Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Slpa Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teachers, parents and union urge Longview board to retain speech-language pathology assistants
Summary
Multiple teachers, parents and the district union told the board that eliminating three SLPA positions would reduce continuity of speech services, risk IEP compliance, and transfer unsustainable workloads to a smaller number of SLPs.
Several teachers, parents and LEA representatives urged the Longview School District board to reverse a decision that would eliminate three speech-language pathology assistant (SLPA) positions.
Tara Martin, a fifth-grade teacher at Olympic Elementary, said SLPAs "provide critical direct support for students at a lower cost to the district while allowing SLPs to focus on evaluations, compliance requirements, meetings, IEPs, and many other responsibilities." Martin said removing SLPA positions does not remove the workload but instead shifts it onto an already overburdened SLP staff.
Lisa Roberts, who spoke as an SLPA, described rotating support across multiple buildings and the relationships SLPAs build with students. Roberts said she has completed required continuing education and stressed that losing SLPA positions would remove a face-to-face resource many students rely on.
Trey Fordman, speaking as LEA president, told the board the district may have difficulty recruiting SLPs and that SLPAs have historically filled gaps and maintained continuity of services. Union and community representatives asked the board to consider cost and service continuity before cutting SLPA positions.
The concerns included specific service effects: one parent described a child who received weekly SLPA support for years and argued that consistency was critical to progress. A parent in the meeting said the district has about 1,200 students with IEPs; speakers framed SLPA retention as essential to serving that population and to avoiding possible noncompliance with IEP requirements.
The board did not take a public vote on SLPA staffing during the meeting; the item remained a topic of active advocacy in public comment.
