Speech-Language Pathologists Are Doing Too Much Work That Doesn’t Require an SLP

I’ve been a school-based speech-language pathologist for more than 21 years, and there is something I’ve thought about over and over:

Why are we using some of the hardest-to-find professionals in a school district to do work that doesn’t require their expertise?

I’m not talking about evaluations, clinical decision-making, IEP development, specialized therapy, or collaborating with families and teachers. Those are exactly the things we need SLPs doing.

I’m talking about everything around those things.

Making copies. Chasing paperwork—and signatures on that paperwork. Scheduling and rescheduling. Preparing, printing, laminating, and cutting out materials. Creating forms, sharing forms, sharing them again. Sitting in meetings that could have been handled differently. Providing practice that could sometimes be supported by a trained paraprofessional, teacher, SLP assistant, parent—or even thoughtfully designed technology.

Then we say:

“We have an SLP shortage.”

We absolutely do.

But I think there’s another question worth asking:

Do we have an SLP shortage—or do we also have an SLP-time problem?

We may not be able to create more SLPs. But we can create more SLP capacity.

School districts across the country are competing for a limited pool of speech-language pathologists. We can’t solve that problem overnight.

And this isn’t just about caseload. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) distinguishes between caseload and workload. Caseload refers primarily to the students an SLP serves, while workload encompasses all of the activities required to serve those students—including direct services, evaluations, meetings, documentation, collaboration, planning, and other responsibilities.

Here’s a number that stopped me:

According to ASHA, for every student added to an SLP’s caseload, the SLP may have up to 10 meetings and 52 forms to complete. ASHA points out that this can leave less time for direct intervention and collaboration with teachers and families.

Think about that for a moment.

We’re often talking about how to find enough SLPs to serve more students. But how much SLP time are we already spending managing the processes that come after a student enters special education?

And what if we could reclaim some of that professional time?

Could some of it be spent in a preschool or kindergarten classroom instead—helping four- and five-year-olds with developing speech, language, and phonological-awareness skills before those concerns grow into something requiring more intensive support?

Not every child receiving early support will avoid special education, nor should that be the goal. Some children have disabilities and need individualized services.

But the question is still worth asking:

Are we using so much SLP time managing special education that we have too little SLP time left to help children before they get there?

What we can do is look carefully at how we’re using the SLPs we already have.

Imagine a district has an SLP with 50 students on her caseload. Her day isn’t made up of 100% skilled speech-language pathology services. Scheduling, documentation, materials, deadlines, staff communication, meetings, and paperwork all compete for her time.

Some of those tasks absolutely require the SLP.

Some don’t.

If we identify even a few hours each week that could appropriately be supported by someone else—or handled more efficiently—we haven’t hired another SLP.

But we have created more SLP capacity.

And in the middle of a staffing shortage, that matters.

Start with one simple question: “Does this require an SLP?”

I think districts could benefit from looking at an SLP’s workload task by task and asking:

Does a licensed speech-language pathologist actually need to do this?

If the answer is yes, protect that time.

If the answer is no, ask who—or what—could appropriately support it.

ASHA describes this concept as “practicing at the top of the license”. In its guidance for school-based service delivery, ASHA encourages SLPs to focus on professional services that require the skills of an SLP, while appropriate routine tasks may be performed by SLP assistants, paraprofessionals, or other professionals under appropriate supervision or in collaboration with the school team.

Could a trained paraprofessional or parent volunteer help organize materials?

Could administrative support help with scheduling or paperwork?

Could an SLP assistant provide appropriate services under SLP supervision where state rules and district models allow?

Could teachers or paraprofessionals carry over targeted skills between therapy sessions?

Could technology automate a repetitive process or provide additional opportunities for practice?

These aren’t ways to replace SLPs.

They’re ways to protect SLP time for the work that actually requires an SLP.

The same question applies to therapy

This is where the conversation gets more interesting.

A student may need an SLP’s expertise to determine what needs to be addressed, establish appropriate goals, select treatment strategies, monitor progress, adjust treatment, and determine when something isn’t working.

But does every minute of every repetition require the SLP?

Consider a student working on a speech sound.

The SLP’s expertise may be critical for identifying the error, determining appropriate placement and cues, selecting the right level of practice, troubleshooting breakdowns, and measuring progress.

But once the student can accurately produce the target with an established cue, there may be opportunities for additional structured practice outside the therapy room—with an SLP assistant, trained paraprofessional, teacher, parent, or carefully designed technology.

This idea is consistent with ASHA’s guidance on the use of speech-language pathology assistants, which emphasizes appropriate training, delegation, and supervision while preserving the SLP’s responsibility for clinical decision-making.

The SLP remains the clinician.

The student simply gets more opportunities to practice without requiring more minutes from an already overloaded clinician.

That’s not reducing services. Done well, it may actually increase meaningful intervention.