There has been controversy regarding school-based SLPs' ability/responsibility to instruct reading, as evidenced by the numerous articles in The ASHA Leader. Just as a physician has the responsibility to honor the Hippocratic Oath, SLPs have responsibility to help those with communication disorders. Reading deficits may qualify as communication disorders, but they are not our primary concern. Oral communication is! It may be noble for a podiatrist to deliver a baby when no one else is available, but an obstetrician would be more qualified. SLPs instructing reading may be well-intentioned, but no better qualified than a podiatrist delivering babies.
While I agree that some SLPs are qualified in reading instruction, those more qualified and certified than Title I/Reading Improvement Instructors are few and far between. I, too, have noticed that those advocating SLP-led reading instruction are specializing in teaching reading, providing clinic-based treatment, working with adults, or no longer providing direct services to children.
Incorporating reading skills during articulation, language, voice, and fluency treatment is justifiable when the primary goal is to improve oral communication deficits, not reading ability. If no other educator is available to provide literacy instruction, then the latter services might be justified when provided by a SLP. However, if these services are provided at the expense of children exhibiting oral communication deficits, then we have watered down our profession and have confused educational peers as to what our duties are/ought to be.
David M. Rucinski
Princeton, IL
sbapole@yahoo.com
|