|
Cynthia Feeney's letter, "SLPs as Reading Specialists?" (Jan. 22, 2008), articulated the thoughts of many public school SLPs.
It is true that our professional training in language development and intervention gives us a unique perspective of the processes of written language, but I doubt that the ASHA-CCC requirements meet any state's criteria for teacher certification in reading or literacy. Sharing our expertise within a consultative or supportive role might enhance the literacy programs within the schools, but how do we justify practicing in an area for which we do not have professional state certification? If ASHA believes that literacy instruction is an essential part of our role in the schools, then why not revise the CCC requirements to enable the candidate to qualify for literacy credentials as well? In that way, when ASHA encourages its members to go forth and lead the schools in literacy development, it can do so with integrity.
If SLPs do not help the children with oral communication problems, who will? The schools already have other certified professionals whose responsibility is to provide reading and writing instruction. Trying to survive in today's educational arena, SLPs have all but abandoned those specific areas in which we have a singular impact. Extending the SLP's role, without the proper training and endorsements, stresses the SLP, reduces our effectiveness, and discredits our field.
Christine McGrath
Litchfield, CT
chrstn_mcgrth@yahoo.com
|