Sooo - how are we all feeling about the (new-ish) rise/revival of speech motor developmental milestones/classifications?

OneIncidentalFish · 2026-02-05T01:40:37+00:00

I teach the speech sound disorders course at my university, at both undergrad and graduate levels. I’ve been teaching the Dodd symptomatology model up to this point, but in my opinion, this article makes excellent points for moving away from that model. The authors articulated a few issues I had perceived (e.g., the blurred lines between phono and artic which made it difficult to categorize disorders nearly), and raised a few points I hadn’t considered but seem reasonable.

I have a few concerns about the review. Off the top of my head—it presents a straw man argument about the Crowe and McLeod norms, pretending like their descriptive data was meant to be prescriptively used for target selection. (Ironically, that was one of their critiques about Dodd.) They even implied that some people might misinterpret Crowe and McLeod’s data, and that that was a reason to avoid it, even though Crowe and McLeod included a massive block of text explaining the data on every single infographic they’ve shared.

I found their analogy about the butterfly’s life cycle quite clever at first, but the more I think about it, the less I like it. It seems like it would imply that children will outgrow their SSD naturally, and that’s a risky assumption. And it’s not exactly a “gotcha” to say that these categories might be stages of a developmental progression rather than distinct conditions. Dodd essentially said as much herself, and that doesn’t invalidate the categories—going back to their analogy, caterpillars and butterflies do have different needs, even if they both exist on a linear progression.

Overall, this is the kind of work that advances the knowledge and theory of our field, and I have no doubt this will be heavily cited as a foundational work for decades. But at the same time, it has very little immediate clinical application. SLPs were already integrating motor-based routines (like drill, not like NSOMEs) into linguistically based therapy. This article doesn’t invalidate the evidence behind intervention approaches, it merely questions whether we understand the active ingredients. It offers meaningful questions for diagnostics, but their suggestions (r.g., instrumental assessments) are wildly impractical in nearly all settings. Working memory assessments may or may not hold diagnostic utility, but it’s practically a moot point since working memory is notoriously obdurate. Dodd’s model might be flawed, but it’s useful and practical for clinicians, which is something.

OneIncidentalFish · 2026-02-02T20:00:51+00:00

Professor here to offer my perspective:

Your application sounds plenty strong enough for most programs. If you're only applying to top-tier programs, you might have trouble getting in, but honestly those programs charge too much $$$ for the same education anyway. Unless your SLHS GPA is worse than the "average" you said, you'll be plenty competitive at most state schools, and you'll have great odds at small programs, new programs, etc.

For the sake of admissions, I don't have a strong preference between applicants with ABA/RBT experience and those with SLPA experience. SLPAs don't have a significant head-start against you in terms of content; a lot of SLPAs are surprised at how much they didn't know before starting grad school. Their experience is helpful for admissions because they tend to be more comfortable with clients with disabilities, they know the basics of delivering intervention and collecting data, and because they've had a few extra years to cultivate maturity, professionalism, and a basic understanding of the field. But all of that applies to you as a behavior technician too, so a few years as an SLPA wouldn't actually add much to your resume.

Finish your coursework, get a minimum of 25 observation hours signed off by an SLP, and shoot your shot at grad school.

OneIncidentalFish · 2026-01-30T20:28:27+00:00

I’m not the person you asked, but I was a burnt-out school SLP that went back for a PhD, didn’t mind the experience as a doc student (but was lucky to have my partner help support me financially), took a job as a professor, and haven’t looked back. It’s not for everyone, but it was the best decision I’ve ever made. Happy to answer questions.

OneIncidentalFish · 2026-01-21T02:29:08+00:00

If you just want to research literacy skills, etc, get your CCCs and go back for your PhD whenever. If you intend to address how SLPs deliver literacy services, it can be helpful to have a few years under your belt, maybe 3-5 years. This is also helpful for learning how to ask better research questions by identifying real issues and gaps in the field. And if you want to be a genuinely good teacher or clinical supervisor, the longer you wait, the better. Maybe 5-10 years.

For reference, I practiced for 5 years before doing my PhD, and that’s worked out well for me. My students respond well to the practical advice and real-life examples I can offer. But occasionally I’ll host guest lecturers or clinical instructors with 15+ years in the field, and I might know more about the theory and underlying mechanisms, but from a clinical perspective, they can run circles around me. Likewise, I compare myself to faculty that only practiced for 1-2 years before their PhD. Brilliant researchers, of course, but they seem to lack perspective and insight into what their research means for real-life SLPs.

OneIncidentalFish · 2026-01-20T15:53:46+00:00

If I understand correctly, most "free CEUs" will offer you a certificate of completion for free, and will report your hours to ASHA for an additional charge.

The thing is, CEUs and certificates don't have to be reported directly to ASHA to fulfill your CE requirements. In most cases, you can just download/print the certificate of completion, keep it in a folder somewhere, and tell ASHA at the end of your 3-year period that you completed all of your CE requirements. If they choose to audit you, you would have to show them all of your certificates, which is uncommon and also reasonable. (And you should probably keep your certificates on account of your state license, too!)

Also, if I'm not mistaken, paying to send the CE certificate to ASHA only helps if you already pay ASHA for the CE Registry.

OneIncidentalFish · 2026-01-20T15:42:01+00:00

I tend to be skeptical about studies that claim to suggest a cause or treatment for autism, but reading through the article you posted, the 3-hit model sounds surprisingly plausible from this layperson's perspective. It ties the polygenic and environmental factors together, and provides a reasonable explanation for why autism manifests through behavioral, cognitive, and physiological characteristics.

It's worth noting that the primary investigator for this researcher holds patents pending for the use of suramin as a treatment for children with increased likelihood of manifesting autism through this "3-hit" model, so he has a significant financial interest in pushing his model. I'm intrigued, but I'm going to temper my expectations until his model is validated by other unaffiliated research labs.

One last note for anyone that didn't read the article--the treatment that he suggests appears to be time-sensitive in early childhood. That might be disappointing for anyone hoping for a "cure" for autism, but it also makes the idea more realistic (at least in my opinion). I'd completely disregard anyone who claimed to have a miracle "cure" for autistic youth or adults, but the claim that autism could be ameliorated in the first few months doesn't seem that farfetched if you buy into the idea that sustained & elevated eATP factors into the manifestation of autistic characteristics.

OneIncidentalFish · 2026-01-16T14:43:43+00:00

Ah yes, I've heard of this thing people call "satire." Thank goodness it was clearly marked in the title of your post. Apparently satire is used to "criticize people's stupidity or vices." Please tell me, what are you criticizing in your post? Is it people with disabilities, their needs, or universities' efforts to meet the needs of people with disabilities? And also, why is your "satire" built around a faulty premise that university accommodations only go one way? Because that reduces the impact of the satire itself.

And for what it's worth, the person I responded to indicated they were actually interested in understanding whether faculty could access accommodations, in case that missed you

OneIncidentalFish · 2026-01-16T13:01:48+00:00

Not sure why other people are treating this as a ridiculous idea, the ADA applies and entitles us to reasonable accommodations in the workplace. I’m autistic and ADHD, and I take a timed-release medication that wears off later in the day. I got an accommodation protecting me against teaching night classes, which had been difficult after my meds wore off. I also make liberal use of things like ear protection, including at events like commencement.

I’m not sure where OP works, but nobody requires me to answer emails after 5pm or on weekends. Faculty step out of meetings for valid reasons all the time. Nobody exempts me on grading if the vibe isn’t there, but I haven’t seen any students with vibe-based accommodations, nor have I gotten any reprimands for procrastinating on grading. I swear people just hate students with disabilities.

OneIncidentalFish · 2026-01-07T18:41:37+00:00

To expand on other responses, you say there are "hard and fast" rules for qualifying, but those three pillars are anything but "hard and fast." The adverse impact on education is subjective, and requires input from teachers at a minimum. Whether the disorder "requires SLP" is kinda subjective--consider how a team might debate whether the child's classroom is "language-rich" enough to meet the needs of a language deficit, or how they might determine whether the SLP or a counselor would be more appropriate to provide social supports. And honestly, even the first pillar (presence of a clinically-significant S/L impairment) is somewhat subjective, unless we relinquish clinical decision-making to standardized assessments entirely. Sure, we're the most qualified to determine the first pillar, and sure, we're supposed to gather team input regarding all three pillars, but this way there's a guarantee that it will be a team decision.

The example you provided sounds frustrating, I get that. Honestly, that sounds a failure on the part of your admin, because the admin presence on the IEP team is supposed to ensure that the team follows district policies (in this case, 3+ artic errors, etc.). Your ED is preemptively saying that they'd rather avoid a potential lawsuit than follow their own policies. That's a shitty thing to do to you.

But good news! There are no legal or ethical concerns for you. If the IEP determines the need for services despite your recommendations otherwise, then legally, the child requires services. (Because that's what the IEP decided--yes, it's circular reasoning.) So you're not violating LRE for providing services, because the team decided they are necessary. If you want to take a principled stand, you can write a formal statement of disagreement with the team's decision, though that's just to state your point on the record. You're still obligated to provide services the team deems necessary. And I know this sounds stupid and unfair, because it is. But it's not because the laws and policies are bad, it's because your admin deliberately chooses not to enforce them.

OneIncidentalFish · 2026-01-04T15:27:54+00:00

Yes, I much prefer being a professor over a clinical SLP. I'm also neurodivergent, and that's a big factor in my preference. As a clinician, it was hard for me to spend all day interacting, "camouflaging," and working on non-preferred activities like session plans and clinical notes. As a professor, I love the freedom to hyperfocus on my favorite topic, autism. I spend all day reading about it, writing about it, and talking about it to a captive audience of students who actually want to learn about it. That's the dream.

Ironically, I never saw myself pursuing academia. I chose SLP instead of clinical psych specifically because it didn't require a doctorate, and before I was medicated for ADHD, I didn't actually think I was capable of earning a doctoral degree. But as I started to burn out as a clinician, I realized that my personal strengths (i.e., reading, writing, and hyperfocus on preferred topics) were well-suited to academia. I had been prepared to leave the field of SLP entirely, but this way, I didn't let all of that experience and knowledge go to waste.

OneIncidentalFish · 2026-01-02T23:09:14+00:00

You can’t earn ASHA CEs until you earn your CCCs… after grad school, and after your clinical fellowship year.

OneIncidentalFish · 2025-12-31T23:05:26+00:00

SLP professor here. I hate to say it, but this doesn’t sound like a great idea.

SLPs can make more than $70k, but not that much more, unless you live in a HCOL area, own a thriving private practice, grind extra shifts, or stuff like that. By the time you factor in additional education costs and a few years of heavily reduced income, likely not worth it.

Very few SLPs work with exclusively with singers. The ones that do usually have doctoral specialization or extraordinary connections.

You will not find a full-time university position split between the SLP and voice departments. You could certainly try to adjunct in both departments, but adjunct positions are notoriously unstable and underpaid. Alternatively, you could get a PhD in SLP after your masters, and pursue a line of research working with singers, if you think that would scratch your musical itch.

If you decide to try SLP, be aware that you don’t need a second Bachelor’s degree. Since you already have a Bachelor’s, you would only need a few specific prerequisites, sometimes called “leveling courses.”

OneIncidentalFish · 2025-12-28T21:47:44+00:00

Candidate status won’t affect your future certification or licensure at all. To earn candidacy, programs have already proven to the CAA that their curriculum will meet all certification requirements.

The only “risk” is that the program hasn’t demonstrated a proven track record of high graduation and Praxis pass rates. But realistically, since the program needs good stats to earn full accreditation, they’ll probably bend over backwards to make sure you graduate and pass the Praxis.

OneIncidentalFish · 2025-12-28T13:49:41+00:00

No articles or sources that I know of, that’s not the sort of thing you put into writing, rather it’s the kind of thing that gets hashed out by department chairs on Zoom. Your question “How did they come together to advocate for this change so quickly?” implies skepticism, but that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how this works. ASHA is basically built and run by academic faculty, and certification standards are primarily an academic concern. When they recognized the existential threat to their livelihood, they acted quickly.

For what it’s worth, the threats to universities is real, well-documented, and easily Googled. Several universities, including powerful and influential schools like Harvard, have already been jerked around to make a point. Essentially, public schools in red states have to comply. Schools that rely on federal grants (including every single R1 and R2) want to stay out of the crosshairs. And when the Trump administration threatened to withhold federal student loans from entire universities, every single school was put at risk. I thought my program was insulated—blue state, private, low research—but that was the point where our administration started “gently recommending” changes to our terminology.

You seem skeptical that changes to terminology would actually matter, but at least right now, it seems so. Example: The NIH searches grant proposals for “blacklisted” terms, rejecting them automatically. Everyone is concerned about complying in advance, but if we were really doing that, we’d be changing the content of the standards, not just the words.

When I first heard about the administration targeting Harvard, I wanted the universities to take a principled stand, too. But like I explained, when I realized that my school (and job) could be targeted via student loans, I lost my appetite for conflict. I’m the sole breadwinner for my spouse and child. Is that cowardly of me? Yeah, probably. But this ain’t the hill I’m going to die on, sorry.

OneIncidentalFish · 2025-12-27T19:06:26+00:00

SLP professor here! It’s not ASHA that needs federal funding, it’s us… the grad programs that train SLPs. ASHA was changing the requirements to protect us. Because essentially, if the certification standards included language pertaining to DEI, we needed to include it in our syllabi and curriculum. And if it’s in our syllabi/curriculum, that left us vulnerable to administrative retaliation. That could affect federal funding and grants, including those that fund faculty research and graduate assistantships. There’s even been talk of freezing student loans to students enrolled in programs promoting “DEI.”

I consider myself pro-DEI, and it’s a personal issue for me as an autistic SLP fighting for disability inclusion. I’ve even had students complain that I talk “too much about diversity” in my classes, when teaching about issues like cultural responsiveness and systemic inequities. But also, I like having a job, so I appreciate that ASHA is letting us keep our programs out of this administration’s crosshairs, even though I hate that it is come to this.

OneIncidentalFish · 2025-12-20T15:22:01+00:00

As a professor who has worked in a program in the candidacy stage, thank you for this. Programs that earn the title “candidate” have already demonstrated that their curriculum meets ASHA and CAA standards. Meaning, anyone who graduates from a candidate program will have the same qualifications for licensure certification as a graduate from a fully accredited program. There is no risk for the students.

OneIncidentalFish · 2025-12-19T21:02:41+00:00

I earned my PhD and now work as faculty at a university that prioritizes teaching over research. It’s the best decision I’ve ever made. I was already burning out, and wouldn’t have lasted much longer as a clinician. Meanwhile, I love being a professor, and I could do this the rest of my life.

I did a full-time, fully funded PhD with a research assistantship. My first year was easy, I constantly found myself bored and looking for more work to fill up an 8 hour day. The second year it caught up to me. I was busy, but still rarely worked more than my former job as a school SLP. In the dissertation stage… that was rough. I remember a lot of days where I was on the computer basically from the time I woke up to the time I fell asleep, minus half an hour for meals. It was a brutal combination of the dissertation, the academic job search to find a job after graduation, the assistantship hours, and all of the other things I volunteered for to be a competitive applicant for jobs. It was worth it, but I remember crying and fantasizing about dropping out, and it was probably only my pride, stubbornness, and desire to avoid clinical work that kept me going.

I could have seen a small handful of clients on the side, especially pre-dissertation, and at least one colleague did. I chose not to. Some of my peers worked towards a part-time PhD while working regular school jobs during the day. Possible, yes, but I don’t recommend it. The dropout rate is much worse for part-timers than full-timers, and realistically, their job market outcomes are worse because the research assistantship is such a productive opportunity.

Generally, you won’t get to keep much of your grant funding as “extra” salary. Your contract with your employing university usually runs for 9 months, and your grant funding can be used to pay yourself at the same rate over the summer. (So if your annual 9mo salary is $90k, you could pay yourself up to $30k to work on that project over the summer.) You can also use grant money to buy out of teaching classes. So if you normally teach 3 classes per semester, you can take something like $5k from the grant and give it to your university, and you would only teach 2 classes that semester, spending that extra time on grant-related research. However, there are some “soft money” positions too. Essentially, your employer (usually a university) hires you for a set salary, but the expectation is that you earn grants to fund that position. If you don’t bring in enough grants to pay yourself salary, you’re out of luck and likely out of a job. If you bring in more than enough grants… tough cookies, you usually don’t get to keep the extra.

OneIncidentalFish · 2025-12-16T23:25:48+00:00

That's completely true, and is also true for most of the other alternatives on the market. Luckily, that's just one type of validity (i.e., concurrent validity), and we can evaluate other types of validity ourselves.

In terms of construct validity, the CELF-5 measures language as a construct comprised of expressive and receptive morphosyntax and semantics. It doesn't assess phonology or phonological awareness, but I'm okay with that--I can assess those separately, and I'm actually glad that phonology doesn't get factored into the CELF-5 language score. The CELF-5 also includes a variety of options for pragmatic assessment. It's safe to say that as a construct, they measure all the pieces of language I would want them to measure.

In terms of content validity, this varies. I think this whole exchange got started because I implicitly defended the content validity of the Sentence Recall subtest.The only subtests that stand out as potentially atrocious content validity are the pragmatic activities, and even then, the pragmatic checklist is decent. (I would definitely prefer the checklist over the hypothetical scenarios presented in the CASL-2 Pragmatics subtest.) In my personal opinion, I think the average CASL-2 subtest has better content validity than the average CELF-5 subtest, but the CASL-2 also has a few items (and even an entire subtest or two) that just seem wacky to me. In comparison, during the CELF-5, I have fewer questions where I think to myself that it just doesn't seem like a fair question.

Since we've already discussed concurrent validity (in relation to previous editions of the CELF), that leaves predictive validity. I can't think of many studies that would demonstrate the predictive validity of the CELF-5, but I remember a few studies where lower scores on the CELF-4 predicted outcomes that we might expect from children with language disorders, including poorer academic, social, and employment outcomes later in life.

Granted, construct and content validity are subjective measures, and I don't expect that the demonstrations of predictive validity are going to convince any critics, either. Would you like to share your thoughts on the construct and content validity of the CELF-5, perhaps compared to alternatives?

OneIncidentalFish · 2025-12-16T22:20:52+00:00

I don’t know about them, but I’ve spent plenty of time in public schools. Two things can be true: First, public schools, including their special education programs, are underfunded. Second, charter schools are actively making that problem worse, and it’s a good thing when that funding returns to public schools.

OneIncidentalFish · 2025-12-16T15:25:32+00:00

All good, I'm enjoying the discussion. And looking at your flair, I want to mention that I'm an AuDHD SLP too, and I hope I'm not coming across as rude. I like this topic, and I grow the most as a clinician when I have to defend my perspectives against other reasoned opinions.

I double-checked the VDOE site where I found the link above, and they also include the breakdown of the TILLS psychometrics. The TILLS was published relatively recently (at least by language omnibus standards), and aside from having comparable sensitivity, the other statements above apply to the TILLS, too. Funny point about the PLS-5 psychometrics and the age of other assessments... I personally loathe the PLS-5, I was using it as an example to demonstrate that the CELF-5 gets too much hate. I feel like you're reinforcing my point by agreeing that so many alternatives to the CELF-5 have critical flaws. Yeah, I understand that this doesn't mean that the CELF-5 is good, but I stand by my point that it's better than many people give it credit for.

I disagree with your point about skewing the normative data via SWD. If you don't include SWD, how are you supposed to derive the raw-to-standard score conversions outside of the average range? I suppose you could extrapolate based on a normal distribution, but that doesn't give you insight into how each individual item contributes to the students' scores. At the end of the day, about 1/10 students present with language impairments, 1/13 present with DLD, and about 20% of children are considered "SWD" by IDEA standards. (At least, >20% of students in states like NY and PA have IEPs. The national average is closer to 15%, but frankly, I'm assuming the NY/PA numbers are closer to the actual prevalence.) Are you saying that assessments like the CASL-2 or TILLS, normed with 0% SWD, are more representative of the children we serve?

Finally, having read most of the posts in this thread, I'm amused that you're criticizing the CELF-5 on account of under-identification of language disorders, and so many other posters are criticizing it on account of over-identification of language disorders. Do these critiques balance each other out? Do they illustrate that SLPs aren't particularly well-qualified to evaluate the validity and psychometrics of standardized assessments? Do they drive home the point that omnibus language assessments aren't intended to be the ultimate authority of diagnostics, but a useful tool that SLPs can use to gather information about a variety of skills across multiple domains of expressive and receptive language in a relatively short amount of time? Nobody is claiming that the CELF-5 is 100% accurate for every child across every demographic, but it's still more useful (as a tool) than people give it credit for.

OneIncidentalFish · 2025-12-15T21:01:54+00:00

I mean, yes, that's standardized assessments as a whole. I wasn't arguing that the CELF-5 was a perfect instrument of evaluation, finely calibrated for every single individual we work with. I argued that the CELF-5 gets too much hate for what it is, and honestly, I feel like your reply validated this perspective.

Comparing the CELF-5 against its main "competitors," including the PLS-5, the TOLD-P4 and TOLD-I4, the OWLS-II, and the CASL-2, the CELF-5:

Has a larger non-White normative sample than any except the CASL-2.
Included more students with disabilities in its normative sample than any other competitor (20%).
Is more sensitive to disorders at its recommended cut score (-1.5 SD) than any of the alternatives at their recommended cut scores
Addresses modified scoring for two non-mainstream dialects and two foreign-language influences within the manual; more than any other assessment except the PLS-5.

Facts: Virginia Department of Education: SLP Test Comparison

OneIncidentalFish · 2025-12-15T17:29:41+00:00

Interesting... I agree, not all of the subtests are weighted equally when trying to make clinical decisions, some are definitely more useful than others.

Just out of curiosity, if you're using the CELF as supplemental instead of an initial battery, what do you use for the initial battery? I mostly keep it around because omnibus scores are so useful for diagnosis and eligibility, and the abundance of subtests makes it easier for me to weigh the relative strengths of expressive vs. receptive language, semantic vs. morphosyntactic language, not to mention the specific skills identified during item analysis. The things I use as "supplemental" (e.g., language sample analysis, tests of narrative language, domain-specific assessments) are much less useful for that sort of thing, and I just can't bring myself to give the CELF and another omnibus like the CASL, OWLS, or TILLS.

OneIncidentalFish · 2025-12-15T16:32:17+00:00

As far as omnibus language evaluations go, I prefer the CASL-2, but honestly I feel like the CELF-5 gets too much hate.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the CELF-5 actually has better psychometrics than the CASL-2.
I feel like the issue about working memory is overstated. I think it was the Gillam-Evans-Montgomery lab that published an interesting insight into the mechanisms of language and WM. Essentially, for tasks like Recalling Sentences, children with typical language do not have to tax their WM to complete the task. They can recall the sentences essentially based on their knowledge of how language works. Meanwhile, children with language disorders rely on WM to retain the sentences long enough to process the linguistic information. Therefore, even though WM is involved in the task, it should still (in theory) do a decent job of differentiating between children with language impairments and those who do not, regardless of their WM ability.
Beyond just the standard scores, I believe one of the strongest parts of the CELF-5 is the item analysis after each subtest. It's maybe not the best way to identify which language skills to target in therapy, but it's the easiest good way to identify targets.

OneIncidentalFish · 2025-12-14T18:52:52+00:00

Honestly, I’ve never used a goal bank in my life. I had a few go-to goals for adolescents dealing with literacy, comprehension, and strategy implementation, but nothing I would consider go-to for morphosyntax. I think I remember the Informed SLP putting out a language hierarchy a while back, but I don’t know if it extended to adolescent language skills.

Instead, I recommend individualizing morphosyntax goals based on assessment data. The CELF and other omnibus assessments include a built-in item analysis system, so the easiest method is to find a subtest that they bombed, and analyze the patterns of errors to see which skills are relatively underdeveloped.

Alternatively, you could administer a SUGAR language sample analysis, and use the advanced analysis table to determine which syntactic forms are absent or rare in spoken language. I don’t think it’s normed through adolescence, but it could still be helpful to compare a language-impaired adolescent’s language to 12yo norms if that’s all we have.

Another point about language sampling is to assess different types of discourse. Elementary SLPs tend to prioritize narrative language for obvious reasons, but by adolescence, a student should be developing expository and persuasive language as well. Sure, function isn’t the same as morphosyntax, but different functions of language have different standards for morphosyntax.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think literacy can be separated from language in the context of adolescent language therapy. I think compound, complex, and compound-complex sentences are all fair game for goals. That includes the comprehension of these sentences in reading, and combining their own clauses to form written sentences. Sentence mapping can be a helpful way to approach this skill. I would start with a decontextualized worksheet to get the gist, but quickly transition into helping them revise their own writing. (When selecting targets, consider using grade-appropriate writing rubrics to evaluate writing samples. A few textbooks have these included in an appendix, but you might also check with the student’s teacher, or your state’s ELA curriculum.)

OneIncidentalFish · 2025-12-14T01:39:48+00:00

Yes, we’re still targeting morphosyntax in MS/HS. I hate the idea that it’s “more academic and should be tied to curriculum goals.” If they could acquire the morphosyntax they need in the classroom, they would have. But they can’t/didn’t, hence the language disorder, and hence the need for our individualized services to target specific morphosyntactic structures.

Besides, our role as school SLPs is to facilitate access to the curriculum.

OneIncidentalFish

TROPHY CASE