[ Contents | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Bob Quesal
Date: 10/15/01
Time: 8:31:22 AM
Remote Name: 143.43.201.169
Hi Melissa:
You make a good point, and yes, it is part of what we have to deal with. Programs have finite resources and those resources have to be allocated to the areas that the programs feel are most important. As I point out, however, what is "important" is often determined by what "the profession" says. If ASHA says swallowing is important, for example, then that becomes becomes prominent in the standards and becomes an important part of the curriculum. My fear, simply, is this: fluency de-emphasized in the standards and the curriculum leads to the perception that it is not important to have classes in stuttering, which leads to not hiring faculty in fluency, which leads to no mentors for students, which leads to no one to defend fluency disorders as part of our practice, which leads to the death of fluency disorders.
Your suggestion that programs put more emphasis on fluency disorders is exactly what needs to be done. However, accomplishing that will not be easy.
Remember, however, that I am painting the bleakest possible picture here. Many things could change over the next few years that could lead to appropriate emphasis of fluency disorders as PART of the SLP scope of practice. I would wager, however, that if you spoke to most SLPs, they would tell you either 1) fluency disorders is not at risk, or 2) if it "goes away" so what? It's a low incidence disorder and we don't get much (if any) reimbursement for it.
Bob Q.