Toward a Discussion of Issues Associated With Speech—Language Pathologists' Dismissal Practices in Public School Settings

Abstract

Guidelines for dismissal of a student who has been receiving educational interventions are available from both the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) Ad Hoc Committee on Admission/Discharge Criteria and from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Yet as speech—language pathologists (SLPs) in the schools enroll students and subsequently make decisions about the students' dismissal, many questions remain, especially in regard to children having persistent communication difficulties. A thorough review of the decision-making process for dismissal is one aspect of SLPs' training and serves as the foundation for decisions about when intervention should end. IDEA guidelines differ in many respects from the guidelines set forth by ASHA.There is no research that clarifies how these differing guidelines are reconciled when SLPs begin working in the schools, but the authors have anecdotal information from their experiences and from colleagues in South Carolina. An introduction to some of the other factors that may affect dismissal decisions is included. Current practice patterns and considerations for the future of speech—language services in the schools are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. ( 1989, March). Issues in determining eligibility for language intervention. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 31, 113—118.

American Speech Language Hearing Association. ( 1999). Action: School services. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30(2), 117—125.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. ( 2003). IDEA and your caseload: A template for eligibility and dismissal criteria for students ages 3 through 21 (Rev. ed.). Rockville, MD: Author.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. ( 2004). Admission/ discharge criteria in speech—language pathology. ASHA. Supplement, 24, 65—70.

Bashir, A.S. , Kuban, K.C. , Kleinman, S. , & Scavauzzo, A. (1984). Issues in language disorders: Considerations of cause, maintenance and change. ASHA Reports, 12, 92—106.

Bashir, A.S. (1989). Language intervention and the curriculum. Seminars in Speech and Language, 10(3), 181—191.

Beitchman, J.H. , Wilson, B. , Brownlie, E.B. , Walters, H. , & Lancee, W. (1996). Long-term consistency in speech/language profiles: I. Developmental and academic outcomes. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 804—814.

Catts, H.W. , Fey, M.E. , Tomblin, J.B. , & Zhang, X. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 1142—1157.

Duchan, J. (2004). Framework in language and literacy: How theory informs practice. New York: Guilford Press.

10.

Girolametto, L. , Wiigs, M. , Smyth, R. , Weitzman, E. , & Pearce, P. (2001). Children with a history of expressive vocabulary delay: Outcomes at 5 years of age. American Journal of SpeechLanguage Pathology, 10, 358—369.

11.

Haynes, W.O. , & Pindzola, R.H. (2004). Diagnosis and evaluation in speech pathology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon

12.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.

13.

Jacoby, G.P. , Lee, L. , Kummer, A.W. , Levin, L. , & Creaghead, N.A. (2002). The number of individual treatment units necessary to facilitate functional communication improvements in the speech and language of young children. American Journal of SpeechLanguage Pathology, 11, 370—380.

14.

Johnson, C.J. , Beitchman, J.H. , Young, A. , Escobar, M. , Atkinson, L. , Wilson, B. , et al. (1999). Fourteen-year follow-up of children with and without speech/language impairments: Speech/language stability and outcomes . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 744—760.

15.

La Paro, K.M. , Justice, L. , Skibbe, L.E. , & Pianta, R.C. (2004). Relations among maternal child and demographic factors and the persistence of preschool language impairment. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13, 291—303.

16.

Leonard, L.B. (1998). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

17.

Moore-Brown, B.J. , & Montgomery, J.K. (2001). Making a difference for America's children: Speech-language pathologists in public schools. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.

18.

Quattlebaum, P. , Steppling, M. , & Nalty, L. (2003, November). Educational and professional outcomes for children diagnosed with delayed language. Poster session, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association annual conference , Chicago, IL.

19.

Stothard, S.E. , Snowling, M.J. , Bishop, D.V.M. , Chipchase, B.B. , & Kaplan, C.A. (1998). Language-impaired preschoolers: A follow-up into adolescence. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 41, 407—418.

20.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Available at www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2002/toc-execsum.pdf

21.

Young, A.R. , Beitchman, J.H. , Johnson, C. , Douglas, L. , Atkinson, L. , Escobar, M. , et al. (2002). Young adult academic outcomes in a longitudinal sample of early identified language impaired and control children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 43, 635—645.