Speech-Language Services in Public Schools: How Policy Ambiguity Regarding Eligibility Criteria Impacts Speech-Language Pathologists in a Litigious and Resource Constrained Environment

Authors

  • Lesley Sylvan, Ed.D, CCC-SLP (Author) Harvard Graduate School of Education
    Lesley Sylvan, EdD, CCC-SLP, completed her Masters degree in speech-language pathology from Boston University. She also completed a Master degree in educational policy and management as well as a Doctorate degree in human development and education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education. She has over 7 years of experience as a school-based SLP in urban school districts.
https://doi.org/10.64546/jaasep.248
Public school districts must determine which students are eligible to receive special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This study, which involves 39 interviews with speech-language pathologists and school administrators, examines how eligibility recommendations are made for one widely provided service: speech-language therapy. A key finding of this study is that the policy infrastructure guiding eligibility decisions has areas of significant ambiguity leading SLPs to face uncertainty about who should be found eligible for speech-language services. This ambiguity in policy opens the door for economic and legal factors to detrimentally influence the eligibility determination process resulting in high numbers of eligible students and correspondingly large SLP caseloads. Specifically, the litigious environment in which school districts operate puts SLPs on the defensive in the eligibility determination process. Further, speech-language therapy is increasingly utilized as a safety net given the lack of other resources available to academically struggling public school students. Finally, SLPs receive little administrative support or supervision further exacerbating their vulnerability to external pressures when making eligibility decisions. While focusing specifically on the eligibility decision process for speech-language services, this paper highlights issues that are likely applicable to how eligibility decisions for special education services are made more broadly

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2002). A workload analysis approach for establishing speech-language caseload standards in the schools: technical report [Technical Report]. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/docs/html/TR2002-00160.html#sec1.2.2

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Admission/Discharge Criteria in Speech-Language Pathology [Guidelines]. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/policy/GL2004-00046/

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2010). Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists in schools. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/policy/PI2010-00317

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2012). 2012 Schools Survey report: SLP caseload characteristics. Retrieved from www.asha.org/research/memberdata/schoolssurvey

Aram, D. M., Morris, R., & Hall, N. E. (1993). Clinical and research congruence in identifying children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36(3), 580-591. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3603.580

Berninger, V. W., Vermeulen, K., Abbott, R. D., McCutchen, D., Cotton, S., et al. (2003). Comparison of three approaches to supplementary reading instruction for low-achieving second-grade readers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 101–116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2003/009)

Bogdan, R. C & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative Research for Education: An introduction to Theories and Methods (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education Group. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (Office of Education in Washington, D.C.) Letter to Stan Dublinske, Director of School Services Program (ASHA) from the Retrieved from: www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/OSERS-Letter-Policy-Interpretation.pdf

Dublinske, S. (2002). Adversely Affects Educational Performance"" Policy 1980-2002; Nothing Has Changed. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/SLP/schools/prof-consult/adverselyaffects/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/sbi3.2.3

Fielding, N. & Fielding, J. (1986). Linking Data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Fillmore, C. J., Kempler, D., & Wang, W. S.-Y. (Eds.). (1979). Individual differences in language ability and language behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Lyon, G. R., Foorman, B. R., Stuebing, K. K., et al. (1998). Intelligent testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 186–203. Gillam, R. & Loeb, D. F. (2010, January 19). Principles for School-Age Language Intervention: Insights from a Randomized Controlled Trial. The ASHA Leader.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014

Hehir, T. F. (1990). The impact of due process on the programmatic decisions of special education directors. Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses @ Harvard University.(AAT 9032438).

Hehir, T. (2005) New Directions in Special Education: Eliminating Ableism in Policy And Practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Hehir, T., Grindall, T., & Eidelman, H. (2012) Review of Special Education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Report commissioned by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/2012/0412sped.htm

Holloway, I. (1997). Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. Oxford: Blackwell Science. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446 (2004). Katsiyannis, A., Losinski, M., & Prince, A. T. (2012). Litigation and Students with Disabilities: A Persistent Concern. NASSP Bulletin, 96(1), 23-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636511431008

Lincoln, Y & Guba, E. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Maxwell, J.A. (2006). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

McFadden, T. U. (1996). Creating language impairments in typically achieving children: The pitfalls of ‘normal' normative. Language, Speech, & Hearing Services in Schools, 27(1), Meyer, H. (2006). The Rise and Decline of the Common School as an Institution: Taking “Myth and Ceremony” Seriously. In H. Meyer & B. Rowan (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

McFadden, T. U. (1996). Creating language impairments in typically achieving children: The pitfalls of `normal' normative.. Language, Speech, & Hearing Services in Schools, 27(1), 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461.2701.03

O’Connor, R. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(1), 43–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1501_5

Office of Special Education Programs. (2011). Twenty-Seventh Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from: http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2005/parts-b-c/index.html

Oswald, Donald P., Coutinho, Martha J., and Best, Al M. (2002). Predictors of Overrepresentation of Minority Children in Special Education. In Losen D. & Orfield, G, eds., Racial Inequity in Special Education. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project and the Harvard Education Press.

Parrish, Thomas. (2002). Racial Disparities in Identification, Funding, and Provision of Special Education. In Losen D. & Orfield, G, eds., Racial Inequity in Special Education. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project and the Harvard Education Press.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Powell W. W. & DiMaggio P. J. (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Records, N. L., & Tomblin, J. B. (1994). Clinical decision making: Describing the decision rules of practicing speech-language pathologists. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37(1), 144-156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3701.144

Russ, S., Chiang, B., Rylance, B., & Bongers, J. (2001). Caseload in special education: An integration of research findings. Exceptional Children, 67(2), 161–172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290106700202

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Spaulding,T., Plante, E. & Farinella, K (2006). Eligibility Criteria for Language Impairment: Is the Low End of Normal Always Appropriate? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 37(1):61-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2006/007)

Spillane, J. and Burch, P. (2006). The Institutional Environment and Instructional Practice: Changing Patterns of Guidance and Control in Public Education. In B. Rowan and H. Meyer, Eds., The New Institutionalism in Education. Albany: SUNY Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4102.407

Ukrainetz, T. A., & Fresquez, E. F. (2003). What isn’t language?: A qualitative study of the role of the school speech-language pathologist. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 284 –298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2003/024)

Vance, H., Hayden, D., & Eaves, R. (1989). A caseload study of educational activities for special education resource teachers and speech pathologists. Diagnostique, 14(3), 183–190. Warren, S. F., Fey, M. E., & Yoder, P. J. (2007). Differential treatment intensity research: A missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 70–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mrdd.20139

Weatherley, R.A. & M. Lipsky (1977). Street level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Educational Review 47(2), 171-197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.47.2.v870r1v16786270x

Westby, C. (1985). Learning to talk-learning to learn: Oral literate language differences. In C. Simon (Ed.), Communication skills and classroom success. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.

There are 33 references in total.
Sylvan, L. (2014). Speech-Language Services in Public Schools: How Policy Ambiguity Regarding Eligibility Criteria Impacts Speech-Language Pathologists in a Litigious and Resource Constrained Environment. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 9(3), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.64546/jaasep.248

Downloads

Article Information

  • Article Type Articles
  • Submitted September 13, 2014
  • Published October 15, 2014
  • Issue Fall 2014
  • Section Articles
  • File Downloads 0
  • Abstract Views 0
  • Altmetrics
  • Share
Download data is not yet available.