5. The Future of School Speech-Language Pathology

Last year we  began to argue for the “overhaul” of American school speech-language pathology.  Responsibility rests with the Membership of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and particularly the elected Board of Directors. The appearance is the Board dwells more on the health of the non-profit organization than it does on school reform.  Overhaul must be from top to bottom, from undergraduate education through to continuing education.  Reform is needed to eliminate historical bias against the “speech correction teachers.”

Here is the earlier post:

“Reform

The administrative management of educational speech-language pathology needs a total overhaul.  That means fresh thinking and reform.  The last generation of school SLPs didn’t get crucial and timely assistance.

a. To examine or go over carefully for needed repairs.
b. To dismantle in order to make repairs.

“Overhaul” defined by the FREE DICTIONARY points us toward (a) and the view that school speech-language pathology should retain good measures and good practice but it should be examined carefully for Needed Repairs.  

A starting place is recognition one cannot talk about school practices as disembodied techniques and skills apart from how ASHA policies impact the processes of educating and informing SLPs.  The medical model bias is a problem.”

Stairs to the river, Paris

New Division 

We are now recommending a new Division of School Speech-Language Pathology as a separate administrative unit apartment from “Speech Therapy.”

COMMENT

Janet Ness On September 1, 2012 at 2:33 am

It is so funny to me because my training included everything that SLPs licensed for hospitals and clinics had. I chose to take MORE classes so that I could be certified to work in the schools.

  • schoolspeechpathology On September 1, 2012 at 2:56 am

    For many years, at least 50, this has been the case. There is no logical reason for this except historical preference expressed by those favoring the medical model over educational speech pathology. The programs should be the same length and the same cost. Or hospital SLPs should take more language so as to embrace cognitive linguist models. In the U.S. all children who go to hospitals are subject to IDEA law and school intervention. Hospital SLPs should ask for IEPs within scope of practice. They should support school SLPs and participate in IEP meetings. IDEA trumps hospital assessment. Thanks. JMP

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Janet Ness  On September 1, 2012 at 2:33 am

    It is so funny to me because my training included everything that SLPs licensed for hospitals and clinics had. I chose to take MORE classes so that I could be certified to work in the schools.

    • schoolspeechpathology  On September 1, 2012 at 2:56 am

      For many years, at least 50, this has been the case. There is no logical reason for this except historical preference expressed by those favoring the medical model over educational speech pathology. The programs should be the same length and the same cost. Or hospital SLPs should take more language so as to embrace cognitive linguist models. In the U.S. all children who go to hospitals are subject to IDEA law and school intervention. Hospital SLPs should ask for IEPs within scope of practice. They should support school SLPs and participate in IEP meetings. IDEA trumps hospital assessment. Thanks. JMP

    • Dori Clark  On August 26, 2014 at 1:32 am

      Wow

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: