| Author(s) |
Monica Gordon Pershey Candace Rapking |
| Volume | 27 |
| Number | 4 |
| Year | 2003 |
| Page(s) | 211-220 |
| Language | English |
| Category | |
| Keywords |
speech-language pathology collaboration survey caseload urban |
| Abstract |
Abstract This study reports speech-language pathologists’ (SLPs) responses to a survey of collaborative service delivery in an urban school district in the United States. Respondents’ caseloads were approximately 50% greater than ASHA (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 1993) recommendations. This article describes elements of collaborative practices that were in place and explores factors that influenced why a relationship between speech-language intervention and classroom instruction was often not being attained. The survey examined contributions to reading and writing curriculum and instruction, SLPs’ impressions of teacher satisfaction with collaborative service delivery, and self-perceptions of the impact of collaborative service delivery. Findings indicate that SLPs conduct ongoing consultation with classroom teachers and participate in team preparation of cross-disciplinary individual educational plan (IEP) objectives. SLPs perceive teachers as satisfied with collaborative efforts. SLPs perceive themselves as having impact when collaborative service delivery is used in conjunction with pull-out speech-language therapy. Large caseload size, elements of teacher resistance, and the absence of SLPs from regular education curriculum planning committees forestall attainment of collaborative service delivery. Responses indicate that SLPs and teachers may be unsure of their respective roles and responsibilities in collaborative partnerships. Cette étude rapporte les réponses obtenues au sondage effectué auprès d’orthophonistes offrant des services dans un conseil scolaire urbain des États-Unis. Les répondants à ce sondage avaient des charges de travail dépassant de 50% la norme proposée par la ASHA (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 1993). Cet article fait état de pratiques effectuées en collaboration avec des enseignants et explore les facteurs qui expliquent pourquoi il n’y a pas de relation entre les interventions en langage et parole (par les orthophonistes) et les instructions données en classe (par les enseignants). Le sondage examinait les contributions des orthophonistes au curriculum de lecture et écriture, les impressions de ceux-ci concernant la satisfaction des enseignants par rapport aux services offerts en collaboration, les perceptions personnelles de l’impact des services offerts en partenariat avec les enseignants. Les résultats indiquent que les orthophonistes consultent régulièrement les enseignants et participent à l’élaboration de plans d’intervention personnalisés (PIP) avec eux. Les orthophonistes croient que les enseignants sont satisfaits des efforts de collaboration. Les orthophonistes croient aussi qu’ils ont un impact dans le cadre de service offerts en collaboration et conjointement avec la thérapie d’orthophonie de « pull-out ». De lourdes charges de travail, la résistance des enseignants et l’absence des orthophonistes lors de l’élaboration des curriculum d’éducation diminuent le potentiel des interventions offerts en collaboration. Les réponses au sondage indiquent que les orthophonistes et les enseignants ne sont pas certains de leurs responsabilités et rôles respectifs dans le cadre de leur partenariat. |
| Record ID | 841 |
| Link | https://cjslpa.ca/files/2003_JSLPA_Vol_27/No_04_185-232/Pershey_Rapking_JSLPA_2003.pdf |
CJSLPA is an open access journal which means that all articles are available on the Internet to all users immediately upon publication. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose.
CJSLPA does not charge authors publication or processing fees.
Copyright of the Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology is held by Speech-Language and Audiology Canada (SAC). Appropriate credit must be given (SAC, publication name, article title, volume number, issue number and page number[s]) but not in any way that suggests SAC endorses you or your use of the work. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
Read