[ Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Ed Feuer
Date: 11 Oct 2007
Time: 08:52:39 -0500
Remote Name: 207.161.46.118
John, You’ve raised a very important point about the shameful situation in the schools. To those professors here who fear washing the SLP profession’s dirty laundry in public, I would say that dirty laundry not washed in public is laundry most likely to stay dirty. Attempted public relations apologia for the profession does not fix the very real problems. Meanwhile, one of the most forthright and succinct expositions of stuttering therapy in general and the situation in the schools in particular was given by Prof. Woody Starkweather in his Aug. 5, 1999, posting on the Stutt-L listserv. Woody, who knew of what he spoke, said, "It is a real mess." I doubt that there’s been any substantial improvement since that time. Read it and weep. Woody Starkweather wrote: “. . . There are two problems that are still not solved at this point. One, the specialty recognition program is only just getting in place now, and although the stuttering area is far ahead of the others, even we don't have it far enough along for referral to specialists to work really well yet. The second problem is that the generalist has to know enough to make the referral, and with no requirements for stuttering at all in the curriculum, it is not clear that the generalist will have even that minimal knowledge. Specifically, knowing next to nothing about stuttering, they may believe that they do know enough to treat it. “Also, a third problem is that in the schools, the SLP's are hired by the Principals to "take care of any and all" speech and language disorders that children may present, of which stuttering is clearly one. But the recently graduated SLP may not have had any training in stuttering or in voice disorders. The SLP applying for such a job is ethically required to say that she is not qualified to work with a part of the school population, which will mean that she doesn't get hired. But the Principal doesn't usually know this. He is looking for an SLP. He has found one who is certified by the ASHA, and that SOUNDS as though they will be qualified to work with speech and language disorders, whatever they are. The applicant under these circumstances is pressured to be unethical, which the association should never promote, but does. The same thing is true for the general public. When a clinician can say that she is a certified SLP the public will believe that she ought to be able to treat whatever comes along, since that is the most obvious interpretation of what the certification and training mean. But it doesn't, so the clinician is tempted to behave unethically, and in fact may not even know that she is not qualified. It is a real mess, in my opinion.”