Why continue to debate SLP roles in literacy? If we immerse ourselves in the curriculum and evidence-based research practices for classroom teachers, we will quickly correlate how our expertise can benefit literacy skills. There are more similarities than differences between teaching reading and writing and providing speech and language intervention. According to the National Reading Panel (NRP, 1999), "Vocabulary is critically important in oral reading instruction." This statement sounds like SLPs can support reading without varying our traditional roles significantly.
Reading comprehension strategies such as text-to-text connection and text-to-self connections are synonyms for our favorite semantic goals: associations and comparing and contrasting. If you dig deeper into these academic terms—inferencing, identifying themes, and grounding answers from the text—it's auditory processing in an exciting, curriculum-relevant package. Writing easily equates to expressive language and syntax goals as well. The NRP also states, "Phonological awareness and letter knowledge are the two best predictors of how well a child will learn to read." Why wouldn’t we want to share our expertise with all the children who could benefit?
I'm relieved I finally discovered the connection between our field and the curriculum. Our graduate studies did not prepare us for this type of work, so we must be proactive and educate ourselves about our districts' curricula.
Stop wasting energy debating our role in literacy and spend the energy discovering the commonalities between our field and the language arts curriculum. You'll be pleased you did!"
Kimberly Seymour
South Lyon, Michigan
seymouk@livingstonesa.org