Unmasking the Neo-Colonial Agenda in Autism Education: How Native Ads and Biased Research Undermine Effective Practices
As a special education RSP teacher, I am all too familiar with the barrage of unsolicited emails from EdSource cluttering my inbox. Despite repeated attempts to unsubscribe, their messages persistently find their way to my school email, much like the neo-colonial agenda they insidiously push. A recent article from EdSource, titled “Rising autism rates in California elementary schools demand evidence-based practices,” exemplifies the problematic nature of native advertising masquerading as journalism. Under the guise of advocating for autistic students, this piece serves as a mouthpiece for the neo-liberal interests that seek to privatise public education and line their pockets with taxpayer dollars.
This article is a case study in how neo-colonial and neo-liberal forces employ media manipulation and selective research to advance their agenda of dismantling public education. By promoting a narrow set of so-called “evidence-based practices” that conveniently align with their profit-driven objectives, they undermine proven methods, such as direct instruction, which have decades of research supporting their effectiveness for autistic learners (but don’t serve to transfer wealth from the public purse to private coffers). Through the strategic exploitation of the autism community’s struggles and the co-optation of social justice language, these interests aim to prime the public for the looting of our educational system, ultimately benefiting their corporate backers at the expense of our most vulnerable students.
Deconstructing the EdSource Native Ad
A closer examination of the EdSource article reveals its true nature as a native ad, promoting a specific set of “evidence-based practices” that conveniently align with the neo-liberal agenda of its funders. These backers include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lumina Foundation, and the Hewlett Foundation, among others, all of which have a well-documented history of pushing for ‘market-driven reforms’ in education. Neo-liberalism, at its core, seeks to apply free-market principles to public services, prioritising privatisation, deregulation, and the reduction of government spending. In the context of education, this translates to a push for charter schools, voucher programs, and the outsourcing of educational services to private companies.
The article’s one-sided promotion of certain practices, such as the Autism Focused Intervention Resources and Modules (AFIRM) and the California Autism Professional Training Network (CAPTAIN), without any critical examination of their effectiveness or potential drawbacks, raises red flags. The lack of diverse perspectives and the failure to acknowledge the potential conflicts of interest arising from the financial ties between EdSource and its funders further undermines the credibility of the piece. By presenting these practices as the ‘sole solution’ to the challenges faced by autistic students and their educators, the article reveals its true purpose as a marketing tool for the neo-liberal ‘education reform’ movement.
Moreover, the article exploits the autism community’s struggles by using alarmist language, particularly in its title, “Rising autism rates in California elementary schools demand evidence-based practices.” This framing creates a sense of urgency and fear, priming readers to accept the pre-determined set of “solutions” offered without question. The piece goes on to cherry-pick anecdotes and statistics that support its narrative, whilst failing to provide a balanced view of the complex realities faced by autistic students and their families. By weaponising the experiences of this vulnerable population, the article seeks to generate public support for the privatisation of education and the redirection of public funds into the coffers of corporate interests.
Bias and Gaps in the Linked Sources
The EdSource article’s reliance on the National Clearinghouse on Autism Evidence and Practice (NCAEP) report as a primary source for determining ‘evidence-based practices’ (EBPs) in ‘autism education’ reveals significant biases and gaps. One glaring omission from the NCAEP report is direct instruction, a well-established and highly effective approach for teaching autistic students. This exclusion is particularly concerning given the extensive research support for models like the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD), which heavily emphasizes direct instruction as a core component.
The absence of direct instruction from the NCAEP’s list of EBPs raises questions about the narrow research criteria and the potential influence of corporate interests in shaping these determinations. Many of the practices that are promoted as EBPs, such as the Autism Focused Intervention Resources and Modules (AFIRM), have become profit centers for large corporate entities. These companies stand to benefit financially from the widespread adoption of their products and services, creating a perverse incentive to fund and promote research that validates their offerings.
Furthermore, the NCAEP’s methodology appears to prioritise certain types of studies and overlook the valuable insights of practitioners who work directly with autistic students. By excluding the expertise of educators like myself, who have witnessed firsthand the positive impact of direct instruction on autistic learners, the NCAEP presents a skewed and incomplete picture of what constitutes an evidence-based practice.
This narrow focus on a limited set of research criteria has led to the emergence of “evidence mills,” organisations that churn out studies designed to support the efficacy of their preferred interventions. These studies often lack the rigor and impartiality necessary for truly objective evaluation, yet they are used to justify the classification of certain practices as EBPs - giving the corporations access to government funding. As a result, the entire concept of evidence-based practices in autism education has become distorted, prioritising the interests of corporate stakeholders over the genuine needs of autistic students and their families.
The Proven Power of Direct Instruction for Autistic Learners
Despite its glaring omission from the NCAEP report, direct instruction boasts an impressive track record of success in educating autistic students. With decades of research supporting its efficacy, direct instruction has consistently demonstrated its ability to improve academic outcomes and foster independence among learners on the spectrum. The Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model, which heavily incorporates direct instruction principles, has been particularly effective in enhancing reading comprehension, writing skills, and problem-solving abilities for autistic students.
In my personal and professional life, I have witnessed firsthand the transformative power of direct instruction in my own classroom. For my master’s thesis at LMU (MEd SPED), I implemented an SRSD-based intervention with a group of students with IEPs, including autistic students, focusing on improving their reading comprehension skills. The results were astounding: on average, my students demonstrated a more than 30% increase in their pre- and post-test scores. This significant growth not only highlights the effectiveness of direct instruction but also underscores the importance of practitioner-led research in contributing to the evidence base for autism education.
The success of direct instruction extends beyond academic gains; it also empowers autistic students to develop self-regulation, self-advocacy, and problem-solving skills that are essential for navigating the challenges they face both in and out of the classroom. By providing explicit, systematic instruction, and opportunities for guided practice, direct instruction helps students internalise strategies and gradually take ownership of their learning process.
Discounting well-established practices like direct instruction in favor of corporately-backed interventions does a grave disservice to autistic students and the educators who work tirelessly to support them. It undermines the value of practitioner expertise and ignores the substantial body of research that attests to the effectiveness of direct instruction. Moreover, it perpetuates a narrow, profit-driven view of evidence-based practices that prioritises the interests of corporate stakeholders over the genuine needs of autistic learners and their families.
Connecting the Dots: Neo-Colonial Agendas in Autism Education
A closer examination of the “evidence-based practices” promoted in the article and its linked sources reveals a disturbing alignment with the privatisation agenda of neo-liberal education reform. The recommended interventions, such as AFIRM and CAPTAIN, are often tied to commercial products and services offered by private corporations. By advocating for the widespread adoption of these practices, the article essentially promotes the transfer of public funds into the hands of these corporate interests.
The neo-liberal agenda in autism education prioritises market-driven solutions that benefit private companies at the expense of proven public-sector approaches. Whilst direct instruction, a highly effective and well-established method, relies primarily on the expertise of educators and the resources already available within the public school system, the corporately-backed interventions often require the purchase of proprietary materials, training programs, and consulting services. This diverts valuable funds away from the classroom and into the coffers of private entities, undermining the capacity of public schools to provide quality education for autistic students.
Moreover, the neo-colonial agenda perpetuates a troubling power dynamic that prioritises profits over the genuine needs and preferences of autistic learners and their communities. Many of the promoted ‘evidence-based practices’ fail to foster independence and self-determination among autistic students, instead creating a reliance on ongoing support from the very companies that profit from their implementation. This not only undermines the autonomy of autistic kids but also ensures a steady stream of revenue for the corporations behind these interventions.
By contrast, approaches like direct instruction, which have been proven effective through decades of research and classroom experience, empower autistic students to develop the skills and strategies they need to navigate the world on their own terms. These practices prioritise the long-term well-being and independence of autistic individuals, rather than the short-term profits of corporate interests.
In essence, the neo-colonial agenda, as exemplified by the EdSource article and its promoted practices, serves to maintain a status quo that benefits private corporations at the expense of autistic students and their families. It is crucial that we recognise and resist this agenda, advocating instead for approaches that prioritize the genuine needs, preferences, and autonomy of autistic learners.
Final thoughts ..
As we navigate the complex landscape of education in the Global North, it is crucial that we remain vigilant in critically examining the media narratives and research claims that shape our understanding of best practices. The EdSource article serves as a stark reminder of how corporate interests can manipulate the conversation around education, promoting a narrow set of “evidence-based practices” that align with their profit-driven agendas whilst marginalising proven approaches like direct instruction.
It is time for us to demand accountability and transparency in the development of the evidence base for autism education. We must call for a more inclusive approach that centres the voices and experiences of autistic learners and the educators who work directly with them. By valuing practitioner expertise and the insights of the autism community, we can create a more comprehensive and authentic understanding of what truly constitutes effective practice.
Ultimately, our vision for autism education should prioritise the public good and the genuine needs of autistic students over private interests and corporate profits. By advocating for proven practices like direct instruction, which empower autistic learners to develop the skills and strategies they need to lead fulfilling, self-determined lives, we can work towards a future in which all students on the spectrum have access to the high-quality, equitable education they deserve. It is up to us to resist the neo-colonial agenda and fight for an approach to autism education that truly serves the interests of those it purports to support.