Consultation as a model for providing speech and language therapy in schools: a panacea or one step too far?

Abstract

In recent years there has been a pressure to introduce an indirect “consultative model” to working with children with speech and language needs. It is favoured by educationists because it avoids the need to take children out of class and embeds any support children received in the curriculum. This paper reports the results of a recent study which indicates that Speech and Language Therapists are concerned about the universal application of this model of service delivery. It introduces and discusses a number of interrelated factors which need to be in place before the consultative model can be successfully introduced.

Speech and language therapists and teachers working together: Exploring the issues

“…Perhaps by providing information on minimum expectations or standards of delivery that a school can expect, a SLT service may be able to resolve these differences. The work of Wren et al, (2001) and Law et al, (2002) suggests the need for protocols and measures to be in place in schools to support collaboration, and this investigation similarly recommends that clearly identified expectations or standards may be helpful.…”

“…The consultative model however presents challenges, with Law et al, (2002) for example identifying issues regarding "power relationships" between professionals. Wright & Kersner (2001) similarly suggest that a consultative model encourages a professional hierarchy between SLT and teachers, with the potential for teachers to feel dependant on SLTs by asking for their advice and support, or alternatively that SLTs could feel threatened if by passing on their knowledge, they felt that they were no longer needed.…”

“…Wren et al, (2001) for example reported insufficient time available for good quality liaison, and suggested that protocols should be set up within schools to facilitate time availability. A large-scale study by Law et al, (2002) called for school cultures that recognised the importance of SLT input and highlighted the need for appropriate measures to be in place to allow effective collaboration. Dockrell & Lindsay (2001) examined the views of teachers, and found that forty-nine percent reported "insufficient support" with the information received from the SLTs being unspecific and difficult to implement.…”

Navigating professional roles in early literacy intervention: exploring the experiences of speech language therapy students, teachers and clinical tutors

“…Within this model, a tiered process is followed by which intervention is provided as whole group instruction embedded in the classroom context (tier I) or explicit instruction in small groups or individually (tier II), and where teachers and therapists fulfil different roles. The classroom is an especially important context for intervention with school-aged children because it provides opportunities for embedded, meaningful activities related to early literacy and language learning (Law et al 2002;Silliman et al 1999;Wium 2015). During the application of the E-E model, students gain experience in the domains of early literacy, namely, phonological awareness, print concepts, vocabulary development and narrative skills.…”

Becoming a manual occupation? The construction of a therapy manual for use with language impaired children in mainstream primary schools

“…These eligibility requirements are intended to be sufficiently broad to represent the wider clinical group of language-impaired children of concern to SLTs (Plante 1998), and to reflect the commitment of many SLT services to working in schools (RCSLT 1996: 54). Mainstream school children in the UK frequently receive therapy indirectly via SLT or classroom assistants (Law et al 2000), and many issues are raised by such wholesale transfer of therapy to unqualified staff (Law et al 2002). Effectiveness research into modes of service delivery for this population is therefore timely.…”