A SURVEY OF STATE REQUIREMEN?S FOR
CERTflFICATlON OF SPEECH THERAPISTS,
1955

Thesis for fhe Degree of M. A
MICHiGAN STATE COLLEGE

Nancy 83959
1955

ii
i
2
F:

 

 

TH {-5.513

0-169

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
"A Survey of State Certification Requirements
for Speech Therapists, 1955".

presented by

Nancy Hagle

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

_LL;A;_ degree in MEG—h—

@019an 1.12.

' Major professor

Date 5119/55

A SURVEY OF STATE REQUIREKEITS FOR

CERTIFICfiTION OF SPEECH TXERAPISMS, 1955

BY

Nancy {unle

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Speech, Dramatice and
Radio Education

Year 1955

Approved

 

 

THESlS

 

 

1

The purpose of txis study was to determine the n:twre of speech
therapy requirerents throughout the United States, specifically, (l) to
provide a readily available summary of present certification requirements
for speech therapists in the United States; {2) to clarify the transfer-
ability status of the various state certificates; (5) to point out
adv:nces made in recent years in establishment of certification require-
ments in the various states.

This was a survey type study. The questionnaire was compOSed
of three main areas: (1) general information of the state's public
school speech correction pregram; (2) general and academic requirements
for certification; {5) transferability of certification.

The questionnaire with an accompanying letter of explanation
was sent to the superintendent of public instruction in each of the
forty-eight states and the District of Solumsia. The resalts of the
questionnaire were as follows: thirty-six completed questionnyires;

/
thirteen partial replies. The total of fortyinine replies comprised
100% return.

In addition to the questionnaire infornution was obtsined
through the investigation of four previous studies on certification
requirements. }

The mcjor findings of this study were:

1. Thirty-one states and the District of Colurbis had
estaslished, end put into effect in 1355, specific
requirements for the certification of the public
school speech theravi t.

2. The certification standards of the Various states were

based on the four-year college program with the

bachelor's degree in nearly all cases. In cddltion the
therapist was usually required to hold a teaching certi—
flCILte 0

Most Of the states replying indicated no reciprocal
agreewents in effect in regard to transferahility of
certification. Their procedure, in the main, was to
evaluwte each applicant individually, in the light of
their own requirements-

In 1955, twenty-five states reported having L11 three
provisions, legislztion, reimbursement and certification,
pertaining to Speech correction in effect.

States specifying definite standards for speech therapists
increased steadily during the period from 1946 to 1355.
There was a particularly noticeable increase between 1952
and 1955, wherein ten states were added to the list as
having such standards or expecting approval of proposed
standards before the close of 1955.

It was concluded that:

1.

There was a variation of requirenents between states, as
well as varied interpretation of course content required.

There is no transferability, as such, between states in
regard to certification of speech therapists.

There was a steadily increasing number of states engaged
in establishing legislation and certification pertaining
to speech correction between 1946 and 1955.

 

“WEI.-

 

 

A SURVEY OF STATE REQUIREMEXTS FOR

CERTIFICATION OF SPEECH THERAPISTS, 1955

 

A Thesis
Presented to
the Faculty of the Department of Speech, Dramatics
and Radio Education

Michigan State College

 

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

 

by

Nancy Hagle

 

 

ACKIIO'UIIEDGEI-EZETS

The author sincerely thanks Dr. Max Nelson, for
his interest and guidance in the development and
writing of this thesis. In addition, the writer
thanks Dr. Charles Pedrey and Dr. David Potter
for their encouragement and suggestions.

354758

TA'LE OF CONTEXT

I INTRODUCPION . . . . . . .-. . . . .
The Problem . . . . . . . . . . .
Importance of the Study . . . . .
Definition of Terms . . . . .‘. .

Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . .

II CURRENT CERTIFICATION REQUIiEiENTS F0

THERAPISTS IN THE UNITED STRTES .
SLumaary.............
III TAANSFEPABILITY OF THE VARIOUS STATE

IN SPEECH THERAPY . . . . . . . .

Iv 30KB ADVANCES LADE IN REGRET YEAR: I: ESTA LI3HMEHT

OF SPEE3H TIERAPY P OGRAMS IN THE JNITED STATES

Legislation . . . . . . . . . . .
Certification Requirements . . .
Speech Correction ProErams, 1955
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V SLII-E-ILRY AND )OI-I'ILUSIOI'IB . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPElrnIX O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

CERTIFICATES

\ .‘C ‘
Pjtijh

ll

14

LIST OF TABLES

3 ””3 Pics
1. State Certification Requirements for Speech
Therapists In Effect, 1355 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d,y

II. Status of States Without Certification
Requirements In Effect for
Speech Therapists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
III. Status of States in Regard to Legislative
Provision for Speech Defective
Children in the Public Schools,

1,t6 to 955 . . . .

IV. Establishment of Certification Requirements

[0
\N

as Reported Between 1:146 and 13‘55 o 0 0 o 0 o o o o 0

V. Legislation, Reimbursement, and Certification

I

in the Various States, 1055 . . . . . . . . . . .'. . 97

Chspter I

NTRODUJTION

~

The Problem

——-—e-..‘r- _
—.—-__- _... _

 

-———— .

The purpose of this study was to deternine the nature of speech
therapy requirements throughout the United States, snecifically, (1) to

provide a readily available summarv of present_certi§}93tion reguire-

 

 

ments for speech therapist in the United States; (2) to clarify the

transferabilitx status of the various state certificates; (5) to point

 

out advances made in recent years in establishment of certification

requirements in the various states.

Importance of the_$tudx

 

1

In recent years there nave been severrl studies done on certifi-
cation stand rds for speech therapists, one appearing every two or three
years. This may be due to the rapid growth of public school speech
correction prOgrams in the United States which has provided a continually
changing picture of the status and standards of such programs. For

instance, in 1945, Ohio listed seven certified therapists employed in

the state, and in 1950 listed almost one—hundred-l Two of the most

— —. -._-.- ~—_.. —_

1Ruth B. Irwin, snefiph-dfié.§€;£¥25_?BCrQDY (New York: Prentice-

recent reports, based on surveys done in the full of 1951, listed
Colorado, Georgia, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Tennessee as having
no specific certification plan for speech therapists.2 By April, 1355,
these same states had established such plans, with specific academic
requirements, and hassachusetts had approved standards to become
effective in Septeuber of 1956.

With this growth arose a confusing diversity of academic
requirements necessary for certification. Dorathy Eckelmann, in re-
porting on standards, mentioned a variation of 10 semester hours Of
specialized training in speech correction in one state, to 46 hours
of specialized training in another.5 An editorial, by Spencer F. Brown,
in an issue of the Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, regarding
this extreme variation of requirements from one state to another,
provoked a barrage of letters to the editor, which presented the views
of a number of persons active in the field of speech and hearing
therapy. Ollie Backus, in her reply, remarked, “We share the feeling
that this certification issue constitutes a serious problem demanding

eventual solution. This is shown by the strength of feeling expressed

 

2Dorathy A. Eckelmunn, “A Handbook Of Public School Speech
Correction" (unpublished Ph- Do thesis, The State University of Iowa,
1952), p. 195; and Ruth 3. Irwin, “State Certification In Speech And
Hearing Therapy,“ The Speech Teacher, 2:124—128, March, 1955.

5Ibid., Eckelmann, p. 197.

Spencer F. Brown, Editorial, Journal Of Speech And Hearing
Disorders, 17:260-262, September, 1952.

 

5
both by Dr. 3rown in written form, and my 30 many persons orally since."5
The need for adequ tely trained speech therapists, and tne
present variance of requirements for them, were described by the ASHA
Committee On The Midcentury White house Conference in a paper which
served as resource material for the Fact Finding Report of the hidcentury
white House Conference of Children and Youth, published in the fall of
1951.6

Considering the extent of variation of certification plans, it
would appear desirable that the speech therapist, the public school .
administrator, and educators and students in teacher training centers

be informed of current standards.

 

Definition of Terms

 

State: the forty-eight state departments of public instruction
in the United States, plus the District of Columbia

Requirements: Specified academic courses, clinical :nd teach-

 

ing practice under supervision, degrees, certificates, and professional

6 in preparation for work in the area of speech therapy

 

50llie Backus, Letters To The Editor, Journa1~9f_§peech And
Hearinggpisorders, 18:185-205, June, 1955.

 

6A3HA Committee On The Midcentury White House Conference,
“Speech Disorders And Speech Correction," Journa1_9£.§?§§E§mfifld_§93r‘
ing Disorders, 17:129-157, June, 1952.

 

I»
Certification: the formal approval of the individucl, by a

 

recOgnized or established state agency, to practice speech therapy

Speech therapy: the diagnoeis and treatment of speech disorders

 

Speech therapist: a teacher with specialized academic training

 

in speech correction who is engaged in the diagnosis and treatment of

speech disorders

Procedure

 

The information was g thered through the following methods:

(1) a questionnaire was sent to the superintendent of each of
the departients of public instruction in the United States requesting
information on their certification requirements for speech therapists,
the transfers ility of their certification, and the nature of the speech
correction program existing in their state;

(2) a second letter and duplicate questionnaire were sent to
the same office as the above, if a reply was not received following the
first letter; a third letter and questionnaire were sent by special
delivery in cases where a response had still not been elicited;

(5) investigation of published and unpublished material on the
subject, to indicate advances in speech therapy prOgrams throughout the

United States-

CHAPTER II

CGRREET CERTIFICATION REQUIRE33.TS
FOR SPEECH THERAPISTS IN TEE UNITED STATES

By April, 1355 thirty-one states, plus the District of
Columbia, had adopted a standard for the certification of sueech
therapists. Three states had established standards which were not yet
in effect. Fourteen states had not formed a basis for the certifica-
tion of speech therapists, and in most of these cases approval of
therapists hired was left to the discretion of the local school
district.

Certification practices varied considerably among the states
which had set such standards. A special certificate for teachers of
the speech handicapped was issued in some states, while in other
states the area of certification was designated as speech and hearing
therapy, or speech therapy and hearing conservation. Another practice
was the issuance of a certificate to teachers of exceptional children,
with specific requir ments in the area of specialization. States which
issued only the general teaching certificate endorsed the certificate
for the area of specialization in which the teacher was prepared to
practice.

The requirements listed by the various state departments of
instruction were the minimum requirements of that state. Teacher.

training institutions within the state frequently impose additional

requirements on their students. This situation is true in Michigan,

waere clinical practice is not specified by the state dep;rtwent of
education. However, it is required by the training institutions in
addition to the state requirement of public school practice teaching in
speech correction. Also, a state not having specific standards for
speech thera-ists may have well qualified therapists employed in some
school systens. This might be due to the presence of colleges in the
state which have strong programs in speech correction.

The questionnaire replies, in most cases, were received from
an administrator in the particular state's departaent of special edu-
cation. Kany or these departments sent printed material giving addi-
tional information. In some instances, part of the questionnaire was
filled out and then reference was made to the additional printed
material for the remainder of the information. This was particularly
true in regard to the academic requirements under part “3" (see
Appendix). In all cases, interpretation of the information received
was based on that which was specifically indicated by the state. In
several instances the bachelor's degree WLS not specifically named,
therefore, the writer could not state that it was a requirement,
though it may be one. -

One of the chief difficulties faced in recording the information
arose from the varying interpretations by the states of the categories
listed under part "8., l." of the questionnaire. As used in this study
they were interpreted as follows:

Speech correction courses, this area to include the subjects

 

WJiCh relute specifically to the speech handicapped person, such as
speech patholosy, and speech correction methods;

Related subjects, this area to include basic speech courses,

 

unless such courses ure indicated to be included with speech correction
courses, such as voice science, phonetics, and courses in psych0105y
and mental hygience;

Special education, this area to include courses specific to

 

the education of the exceptional child, other than those described
under speech correction courses and related subjects.
The information was compiled in the following order:

tificgtion Requirements For Speech

able Io State Ger
er ists In Effect, 1955

Th up
Table II. Status Of States Tithout Certification
Requirements In Effect For Speech
Therapists, 1955
In Table I, explanatory footnotes, indicated cy letters (a)

through (h), are used to point out the particular requirements of
individual states, as well as to explrin the interpretation, by certain
states, of the questions asked. Notes (f) and (8) within this group of
footnotes are used to designate the content of column 9 , Speech Cor-
rection Courses; column 10, Related Subjects; and column 11, Special
Education Courses, as interpreted by the various states. Note (h) of
the footnotes pertrins to provisional conditions wherever indicated,
otherwise, all requirexents given are for the standard certificate. All
information from the various states was collected during March and

April, 1955. Table I and Ta 1e II follow on p ges 8, 9, and 10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

x . x *x A3 A“ !11"!|1114,1 M !x Jflwvx 1 emflhuem
. _ _ a _ w.
1 1-?!‘1‘. 1 I111- «1.11.1.1. .. 1 1 .l 1 - I, a a .11--
neon Hm ooom 4 NH Aw QH _ m w i x eoewmflsoq
_ M . - . . .1- -. - -.11!1- -1111.1.1!--111!111! ,.
1-1 m -1_.1m.111.-.a. i a x. _ x gamma
_ u i _
,_ 1 H1 1.1 o M F
a ooom x d 1 NH 93 *0m 1 x w s w, x g x memcem
11111-1» . h . h _ . -11.,1 .: -1 . 11
m . ooom ma o AH HH _ Monx x x w aeoH
, _ _
a, a 1 s ...... a H- n11 1 11-1.! 1! 11.x i; 41.111.5ng
“ _ L M “
.1mooH.1-:oeoH m n _ a a, h x x a x .Wfloenflmm.
, _ 31am. _ 3 3 m a ._
3x 188.-.. -ch - . 1. ..... 1-1 3 .I1W.Hm . 1- 11!va sag! -1! 1!, 1 ! -11. . x 1 damage
1 _
1! 1 -11!!!!!f!1l! 1 .1!!!!J!! .11 !1 +
1e w m NH 0H m x . x _ x _ sensoaa
I . --. 1. . 1 ! 1111!. H a
x K x N X fiCOd M w x s x ”H00 %0 .vaQ
i U _
II. o - . .- .. 1 . . 1' .' 9.11.1.1 .1. 1 hr] I1! . . 1+1- . 111.1 11! 1 I 1111'. 1 v 1|. 1 ' 5 1|.
oooH ma Agvmfi Amwewa a H _ H _ x onesefioa
T1!1!!.1 l1 1!! 111 1 .1l111--1.11-+. 1 1 . _ 1 1.1 «T L__ 1' +
w NHXJ * Hm a a i . x Ages _ poowvooccoc
, t .1 i . -1 at .111!-_.!112T.;111 14:
08m . om covea _ *m.mH x x _ x oeaaofloo
x N x 1, .1w- x x 11, x 1M M31 x a ewnuowwaam
!fl,fl a 2 Sea was 1:1m a m we H
w . a a Howe was” .Speg w
{Coow .owua new mom “epoch _ mom .Aomzm .oam. 10mmw Imomm.mm aw i
.am can Hes innsOO 1p500 . 195m shooo . mason Acfiwzo opsefl m henna emu”
.noee WIHoflHe w.ooeo .oswe we .uuoo i .0: adfluocv Iwwpnoo M .Iwown
.uoadm~.uea5m “ .oew W .eeom spadem accomm_ fleece occofiuomxm mcflnoeoe m m.soao£oem
M ! L , _ ,
Amaze: gooHo mopeofleow =ouu 1 o
musos umpmmuem CH mpCQSmafiswms OHEoeeow mpsoseuH3wou Henozcw

 

 

 

 

 

till-fall! .1’l11 null

 

 

mama “Bowmmm 3H mHmHmdmrwe mommmm moa memmmmmHDOmm ZOHB«0HmHBmms

H Emma.

 

me<9m

PL

 

opeeflmflvuoe HsConH>ono mopsOHccH

memsSOO seesaw owmsn mowsaooH
memnsoo soHpeQSme
Hefloeam one muoem25m empsaou ape” moesfiesH

(10.3:
VV

AA AA
11) CH
VV

Ase: mpsscehm Q0 use» one meaflscom Auv
mega Hefloemm CH economnoeco meaflseom Aod

no>fiw mmsfis> pend 0: van macaw poemOHenH Anv

vceaouH5¢ou neopwo monH< Amv

 

 

 

 

 

 

o, mpceseuHSee» dec vewmflooam mnefimouo mofludeg ow memssoo moesHooH*
p11 1 ._ 2 M NH NH “- mH “,1 x! x . fiancee;
11 .fl " . i ! 1 J I
oucm. . x x x . Awsqm x x efiofluafl>
11 . i n -\ :L i. . -1 1|
1 a _n ma x A waxes
I w x H N w A *qm x x commonsew
11- +1 - A /x soflfioaeo .m

_ .
. 1 - 1 an i w w ¢1w x M x -efice>ahmcoom
i
1! - . i. a . . . .1 .I
a _ > 1 x y x mm_ x w cowooo
.
11 :1 1 1 . . _ 11 a .- . .11.111 1 1 1 .I
x M x x * x Apuom mamm x x waoseaxo
08H 82 NH A hmH LEeN 1 , x x 1 one
88 a , waNH 1 x Sofie .n
!1 - 1 male . n 1mH. .. . . 1 x 11- - x -1dzHHoaen .M
c AMY"
m4. one VTN Q1: NHLN AmmméH a x x x View new
Aswcoofi Aswow a x a a 1 onx momoom 30H
1 , oooN - - 1, .- 1 1 - mH .1 mH 1 x Hmvx damages/H
mMWd1.11 -. x 1 x x vaofl M x - x anaemmflm
* .
!. .doom w: m . NH . m _ x 1- x - wamfimmwmwmm
11 -11 1.111v--11 1111-- . \ 11. 11!! 1 .1 a 1 1 H
- x x x s ommssH
o .- .. 2 A3 He”. a. :H
e _ e e 3 NH _ x _. x gamete.“
1 1 1! 11 W L n 1L
i. ,1H 2 HH 2 1 e w - a. N to 1“ e _ m a N . H

fifiuJ .

10

TABLE II

STATLS OF STATES {ITLOUT CERTIFICATION
REQJIREgg TS In EFFECT FOR erases T;ERA?ISTS, 1955

 

 

. —...- ,__ . .w'--— -w“- .-._-

 

 

-~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

States reporting Have establish— Interest IndiCnted that

no specific certi- ed requirements indicated in speech thera—

fication require- which are not yet requirements, pists are employ-

ments for speech (1) approved; may soon be ed in various

therapists {2) in effect under consid— cities and
eration d stricts*

1. Alabama x . x

2. Arizona x

3- Arkansas x(l)

4. Idaho

5. Maine __ x

6. Massachusetts x(2)

7. Montana x x

 

5- Nevada

 

9 - New Hampshire

 

10- New Mexico x
11. Rhode Island
12. South Dakota x

15. Utah xfil)

 

1#. Vermont

 

li- Virginia §W.2¥ x x

16. Washington x

 

17. Wyoming x

*No certification requirements are in effect, but various cities and

districts do employ therapists within their local jurisdictions-

11

Summary

Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia contributed to
the study. The certification standards reported by the various states
were based on the four-year college program with the bachelor's degree,
with the exception of New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, and Texas. Though
it was not specified in their reply to this study, two of these states,
New Jersey and Texas, were reported as requiring the bachelor's degree
by the United States Department of Education.1

In summary, the following generalizations appear to be warranted:

I Summary of States

 

a) Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia had established
and put into effect in 1955, specific requirements for the
public school speech therapist. These states were: Califor-
nia, Colorado, Sonnecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Florida,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Louisi-
ana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska,

New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

b) Of the states heard from, seventeen did not have definite
standards for speech therapists in effect in 1955. These
states were: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Maine,
_Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West
Virginia, and Wyoming.

0) Two states, California and New Jersey, were engaged in the
revision of their requirements. Oregon reported a new certi-
fication plan effective on July 1, 1956. New York had

 

1United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
State Certification Requirements For Teachers of Exceptional Children
(Bulletin, 1954, No. 1 Washington: United States Government Printing
Office, 1954), pp. 55-40.

 

l2

prOposed a new certification plxn which hrd not yet been
approved-

d) Two states, Tennessee and hassachusetts, had estaolished
standards effective September, 1955, nnd SeptemKer, ly56,
respectively. Arkansas was currently outlining certification
requirements for which they did not expect final approval
before fall, 1955. Utah expected approval of proposed
requirements in April, 1355.

6) Wyoming had a general certification plrn for all teachers of
special edacation, with no special requirements for speech
tierapists. West Virginia's speech therapists held teaching
certificates of some kind and Bad an undergraduate major in
speech pathOIOgy. .

f) Four states, Alabama, Montana, South Dakota, and Nest
Virginia, indicated interest in the establishment of certi-
fication standards.

g) Two states, Minnesota and Illinois, indicated they had two
certification plans under which the speech therapist could
qualify.-

II Summaryggf Requirements

 

a) Nebraska and South Carolina specified the requirements of the
American Speech and hearing Association (see Appendix). In
addition, Nebraska required a regular teaching certificate.

b) Generally, the speech therapist was considered a teacher, and
in addition to the bachelor's degree was required to hold a
Valid teacher's certificate. However, at least six states did
not require a teaching certificate. Those were: Connecticut,
Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota (under one plan), South Carolina,
and Tennessee. Maryland required one year of gradiate study
in addition to the bachelor's degree.

0) Some of the states issued a provisional or limited certificate
upon completion of the four-year prOgram which is valid for
several years if further training is taken for renewal from
time to time. The standard, or professional certificate, is
offered upon the equivalent of a five-year prOgram and pro-
fessional experience, in many cases.

d) Most of the states required some work to de taken in the area
of hearing problems and hearing testing. Courses in lip read-
ing, and sometimes in clinical practice 0f lip reading, were

e)

f)

15

required by a num er of states. Connecticut, Delaware, Mary-
land, and Ohio issued a speech and hearing certificate.

Some states allow either a certain number of years professional
teaching eXperience of speech defective children or a minimum
number of semester hours of practice teaching in speech
correction.

The required number of semester hours in speech correction
courses ranged from seven in one state to thirty in another.

3) Nearly all states included 100 to 200 clock hours of clinical

practice in speech correction as a requirement. Some states
specified that this could be divided between clinical or
public school practice teaching or that one of the other was
acceptable.

h) tany states allowed temporary certification for one year if

an applicant closely approached the required standards-

CEAPTER III
TRAUSFBRABILITY OF TLE VARIOJS STATE CERTIFIJLTES I] SPEE$ ITQERAPY

One of t1e pur303es oft his study Has to investig to the
transferability of a speech therapist's certification from one state to
another. It was thought thgt, in some 0 scs, cer+ific1tion by one
state m'ght be accepted by another as v lid for work there, also. It
was thought this might be particularly true in the case Of neighboring
states-

Part "C“ of the questionnaire concerned tran i‘e erability between

tates of a speech t:erapist's certificztion. Administrators were
asked to indiccte their answers according to the prescribed form, with-
in which space for cog ents was allowed {see Appendix). M;ny officials

who filled out parts ”A" and "B“ of the questionnaire did not give any

ate for part "3"-

in

answers or com
Among st tes which gave derinite replies, there is a reasonably
consistent pattern to the effect tn-t there is no transferability as
such. thher, it appeared thrt the states eval'ated each applicant's
prepa ation inPividually to determine whether or not the applicant met
the pa rticuls-r requirenents of that state to which he was applying. A
response to the question which illustrated this position was given by
Florida. They st :ted th t there was no official reciprOcity; that many

applicants were accepted without additional work, but it ua because

they met the Florida requirements, not because they held the other

15
credentials. Kansas and Pcnnsylv nia also ind ehted that they con-
sidered applic nts according to individual perits. Other states whose
replies expressed this viewpoint were Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia,
Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North 3arolin:;,
Ohio, Tennessee, and Nisconsin.

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia replied only,
"None" or ”No reciprocal agreements“. They were Arizona, Californiz1,
Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Linnesota, Montana, New Jhrsey, Hes Lexico,
Oregon, Virginia, Washington and lest Vi-r sin is. 3olorado replied
that they did not have reciprocal agreements with other states, but
that they would grant a certificate to an applicant who was a full
member, 'in speech,‘ of the American Speech and Hearing Assoeiation.

A statenlent from n official of the ASHA w:s required to ascertain the
membership. NebrasLa and Tennessee also mentioned the ASHA requirements
as being desirable.

Kentucky, Wyoming, and South Dakota replied that they would
accept for certifiCation any fully qualified therapist from another
state. Kentucky enclosed a reciprocity regulation which they had
adopted. It indicated that if an applicant from another state had
completed a four year prosram of preparation, which qualified him for
teaching speech correction in that state, Kentucky would issue a

comparable certificate without additionwl work.1 North Dakota n med

 

1I-IimeOgrawhed sheet, attached to questionnaire return, and
giving statement indicated.

16

eleven states whose certification they would accept, but gave no other
comments. The remaining few states which accepted certain states'
certifications gave qualifying comments or reasons for the acceptance.

Two states mentioned reciprocity agreeicnts with other states.
They were Iowa and Rhode Island. Iowa specified a "Central States
Reciprocity Agreement," bet een Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska,
and Wisconsin. However, those states did not indicate such an agree-
ment in their replies. Rhode Island did not name participating states
but did 9 ate on the questionnaire, "Reciprocity agreement in effect
among Northeastern States.“ ther states in that area made no mention
of such a policy, though Connecticut replied that plans were being
nmde for all the New England states, and New York and New Jersey, to
accept each others requirements.

In summary, thirty-five states and the District of Columbia
gave some kind of reply to purt “C" of the questionnaire. These replies
ranged from complete statements of the state's policy in regard to
reciprocity to just the word, "None“. Thirteen of the forty—eight

states -ave no answer to this part of the surveY'

5
The following generalizations appeared to be warranted:

l. A majority of the states replying indicated no
reciprocal agreements in effect.

2. Many of the states indicated that they evaluated
each applicant individually, in the light of
their own requirements.

5- Two states, hode Isl nd and Iowa, mentioned
reciprocal agree ents with st:tes in their area
of the country.

CHAPTER IV

SOS-1E ADV ,lISES ILLDE IL? MECEQT TEERS CI; ES’ AELI Til-EXT OF

SPEECH TQEREPY PROGR".E-lS IN THE LJI‘FITED STATES

Legi s lati on

 

 

 

When Darrell reported on speech correction prorgrwms throughout
the United States, in 19146, he listed twenty-six st tee and the District
of Columbia as having; legislation relating to speech defective children.
He stated ti'i- t in a “Qjority of ccses the speech defective was specifi-
cally. mentioned, though in some instances he was included under laws for
handicapped children. According to Csrrell, there was considerable
vari:.tion in the provisions made by these laws. Some did little more
than give loopl school districts permission to employ remedial teachers.
In others the instruction was subsidized by the allotment of state funds
for each teacher.

In 1955 thirty-two states replied that they had legislation
Providing for speech correction in the public schools. Fifteen states
and the District of Columbia reported no such legislation. One state was
not represented (Massachusetts did not answer im‘zividus questions on
the questionnaire). This was an apparent increase 01" six states over the

M.\

1
Jou James Carrell, "State Certification Of Speech Correctionists,“
£31-91? §jpgech And Hearing Disorders, 11:92, June, 1946.

.——‘

18
15-46 report.2 However, when the listin' of states included in both
surveys was exmined (see Table III on the followinf; page) it was seen
th:_t six states, and the District of Columbia (which indicated the
presence of legislation in 1946), denied luv-ing- legislation for speech
defectives, in 1955- The six states were: Delaw: re, Louisiana, Maine,
Maryland, I-Einnesots, and West Virginia. Twelve st::.tes replied "yes" to
having legislation in 1955 wgich reported an absence of it in 1945. It
is possible that some of the negative snsvers to the 1555 study were due
to close interpretation of the phrase, “providing; for speech correction
in the put lic schools.“ In view of this, perhaps an increase of twelve
states is a more accurcte figure. States 2-111ich listed the provisions
of their legislation indicated that some lcws rel; ted specifically to the
Speech defective. Others showed provision for speech correction under
general lcws for the ec’icstion of exceptional children. l-Eew York,
New Jersey, and South Daicota menioned "physically hendic .pped children"
and specified children with speech defects of org-chic cause. only, 118
being Provided for under the statutes.

The state aws pert: ining to sueech correction in the public
80hools were found to Vary widely in extent of provisions. It was
difficult to com'ware the mumber of states having some l-zind of legislative
provision for speech defective children. This was due to varied inter-
pretaions as to what constituted provision for speech defectives and

thi_t did 1101;.

\&
21bid.

TLSLE III

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE: x indicates affirmative reply

SPXTUS C” STSTES IN REGARD TO LEGISLATIVE PLOVTSIOJ FOR SPEECH
IASFE3TIVE CJILLRZI N TIE PUBLIC SEIOOLS, lg40 TO 1&55
States 1?55 States 1946 1955
Alabama Nebraska X X
Arizona Uevada "
Arkansas X New Hampshire
California x New Jersey x X
Colorado x New Mexico
Connecticut. x x New York x x
Delaware x N. Carolina
Dist. of Col. x N. Dakota x
Florida x x Ohio x X
Georgia x Oklahoma X X
Idaho Oregon x x
Illinois x x Pennsylvania x x
Indiana x Rhode Island
Iowa x x S. Carolina x
Kansas x x S. Dakota X
Kentucky x x Tennessee X
LoHisiana x Texas x x
Maine x ‘Jtah X
Maryland x _—_—- Vermont _.——-
Massachusetts Virginia x ..
Michigan X Washington x X
Minnesota x W. Virginia x
hississippi x Wisconsin X X
hisssouri x , Wyoming x x
nontana :
— 1
Total 27 3

M— m

20

Certific tion_§§guir§gents -

 

 

V rious writers hyve contributed inforu tion of certification
requirements in the past few years. Among them were 3arrell, in 19h6,5
and Spradling, in 1949-“ Two surveys on certification st ndards were
conducted in the fall of l9§1. One of them, by Eckelmann, was reported
on in 1952-5 The other study was done by Irwin, whose findings were
published in 1955.6 In comparing these four reports, the writer again
found discrepancies in material presented- It appeared thxt the indi-
vidual investigators varied in their interpretation of what constituted
definite certification standards. Poasibly, one or more of the four
persons reporting included, as h ving specific requirements, any state
wuich had some sort of requirements under which the therapist could
qualify.

Despite this situ tion there appeared to #e a steady advance
among the states in regard to the establishnent of standsrds- Darrell
named fifteen states, plus the District of Columhia, as having special

certificates for speech correctionists. [The author's tabulation is

 

5Ibid., pp. 91-95.

ASister L. Cyprian S. Spradling, “A Survey Of State Require-
ments For Speech Correctionists,“ he Quarterly Journal Of Speech,
55:544-551, October, 1949.

 

5Dorathy A. Eckelm nn, "A Handbook Of Public School Speech
Correction" (unpublished Ph. D. thesis, The State University of Iowa,

1952). pp- 157-198-

_6Ruth B. Irwin, "State Certification In Speech And hearing
Therapy:y~2g@_§2§§gh;fe~cher, 2:124-125, Karch, 1955.

21
fourteen st tes plus the District of Columbia; He went on to say th-t
three more states had swch plans under consideration.7 Spradling re-
ported twenty-one states as having specific requirements, and four as
requiring the st ndards of the American Speech 3nd he ring Association

v
(see Appendix).U This iniicated twenty-five states as h.ving specific
standards for the speech therapist to meet in lfhi. [The author's
tabulation was twenty-three states in addition to four with ASHA re-
quireients] In Janu ry of 1952, twenty-five states, plus the District
of Colunbia had specific requirements, according to Echelnann.9 She
added that six more states had some kind of standard for the speech
therapist to meet. Irwin's report, which was published in 1355, listed
twenty-nine states as having a certification plan; nineteen states as

10 She eXplained thut of the states having certification

hazing no plan.
plans, fourteen had special certificates as part of the framework designed
for teachers of special educ tion or exceptional children; seven as

having a special certificate in speech correction; and five as having a
'certification framework under which speech correction ray Operate. The

writer found twenty-six states having certification standards in Irwin's

report. In 1;55, thirty-one states, plus the District of Columbia,

 

7Darrell, Op. Eit., p. 92. oSprsdling, Op. cit., p. 544-

9Eckelmnnn, Op. {33" p. 194. 10Irwin, on. cit., p. 124.

22

indicated definite certification standards.

In the present study the writer attempted to show the pattern
of advance in standards by listing the states reported by each investi—
ator as having certification plans. This was done in Table IV, on
page 25. Column 4 represents the states having specific certification
requirements in effect in ly55. Dates of establishment of requirements,
as given by the states, were included here for comparison with the other
three reports. Columns 1 through 5 indicate the states listed by
Carrell,11 Spradling,12 and Eckelmann,15 respectively. (Irwin's study
was not included, primarily because of difficulty of interpretation of
“definite requirements'.lh)

The states reported by :n investigator to have tentative
certification plans at a given time were generally reported to hav
established these plans by the investigator who followed him. Carrell
reported three states as having tentative certifiCation plans in 19#6,
Delaware, New York, and Ohio.15 These states were reported to have
established certification standards in 1h49, by Spradling.16 In 1352,
Eckelmann named six states as having some kind of requirencnts under

N ich speech correctionists could qualify.17 They were Connecticut,

 

llcarrell 3 100 o 9330 lzsprtidling, lO-C .- SELL-t:
l5Ecke1mann, loc. cit. 1l‘LIrwin, loc. cit.

16

l5Carrell, loc. cit. Spradlinfi, on. cit.

17Eckelmann, OD. Cit., p. 195.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TILJ'IE IV
EST.‘-.E3LTSiiZ-iENT OF CERTIFICATION REQUIRENENTS AS REPO;-=.TED
?ET’.~IEE;~: 1946 AND 1955
T _.
States 1946 13m? 1952 1:55 H States 191:1; 194; 1952 1955
fiT
Alabama 1‘ Nebraska x 3:
Arizona 7' x Nevada x
Arkansas N. Hampshire x
California x y x x N. Jersey 3: x x x
Colorado 161955) N. Mexico
Connecticut x x 1946) ' New York 2: x x
Delaware ‘( ' x g 1950) 13. Carolina x x 1951)
D. of o. x x y )6” 1010) II. Dakota x’1<,51)
Florida x x A 3; 1041) Ohio x x g 1945)
Georgia g 1051) Oklahoma 3: x 34 104(1)
Idaho if Oregon x x x E 11336)
Illinois x x x g 10.41;) Pennsylvania x x x x
Indiana x g 10,149 Rhode Island
Iowa x x x x 1 S. Carolina x
Kansas x 3905:)? s. Dakota
Kentucky x 1951) | Tennessee £10.55)
Louisiana x x x 5 Texas x x x
Kaine ' Utah
E‘Iaryland x x 5 Vermont
Massachusetts___ 7’ Virginia 3: x x 111950)
Michigan x x x g 1941:) :5 Nasllington x
l-‘Iinnesota x x x x 2'31. Virginia
Mississippi x g 1952) " Wisconsin 2: x x
fiissouri X x V x 1 Wyoming
Montana j
1;
Total 15 25 26 52

 

 

 

 

 

24
Mississippi, Kontana, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Washington. She
further reported th.t two states were setting up standards for which

’-
approv l was expected before the close of lf5l. They were Connecticut
and Tennessee- 3he also n mod the sta es of Ariansas, Kass chusetts, and
North Dakota as considering certific;tion requirements within a year or
two. .

In 1355 Connecticut, Nississippi, Tennessee, and North Dakota
had estadlished definite certification standards. In addition, Arkansas
expected approval for prepo ed plans before the close of 1955; Massachu-
setts had approved standards to sec0me effective in 1g56; and Utah
indicated approval of proposed standards was expected in April, 1 55.
Three more states, Colorado, South Carolina, and Georgia had definite
requirements by 1955.

Arizona was not included in this study as having certification
requirements since they gave a negative reply to this question. Other
studies hzve reported a "Special Service Sertificate" for speech
pathologists who h ve done graduate work in speech patholOgy. The

certificate allows them to work as consultants in the schools, though

not to teach.

SPGGCh Correction PrOHer , 1922

D__

 

 

The replies to part "A' of the questionnaire used in this
survey {see Appendix) gave information on the existance of legislation,
reimbursement, and certification standards in the various states. An

examination of the co-existence of the three provisions proved interesting.

25

Twenty-five states reported legisl:tion, reimcursement, and
certific tion, and all states which reported legislation hid instituted
reimuursencnt, with the exception of South )arolin . Four states re-
ported legislstion and reimbursement but no certification standards.
Tney were_Ark,nsas, South Dakota, Washington, :nd fiyoming. Arkansas
;nd South Dakota had just recently insituted the provisions :nd indicated
that certification requirements would soon he adonted. However,
flyoming indicated they had reimbursement since 1,21 for special education
teachers but no specific requirements for speech therapists. (Utah was
expected to hrve final approval of prOposed certification standards
srly in 1255 rnd therefare was not included with the other four states.)
Three states, Louisiana, hinnesota, and Iorth Carolina indicated certi-
fication and rein urse"ent cut no legislation. This nay, or may not, be
due to varied interpretation of the legisl tion in question. Delaware
and the District of Columbia reported certification but no reimburse-
ment or legislation. This mmy have seen Que to the facts that in
Delaware the state hired speech therapists to work in the schools; and
the District of Jolumhia is not a state. Tw western ststes, Idaho and
Nevada reported they had reim:urse'ent but no legislation or certifica~
tion pertaining to speech correction.

In a majority of cases, 'hch the st te had both certifiCLtion
and reimnursement they were established at approxim tely the same time.
Seventeen states xith ioth provisions in icztsd tae dates each was

establiihed. Of tJGSC, thriteen StthS provided for both within a

/

2f;

year of each other. finere the dates of estaUlishmcnt did not coincide

reim urse ent preceded certific t

Table V, on the following n 3e, illus+‘u es the prececin;
‘ieates tae presezce Of th.t provision

material. A caecked space in;

named at the head of the column. Dates Of establishnent of reinhurse-

sert‘fiCLtion are given if indicated by the particular state-

Informztion pertaining to the exisc,nce of 163l31;t on, reim-

bursebent, and certification among the various states was as follows

in Table V:

if
f

 

"
‘4’th

.27

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE v
I
LEGISLATIOI, REIXZJHSELSXT, nKD CERTIFIJRTlOH IX TIE VARIOUS STLTTS, lffifi
1!
States Legis- Iieim- Jerti- ;. States Legis- Reim- )erti-
1 tion curse- fica- ‘ 1 tion ourse- fica-
1;;ent t '- on '. me nt ti on
3|
Alabama ___. ____ ._*~ ; Nebraska _3;_ __Eil940) mg“
Arizona __ __ .i Nevada __ __)_C_ __fl
Arkansas .35. 7:035) __... t N. Hampshire __ __ __
California __l_<_ 7.71927) x H II. Jersey x x x
Colorado __x_ E1955) x 19533)" H. I-Iexico _— _ _—
Connecticut __:-__ x 19146) x 19146). New York 2 T 7
Delaware __ ___ 3: 1:50). N. Carolina __ "3271949) x 151)
D. of c. _____ . x 191.5) 11. Dakota _35_ x 1951) x 1951)
Florida _:3_ x 191a)» Ohio __x_ x 19-45) x 1925)
Georgia _3<__ x 1951).; Oklahoma __j/_.__ x x
Idaho '1 Oregon x x 1946) 771946)
Illinois E 319%); Pennsylvania 2 x 1919) Emacs)
Indiana __)_c__ A1949 ’2 Rhode Island __ __ __
Iowa __}E__ x 11 S. Carolina __)_(_ __l_c__
Kansas .25... x 1955)§ S. Dakota _>_c__ x 1953»)
Kentucky __a_<__ x 15751)i Tennessee __)_c__ 1: 19137) E13795)
Louisiana __ x !‘ Texas -_x_ x 1945) __J_C_
I-Zaine __ __ __ i‘ Utah .3; x 1951+) __
Maryland __ __ _x__ ! Vermont __
Iviassachusetts___ ; Virginia _3._ 31950) 311953)
Michigan __)_(__ 2119 41+) Zl9h4):. Washington _3:_ __x_ __
Minnesota __ x __l_c_ 3, 11. Virginia __ __
Mississippi __)5_ x 1952) A1952), Wisconsin __)_C__ x 1926) __x_
E-Zissouri __:_c__ x 1949 __>_:__ t: 'clyoming _3£_ x 1921) __
iontana __ __ ____ ‘3
Total 51 35 52
WM 3,,

 

 

 

[0
C 3)

SLtnllrlll

 

 

M teri I from fortl-eirht St;t03 and tae District of Columdia
?DS :iruczlnded in this chapter. Partial inform tion only was available
frmn Larissachusetts as they lid not answer individual queltions on the
survey -

Investigation of preceding reports on certification require-
:wntxs :revealed varied interpretation of what constituted legislation
provi.d:in{;ior Speech defective children. he definition of specific
certigfixzation standards also varied according to tJe p rticular inter-
pretxrtixon. This v ried interpretation of laws and requirements
pertuiliir@;to speech correction made it difficult to compare the
DTOViJBi'Dns and st.ndards in effect at one time m‘th those in effect at
enurther'. However, the following generalizations appeared to be

vmrranted:

1. Twenty-six states and the District of Dolumbia were F"?
listed as naving legislation relating to speech 2
defective children in 154*. ‘
' 2. Thirty-two states indicated they hzd some legislation a
providing for speech correction in 1355. .

Six states and the District of Columaia reported the
presence of legislation in 19h6 which denied having
it in l 55. Twelve states reported legislation in
1155 J.ich did not have it in 1946.

\N

 

4- The st te laws pertaining to speech correction were
found to Vary widely in extent of provisions.

5. States specifying definite sthdards for speech
therapists increased steadily during the period
from l9h6 to l 55. The numher of states having
such requirerents were reported as: fifteen and

29

the District of Coluwhia in 1&52; ~nd thirty-one plus
the District of Colum.ia in 1?55.

Zetveen the 1752 study and the 1555 study ten states
were added to the list of those having established
definite certification standards, or expecting final
approv l of prOposed standard before the close of 1 55.

In 1L55 twenty-five states reported a vlng all three
provisions, legislation, reimbursement and certification,
pertaining to speech correction in effect-

Twelve states plus the District of Columbia indicated
the presence of one or two of the provisions (legis-
lation, reimaurse eat, and certification) out not all
‘H

buree o

In most cases, vhere certific:tion and reimrursement
existed they were instituted within a year of each
other, with reimbursement preceding certification.

 

 

..
'-
'J‘QA
.

CHAPTER V

SUMEARY AND CON3LUSIONS

_SBL'PT‘fl

The purpsse Of this study was to determine the nature of
speech therapy requirements throughout the United States, specifically,
(I) to provide a readily aVaila.le summary of present certification
requirements for speech therapists in the United States; (2) to clarify
the transferability status of the various state certificates; (3) to
point out advances made in recent years in estaslishment of certifica-
tion requirements in the various states.

These purposes were accomplished through the use of a
questionnaire, and through investigation of four previous reports of
certification requirements among the states. The questionnaire and
letter of explanation were sent to the superintendent of public
instruction in each of the forty-eight states and the District of
’301umbia. Forty-nine inquiries were sent out. Thirty-six were
returned completed and thirteen were partially answered. That is,
they were fairly complete in parts "A“ and "B“ but did not give
information in part "C". This was a total return of lOQz.

Each of the chapters dealing with a specific phase of the
question was simmirized individuallv. From this the following

overall 3 smury would appear to be warranted:

\N
b—J

I- JertifiCation Requirements

a) Thirty-one st tes -nd the District of Columbia had
established, 'nd put into effect in l 55, specific
requirements for the certification of the public
school speech twerapist.

b) Seventeen states did not hrve definite standards
in CffBCt for SPGGCh therapists in ljfifi.

c) Two states expected approval of preposed standards
defore the close of l;55. One state had estaslished
standards which would become effective in 1956.

d) The certification standards reported by the various
states were based on the four-year college program
with the bachelor's degree. Four states did not
specify the degree-

6) Generally, the speech therapist was.required to
hold a "Valid" teaching certificate from the state
in WJich he worked. Six states did not specify a
teaching certificate.

f) host of the states required some work in the field
of hearing. Jourses in lip reading were also
named by a number of states-

g) Nearly all states included 100 to 200 clock hours
of clinical practice in speech correction as a .
requirement. Kuny also specified practice teaching
in the public schools with speech defective children-

II. Transferability

Twenty-nine of the states replying to the question
indicated no reciprocal agreements in effect in
regard to transferability of certification- Their
procedure in the main was to evaluate each applicant
individually, in the light of their own requirements-

IIIo Advances

a) Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia were
listed as having legislation relating to speech
defective children in 1;55. This was twelve states
more than were listed in 1)40. However, there were
five states, and the District of Columbia which
reported legislation in 1946 and denied such legis-
lation in 1355.

b)

c)

These

1.

\N

11 three

In 1995: twenty—five states reported A vin a
n certification,

8
provisions, legisla+ion, reimsuree.ent, a d
pertaining to speech correction in effect.
States specifying definite standards for speech
therapists increased steadily during the period from
1946 to 1955- There was a particularly noticeable
increase between 1952 and lL5" wherein ten states
were added to the list as having such standards or
expecting final approval of prOposed standards before
the close of 1y55.

Conclusions

 

conclusions were drawn as a result of this study:

There was a variation of certification requirements
between states, including those adjacent. Inter- '
pretation of content of courses required also varied.

The Great Lakes area nd central mid-western area
included a greater number of states with certifi-
cation standards than othcr areas of the United
States-

In general, tne academic requirements of the states
showed influence of the American Speech and Hearing
Association standards.

There is no transferability, as such, between
states in reg rd to speech therapy certification.

The states interpreted the phrase “providing for
speech correction in the public schools,“ in an
individual sense- Some of the negative answers
given by administrators regarding legislation in
1,55 would perhaps have been positive had they
been interpreted in a broader sense.

There was a steadily increasing number of states
engaged in establishing legislation and certifi-
cation pertaining to speech correction between
194C and 1955.

B IT) LI OGRAPE‘IY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ASHA Committee On The Midcentury White House Conference. I'Speech
Disorders And Speech Correction," Journal_9§_§peggh_§nd
Hearing Disorders, 17gl29-157, June, 1952.

Backus, Ollie. ”Letters To The Editor,“ Journe1VQf_ Speech And
Hearinngisorders, 18: 185-205, June, 1955

 

 

Brown, Spencer F. Editorial, Journal of Speech And Hearing
Disorders, 17:260—262, September, 1952-

 

Carrell, James. 'State Certification of Speech Correctionists,“

Journal Of Spegghmgnd Hearing Disorders, 11:91-95,
June, 19h6—' - -

 

 

Eckelmunn, Dorathy A. “A Handbook of Public School Speech
Correction.“ Unpublished Ph. D- thesis, The State
University of Iowa, 1952.

Irwin, Ruth 8. Speech And fiegring Therepx- New York: Prentice-
Hall, 1955-

 

 

Irwin, Ruth E- "State Certification In Speech-Andeearing
Therapy.“ The Speech Teacher, 2:124-128, March, 1955.

 

Spradling, Sister M. Cyprian S “A Survey Of State Requirements
For Speech Correctionists,' The Quarterly Journal Of

Speech, 55: 5#4-551, October, 1959

 

United States Departnent of Health, Education, and fielfsre-
Sta _t§;§§§tific§t}9n Re_quireg@nts For_Iegchers Of

E: :ceptionol Children Bulletin 1954, No 1- Jashington:
United States Goxernment Printing Office, 1954.

 

APPEI‘ID IX

 

__w
. v
_ w- ‘n ..4‘.‘ L 3

‘.fi'_ )- a

‘C rch 12 1955

"'1

car I-lr -

“--

Here at Michig;n State College we are making a study of the
nature of certification requirements for speech therapists in
the various states- Studies on this subject h ve been done
before, but due to the year by year growth of speech correction
programs in the United States, we feel that a study of require-
.menta existing in 1955 will be of v lue to students, teachers,

and employers in speech therapy-

To assist in accomplishing this end the enclosed questionnaire

is laeing sent to all State Departuents of Public Instruction in
the IJnited States. Rerlizing that your time is valuable, we have
desisgned the questionnaire to allow for answering without lengthy

discussion.

would be impossible to m kc such a study without the coopera—

It
Your ssistance

0f tdie various Departments of Public In trustifin.
1n tjuiw matter, at your earliest convenience, will be appreciated,

A sLLnnm1ry of the results will be forwlrded to you if you wish.

Yours sincerely,

(hiss) Nancy Hagle

 

APril 9. 1955

Dear

 

Some time ago we wrote to you regarding information on certifica-
tion requirements fnr speech therapists in your state- Since we
have not received a reply to our original letter of March 12, and
realizing that tge questionn ire may not have reached you, or has
been misplaced, we thought it advisable to send another cOpy.

Oun,request for informatien is part of a survey of certification

requirements for speech therapists throughout the United States,
1drich is being done here at Michigan State College. Due to the
zmrpid growth of speech correction programs in the United States,
we :feel that a study Of tue present requirements will be of value
tc» students, teachers, and employers in speech therapy.

Resrponses have been gratifying; to date, we have received replies
frcnn forty—two states- We hope that we will be able to include
all. of the states in our final results, and will appreciate

recreiving information of Washington's prOgrem at your earliest

corrvenience- A summary of the results will be forwarded to you

if you wish.

Yours sincerely,

(hiss) Nancy Bugle

\

April 27, 1955

 

Dear Hr. ” :

We have previously written you, on March 12 and on April 9,
requesting information of__ is public 38h031 speech therapy
program. To date we have received no reply. In the event the
questionnaire has been misplaced, we are enclosing another copy,
as we are most interC‘ted in including inform tion of..__-___ls

program in our final results. If you have not yet initiated a
speech therapy program in the public schools. would you so indiC¢te
this on the questionnaire. However, we would be interested to
know if plans for such a prOgram are underway.

To date we have received replies from Egrtv-five states regarding
their certification requirements for speech therapists. We feel
the value of this study rill be greater if all of the states are
represented. Will you please rush information of_"__.___is
program to us by return mail.

Your: sincerely,

1: ”rs-:2!

Nancy Hugle

or new”... .r‘
.v -:-‘ '. n'.
J:

 

.,,'._ ._ I

nf*“frwv
"I

 

”7
a

|

’;

Michigan St te College
East Lansing, Mich?gan
April 7. 1§55

Dear Sir:

We would like to thank you for your prompt attention
to our recent request for inform tion regarding certi-
fication requirements for speech therapists in your
state-

Response to our survey has been excellent. We
appreciate the assistance you have given us-

Yours sincerely,

Nancy Hagle

iJ

 

* “nu ,

,v
A.SURVEY OF STATE REQUIREEEKTS FfiR 3ERTTFICLTION OF SPEECH THERAPISTS, 1955
Name Department of__

——-——- —. . W—. . -- ._. __nn—‘n-n-n—n—

Position State of

 

 

If you hLVC printed data available I would appreciate receiving it in
addition to the answers given on this questionnnire.

A. GENER. L I2 Wf'R iTION

 

yes no

loDoes your state have legislation providing for :yeech correction in
the public schools?
comments:

 

2.Does your state reimburse individual school districts for the hiring
of speech correctionists?
a) If yes, wn‘en :as t is reimaursement first given? 19_
b) If not, do speech correction programs Operate loos lly in various
cities or districts?
comments:

 

-..—.—- -__..——,_... . —— -——....—-——— ——— ._—, -

 

5.13 there a coordinating officer or department in your state for
public school speech correction prOgrams? Piease specify
comments:

 

 

4.Does your state require certification Of speech therapists hired by
'-__ the public schools? (Exclusive of general teacher certification)
a) If yes, by what office?
1) “hen w s i.t first required? l9_
2) Have the overall requirements, for such certifi c tion, un er-
gone a m jar revision since 1950?
comments:

 

 

 

— 1.. ~ u———-——-

5oAre speech therapists sometimes hired before meeting all of the
state's requireients for certification?
a) If yes, how long may they teach without further meeting of the
state's require ents? ___months; ___years
comments:

 

 

3- EDIVIDUAL AND ACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS

I’leLSO chec: re uirezents hich pertain to your speech correction pregram. s 5
" V

 

 

 

 

 

 

__1- A specified number of credit hours in Ho: man} heure“ ** a!
_a) Speech correct courses S Q C
:b) Related subjects n(Psychology, Manta l Hygiene, etc ) S Q G
.___c) Special education courses S Q C
___d; G ieral edicat-)n courses 3 Q_C
Supervised clinical experience in sweech correction S Q O
f) Supervised teaching of speech correction (practice
teaching) S Q C

 

comments:

 

 

 

_—

c _.
tne ikmm.l approval of the individual, by a recOgnized or 93t8b113h3d state
or _federul agfincy, to practice speech theraPY°

 

**
hOLtPs indicated are semeiter (S). quarter (Q), clock (0). Please circle one.

7,0

2- Teaching certific te

 

 

 

 

 

_— __a) Ele entary __d) None
__b) Secondary __e) Other
__c) Either (specify)_“
5- Degree requirements _
__a) 3.1m. moz- Iiinor
___b) M-A. ' Major Minor
__c) Other (specify) Major Minor-

 

 

 

14. Professional teaching experience in
a) Speech correction Amount: months; _. years
b) Regular classroom Amount: months; years

0. TRANSFERABILITY OF ‘JERTTFICATION

Please indicate states
a) from which a speech correction certificate will be accepted by
you with no added requirements
b) which will accept your certification, generally, to the best of
your knowledge

a b a
1- Alabama 26- Nebraska
2- Arizona 27. Nevada
5- Arkansas 28- Now Hampshire

Ll»- California
5 - Colorado
5 - Connecticut

29. New Jersey
50. New Mexico
51- New York

7. Delaware 52- North Carolina
8- (Dist. of Col.) 55- North Dakota.
9- Florida f; . Ohio

10. Georgia 55- Oklahoma

11. Idaho 5» - Oregon

12- Illinois 57. Pennsylvania
15- Indiana 58. Rhode Island
14. Iowa ’9. South Carolina
15. Kansas 40- South Dakota

16. Kentucky 41- Tennessee

17. Louisiana 1+2- Texas
18 - Maine 45. Utah
19- Maryland 41}- Vermont

45- Virginia

46. Washington
47. West Virginia
#8- Wisconsin

49- Wyoming

20 . Massachusetts
21 - Michigan

22 - Minnesota

25- Mississippi
21! - Missouri

25 - Montana

IlllllllHIIIHIIHIIIIH
lllliilllillllllllilllli
IIIIHIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIH o-

lllllllllHIlllllllllllll

O Omnents:

 

 

If you would like to receive a smn'mry of the results please check here- ( )

  

gT-T's-I-‘TET Jr._"f,1_fi:’:f_':'.' TIJ‘T—ITT.

\

1.3,

r “In:

 

:
1

ho

Ninimum Requirements For Clinical
Certification By The American Speech And Hearing Associrtion

gener;l_Requirements

l- A bachelor's degree or higher as certified by transcriwts from the
awarding institution-

2- Nemhership in tne American Speech and Hearing Association as certified

by the Chairman of the Committee on Membership.

Subscription to tuC Code of Ethics of the Association as indicated by the

applic nt's signature on the application blank.

\N

Requirements For Zasic And Advanged Certificxtes

In Speech

(*Jontent of these items is required)

 

Semester Hours
Basic Advanced
1- Basic areas: 6 9-12
Anatomy and physiOIOgy of the ear and vocal mechanism,
’honetics, semantics, speech and voice science, psychol-
Ogy of speech, experimental phonetics, and similar areas-
2. Specialized, professional course content in speech
correction and speech patholozy: 12 21-24
Jourse content:
*At least two courses in speech correction
and/or speech patholOgy-
Elective: ,
Stittering, voice disorders, articulation
disorders, cleft palate, aphasia, cerebral
palsy and similar areas-
)linieal practicum:
*Basic: at least 200 clock hours; Advanced:
addition 1 equiVslent of 5 semester hours
in advanced practicum. {up to 20 hours of
audiology practicum may as applied)

 

i. Specialized, profzssional course content in audiology: 5 ‘-9 1
*Uearing problems and the testing of hearing. 5. a}
Elective: [ .,
Introduction to audioloxx, auditory, training, t 5
speech reading, speech for the acoustically £5?

handicapped, problems of the child with a
hearing loss and similar areas-
4- Other areas: 9 15-18

*Child psychology {or child develonment)
*Kental hygiene (or psychology of adjustment)
*Sandidates for the Advanced 3ertificate must

present a total of 12 semester hours in psy-

cholo y beyong the elementary courses
Electives in appropriate areas

 

 

5- Professional experience:

*Basic certificate: one year of preregistered
experience following the completion of the
above listed academic requirements-

*Advanced certificate: four years of preregister—
ed experience following the completion of the
above listed academic requirements for the
basic certificate-

41

Semester Hours
asic Adv nced

ROOM USE MY

 

JgN 27 1961 ‘

, W
rmv. .. ,
L
Mfg“?!

’— flux 1
’ If [1 “M
‘ry-“Ht - 'cM-“é ’

find! I”
~ 3

 

MICHI N STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Tail" u |||||H|| I

129313062 1472