In response to Stan Goldberg's guest editorial in the April 29 issue of The ASHA Leader, I disagree with him. In terms of expansion of services, unless we include classroom collaboration as part of our practice, we are not likely to see good carry-over into everyday life. A colleague complained about lack of carry-over with a fluency client. I asked her if she had ever gone into the classroom and cued the client to use his techniques or told the classroom teacher how to cue him. She had not. This certainly seems like a very useful form of collaboration.
In terms of quantifying competency, as we all know, perception is often as important as reality. If we do not require continuing education as other professions do, how will the public and other professionals perceive us?
Regarding objective methodology, if you are counting the right things, numbers can be very useful. For example, since we often have limited time, we need to know if doing rote picture naming or practicing communication with the use of nonverbal cues results in the best communication from a client with aphasia or traumatic head injury.
Regarding whether this path has a heart, compassion and science are not mutually exclusive. From what I have seen of my students over the past 30 years, the profession is in no danger of losing its heart.
Colette L. Coleman
Ashland, OR
|