The Critical Shortage of Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting: Features of the Work Environment That Affect Recruitment and Retention

Abstract

Purpose
The primary focus of this study was to elicit the perspectives of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) regarding features of the work environment that contribute to and/or hinder recruitment and retention in the public school setting.

Method
A questionnaire was distributed to SLPs employed in 10 school districts in Central Florida representing small, medium, and large school districts. The primary goal of the questionnaire was to elicit the perspectives of school-based SLPs regarding (a) factors in the work environment that contribute to retention, (b) factors in the work environment that hinder retention, and (c) issues that may contribute to the recruitment and retention of SLPs in the school setting. A total of 382 questionnaires was obtained, yielding a 64.5% response rate.

Results
The participants ranked working with children, school schedule, and educational setting as primary reasons for their satisfaction with working in the public school setting. The participants ranked workload, role ambiguity, salary, and caseload as primary reasons for their dissatisfaction with working in the public school setting.

Conclusion
Themes emerged from the data that provide insight into several factors that serve as powerful influences in understanding issues of recruitment and retention of SLPs in the public school setting.

Full text

LSHSS
The Critical Shortage of Speech-Language
Pathologists in the Public School Setting:
Features of the Work Envir onment That
Affect Recruitment and Retention
Debra L. Edgar
Linda I. Rosa-Lugo
University of Central Florida, Orlando
T
he paucity of qualified speech-language pathologists
(SLPs) to serve students in the public school setting
is a national concern (American Speech-Language-
Hearing Association [ASHA], 2004e). Many school-age children
who require speech and language services either are not being
served or are being served by out-of-field professionals (Florida
Department of Education, 2002). According to the “ 24th Annual
Report to Congress on the Implementation of Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act” (IDEA PL 101-476), “ speech or lan-
guage impairment” was the most prevalent disability category,
accounting for 55.2% of all preschoolers served in 2000–2001
(U.S. Department of Education, 2002). In addition, the majority
(56.3%) of the preschoolers who were served for speech or language
impairment in the United States were Hispanic. For students ages 6
through 12 who were served under IDEA, “ speech or language
impairment” (18.9%) was the second largest category of students
served in a federally supported program for the disabled after
“specific learning disabilities” (50.0%) (U.S. Department of Edu-
cation, 2002). For students in the 12 through 17 and 18 through
21 age groups, the “speech or language impairment” category
was ranked fifth and sixth in size, respectively, after “ specific
learning disabilities.”
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS), the
employment of SLPs is expected to grow much faster than the
average for all occupations through the year 2010. In their estimates
for 2002 to 2012, speech-language pathology ranked 12
th
out of
the 700 occupations that it lists (U.S. Department of Labor, 2004b).
According to the BLS, more than 26,000 additional SLPs will be
needed to fill the dema nd between 2002 a nd 2012— a 27% increase
in job openings. A total of 49,000 job openings for SLPs is projected
between 2002 and 2012 due to growth and net replacements ( U.S.
Department of Labor, 2004a). A study by the American Association
ABSTRACT: Purpose: The primary focus of this study was to elicit
the perspectives of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) regarding
features of the work environment that contribute to and /or hinder
recruitment and retention in the public school setting.
Method: A questionnaire was distributed to SLPs employed in
10 school districts in Central Florida representing small, medium,
and large school districts. The primary goal of the questionnaire
was to elicit the perspectives of school-based SLPs regarding
(a) factors in the work environment that contribute to retention,
(b) factors in the work environment that hinder retention, and
(c) issues that may contribute to the recruitment and retention
of SLPs in the school setting. A total of 382 questionnaires was
obtained, yielding a 64.5% response rate.
Results: The participants ranked working with children, school
schedule, and educational setting as primary reasons for their
satisfaction with working in the public school setting. The
participants ranked workload, role ambiguity, salary, and caseload as
primary reasons for their dissatisfaction with working in the public
school setting.
Conclusion: Themes emerged from the data that provide insight into
several factors that serve as powerful influences in understanding
issues of recruitment and retention of SLPs in the public school
setting.
KEY WORDS: critical shortage, recruitment, retention,
workload, caseload
L
ANGUAGE,SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 38 • 31–46 • January 2007 * American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
0161-1461/06/3801-0031
31

for Employment in Education (1999) lists SLPs as ranking third in
the nation for number of vacancies as compared to other areas in
education.
In 2002, the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs conducted
a “ Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education.” Respondents
reported 11,148 job openings for SLPs in school settings for the
1999–2000 academic year (Office of Special Education Programs,
2002). From the respondents’ perspective, the greatest barrier to
recruiting SLPs was “ shortage of qualified applicants.” Fifty-nine
percent of respondents reported less-than-qualified applicants as
having the greatest impact on shortages (Office of Special Education
Programs, 2002), with the percentage being the highest in the Western
geographic division of the United States (82%), Mountain Plains
division (78%), and Southeast division (64%). This decrease in
qualified personnel can be partially attributed to the high turnover
rate of SLPs in the public school setting due to job dissatisfaction
(Office of Special Education Programs, 2002).
The national demand for skilled clinicians in public school districts
combined with the need in the private sector has exceeded the number
of students who are graduating with degrees in communication
disorders. In the 2000–2001 academic year, 15,464 students
applied to a master’s program in communicative disorders. Of the
15,464 students nationwide, only 6,650 (43.0%) were admitted, and
of those admitted, only a little more than half, 3,733 (56.1%), actually
enrolled in graduate programs (ASHA, 2004e).
Fiscal constraints and the increased workload in public schools
have made it more challenging to provide effective services to children
with communication impairment. In addition, salary scales are fre-
quently higher in the private sector, and caseload sizes are often
smaller. The median calendar-year salary for school-based SLPs
lagged behind that for colleagues in other settings by nearly $7,000
(ASHA, 2004e). As a result, SLPs are more readily recruited to private
employment settings ( Rosa-Lugo, Rivera, & McKeown, 1998).
According to ASHA’s (2004e) national school survey, a total of
44.3% of certified SLPs do not work in the school setting.
ASHA (2004a) reported that in the year 2004, there were 95,698
certified SLPs across the United States. Of those 95,698 SLPs,
56.5% were White, 1.8% were Hispanic, 1.4% were African
American and 37.6% did not specify. The remaining 2.7% were
Multiracial, Asian, American Indian, or Native Hawaiian. The median
age for SLPs was 45–54 (30.9%), followed by 34 and younger
(28.6%). There continues to be a critical shortage of male SLPs, as
indicated by ASHA’s (2004a) findings that 95.5% of SLPs were
female and only 4.5% were male.
Public schools in the United States have difficulty recruiting and
retaining SLPs from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD)
backgrounds (Roseberry-McKibbin, Brice, & O’Hanlon, 2005).
Of 1,207 SLPs working in public school settings in the United States,
94.4% (1,140) were European American (Blood, Ridenour, &
Thomas, 2002). Only 2.4% (29) were African American, 1.9% (23)
were Hispanic American, and a mere 1.2% (15) were Asian American.
Of these professionals, 96.3% (1,162) were female, and only
3.7% (45) were male ( Blood et al., 2002).
The U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000) reported that racial and
ethnic minorities accounted for up to 80% of the nation’s population
growth, and that 43.0% of the school-age population is Hispanic.
In the year 2000, approximately 87 million people from minority
backgrounds were living in the United States, representing a 43%
increase from 1990. Over the past 20 years, the non-Hispanic White
population in the United States grew by only 7.6%, whereas the
population of individuals from racial minority backgrounds grew
by more than 90% (Roseberry-McKibbin et al., 2005). In addition,
6.3 million children between the ages of 5 and 17 speak languages
other than English at home, representing 14% of the total school-age
population (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000).
It is estimated that the prevalence of communication disorders
among Hispanic Americans is 3.4 million, with a projected 9.7 million
by the year 2025 (ASHA, 2004e). As the population of Hispanic
children in the United States continues to grow, so does the demand
for SLPs who are bilingual and literate in a language other than
English. Roseberry-McKibbin et al. (2005) reported that the most
common ethnic group on respondents’ caseloads in both the 1990
(Roseberry-McKibbin & Eicholtz, 1994) and the 2001 study was
Hispanic, followed by Asian. In the 1990 survey, only 10% of the
respondents spoke another language fluently enough to provide
services in that language, compared to 12% in 2001. According to
ASHA’s (2004a) national summary membership and affiliation
counts, only 1,754 (1.8%) SLPs out of 95,698 total members are
Hispanic, and only 2% of ASHA-certified professionals self-reported
being bilingual. These figures suggest that the number of SLPs needed
to work with Hispanic children and youth is inadequate for the
number of students who are currently enrolled in the public school
setting in the United States.
Children from CLD backgrounds present a challenge for SLPs
due to the linguistic diversity and proficiency they possess in their
first and second language. SLPs working with students from CLD
backgrounds must have the competency to distinguish between
normal characteristics of second language acquisition, a communi-
cation difference, and/or a communication disorder. Otherwise, they
may violate state and federal mandates by mislabeling children as
language disordered when the children may only be manifesting
language differences ( Kritikos, 2003).
THECRITICALSHORTAGEOFSPEECH-LANGUAGE
PATHOLOGISTS—A FLORIDA PERSPECTIVE
Many states in the United States have experienced a net gain
in population, although different states have experienced different
growth patterns. Kohnert, Kennedy, Glaze, Fong Kan, & Carney
(2003) pointed out that these demographic changes can be attributed
to individuals moving from one state to another, changes in birth
and death rates, and immigration to the United States. For example,
immigration has resulted in demographic changes in New York,
Texas, California, Minnesota, and Florida (Fradd & Lee, 1999;
Kohnert et al., 2003; Roseberry-McKibbin et al., 2005) and will
require an adequate number of qualified SLPs to serve the growing
number of diverse students in the public school setting.
Florida’s demographic composition has changed significantly
during the past 35 years (Boswell, 1999). Florida is one of the major
entryways for immigrants and non-English-speak ing students. For this
reason, the public schools in Florida face challenges that are not ex-
perienced by many other states ( Fradd & Lee, 1999). Boswell pointed
out that Florida’s growth has been generated mainly by migration from
Latin American countries, with significant numbers of immigrants
from Europe and Asia, causing Florida’s populatio n to become increas-
ingly diverse. Demographic data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census
(2003) revealed that a significant portion of Central Florida’s popu-
lation growth could be linked to an increase in the number of CLD
32 L
ANGUAGE,SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 38 • 31–46 • January 2007

residents living in the area. This trend has also been seen nationwide
(Rosa-Lugo et. al, 1998). According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census,
Florida (254,517) represents the third larges t enrollment of CLD
students in the United States during the 2000–2001 school year
after California (1,511,64 6) and Texas (570,022), and followed by
New York (239,097), Illinois (140,528), and Arizon a (135,248).
Florida’s changing population is directly reflected in the altering
ethnic composition of its public school population. Of the 35.3 million
people of Hispanic origin residing in the United States in 2000,
a little less than half, 16.0 million (45.3%), live in Florida (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 2002b). From 1990 to 2000, Florida’sranking
in population size increased more than any other state, from 33
rd
to 4
th
(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002a). Florida experienced
a 3.5% increase in population size from 12,937,926 in 1990 to
15,982,378 in 2000, which corresponds to approximately 3,044,400
new residents.
In their study focusing on the current educational policies and
practices in the state of Florida for meeting the workforce needs of the
21st century, Fradd and Lee (1999) noted that Florida is undergoing
massive changes for all students and professionals in the public school
system. The challenge of having an insufficient supply of qualified
SLPs in the public school setting has been explored (Blood et al.,
2002; Fradd & Lee, 1999; Rosa-Lugo et al., 1998; Roseberry-
McKibbin et al., 2005; Roseberry-McKibbin & Eicholtz, 1994),
and the demand for qualified SLPs continues to surpass supply. With
public school personnel retirements increasing annually, and the
effects of the baby boom echo generation increasing enrollments in
student population, more than 3,000 SLPs are needed in Florida alone
by the year 2015 (Florida Department of Education, 2001b).
Florida’s public schools have continued to show tremendous
growth since 1999 (Hinman, 1997). Enrollment at the elementary
level in 2003–2004 is expected to grow at approximately 1.8%, with
3% growth in Grades 6–8 and 3.5% in Grades 9–12. According to
data published by the National Center for Education Statistics, Florida
public elementary schools have the highest average enrollment in
the United States (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). For the
2000–2001 school year , Florida averaged 674 students per elementary
school, which was slightly higher than the second ranked state,
Georgia, which averaged 607 students per elementary school. The
national average is 441. Average enrollment in Florida’s secondary
schools is also highest in the nation at 2,634 students per school,
nearly double the national averag e of 1,365 (Florida Department of
Education, 2004a).
According to the “ Critical Teacher Shortage Areas Report for
2003–2004” ( Florida Department of Education, 2002), “speech and
language impaired” has been designated as a critical shortage area
since 1993. In fall 2001, there were 2,485 SLPs in Florida’s public
schools. Of those 2,485 SLPs, 291 were new hires, and 35 (12.0%)
out of the 291 new hires were not certified in speech language
pathology—the largest percentage in the 17-year history of the new
hires survey ( Florida Department of Education, 2002). As of fall
2002, there were 4,589 SLPs in Florida, of which 3,068 (66.9%)
were employed in Florida’s public schools (Florida Department of
Education, 2004b). It is anticipated that the number of SLPs that will
be needed for the 2020–2021 school year will result in 417 new
vacancies (378 due to resignations and 39 due to growth) ( Florida
Department of Education, 2001b).
In Florida, six of the eleven public universities in the state
university system have communication disorders programs—four
bachelor degree programs, six master’s degree programs, and three
doctoral degree programs. The number of students who graduated
with a bachelor degree in communicative disorders during the 2000–
2001 academic year was 259 ( Florida Department of Education,
2002); the projected number of SLPs needed in Florida’sschools
during the 2003–2004 school year was 346 (Florida Department
of Education, 2002).
LITERATURE REVIEW: FEATURES THAT AFFECT
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
Recruiting and retaining well-qualified SLPs in public schools
is a national priority (ASHA, 2004e). Research has identified
job satisfaction, workload, and caseload as factors that affect the
recruitment and retention of school-based SLPs (Blood et al., 2002;
Dowden, Alarcon, Vollan, Cumley, Kuehn, & Amtmann, 2006;
Miller & Potter, 1982; Pezzei & Oratio, 1991; Wisniewski &
Gargiulo, 1997).
Job satisfaction is defined as an attitudinal variable measuring the
degree to which employees like their jobs and the various aspects of
their jobs (Spector, 1996). Job satisfaction is correlated to enhanced
job performance; positive work values; high levels of employee
motivation; enhanced physical and mental health; and lower rates
of absenteeism, turnover, and burnout (Begley & Czajka, 1993;
Bluedorn, 1982; Bobbitt, Leich, Whitener, & Lynch, 1994; Chiu,
2000). In 1997, W isniewski and Gargiulo reviewed and critiqued the
literature on occupational stress, attrition, job satisfaction, and burnout
in special educators, including SLPs. They reported that SLPs were
subject to “ high levels of occupational stress, tension, and negative
attitudes due to their large caseloads, minimal facilities and resources,
and professional isolation” ( p. 338). This sense of isolation is often
combined with a feeling of powerlessness to influence major deci-
sions and policies that guide their work. Wisniewski and Gargiulo
concluded that high attrition rates were directly related to job dis-
satisfaction. In addition, lack of recognition, few opportunities for
promotion, excessive paperwork, loss of autonomy, lack of supplies,
low pay, and stressful interpersonal interactions all contributed to the
decision by SLPs to leave the school setting.
Surprisingly, few other studies have been conducted on the job
satisfaction of SLPs ( Blood et al., 2002; Goldberg, 1993; Kaegi,
Svitich, Chambers, Bakker & Schneider, 2002; Miller & Potter, 1982;
Pezzei & Oratio, 1991; Potter & Lagace, 1995). A study by Pezzei and
Oratio of 281 SLPs working in public schools revealed that super-
vision, workload, coworker’s support, SLP’s backgrounds, and spe-
cific job settings were the most predictive of job satisfaction. Goldberg’s
study on factors contributing to high levels of stress and burnout in
school-based SLPs included an increase in the number of children
who were identified with disabilities, school cutbacks of funding,
excessive caseload sizes, significant administrative responsibilities,
increased paperwork, and lack of resources to do the job. The Council
for Exceptional Children (2000) reported that SLPs often feel
ineffective because many of their students have persistent problems
with learning, motivation, and behavior.
A study conducted by Blood et al. (2002) compared the job
satisfaction ratings of SLPs working in schools with other workers
on a standardized index and examined whether geographic setting
(i.e., rural, suburban, and urban), specific demographic variables (i.e.,
gender, ethnicity, age, and education), and practice-related variables
(i.e., years in current position and caseload size) explain/predict job
Edgar & Rosa-Lugo: Critical Shortage of SLPs 33

satisfaction among SLPs working in public schools. Two-thousand
school-based SLPs living in the United States were randomly selected
from the ASHA national membership list. The participants were
sent a survey in the mail consisting of informed consent, demographic
items, practice-related items, geographic locale of the work setting,
and a standardized job satisfaction scale (Spector, 1996). A 60.4%
return rate was achieved (1,207 responses).
Results showed that less than half of the SLPs surveyed were
generally satisfied with their jobs (42.2%), and slightly more than
one third were highly satisfied (34.1%). Results of the regression
analyses revealed that the age of participants (i.e., older were more
satisfied), years at current job (i.e., SLPs with greater number of years
were more satisfied), and caseload size (i.e., SLPs with smaller
caseloads were more satisfied) were predictive of job satisfaction of
SLPs working in the schools. In addition, SLPs were less satisfied than
the normative samples with their pay and pay raises, opportunities
for promotion and advancement, satisfaction with coworkers, and
supervision by their primary supervisor. There were no differences
among rural, suburban, and urban SLPs in their overall job satisfaction.
In summary, this study showed that the age of participants, years
at a job, and caseload were predictive of job satisfaction.
A study by Kaegi et al. (2002) focused on the job satisfaction and
job setting characteristics of school-based SLPs in three regions of
Canada. A 44-item questionnaire was completed by school-based
SLPs working in an Ontario city, in an Alberta city, and in rural
Alberta areas. Results indicated that 76% of the SLPs reported
burnout, caseload was a significant predictor of job satisfaction, and
SLPs were negatively affected by changes to the workplace. This
study suggested that additional areas need to be explored, such as the
changing workplace and identification of specific factors that may
contribute to the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of SLPs. This present
study adds to the knowledge base of the previous studies by Blood
et al. (2002) and Kaegi et al. by focusing on the specific factors in the
work environment that contribute to the satisfaction or dissatisfaction
of SLPs in the public school setting.
During the past decade, numerous changes have occurred in the
discipline of communicative sciences and disorders that have resulted
in increased demands on SLPs to develop new knowledge bases
and specialized technical skills (ASHA, 2000c; Whitmire, 2001).
Technological advancements in areas such as augmentative and
alternative communication, cochlear implants, voice, and dysphagia,
coupled with additional administrative responsibilities, legal man-
dates requiring more paperwork, and interdisciplinary meetings, have
increased the workplace demands of SLPs ( Blood et al., 2002).
Furthermore, earlier identification of children with communication
disabilities, the role of the SLP in literacy (ASHA, 2000c), and
increased recognition of the needs of children with multiple dis-
abilities have resulted in large and oversized caseloads, greater time
demands, and additional workload responsibilities for SLPs (ASHA,
2000c; Blood et al., 2002). For all these reasons, SLPs are especially
vulnerable to job burnout and dissatisfaction.
T raditionally, a school-based SLP ’s workload has been conceptu-
alized as being synonymous with caseload (ASHA, 2002). Caseload,
however, is more accurately conceptualized as o nly one part of an
SLP’s total workload (Ehren, 200 1; Power-deFur, 2001). The term
caseload typically refers to the number of students with individual
education plans ( IEPs) or individualized family service plans ( IFSPs)
that school- based SLPs serve through direct and /or indirect service
delivery options (ASHA, 2002). Workload refers to all activities that
arerequiredandperformedbyschool-basedSLPs.Increasesincaseload
correspond with simultaneous increases in meetings and paperwork
demands. ASHA guidelines divide the school-based SLP’sworkload
into four activity clusters: direct services to students; indirect activ-
ities that support students in the least restrictive environment and the
general education curriculum; indirect services that support students’
educational programs; and activities that support compliance with
federal, state, and local mandates (Annett, 2003). Each student added to
the caseload increases the time needed for evaluation, diagnosis, direct
and indirect services, mandated paperwork, multidisciplinary team
conferences, parent and teacher contacts, and many other responsibil-
ities. ASHA (2002) reported that when one student is added to the
caseload, 10 meetings and 52 forms are also added.
IDEA, in particular, has increased the responsibilities of the
school-based SLP (ASHA, 2000b). With IDEA reauthorization in
2004, school-based SLPs now serve more children and adolescents
with multiple disabilities and complex communication disorders
(Vaughn, Bos, & Schumm, 2003). SLPs report that the number of
hours each week used for direct intervention with large numbers
of students leaves little time for meetings, collaborating with other
teachers, and supporting students’ education programs (ASHA,
2002). In a typical week, SLPs report that they spend approximately
70% of their time providing direct intervention and evaluations
(ASHA, 2004d). The remainder of their time is spent on other required
work-related activities, including record keeping, paperwork, report
writing, planning and preparation for intervention, and parent/staff
meetings. According to the ASHA “ 2004 Schools Survey,”
paperwork was the greatest challenge in four out of five facilities
(ASHA, 2004d). A national comparison of the average amount of time
spent per week by SLPs on professional activities revealed that the
percentage of time spent on direct intervention increased from 54%
in 1995 to 65% in 2000 (ASHA, 2000b). There was a corresponding
decrease in the time available for other mandated workload activities
from 1995 to 2000, including time for evaluations (9% to 7%),
planning (8% to 6%), and paperwork (9% to 8%).
The current trend of increasing caseloads and the expanded
responsibilities of SLPs are important factors contributing to high
rates of attrition (ASHA, 2002). Caseload size in speech-language
programs is not mentioned in federal special education laws, leaving
control of this matter to state law and regulations. As a result, there
is extensive variation among state requirements for caseload size.
Although ASHA has recommended that caseloads not exceed
40 under any circumstances, with special populations dictating a
maximum of 25 or less, the average number of students on caseloads
has remained significantly higher than these maximum numbers.
Many states and school districts interpreted the maximum as a
minimum and increased caseloads until many clinicians were at a
breaking point (Annett, 2003). ASHA reported that the median
monthly caseload of school-based ASHA-certified SLPs is 50,
ranging from 20 to 53 (ASHA, 2004d). The state of Florida reported
the second highest average caseload, with a median of 64 and a
standard deviation of 26, second only to Indiana’s average caseload
size of 75 (ASHA, 2004d).
Large caseloads constrain the service delivery options that SLPs
can provide to students with disabilities. Despite IDEA’s focus on
collaboration and consultation, most intervention services continue to
be delivered through a pullout model, primarily with groups rather
than individuals (ASHA, 2002). The ASHA National Outcomes Mea-
surement System ( NOMS) report confirms that the vast majority of
students with disabilities (92%) receive speech-language intervention
in pullout groups regardless of the disorder being treated (ASHA,
34 L
ANGUAGE,SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 38 • 31–46 • January 2007

2000a). Two thirds of students are seen for intervention two times
per week, and more than 75% of those sessions are only 21–30 min
in length (ASHA, 2000a).
Large caseloads relate to less individualized treatment and an
increase in the size of treatment groups. For SLPs with caseloads
greater than 40 students, treatment groups of 5 or more were much
more commonly used (31% of the time vs. 6% for caseloads under
40), and individual treatment was nonexistent (ASHA, 2000b).
In smaller size instructional groups, students with a wide range of
disabilities are more engaged and have better student outcomes, and
their communication skills are positively influenced (ASHA, 2002).
Chiang and Rylan ce (2000) conducted a survey of a random sample
of 210 Wisconsin school-based SLPs in a comprehensive study on SLP
caseloads. Results indicated that SLPs with large caseloads (> 40)
conducted a high percentage of treatment in pullout/resource settings
(68%) so as to allow them to offer treatment to the largest number
of students in the least amount of time (Chiang & R ylance, 2000). In
contrast, SLPs with fewer than 40 childrenontheircaseloadweremore
likely to provide individual treatment and use a variety of delivery
models (classroom based, collaborative consultation, etc.). In addition,
75% of the SLPs reported that caseload affected job satisfaction,
81% reported that caseload affected the ty pe of in tervention used,
and 83% reported that caseload affected their ability to engage in
collaboration with other teachers (Chiang & R ylance, 2000).
Given the severity of the critical shortage crisis of SLPs in Florida
and across the United States, this study advanced three research
questions to elicit the perspectives of school-based SLPs about their
work environment in order to identify features that contribute to and/
or hinder recruitment and retention in the public school setting. Unlike
previous studies, themes emerged from the data that provide new
insight into several factors that serve as powerful influences in
understanding issues of recruitment and retention of SLPs in the
public school setting.
Research Questions
1. What are the major reasons (features strongly favored ) given
by SLPs in Central Florida’s public schools for choosing
to work in the public schools?
2. What are the major issues (features strongly disfavored)
reported by SLPs in Central Florida’s public schools?
3. How many years do SLPs who are currently employed in Central
Florida’s public schools anticipate remaining in their current
position? What is the relationship between number of years
employed in the schools ( longevity) and number of years that
SLPs plan on remaining employed in the schools (retention)?
How does this relationship interact with the positive features
and negative issues reported in research questions 1 and 2?
METHOD
Participants
A total of 3,068 SLPs were employed in Florida’s public schools
during the 2002–2003 school year (Florida Department of Educa-
tion, 2004b). On the basis of the most recent “ Annual Exceptional
Education Personnel Data Report” (Florida Department of Educa-
tion, 2004b), a total of 592 SLPs were employed in Central Florida’s
public schools during the 2002–2003 school year. Table 1 depicts
that of 592 potential participants, 382 SLPs completed a question-
naire, yielding a 64.5% response rate. Nearly two thirds of the SLPs
employed in the Central Florida school districts were represented
in this study, representing 12.5% of the total professional workforce
in Florida’s public schools. Although this study focused specifically
on 10 school districts in the Central Florida area, they were repre-
sentative of small, medium, and large school districts.
The 10 school districts that make up Central Florida are Brevard,
Citrus, Flagler, Lake, Marion, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, Sumter,
and Volusia. These 10 districts represent small, medium, and large
school districts in Florida and provide a CLD sample of school-age
children (Florida Department of Education, 2001a). In the fall of
2003, Sumter County was categorized as a small school district
(6,467 students; 15 schools); Flagler (7,485 students; 11 schools)
and Citrus (14,904 students; 24 schools) were categorized as medium
size school districts; and Lake (31,071 students; 56 schools),
Marion (38,310 students; 64 schools), Osceola (36,885 students;
51 schools), Volusia (61,511 students; 93 schools) Seminole
(62,241 students; 75 schools), Brevard (71,700 students; 121 schools),
and Orange (155,506 students; 185 schools) were categorized as
large school districts (Florida Department of Education, 2004c).
In the fall of 2003, there were 494,187 students enrolled in the
10 schools districts in Central Florida (Florida Department of
Education, 2004c). Approximately 19% (92,224) were receiving
speech-language services. With the variety of settings available, and
the stringent requirements for a master’s degree for full certification,
the public school districts in Central Florida must sometimes fill
positions with temporary, unqualified personnel or remain with
vacant positions. In the 2002–2003 school year , 29 speech-language
clinicians (0.8%) in Florida were out-of-field (Florida Department
of Education, 2004d).
Central Florida school districts also enroll a large number of minority
students. In Orange and Osceola County , the minority is the majority . In
the 2003–2004 school year, Orange County’s total minority population
was 58.8%, and Osceola County had a minority population of 56.7%.
(Florida Department of Education, 2003). Approximately 20% (18,272)
of the students receiving speech-language services in Central Florida
were from CLD backgrounds ( Florida Department of Education, 2003).
Table 1. Response rate for 382 speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working in Central Florida’s public schools.
Small school districts Medium school districts Large school districts
Sumter Flagler Citrus Lake Marion Osceola Volusia Seminole Orange Brevard
5 surveys
(1.3%)
8 surveys
(2.1%)
15 surveys
(3.9%)
24 surveys
(6.3%)
27 surveys
(7.1%)
28 surveys
(7.3%)
53 surveys
(13.9%)
52 surveys
(13.6%)
63 surveys
(16.5%)
107 surveys
(28.0%)
Edgar & Rosa-Lugo: Critical Shortage of SLPs 35

Participants had a mean age of 30 years or younger (28.5%). The
second highest age group was 41–50 (28.0%), followed by 51 or older
(22.0%) and 3 1–40 (21.2%). In this study, the mean age of 30 years
or less is younger than ASHA’s self-reported mean age for SLPs
of 45–54 (36.0%), with the next largest age category being 35–44
(30.7%) (ASHA, 2003b). In this study, of the 382 participating SLPs,
the majority of SLPs (88.0%) were White, followed by Hispanic
(5.0%), which is consistent with ASHA’s demographic findings. Of
the 93,904 SLPs in the United States, the majority of SLPs (95.3%)
were White, followed by 2.5% Hispanic (ASHA, 2003b). T able 2
provides a demographic profile by district of SLPs employed in the
public school setting in Central Florida. Table 3 compares the ethnicity
of ASHA-member SLPs nationwide versus the 382 SLPs from
Central Florida who participated in this study. Nearly three fourths
(74.3%) of the respondents had earned their master’sdegreein
communicative disorders, and slightly more than one half (50.8%) had
their Florida State licensure. Of the 382 SLPs who were included as
participants in this study, 359 were female (94%) and 20 were male
(5.2%), which is consistent with ASHA’s (2003b) national findings
that 362 were female (94.8%) and 20 were male (5.2%).
Fifty-three of the 382 respondents reported that they speak a
language other than English (7 multilingual, 46 bilingual). The highest
percentage (60.9%) of bilingual SLPs spoke Spanish, followed by
American Sign Language (23.9%), French (6.5%), Farsi (2.2%),
German (2.2%), Hindi (2.2%), and Japanese (2.2%). Table 4 provides
the number of bilingual SLPs who were employed in the Central
Florida public school setting at the time of this study compared to the
number of bilingual SLPs who were employed in Central Florida
schools in 1998 ( Rosa-Lugo et al., 1998).
Of the 382 participants, 284 (74.3%) had earned their master’s
degree in communicative disorders. A total of 92 SLPs (24.1%)
reported that the highest degree they held was a bachelor degree in
communicative disorders. Of the 98 SLPs who did not have a master’s
degree in communicative disorders, only 21 (5.5%) were currently
enrolled in a graduate program in communicative disorders. The
highest percentage of bachelor-level clinicians (n = 26, 6.8%) reported
that they were “grandfathered in” (i.e., were allowed to continue
working in the schools although they did not meet the requirements
of highest qualified provider), followed by 24 (6.3%) who had not
applied to a graduate program, 6 (1.6%) who were denied admission
to a graduate program, and 2 (0.5%) who did not plan on applying.
Results revealed that 92 (24.1%) of the respondents were less than
fully qualified and were hired on a 2-year temporary nonrenewable
teacher certificate. The state board rule, known as the “ 2 year–5 year
rule” (Rosa-Lugo et al., 1998), states that SLPs have 2 years to apply
for admission into a graduate program and 5 years to complete a
degree of study in communicative disorders. If they are not admitted
to a graduate program in communicative disorders, they will not be
able to maintain employment as an SLP in the public school setting.
Therefore, almost one fourth (24.1%) of the workforce will be forced
to leave their school if they are not admitted to a graduate program
Table 2. Race/ethnicity of the 382 SLPs working in Central Florida’s public schools.
District African American American Indian Asian Hispanic White Multiracial Other Total
Brevard 2 0 0 4 98 2 1 107
Orange 4 0 0 5 50 3 1 63
Volusia 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 53
Seminole 1 1 0 2 46 2 0 52
Osceola 2 0 1 7 17 1 0 28
Marion 1 0 2 0 24 0 0 27
Lake 0 1 0 1 22 0 0 24
Citrus 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 15
Flagler 1 0 0 0 6 1 0 8
Sumter 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5
Total 11(2.9%) 2(0.5%) 3(0.8%) 19(5.0%) 336(88%) 9(2.3%) 2(0.5%) 382
Table 3. Comparison of race/ethnicity of ASHA-certified SLPs
nationwide to Central Florida’s SLPs in the public schools.
Race/ethnicity ASHA SLPs Central FL SLPs
White 56.5% 88.0%
Hispanic or Latino 1.8% 5.0%
Multiracial 1.6% 2.3%
African American 1.4% 2.9%
Asian 0.8% 0.8%
American Indian or Alaska Native 0.3% 0.5%
Native Hawaiian 0.0% 0.0%
Other / Not Specified 37.6% 0.5%
Total 100.0% 100.0%
Table 4. A comparison of bilingual SLPs in Central Florida: 1998
and 2004.
District
Rosa-Lugo et al., 1998 Edgar, 2004
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Brevard 2 1.6 10 9.3
Orange 10 6.1 12 19.0
Volusia 0 0 5 9.4
Seminole 2 2.9 4 7.7
Osceola 3 8.3 9 32.1
Marion 2 14.3 7 26.0
Lake 0 0 4 16.7
Citrus 0 0 2 13.3
Flagler 0 0 0 0
Sumter 0 0 0 0
Total 19(of 535) 3.6 53(of 382) 13.9
36 LANGUAGE,SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 38 • 31– 46 • January 2007

in communicative disorders within 2 years. This forced exodus will
leave a significant vacuum in districts that are already experiencing
challenges in retaining SLPs.
Survey Instrument
The survey instrument, a 43-item questionnaire, was developed
by the first author (Edgar, 2003) based on current research findings
of the working conditions of SLPs in public school settings (ASHA,
2000c, 2003a, 2004d), ASHA’s “2000 School Survey” (2000d), and
the guidelines suggested by Dillman (2000). The 43-item question-
naire consists of four parts:
& Part One: Features of Personal Work Environment contains
23 Likert-scale items ranging from strongly disfavor to
strongly favor. For the purpose of this study, strongly disfavor
indicates features that respondents are dissatisfied with or
dislike and strongly favor indicates features that respondents
are satisfied with or like.
& Part Two: Features Related to Professional Practice includes
14 multiple-choice questions.
& Part Three: Demographic Information consists of 4 multiple-
choice questions.
& Part Four: Free Response Section contains 2 open-ended
questions.
The survey instrument is located in the Appendix.
Procedures
The questionnaire was piloted in September 2003 on 40 respon-
dents for reliability information and feedback on its design and
content. Consistent and explicit instructions were provided to the
participants to ensure quality control and consistency across districts.
Reviewing the structure matrix on Statistical Package for Social
Sciences, Version 10 (SPSS, 2000), three factors were identified, with
several items loading high on each factor: factors related to school
setting, factors related to professional practice, and factors related to
working in the schools. The survey instruments were distributed by
the first author at the beginning of each of the 10 district’s monthly
meetings. Next, they were collected and placed in a sealed envelope.
To ensure that the answers were kept anonymous, they were only
viewed by the first author.
Given the nature of the research questions in the survey, statistical
applications consisted of descriptive analyses using SPSS Version 10
(SPSS, 2000). Frequencies and percentages were computed on the
Likert-scale and multiple-choice questions to describe the sample,
specifically through measures of central tendency. A cross-tabulation
was performed to ascertain the relationship between the years that
respondents were employed in the school setting and the years that
respondents planned on remaining employed in the school setting.
To determine what relationship exists between features identified
in research questions 1 and 2 and longevity and retention, analyses
of variance (ANOVAs) were performed.
Effect sizes were computed using the eta-squared (h
2
) coefficient.
As recommended by Cohen (1988), the resulting effect sizes were
interpreted as follows: small = 0.0– 0.2, medium = 0.3–0.5, and
large = 0.6–0.8. The descriptive labels of small, medium, and large
indicate the degree to which group membership can account for the
findings (Nippold, Ward-Lonergan, & Fanning, 2005).
RESULTS
To ascertain the perception of SLPs working in the public school
setting, the participants were asked to rate features of the work
environment using a Likert scale. The possible responses ranged from
strongly favor to strongly disfavor. Participants were also presented
with multiple-choice questions and were asked to rate their
satisfaction of features, with responses ranging from mostly satisfied
to mostly dissatisfied (see the Appendix). The top five positive
features provided by the participants were working with children
(n = 286, 74.9%), school schedule (n = 205, 53.7%), school hours
(n = 170, 44.5%), school assignment(s) (n = 155, 40.6%), and avail-
ability of an experienced mentor (n = 156, 40.8%).
In the free response section, the SLPs were asked to respond to
the question, “ What three things do you like most about your work
environment?” The top five most recurrent positive themes in the free
response section were working with children (58.6%), collaboration
(58.4%), school setting (32.5%), school schedule (22.5%), and
administration (14.7%).
Of the 382 SLPs who responded, 155 (40.6%) indicated that they
favored their school assignment(s), with 271 (70.9%) respondents
assigned to one school, 69 (18.1%) assigned to two schools, 22 (5.8%)
assigned to three schools, and 16 (4.2%) assigned to four or more
schools during the 2003–2004 school year.
The data indicated that 156 (40.8%) of the SLPs favored the
availability of an experienced mentor in their personal working
environment. A follow-up multiple-choice question indicated that
278 (72.8%) of the SLPs had/ have an SLP mentor, and 100 (26.2%)
SLPs did not have an assigned mentor. Although 278 (72.8%) SLPs
reported having a mentor, 317 (83%) indicated that they had not
received any training on supervision.
Workload was strongly disfavored by 169 (44.2%) respondents.
Workload was defined in the question as “IEPs, paperwork, meetings,
etc.” When asked to specifically indicate how many hours per
week they spent on paperwork, 156 respondents (40.8%) reported
spending 4– 6 hr a week, 94 (24.6%) more than 10 hr a week, 87
(22.8%) 7–9hraweek,40(10.5%)1–3hraweek,and2respondents
(0.5%) reported less than an hour to complete paperwork each week.
Three additional features were strongly disfavored by SLPs:
misunderstanding the role of the SLP (n = 157; 41.1%), salary
(n = 153; 40.1%), and caseload (n = 132; 34.6%).
The overwhelming majority (n = 295, 77.3%) of participants in the
school setting were dissatisfied with their salary. Only 27 (7.1%)
reported that they were mostly satisfied with their current salary. When
asked about the approximate number of students they had on their
caseload, two responses were typically provided: 41–60 students
and 61–80 students (n = 1 17; 30.6%). The next highest response
was 81–100 students (n = 57; 14.9%). Of the remaining SLPs, 39
(10.2%) reported that they had 21– 40 students on their caseload;
22 (5.8%) had more than 100; 19 (5.0%) had between 10–20 students,
and only 8 (2.1%) had less than 10 students. Complete data in order of
district size are presented in Table 5.
Data from the quantitative responses concur with the descriptive
analysis of the free response section of the questionnaire. In response
to the follow-up question, “What three things do you like least
about your work environment?” the top five recurrent themes were
paperwork (42.1%), caseload (31.2%), school setting (26.7%),
salary (24.1%), and misunderstanding of the SLP’s role (18.3%).
Edgar & Rosa-Lugo: Critical Shortage of SLPs 37

In response to the question regarding how long the respondents
have been employed in the public school setting, 100 respondents
(26.2%) reported that they have worked in public schools for 3 years
or less, followed by 85 (22.3%) respondents who have been employed
in the public schools for only 4–7 years.
When asked how many years they planned on remaining
employed in the public school setting, 94 (24.6%) SLPs replied
4–7 years, 91 (23.8%) responded 8–1 1 years, and only 32 (8.4%)
reported that they anticipated remaining in their current position for
more than 20 years.
A cross-tabulation was performed to ascertain the relationship
between the number of years that SLPs worked in the school setting
(longevity) and the number of years that SLPs plan on remaining
employed (retention) in the school setting (see Table 6). The 94 (52%)
respondents who have been working in the schools for 7 years or less
indicated that they anticipate remaining 7 years or less. More than
half (n = 119, 61%) of those who have worked in the school for more
than 8 years plan on staying for more than 8 years. Results suggest that
if SLPs stay in their jobs past the first few years when turnover and
burnout are highest, then they are more likely to remain in the public
school setting.
To determine what, if any, interaction exists between longevity and
retention in the school setting to the positive features discovered
in research question 1, an ANOVA was performed at a .05 signifi-
cance level. Results indicate that there was a statistically significant
interaction and a small effect size between school hours and longevity,
F(4, 382) = 4.89, p =.005,h
2
= .055. There was also a statistically
significant interaction and a small effect size between having a mentor
to retention in the school setting, F(4, 382) = 3.13, p =.015,h
2
=.036.
There was a statistically significant interaction and small effect
sizes between retention and four of the five positive features: hours,
F(4, 382) = 5.99, p =.000,h
2
= .066; school schedule, F(4, 382) =
4.46, p = .002, h
2
= .050; children, F(4, 382) = 3.91, p =.004,
h
2
= .044; and assignment, F(4, 382) = 2.86, p =.024,h
2
= .033. There
was also a small but significant interaction and a small effect size
between hours and the interaction of longevity and retention in the
school setting, F(15, 382) = 2.09, p =.010,h
2
= .085. Results of
the data suggest that school hours, having a mentor, working with
children, school schedule, and school assignment all have a positive
impact on retention (Table 7).
To determine what, if any, interaction exists between longevity and
retention in the school setting with the issues identified in research
question 2, an ANOVA was performed at the .05 confidence level.
Results indicate that there was a statistically significant interaction
and a small effect size between longevity in the school setting and
dissatisfaction with salary, F(4, 382) = 3.99, p =.004,h
2
= .045, and
workload, F(4, 382) = 2.67, p = .032, h
2
= .030. There was also a
statistically significant interaction and a small effect size between
retention in the school setting and workload, F(4, 382) = 3.00,
p =.019,h
2
= .034. Interestingly, there was a small but significant
interaction and a small effect size between longevity and retention
in the school setting and dissatisfaction with salary, F(15, 382) = 1.80,
p =.033,h
2
= .073. Results of the data revealed that of the top four
negative features in the work environment reported in research
question 2, dissatisfaction with salary and workload have the most
impact on longevity and retention in the public school setting
(Table 8).
DISCUSSION
This study sought to explore the work environment of SLPs who
are employed in the public school setting. Five positive features were
identified in this study with regard to working in the public school
setting. SLPs indicated that working with children, school schedule,
school hours, school assignment, and the availability of an experi-
enced mentor were positive factors in working in the public school
setting.
The four main features of the work environment that were reported
to be areas of major dissatisfaction in the public school setting
include overwhelming workload, misunderstanding of the role of
the school-based SLP, dissatisfaction with salary, and large caseloads.
The four main issues found in this study correspond with ASHA’s
(2004d ) national findings of the four highest ranked challenges in the
school setting: workload activities (paperwork, time, planning, and
collaboration), caseload, others understanding SLP role, and salary.
Analysis of the data revealed that the positive features of school
hours, school schedule, working with children, and school assignment
have a significant interaction with longevity and retention of SLPs
in the school setting. In addition, the negative features of salary and
workload also have a significant interaction with longevity and
retention in the public school setting.
The respondents in this study noted that caseload was a major
source of concern. These findings are consistent with the national
results obtained on ASHA’s “ 2004 Schools Survey” (2004d). More
than half of the SLPs (59.7%) expressed concern about unmanageable
Table 5. Caseload of 382 SLPs in Central Florida’s public schools.
District <10 10–20 21– 40 41– 60 61– 80 81–100 >100 DNR Total
Brevard 3 11 12 60 21 0 0 0 107
Orange 1 1 10 17 30 3 0 1 63
Volusia 0 0 4 22 22 5 0 0 53
Seminole 3 6 7 3 14 15 3 1 52
Osceola 1 0 0 3 6 12 5 1 28
Marion 0 0 5 7 9 5 1 0 27
Lake 0 0 0 2 6 9 7 0 24
Citrus 0 1 0 0 4 7 3 0 15
Flagler 0 0 1 3 1 1 2 0 8
Sumter 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 5
Total 8 19 39 117 117 57 22 3 382
Note. DNR = did not respond.
Table 6. Cross-tabulation of 382 SLPs in Central Florida’s public
schools: Longevity and retention.
How long stay: <3 years 4–78–11 12–20 >20 Total
How long worked:
<3 years 25 29 14 17 11 96
4–7 years 24 16 14 19 11 84
8–11 years 12 12 11 17 6 58
12–20 years 6 14 22 21 4 67
>20 years 10 23 29 9 0 71
Total 77 94 90 83 32 376
a
a
6 participants did not respond.
38 LANGUAGE,SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 38 • 31– 46 • January 2007

caseloads in the public school setting (ASHA, 2004c). ASHA reported
that the average (median) monthly caseload of school-based ASHA-
certified SLPs is 50, ranging from 20 to 53 (ASHA, 2004d). The
state of Florida reported a median of 64, with a range from 38 to 90.
This study’s findings are consistent with ASHA’s, with the majority
of respondents (n = 234, 61.2%) having between 41–80 students,
which is well above the national average of 50. This aspect of the work
environment has been an area of concern and should be examined
as a possible contributing factor hindering recruitment and retention
of SLPs in the public school setting.
Results of this study indicate that 157 (57.9%) respondents felt that
other professionals did not understand the role of the SLP. Studies
(Sanger, Hux, & Griess, 1995; T omes & Sanger, 1986; Westby, 1990)
focusing on the role of the SLP by other professionals have noted
concerns about the role of the SLP with certain student groups
(i.e., English language learners, students with voice disorders) and
the adequacy of their training in specific areas (i.e., behavior man-
agement [Gidden, 1991], reading [Schory, 1990], and collaboration
[Secord & Wiig, 1991]).
Overall, in Central Florida public schools, the salary schedule
for SLPs is the same as it is for teachers: It is based on degrees held.
Therefore, approximately 25% of the SLPs in Central Florida who
reported that they do not have their master’s degree or their certificate
of clinical competence (CCC) earn almost $20,000 less than the
national average for SLPs in private settings and $14,000 less than
school-based SLPs nationwide. Furthermore, 75% of SLPs with a
master’s degree in this study earn $10,000 less than their colleagues
in the private settings and $3,000 less than school-based SLPs
nationwide (ASHA 2004d). ASHA (2000d) reported that 37.0%
of SLPs in the public school setting nationwide were dissatisfied
with their current salary. The median calendar-year salary for school-
based SLPs lagged behind that of SLPs in other settings by almost
$7,000 (ASHA, 2004d). In Florida, the median salary in 2003 for
school-based SLPs with a master’s degree in communicative dis-
orders was $42,000 ($11,350 less than the national average). For
SLPs employed in other settings in Florida with a master’sdegreeand
their CCC, the median salary was $54,500 ($1,150 more than the
national average).
Findings of this study indicated that there are more uncertified
SLPs in Central Florida’s public schools today than there were in the
state of Florida in 2001 (25.7% vs. 12.0%). The increased use of
less-than-qualified personnel has a tremendous impact on appropriate
service delivery to children, and it presents a challenge to public
school administrators in recruitment and retention.
Table 8. ANOVA between longevity and retention of 382 SLPs in Central Florida’s public schools and issues reported.
Source Dependent variable Type III Sum of Sq. df Mean square F Sig. h
2
Longevity caseload 2.5 4 0.6 0.43 .788 .005
workload 7.3 4 1.8 2.67 .032 .030
role 4.1 4 1.0 0.91 .459 .011
salary 14.3 4 3.6 3.99 .004 .045
Retention caseload 6.3 4 1.6 1.11 .353 .013
workload 8.2 4 2.1 3.00 .019 .034
role 4.8 4 1.2 1.06 .375 .012
salary 6.1 4 1.5 1.69 .151 .019
Long. * Ret. caseload 11.7 15 0.8 0.55 .910 .024
workload 13.6 15 0.9 1.32 .190 .055
role 10.9 15 0.7 0.65 .837 .028
salary 24.2 15 1.6 1.80 .033 .073
Table 7. ANOVA between longevity and retention of 382 SLPs in Central Florida’s public schools and positive features reported.
Source Dependent variable Type III Sum of Sq. df Mean square F Sig. h
2
Longevity hours 14.0 4 3.5 4.89 .001 .055
children 1.5 4 0.4 1.46 .214 .017
schedule 1.9 4 0.5 0.76 .554 .009
assignment 5.9 4 1.5 1.42 .228 .016
mentor 11.9 4 2.9 3.13 .015 .036
Retention hours 17.2 4 4.3 5.99 .000 .066
children 3.9 4 0.9 3.91 .004 .044
schedule 11.4 4 2.9 4.46 .002 .050
assignment 11.9 4 2.9 2.86 .024 .033
mentor 4.1 4 1.0 1.06 .375 .012
Long. * Ret. hours 22.5 15 1.5 2.09 .010 .085
children 3.8 15 0.3 1.00 .452 .042
schedule 12.1 15 0.8 1.23 .222 .053
assignment 18.5 15 1.2 1.19 .280 .050
mentor 14.7 15 0.9 1.03 .428 .043
Edgar & Rosa-Lugo: Critical Shortage of SLPs 39

ASHA has recognized the importance of supervision by specifying
certain aspects of supervision in its requirements for the CCC and
the clinical fellowship year (CFY) (ASHA, 2004b). In particular,
supervisors/mentors are expected to implement the 13 tasks of
supervisors and exhibit the underlying competences as described in
the ASHA position statement on supervisors (ASHA, 1985). Several
avenues have been proposed to develop supervisors/mentors,
including advanced coursework (Anderson & Shannon, 1988;
Anderson, 1988; Dowling, 1993, 1994; Strike-Rousson, 1988),
involvement in supervisory research ( Dowling, 2001; Grossman,
1998), practicums (Anderson, 1981; Brasseur , 1989), career ladder
programs, workshops and in-service training (Barrow & Domingo,
1997; Hagler & McFarlane, 1998), and professional growth oppor-
tunities (Goldberg, 1995; Heid, 1997; Kamhi, 1995).
A majority of participants in the present study (n = 317; 83.0%)
reported that they have not received any training in the area of
supervision/mentoring. Supervision is critical in those school settings
where many bachelor-level clinicians are employed. Mentors must
have the knowledge and clinical competency to serve as clinical
fellowship supervisors for those clinicians who are required to
complete their CFY (ASHA, 2004c). Schetz and Billingsley (1992),
in their review of SLPs’ perceptions of administrative support, noted
that staff who are supported experience less stress and higher levels
of job satisfaction and commitment. Given the number of SLPs
who are employed in the public school setting who are less than
fully certified (25.7%), and those who are enrolled in a graduate
program that will require supervision to complete their CFY (7.1%),
immediate consideration should be given to facilitating the professional
development of sup ervisory competencies in S LPs.
When establishing a program for mentors, four major tasks are
necessary: (a) selecting and training individuals to serve as mentors,
(b) matching mentors with protégés, (c) setting goals and expecta-
tions, and (d) establishing solid mentor programs. The mentoring
program should be founded on well-developed infrastructures using
sound supervisory models containing the elements that are essential
to responsible mentoring (Anderson & Shannon, 1988; Cogan, 1973,
1976; Costa, 1994, Costa & Garnston, 1994; Crago & Pickering,
1987; Farmer & Farmer, 1989; Pickering, 1987). For example, in
this study, the Orange County School District has demonstrated a
commitment to the professional development of supervisors/mentors
and the development of public school clinicians through the
development of a “formal mentoring program.” Five master’s-level
SLPs, paid on an administrative line, serve as mentors/supervisors
to novice public school clinicians. The importance of a caring ,
knowledgeable mentor to a beginning SLP cannot be overempha-
sized. Therefore, it is important that solid mentoring programs be
developed and implemented to advance the professional development
of mentors/supervisors in the public school setting.
STUDY LIMITATIONS
A major limitation of this study was the limited sampling of a
specific population of SLPs employed in 10 diverse school districts
in the Central Florida area. Although SLPs employed outside of
this area were not included in the present study, the information
obtained from this study contributes to the literature and serves as
an impetus for further exploration of the working environment of the
school-based SLP. Data need to be collected from other areas of
Florida as well as on a national level, in states that have experienced
net gains in populations with diverse growth patterns, to reflect the
perspectives of larger populations of SLPs of diverse backgrounds
working in similarly diverse public school settings.
Job satisfaction and the identification of specific factors that might
contribute to the recruitment and retention of school-based SLPs
continue to be areas for further research. Given the estimated growth
in the profession predicted by the U.S. Department of Labor (2001),
the profession of speech-language pathology is expected to have
57,000 total job openings in 2010 as a result of growth and net
replacements. Future research should sample a larger number of
SLPs from a variety of states to determine if the features that were
identified in this study are applicable to the working environment
of other public school SLPs throughout the United States.
It is recommended that a similar study be conducted on a national
basis using an online questionnaire to obtain the perspectives of
school-based SLPs regarding their work environment. Follow-up
interviews can be conducted via email or phone to allow for an
in-depth qualitative analysis.
Another limitation was the limited use and analysis of open-ended
questions. Although open-ended questions were used in this study
to obtain further information on the perspective of SLPs on their
working environment, a more in-depth analysis is necessary to lend
content validity to specific questions posed in the questionnaire. A
more in-depth qualitative research study is recommended to examine
the working conditions of SLPs and provide qualitative data.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Information presented in this study strengthens the need for
continuing research on those features in the work environment that can
facilitate the recruitment and retention of SLPs in the public school
setting. There are several clinical implications gleaned from this study.
There is a continued need to provide staff development to SLPs in
the area of supervision. Avenues to provide leadership opportunities
for SLPs are critical in developing the next generation of leaders in
the discipline. Mentors continue to be necessary to provide guidance
to the 25% bachelor-level clinicians who require ongoing super-
vision and the 75% master’s-level clinicians who require mentoring
during their CFY.
Salary discrepancy has been and continues to be an area of
contention in the recruitment and retention of SLPs in public schools
throughout the nation (Boswell & Crowe, 2005). Salaries of SLPs
should be commensurate with their advanced training and degree/
licensure. For example, the CCC, which is obtained after the SLP
completes his or her CFY, should be a factor that is considered in
creating salary differentials for school-based SLPs.
Changes in demographic trends as well as reforms in health care
and education have encouraged SLPs to reflect on their approaches
to service delivery and to expand the service delivery options they
offer ( Blosser & Kratcoski, 1997). Leaders in our profession have
continually questioned the effectiveness of current practices and
approaches in the manner in which students with communication
disorders are served in the public school setting ( Moore-Brown &
Montgomery, 2001; Sanger et. al, 1995; Ukrainetz & Fresquez, 2003;
Wiig, Secord, & Wiig, 1990). Despite the significant changes taking
place in education and health care settings, the development and
adoption of alternative models for providing appropriate services has
not been fully implemented or greatly expanded ( Logemann, 1994).
40 L
ANGUAGE,SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 38 • 31– 46 • January 2007

Changes in the way service is delivered to children with communi-
cation disorders are necessary. Conducting a workload analysis, as
suggested by ASHA, can provide the impetus for adopting alternative
models and continuing to provide appropriate services to children
with communication disorders.
There continues to be a need for incentive programs to assist in
preparing a knowledgeable and skilled workforce. Incentive programs
such as tuition assistance, continuing education reimbursement, and
compensation for ASHA certification and licensure could be used
as strategies to recruit SLPs. For example, these strategies can assist
individuals from CLD backgrounds to earn their master’s degree
and/or obtain professional licensure. One comment repeatedly noted
in the present study was that many clinicians (e.g., 50% of SLPs)
chose not to pursue licensure due to the expense of obtaining and
maintaining it. Florida licensure was a cost that they simply could
not af ford.
Partnerships between public school districts, community agencies,
and universities across the United States need to be developed in order
to increase the numbers of highly qualified providers. The Central
Florida Speech-Language Consortium, consisting of 10 school dis-
tricts and the University of Central Florida, is an example of an
initiative that addresses the critical shortage of SLPs in public schools
(Rosa-Lugo et al., 1998). This partnership tailored a graduate
cohort program for those SLPs employed in one of the ten school
districts in the Central Florida area to address the critical shortage of
school-based SLPs. An important consideration in creating these
partnerships is to require SLPs who are admitted in the cohort graduate
program to commit years of service to the public school setting for
every year that they are supported in the graduate program. This
initiative could address retention as well as support those students who
are committed to working in the public school setting.
In order for successful collaboration to take place between SLPs
and public school staff/administration, it is essential that the role of the
SLP in the public school setting is clearly articulated. Information
must be provided to administrators, other professionals, staff, and
parents in the public school setting to decrease the confusion that exists
about the role of the school-based SLP. This understanding can be
facilitated by allowing SLPs to be active decision makers and
participants in promoting their role and responsibilities to other
professionals and staff members.
Finally, the critical shortage of SLPs and retention of these pro-
fessionals in the public school setting continues to pose a challenge.
The perspectives shared in this study by a specific group of SLPs in
Florida can be used to identify some of the ways in which schools
and school-based SLPs can work collaboratively to create a positive
work environment. Further research is necessary to provide our
profession with the best ways of creating a work environment that will
facilitate the successful recruitment and retention of SLPs in the public
school setting. By implementing these changes, school-based SLPs
will be empowered to truly make a difference in the lives of children.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks to my Chair and Advisor, Dr. Lee Cross, for her
encouragement and support of this research. I want to extend my thanks
to the 10 district administrators of the Central Florida Speech-Language
Consortium for their support, assistance, and encouragement and for their
participating clinicians. Without their support, this study would not have
been possible.
REFERENCES
American Association for Employment in Education. (1999). Educator,
supply and demand in the United States: 1999 research report. Columbus,
OH: Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1985, June). Clinical
supervision in speech-language pathology and audiology. Asha, 27, 56–60.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2000a). Guidelines
for the roles and responsibilities of the school-based speech-language
pathologist. Rockville, MD: Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2000b). IDEA and
your caseload: A template for eligibility and dismissal criteria for
students ages 3 to 21. Rockville, MD: Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2000c). Roles and
responsibilities of the speech-language pathologist with respect to reading
and writing in children and adolescents: Technical report, position
statement, guidelines, knowledge, and skills. Rockville, MD: Author.
American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2000d). 2000
schools survey. Rockville, MD: Author.
American Speech-Language Hearing Association. (2002). A workload
analysis approach for establishing speech-language caseload standards
in schools: Guidelines. Rockville, MD: Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2003a). ASHA
barriers/challenges to successful recruitment and retention. Retrieved
from http://www.asha.org/members/slp/schools/prof-consult/need02/
barriers.htm
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2003b). Demo-
graphic profile of the ASHA member and nonmember certificate holders
certified in speech-language pathology only: January 1 through
December 31, 2002. Retrieved from http://professional.asha.org/
resources/factsheets/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.
cfm&PageID=23056
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004a). American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association summary membership and
affiliation counts January 1 through December 31, 2004. Retrieved from
http://www.asha.org/ NR/rdonlyres/F9922D9B-9BA2-4DDC-8C66-
CFA545714CDC/0/04memcountsTbl4.pdf
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004b). Clinical
fellowship supervisor’s responsibilities. ASHA Supplement, 24, 36 –38.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004c). Membership
and certification handbook of the American Speech-Language-Hearing
Association: Clinical fellowship requirements and procedures. Retrieved
from http://www.asha.org/about/membershipcertification/handbooks/
slp/slp_clinical_fellowship.htm
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004d). 2004 schools
survey report: Survey methodology, respondent demographics, and
glossary. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/NR /rdonlyres/A700FE99-
C454-44EF-9598-84B195E8D87F/0/SchoolsSurveyWorkforce.pdf
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004e, November).
Supply and demand for speech-language pathologist’s resource list.
Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/ NR/rdonlyres/9D2ECE6A-AC53-
4968-A973-0AF558CC4D74/0/WorkforceUpdateSLP.pdf
Anderson, E. M., & Shannon, A. L. (1988). Toward a conceptualization
of mentoring. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 38–42.
Anderson, J. (1981). Training of supervisors in speech-language pathology.
Asha, 23, 77–82.
Anderson, J. (1988). The supervisory process in speech-language
pathology and audiology. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Annett, M. M. (2003, April 15). Beyond school caseloads: Looking at total
workload. The ASHA Leader, 8(7), pp. 1–12.
Edgar & Rosa-Lugo: Critical Shortage of SLPs 41

Barrow, M., & Domingo, R. (1997). The effectiveness of training clinical
supervisors in conducting the supervisory conference. The Clinical
Supervisor, 16(1), 55–77.
Begley, T. M., & Czajka, J. M. (1993). Panel analysis of the moderating
effects of commitment on job satisfaction, intent to quit, and health follow-
ing organizational change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 552–556.
Blood, G. W., Ridenour, J. S., & Thomas, E. A. (2002). Predicting
job satisfaction among speech-language pathologists working in public
schools. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 33, 282–290.
Blosser, J. L., & Kratcoski, A. (1997). PACS: A framework for
determining appropriate service delivery options. Language, Speech,
and Hearing Services in Schools, 28, 99–107.
Bluedorn, A. C. (1982). A unified model of turnover from organizations.
Human Relations, 35, 135–153.
Bobbitt, S. A., Leich, M. C., Whitener, S. D., & Lynch, H. F. (1994).
Characteristics of stayers, movers, and leavers: Results from the teacher
follow-up survey ( NCES 94-337). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National
Center for Education Statistics.
Boswell, S., & Crowe, E. (2005, April 12). California clinicians gain salary
supplement. The ASHA Leader, p. 14, 19.
Boswell, T. D. (1999). Demographic changes in Florida: Economic and
educational implications. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/
pubs /florida /workforce99/index.htm
Brasseur, J. (1989, July). The supervisory process: A continuum perspective.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 20(3), 274–295.
Chiang, B., & Rylance, B. (2000). Wisconsin speech-language pathologists’
caseloads: Reality and repercussions. Oshkosh, WI: University of
Wisconsin–Oshkosh.
Chiu, R. (2000). Does perception of pay equity, pay satisfaction, and job
satisfaction mediate the effect of positive affectivity on work motivation?
Social Behavior & Personality, 28, 177–184.
Cogan, M. L. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Cogan, M. L. (1976). Rationale for clinical supervision. Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 9(2), 3–19.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Costa, A., & Garnston, R. (1994). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for
renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon.
Costa, L. (1994). Reducing anxiety in live supervision. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 34(1), 30–40.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2000). Special education teaching
conditions initiative: Bright futures technical report. Retrieved from
http://www.cec.sped.org/spotlight/cond/ bf_tech4.html
Crago, M., & Pickering, M. (1987). Supervision in human communication
disorders: Perspectives on a process. San Diego, CA: Singular.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design
method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Dowden, P., Alarcon, N., Vollan, T., Cumley, G., Kuehn, C., &
Amtmann, D. (2006). Survey of SLP caseloads in Washington State
schools: Implications and strategies for action. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 104–117.
Dowling, S. (1993). Supervisory training, objective setting, and grade-
contingent performance. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 24(2), 92–99.
Dowling, S. (1994). Supervisory training: Comparison of grade contingent/
non-contingent objective setting. In M. Bruce (Ed.)., Proceedings: Inter-
national and Interdisciplinary Conference on Clinical Supervision: Toward
the 21st Century (pp. 180–183). Burlington, VT : University of Vermont.
Dowling, S. (2001). Supervision: Strategies for successful outcomes and
productivity. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Edgar, D. (2003). A study of the work environment of speech-language
pathologists in the critical shortage area of Central Florida’s public
school setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Central
Florida, Orlando.
Ehren, B. (2001, January). Reducing caseloads (Special Interest Division 16).
The ASHA Leader.
Farmer, S., & Farmer, J. (1989). Supervision in communication disorders.
Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Florida Department of Education. (2001a). Profiles of Florida school
districts 2000–2001: Student and staff data. Tallahassee, FL: Education
Information and Accountability Services.
Florida Department of Education. (2001b). Projected classroom teachers
in Florida public schools by subject field through 2020–21. Tallahassee,
FL: Author.
Florida Department of Education. (2002). Critical teacher shortage areas
2003–2004. Tallahassee, FL: Office of Policy Research and Improvement.
Florida Department of Education. (2003). Membership in programs for
exceptional students, fall 2003. Tallahassee, FL: Bureau of Educational
Information and Accountability Services.
Florida Department of Education. (2004a). Enrollment size of Florida’s
public schools. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
Florida Department of Education. (2004b). Florida comprehensive system
of personnel development personnel data planning book. Tallahassee, FL:
Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services.
Florida Department of Education. (2004c). Florida school indicators
report. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
Florida Department of Education. (2004d). Staff in Florida’s public
schools, fall. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
Fradd, S. H., & Lee, O. (1999). Teachers’ roles in promoting science
inquiry with students from diverse language backgrounds. Educational
Researcher, 28(6), 14–20, 42.
Gidden, J. J. (1991). School children with emotional problems and
communication deficits: Implications for speech-language pathologists.
Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 291–295.
Goldberg, B. (1993, November). Recipe for tragedy: Personnel shortages in
the public schools. Asha, 35(11), 36– 40.
Goldberg, B. (1995, January). The transformation age: The sky’s the limit.
Asha, 37, 44–50.
Grossman, J. B. (1998). Contemporary issues in mentoring. Philadelphia:
Public / Private Ventures.
Hagler, P., & McFarlane, L. (1998, November). A field tested model for
supervision of support personnel. Short course presented at the annual
convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association,
San Antonio, TX.
Heid, L. (1997). Supervisor development across the professional lifespan.
The Clinical Supervisor, 16(2), 139–152.
Hinman, C. (1997, May 18). Minorities are majority in schools. Orlando
Sentinel. Retrieved from http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/o518maj.
htm /#top
Kaegi, S., Svitich, K., Chambers, L., Bakker, C., & Schneider, P.
(2002). Job satisfaction of school speech-language pathologists. Journal
of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 26, 126–137.
Kamhi, A. G. (1995). Defining, developing, and maintaining clinical
expertise: Research to practice. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools, 26, 353–356.
Kohnert, K., Kennedy, M., Glaze, L., Fong Kan, P., & Carney, E.
(2003). Breadth and depth of diversity in Minnesota: Challenges to
42 LANGUAGE,SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 38 • 31– 46 • January 2007

clinical competency. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,
12, 250–272.
Kritikos, E. P. (2003). Speech-language pathologists’ beliefs about
language assessment of bilingual / bicultural individuals. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 12, 73–91.
Logemann, J. (1994, November). Creativity plus activism equals a formula
for managing change. Asha, 36, 27–30.
Miller, M. M., & Potter, R. E. (1982, September). Professional burnout
among speech-language pathologists. Asha, 24(3), 177–181.
Moore-Brown, B., & Montgomery, J. K. (2001). Making a difference
for America’s children: Speech-language pathologists in public schools.
Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.
Nippold, M. A., Ward-Lonergan, J. M., & Fanning, J. L. (2005).
Persuasive writing in children, adolescents, and adults: A study of
syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic development. Language, Speech,
and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 125–138.
Office of Special Education Programs. (2002). Key findings for SPeNSE.
Retrieved from http://www.spense.org/
Pezzei, C., & Oratio, A. R. (1991). A multivariate analysis of the job
satisfaction of public school speech-language pathologists. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 139–146.
Pickering, M. (1987, November). Supervision research in human
communication disorders: A state-of-the-art review. Paper presented at
the annual convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Potter, R. E., & Lagace, P. (1995). The incidence of professional
burnout among Canadian speech-language pathologists. Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 19, 181–186.
Power-deFur, L. (2001, March). Reducing caseloads. The ASHA Leader,
pp. 4–10.
Rosa-Lugo, L. I., Rivera, E. A., & McKeown, S. W. (1998). Meeting the
critical shortage of speech-language pathologists to serve the public
schools: Collaborative rewards. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools, 29, 232–242.
Roseberry-McKibbin, C. A., Brice, A., & O’Hanlon, L. (2005).
Serving English language learners in public school settings: A national
survey. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 48–59.
Roseberry-McKibbin, C. A., & Eicholtz, G. E. (1994). Serving limited
English proficient children in schools: A national survey. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 156–164.
Sanger, D., Hux, K., & Griess, K. (1995). Educators’ opinions about
speech-language pathology services in schools. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 26, 75–86.
Schetz, K. F., & Billingsley, B. S. (1992). Speech-language pathologists’
perceptions of administrative support and non-support. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 23, 153–158.
Schory, M. E. (1990). Whole language and the speech-language pathol-
ogist. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 21, 206–211.
Secord, W. A., & Wiig, E. H. (1991). Developing a collaborative
language intervention program. New York: EDUCOM Associates.
Spector, P. E. (1996). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and
consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Statistical Package for Social Sciences. (2000). SPSS student version 10.0
for Windows [Computer software]. Chicago: Prentice-Hall.
Strike-Rousson, C. (1988). Supervisors’ implementation of trained
information regarding broad questioning and discussion of supervision
during their supervisory conferences in speech-language pathology.
Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Tomes, L., & Sanger, D. D. (1986). Attitudes of interdisciplinary team
members toward speech-language services in public schools. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 17, 230–240.
Ukrainetz, T. A., & Fresquez, E. (2003). “ What isn’t language?”
Qualitative study of the school speech-language pathologist. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 284–298.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). Census 2000 population, demo-
graphic, and housing information: Florida quick links. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2002a). Demographic trends in the 20th
century: Census 2000 special reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2002b). Population by race and Hispanic
or Latino origin for the United States: 1990 and 2000. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2003, June). The Hispanic population in the
United States: March 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Children 0 to 21 years old served
in federally supported programs for the disabled by type of disability:
1976–77 to 1999–2000. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). National Center for Education
Statistics: Digest of education statistics. Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report to
congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2001). Occupational employment projections
to 2010. Monthly labor review. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2004a). Occupational employment projections
to 2012. February 2004 Monthly labor review. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2004b). State occupational projections
for 2002–2012. Retrieved from http://www.projectionscentral.com/
projections.asp?page=About
Vaughn, S., Bos, C. S., & Schumm, J. S. (2003). Teaching exceptional,
diverse, and at-risk students in the general education classroom (3rd ed.).
Boston: Pearson Education.
Westby, C. E. (1990). The role of the speech-language pathologist in whole
language. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 21, 228–237.
Whitmire, K. (2001). The evolution of school-based speech language
services: A half century of change and a new century of practice.
Communication Disorders Quarterly, 23(2), 68–76.
Wiig, K. M., Secord, W. A., & Wiig, E. H. (1990). Deming goes to
school: Developing total quality services in school speech-language
pathology. In W. Secord ( Ed.), Best practices in school speech-language
pathology (pp. 1–8). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wisniewski, L., & Gargiulo, R. M. (1997). Occupational stress and
burnout among special educators: A review of the literature. The Journal
of Special Education, 31, 325–346.
Received April 15, 2005
Revision received October 31, 2005
Accepted June 16, 2006
DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461(2007/004)
Contact author: Debra L. Edgar, The University of Central Florida,
Communication Disorders Clinic, 12424 Research Parkway, Suite 155,
Orlando, FL 32816-2215. E-mail: dedgar@mail.ucf.edu
Edgar & Rosa-Lugo: Critical Shortage of SLPs 43

APPENDIX. SURVEY INSTRUMENT
The Work Environment of Speech-Language Pathologists in Central Florida’s Public Schools
By: Debra Edgar, MA, CCC-SLP
PART ONE: For items 1–23, please indicate the extent to which you favor or disfavor the following features
of your personal work environment with 5 being strongly favor and 1 being strongly disfavor.
START HERE
To what degree do you favor or disfavor the following
features of your personal work environment?
Strongly
Disfavor Disfavor
Neither Favor
nor Disfavor Favor
Strongly
Favor
1. School Hours 1 2 3 4 5
2. Working with children 1 2 3 4 5
3. Benefits (e.g. health insurance, retirement, etc) 1 2 3 4 5
4. Schedule (e.g. 10 month contract) 1 2 3 4 5
5. Educational Setting 1 2 3 4 5
6. Professional Advancement 1 2 3 4 5
7. Caseload (e.g. # of students) 1 2 3 4 5
8. Workload (e.g. IEPs, paperwork, meetings) 1 2 3 4 5
9. Parental involvement and support 1 2 3 4 5
10. Salary 1 2 3 4 5
11. Others’ understanding my role 1 2 3 4 5
12. Work space and facilities 1 2 3 4 5
13. Availability of materials and assessment tools 1 2 3 4 5
14. Administrative support 1 2 3 4 5
15. Access to technology 1 2 3 4 5
16. Training for special populations (e.g. autism, cleft palate) 1 2 3 4 5
17. Communicating with English Language Learners (ELL) 1 2 3 4 5
18. Serving English Language Learners (e.g. treatment) 1 2 3 4 5
19. Variety of daily tasks (e.g. treatment, meetings) 1 2 3 4 5
20. Collaboration with other professionals in my school 1 2 3 4 5
21. School Assignment(s) 1 2 3 4 5
22. Professional Development (e.g. workshops, conferences) 1 2 3 4 5
23. Availability of an experienced SLP mentor 1 2 3 4 5
PART TWO: For items 24–37, please choose only one answer for each question by marking an X in the box.
24. What is the approximate number of students you have on your caseload?
___ Less than 10 students
___ 10–20 students
___ 21– 40 students
___ 41– 60 students
___ 61– 80 students
___ 81–100 students
___ More than 100 students
25. On average, how many hours per week do you spend on paperwork?
___ Less than 1 hour/week
___ 1–3 hours/week
___ 4– 6 hours/week
___ 7–9 hours/week
___ More than 10 hours/week
44 LANGUAGE,SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 38 • 31– 46 • January 2007

26. Do/Did you have a Speech Language Pathologist (SLP) mentor/supervisor?
___ Yes
___ No
27. Did you have any college training/courses on supervision (e.g. becoming a SLP supervisor)?
___ Yes
___ No
28. What is the number of schools to which you are assigned this school year?
___ 1 School
___ 2 Schools
___ 3 Schools
___ 4 or more schools
29. How many years have you been a Speech Language Pathologist in the public school setting?
___ 3 years or fewer
___ 4–7 years
___ 8–11 years
___ 12–20 years
___ More than 20 years
30. How many years do you anticipate remaining in your current position in the public schools?
___ 3 years or fewer
___ 4–7 years
___ 8–11 years
___ 12–20 years
___ More than 20 years
31. How satisfied are you with your current salary in the public schools?
___ Mostly satisfied
___ Mostly dissatisfied
32. What academic degree do you currently hold?
___ Bachelor’s Degree in Communicative Disorders
___ Master’s Degree in Communicative Disorders (Skip to question 34)
___ Other - Please specify: __________________________________
33. Which of the following best describes why you currently do NOT have a Master’s degree in Communicative
Disorders?
___ I am currently enrolled in a graduate program in Communicative Disorders
___ I have applied and been accepted but am not enrolled in any classes
___ I have not yet applied to a graduate program in Communicative Disorders
___ I have applied but have not received a decision from the graduate program
___ I have applied but was denied admittance
___ I do not plan on applying to a graduate program /continuing my education
___ I have been “ grandfathered” in and am not required to have a Master’s Degree
___ I am employed in a “ sparsity” district and have a 3 yr temporary certificate
34. Do you hold Florida state licensure in speech language pathology?
___ Yes
___ No
35. Do you provide services (e.g. are you employed) as a contracted SLP?
___ Yes
___ No
36. To what extent do you favor or oppose the use of assistants with a 2-year degree from a community college in
communicative disorders to assist speech therapists in the schools?
___ Strongly favor
___ Somewhat favor
___ Neither favor nor oppose
___ Somewhat oppose
___ Strongly oppose
37. In what county/district are you currently employed?
___ Brevard ___ Citrus ___ Flagler ___ Lake ___ Marion
___ Orange ___ Osceola ___ Seminole ___ Sumter ___ Volusia
Edgar & Rosa-Lugo: Critical Shortage of SLPs 45

PART THREE: Demographic Information
(This information will help us understand how Central Florida is meeting the needs of students
from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse backgrounds)
38. What is your ethnic/racial background?
___ White
___ Multiracial
___ Other — Please specify: _________________________
39. Do you speak a language(s) other than English?
___ Yes (If so, what language(s) _____________________)
___ No
40. Which of the following age categories describes you?
___ 30 or younger
___ 31– 40
___ 41–50
___ 51 or older
41. What is your gender?
___ Female
___ Male
PART FOUR: Free Response Section
42. What three things do you like most about your work environment?
1)
2)
3)
43. What three things do you like least about your work environment?
1)
2)
3)
Thank you for taking time to complete this questionnaire. Your assistance is greatly appreciated and will contribute
to the body of research regarding Speech-Language Pathologists in the public school setting.
46 LANGUAGE,SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 38 • 31– 46 • January 2007