond this behaviourist framework can be found in Dr. Camille Brandt’s article, Responding to the Student in Crisis: Echolalia as a Clue to Behavior. In this article, echolalia is treated as something to decode rather than as a form of communication used by many autistic people, especially those who are Gestalt Language Processors (GLPs). The article never mentions GLP or the importance of understanding echolalia as a holistic, meaningful form of communication rather than a simple repetition of words. This omission is a clear indication of how far NASET lags behind in its understanding of the cognitive and communicative needs of autistic people.
For autistic Gestalt Language Processors (GLPs) like me, echolalia is not random; it is often a way of expressing thoughts, emotions, or needs that may be difficult to verbalise in the moment. Failing to recognise this not only misrepresents the purpose of echolalia but also perpetuates the harmful notion that autistic communication is deficient or meaningless. This is symptomatic of NASET’s broader refusal to acknowledge the unique cognitive processing styles of many autistic individuals, reinforcing the harmful behaviourist approach to “managing” autistic behaviour without understanding or accommodating the person’s underlying cognitive style.
The promotion of ABA and failure to recognise alternative, neurodiversity-affirming approaches reflect a deeper issue within NASET: the organisation’s persistent reliance on a medicalised, pathologising view of autism. This view is not only outdated but harmful to both the autistic individuals and the educators who rely on NASET’s guidance to support their students. It trains teachers to view autism as a series of deficits to be corrected, rather than fostering an understanding of autism as a valid neurotype that requires support, not suppression.
As someone who strongly believes in the neurodiversity paradigm, I cannot, in good conscience, continue to support an organisation that endorses practices rooted in behaviourism and that neglects the broader emotional, sensory, and cognitive needs of autistic individuals. It is disappointing that NASET has not yet embraced more progressive, research-based strategies for supporting neurodivergent students—strategies that focus on creating accommodating, respectful, and inclusive environments rather than attempting to force autistic people into a neurotypical mould.
To be clear, there are numerous alternative approaches that NASET could and should be promoting. These include strengths-based, sensory-informed, and neurodiversity-affirming practices that respect autistic people’s right to agency and autonomy. Many of these approaches are grounded in the social model of disability and emphasise understanding and supporting autistic individuals as they are, rather than trying to modify their behaviours to fit neurotypical expectations. I am dismayed that NASET continues to rely on outdated, deficit-based models, and I believe this does a grave disservice to the educators who trust NASET for guidance, as well as to the autistic students they serve.
In light of all this, I am requesting the immediate cancellation of my membership. I cannot support an organisation that not only promotes ABA, but also fails to address key issues such as alexithymia and Gestalt Language Processing, and continues to operate within the confines of a medical model that pathologises autism. My hope is that NASET will begin to re-evaluate its stance on these matters and shift towards more neurodiversity-affirming approaches in the future.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I request the cancellation of my membership effective immediately.
Sincerely,
Jaime Hoerricks, PhD
Now, we need an alternative. We need to form our own trade group and journal. We need to offer our own trainings. I have no idea how many folks out there would want such a thing. But, it’s worth investigating at least.