More Info > Facts
Facts
Facts related to Speech Pathology Licensure in the State of Oregon
Submitted by the Professional Standards Review Committee
July 6, 2010
Purpose: This committee is developed to investigate, meaning its function is to research (not take action), on the issue of consolidated licensure. The goal of this subcommittee is to provide the OSHA board and constituents fact-based information in order to 1) disseminate accurate information statewide regarding state licensure (Part One) and 2) outline pros and cons of potential licensing paradigms (Part Two).
Committee Participants:
Sharon Soliday-Chair Gladstone The Hello Foundation, LLC
Debbie Davis Pendleton UMESD, recently licensed, CSHA prior
Janet Wagner Portland Public Schools Affiliate
Elie Standard Medford SOESD
Pamela Camfield Corvallis LBLESD
Carol Tucker Coos Bay Coos Bay Public Schools
Andy McMillin Portland Legislative Chair-OSHA
Background Information: Two licensing options currently exist within the state of Oregon. Speech pathologists may choose to be licensed either through Teacher Standard’s and Practices (educational licensing board) and/or through the Board of Examiners for Speech Pathology and Audiology (professional licensing board). There is no standard approach to licensing. There is no protocol for clinicians and/or employers to consider when determining which license to pursue and/or require.
This document will outline the different criteria between the two licenses and address questions previously brought up by constituents and employers.
This paper reviews the following:
• ASHA recommendation
• OAR information/guidance
• PERS eligibility in relationship to licensing
• Status of Separate TSPC endorsements in relationship to licensing
• Union eligibility and participation in relationship to licensing
• Eligibility to obtain an Administrative educational license
• Eligibility to act as District Representative in special education process based on license
• Eligibility to bill Medicaid hours on behalf of schools in relationship to license held
• Eligibility for Federal Loan Forgiveness program in relationship to license held
• Continuing Education required by each licensing entity
• Monitoring of Continuing Education by each licensing entity
• Licensing expense
PART ONE
ASHA recommendation regarding licensure:
Committee member, Janet Wagner, spoke with both Eileen Crowe, Director of State Association Relations, and Janet Deppe, Director of State Advocacy, of ASHA. ASHA fully supports one all encompassing license to ensure standardization across the discipline within the state.
Ms. Crowe and Ms. Deppe also informed the committee that Maryland went through this same consideration in 2007 to specifically addressed SLPs working in the schools and their licensure between the state professional licensing board and the state educational agency. Maryland now mandates all SLPs working in the schools be licensed through the state professional licensing board.
www.asha.org/advocacy/state/info/md/mdteachrequire.htm
ASHA directly recommended that the state association not advocate for the disassociation between the professional state board and the educational licensing board. They also recommended against working to dissolve SLP licensing by the educational board.
In contrast, ASHA specifically recommended the following as best practice: all SLPs should be licensed first through their professional licensing board (for the benefit of profession specific over-site) but have the option to pursue the state’s educational license as a supportive secondary license at minimal to no cost. This model of collaborative licensing ensures clinicians meet professional standards in the areas of: eligibility to practice [education], professional practices across settings, continuing education, and ethical standards specific to the field all the while, protecting the interests of SLPs interested in expanding their skill sets through additional endorsements and/or licensing within the educational field.
OAR information:
The Oregon Administrative Rules refer to licensing (681.260) as through the State Board of Examiners for SLPs, but allows SLPs in the schools with TSPC licensing to supervise SLPAs with a permit from the State Board of Examiners (335-095-0055).
http://www.bspa.state.or.us/BSPA/pdfs/335-Proposed03012006.pdf
PERS qualification: Susan at the PERs office can find no distinction before or after retirement regarding PERS eligibility based on license held (professional state board vs. educational board). Right now very few distinctions are made between teachers and SLPS at the PERS office. The main one being how SLPs are allowed to return for work after retirement.**
**this is scheduled to sunset in 2014
TSPC endorsements: The TSPC website does an excellent job of clarifying license requirements to teach various content strands. To be sure this was accurate, we also spoke with TSPC representatives directly by phone.
For example, if you hold a basic teaching license with 3 endorsements, such as:
• Speech Communication
• Reading
• ESOL
the Speech Communication label is not a separate ‘primary’ license. If SLPs transitioned to board licensure from TSPC licensure, their reading and ESOL license would still be active and valid with TSPC.
Union eligibility & participation: The Recognition Clause in local collective bargaining agreements would govern whether or not employees are OEA members. The only issue would be if the Recognition clause is so narrow that it specifically includes only TSPC licensed employees.
There are 186 bargaining agreements in the state relating to licensed professionals in the schools. None have been brought to our attention at this time as to limiting involvement of district employees based on license held.
Obtaining Administrator status within the schools: According to the TSPC site, to be a school administrator in the state of Oregon, you need an administrative license. The representative for TSPC on the phone explained you did not have to have a prior "teaching certification" in another area through TSPC to pursue an administrative license. An individual would need a Master's degree in administration from an approved university.
SLPs acting as District Representative at IEP meetings: Heidi in the Licensure Office at TSPC (the educational license) stated that the issue of SLPs acting as District Representatives at IEP meetings is a District function. TSPC does not have and would not provide state guidelines for districts to follow. It is the decision of a district to determine who may be eligible to act as a district representative.
Medicaid billing within the schools & Licensure: The committee had questions as to whether type of license held by the SLP impacted eligibility to bill Medicaid within the schools. ASHA reports the following:
In order for Medicaid to reimburse for speech-language pathology, federal regulations require that the services be provided by or under the direction of a qualified provider.
Medicaid regulations [42 CFR 440.110 (c)] define a qualified speech-language pathologist as an individual who:
Has a certificate of clinical competence from the American Speech and Hearing Association (sic);
Has completed the equivalent educational requirements and work experience necessary for the certificate; or
Has completed the academic program and is acquiring supervised work experience to qualify for the certificate.
Eligibility for loan forgiveness: A question has been raised about whether SLPs would continue to be eligible for a specific loan forgiveness program under differing state licensure. Loan forgiveness is administered by Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation (TGSLC). TGSLC administers certain federal loan programs including the Family Federal Education Loan Program (FFEL) and the William D Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (Direct Loan).
1. The program provides for forgiveness of up to $17,500 in loans for a person who meets standards as a “highly qualified Special Education teacher.”
The first question is whether SLPs can be considered to be special education teachers, and the answer reported to our committee with interpretation was yes.
TGSLC reported this was entirely up to each state to decide. Each state has such different licensure requirements that TGSLC cannot make a single, unitary definition of these terms. Therefore, their perspective is that if a state considers Board licensure to constitute a “license to teach”, that is all that is necessary for the purposes of this program.
2. The next point is about being “highly qualified.” According to the TGSLC application, to be a “highly qualified” teacher, one must:
a. have obtained full state certification as a teacher or passed the state teacher licensing examination, and
b. hold a license to teach in that state, and
c. not have had certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis
Continuing Education Required
TSPC Board of Examiners Speech Pathology
If you have Initial I license, then from 2011-2013 you need to renew using the PEER Form from your District. Your renewal notice will be sent out 90 days prior. For an Initial II license, an applicant will need to show proof of taking 9 quarter hours or 6 semester hours of graduate classes.
An applicant cannot count Speech Pathology CEU’s for this.
Any university credit can count for renewal of the teaching license. Teaching license does not require discipline specific (speech pathology) classes. No one at TSPC audits these classes. Completion is verified by the applicant’s employer signing off on the PEER form.
Local university speech programs, including PSU and University of Oregon, do not offer additional graduate courses for working professionals pursuing continuing education.
Some programs outside of the Northwest, may offer graduate courses within speech pathology. No resources are listed by TSPC.
A Professional Development Plan is required to be completed for a Continuing License (typically a five year renewal).
A minimum number of 125 PDUs (Professional Development Units) is required each 5 year cycle. One PDU = one continuing education hour (25 hours per year on average).
The following “domains” are listed as PDU areas eligible to address:
1 = Subject matter or specialty.
2 = Assessment strategies.
3 = Methods and curriculum.
4 = Understanding diversity.
5 = State and national educational priorities
6 = Use of technology in education.
No discipline specific material is required.
Thirty (30) clock hours of documented and approved professional development are required every 2 year period. The following are approved for professional development hours:
Attendance or participation in educational programs where continuing education credit is approved by the American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA) or the American Academy of Audiology (AAA).
Attendance or participation in educational programs where continuing education credit is given by the Oregon Speech-Language and Hearing Association (OSHA) and other state chapters of the American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA); the Oregon Academy of Audiology (OAA) and other state chapters of the American Academy of Audiology.
Continuing education units (CEUs) earned through ASHA.
Attendance at educational programs where continuing education credit is given and approved by the Health Licensing Agency Hearing Aid Specialist Licensing Program.
Academic course work taken for credit with a minimum grade of "C", from an educational institution accredited by an appropriate state or regional body or approved by the Board. The courses must relate to the clinical practice of speech-language pathology or audiology. One academic semester hour shall be equivalent to fifteen (15) clock hours for professional development credit. One academic quarter hour shall be equivalent to ten (10) clock hours for professional development credit. There is a limit on the number of hours reportable for a single course; see 335-070-0020(5).
Self-assessment home study courses accompanied by examination and sponsored by a Board-recognized professional organization in audiology or speech-language pathology.
Speech-language pathology or audiology programs (in-services, seminars, workshops) offered by public school districts, education service districts, and hospitals for employees. Programs must directly relate to the performance and practice of speech-language pathology or audiology for the purpose of developing and updating professional skills.
CPR classes for a maximum of two (2) hours credit during the two-year licensing period.
A universal health precautions class for a maximum of one (1) hour credit during the two-year licensing period.
Special approval may be obtained by the board for alternative continuing education not listed above but relating directly to professional skill sets.
Resources for continuing education directly pertaining to speech pathology are listed on the board’s website.
Continuing Education Monitoring
TSPC Board of Examiners Speech Pathology
Continuing education credits listed on a clinician’s Professional Development report are not audited nor monitored once submitted to TSPC. Over-site and review is completed by the clinician’s employer.
The information is maintained by TSPC should a concern or complaint be filed.
Submitted by the Professional Standards Review Committee
July 6, 2010
Purpose: This committee is developed to investigate, meaning its function is to research (not take action), on the issue of consolidated licensure. The goal of this subcommittee is to provide the OSHA board and constituents fact-based information in order to 1) disseminate accurate information statewide regarding state licensure (Part One) and 2) outline pros and cons of potential licensing paradigms (Part Two).
Committee Participants:
Sharon Soliday-Chair Gladstone The Hello Foundation, LLC
Debbie Davis Pendleton UMESD, recently licensed, CSHA prior
Janet Wagner Portland Public Schools Affiliate
Elie Standard Medford SOESD
Pamela Camfield Corvallis LBLESD
Carol Tucker Coos Bay Coos Bay Public Schools
Andy McMillin Portland Legislative Chair-OSHA
Background Information: Two licensing options currently exist within the state of Oregon. Speech pathologists may choose to be licensed either through Teacher Standard’s and Practices (educational licensing board) and/or through the Board of Examiners for Speech Pathology and Audiology (professional licensing board). There is no standard approach to licensing. There is no protocol for clinicians and/or employers to consider when determining which license to pursue and/or require.
This document will outline the different criteria between the two licenses and address questions previously brought up by constituents and employers.
This paper reviews the following:
• ASHA recommendation
• OAR information/guidance
• PERS eligibility in relationship to licensing
• Status of Separate TSPC endorsements in relationship to licensing
• Union eligibility and participation in relationship to licensing
• Eligibility to obtain an Administrative educational license
• Eligibility to act as District Representative in special education process based on license
• Eligibility to bill Medicaid hours on behalf of schools in relationship to license held
• Eligibility for Federal Loan Forgiveness program in relationship to license held
• Continuing Education required by each licensing entity
• Monitoring of Continuing Education by each licensing entity
• Licensing expense
PART ONE
ASHA recommendation regarding licensure:
Committee member, Janet Wagner, spoke with both Eileen Crowe, Director of State Association Relations, and Janet Deppe, Director of State Advocacy, of ASHA. ASHA fully supports one all encompassing license to ensure standardization across the discipline within the state.
Ms. Crowe and Ms. Deppe also informed the committee that Maryland went through this same consideration in 2007 to specifically addressed SLPs working in the schools and their licensure between the state professional licensing board and the state educational agency. Maryland now mandates all SLPs working in the schools be licensed through the state professional licensing board.
www.asha.org/advocacy/state/info/md/mdteachrequire.htm
ASHA directly recommended that the state association not advocate for the disassociation between the professional state board and the educational licensing board. They also recommended against working to dissolve SLP licensing by the educational board.
In contrast, ASHA specifically recommended the following as best practice: all SLPs should be licensed first through their professional licensing board (for the benefit of profession specific over-site) but have the option to pursue the state’s educational license as a supportive secondary license at minimal to no cost. This model of collaborative licensing ensures clinicians meet professional standards in the areas of: eligibility to practice [education], professional practices across settings, continuing education, and ethical standards specific to the field all the while, protecting the interests of SLPs interested in expanding their skill sets through additional endorsements and/or licensing within the educational field.
OAR information:
The Oregon Administrative Rules refer to licensing (681.260) as through the State Board of Examiners for SLPs, but allows SLPs in the schools with TSPC licensing to supervise SLPAs with a permit from the State Board of Examiners (335-095-0055).
http://www.bspa.state.or.us/BSPA/pdfs/335-Proposed03012006.pdf
PERS qualification: Susan at the PERs office can find no distinction before or after retirement regarding PERS eligibility based on license held (professional state board vs. educational board). Right now very few distinctions are made between teachers and SLPS at the PERS office. The main one being how SLPs are allowed to return for work after retirement.**
**this is scheduled to sunset in 2014
TSPC endorsements: The TSPC website does an excellent job of clarifying license requirements to teach various content strands. To be sure this was accurate, we also spoke with TSPC representatives directly by phone.
For example, if you hold a basic teaching license with 3 endorsements, such as:
• Speech Communication
• Reading
• ESOL
the Speech Communication label is not a separate ‘primary’ license. If SLPs transitioned to board licensure from TSPC licensure, their reading and ESOL license would still be active and valid with TSPC.
Union eligibility & participation: The Recognition Clause in local collective bargaining agreements would govern whether or not employees are OEA members. The only issue would be if the Recognition clause is so narrow that it specifically includes only TSPC licensed employees.
There are 186 bargaining agreements in the state relating to licensed professionals in the schools. None have been brought to our attention at this time as to limiting involvement of district employees based on license held.
Obtaining Administrator status within the schools: According to the TSPC site, to be a school administrator in the state of Oregon, you need an administrative license. The representative for TSPC on the phone explained you did not have to have a prior "teaching certification" in another area through TSPC to pursue an administrative license. An individual would need a Master's degree in administration from an approved university.
SLPs acting as District Representative at IEP meetings: Heidi in the Licensure Office at TSPC (the educational license) stated that the issue of SLPs acting as District Representatives at IEP meetings is a District function. TSPC does not have and would not provide state guidelines for districts to follow. It is the decision of a district to determine who may be eligible to act as a district representative.
Medicaid billing within the schools & Licensure: The committee had questions as to whether type of license held by the SLP impacted eligibility to bill Medicaid within the schools. ASHA reports the following:
In order for Medicaid to reimburse for speech-language pathology, federal regulations require that the services be provided by or under the direction of a qualified provider.
Medicaid regulations [42 CFR 440.110 (c)] define a qualified speech-language pathologist as an individual who:
Has a certificate of clinical competence from the American Speech and Hearing Association (sic);
Has completed the equivalent educational requirements and work experience necessary for the certificate; or
Has completed the academic program and is acquiring supervised work experience to qualify for the certificate.
Eligibility for loan forgiveness: A question has been raised about whether SLPs would continue to be eligible for a specific loan forgiveness program under differing state licensure. Loan forgiveness is administered by Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation (TGSLC). TGSLC administers certain federal loan programs including the Family Federal Education Loan Program (FFEL) and the William D Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (Direct Loan).
1. The program provides for forgiveness of up to $17,500 in loans for a person who meets standards as a “highly qualified Special Education teacher.”
The first question is whether SLPs can be considered to be special education teachers, and the answer reported to our committee with interpretation was yes.
TGSLC reported this was entirely up to each state to decide. Each state has such different licensure requirements that TGSLC cannot make a single, unitary definition of these terms. Therefore, their perspective is that if a state considers Board licensure to constitute a “license to teach”, that is all that is necessary for the purposes of this program.
2. The next point is about being “highly qualified.” According to the TGSLC application, to be a “highly qualified” teacher, one must:
a. have obtained full state certification as a teacher or passed the state teacher licensing examination, and
b. hold a license to teach in that state, and
c. not have had certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis
Continuing Education Required
TSPC Board of Examiners Speech Pathology
If you have Initial I license, then from 2011-2013 you need to renew using the PEER Form from your District. Your renewal notice will be sent out 90 days prior. For an Initial II license, an applicant will need to show proof of taking 9 quarter hours or 6 semester hours of graduate classes.
An applicant cannot count Speech Pathology CEU’s for this.
Any university credit can count for renewal of the teaching license. Teaching license does not require discipline specific (speech pathology) classes. No one at TSPC audits these classes. Completion is verified by the applicant’s employer signing off on the PEER form.
Local university speech programs, including PSU and University of Oregon, do not offer additional graduate courses for working professionals pursuing continuing education.
Some programs outside of the Northwest, may offer graduate courses within speech pathology. No resources are listed by TSPC.
A Professional Development Plan is required to be completed for a Continuing License (typically a five year renewal).
A minimum number of 125 PDUs (Professional Development Units) is required each 5 year cycle. One PDU = one continuing education hour (25 hours per year on average).
The following “domains” are listed as PDU areas eligible to address:
1 = Subject matter or specialty.
2 = Assessment strategies.
3 = Methods and curriculum.
4 = Understanding diversity.
5 = State and national educational priorities
6 = Use of technology in education.
No discipline specific material is required.
Thirty (30) clock hours of documented and approved professional development are required every 2 year period. The following are approved for professional development hours:
Attendance or participation in educational programs where continuing education credit is approved by the American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA) or the American Academy of Audiology (AAA).
Attendance or participation in educational programs where continuing education credit is given by the Oregon Speech-Language and Hearing Association (OSHA) and other state chapters of the American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA); the Oregon Academy of Audiology (OAA) and other state chapters of the American Academy of Audiology.
Continuing education units (CEUs) earned through ASHA.
Attendance at educational programs where continuing education credit is given and approved by the Health Licensing Agency Hearing Aid Specialist Licensing Program.
Academic course work taken for credit with a minimum grade of "C", from an educational institution accredited by an appropriate state or regional body or approved by the Board. The courses must relate to the clinical practice of speech-language pathology or audiology. One academic semester hour shall be equivalent to fifteen (15) clock hours for professional development credit. One academic quarter hour shall be equivalent to ten (10) clock hours for professional development credit. There is a limit on the number of hours reportable for a single course; see 335-070-0020(5).
Self-assessment home study courses accompanied by examination and sponsored by a Board-recognized professional organization in audiology or speech-language pathology.
Speech-language pathology or audiology programs (in-services, seminars, workshops) offered by public school districts, education service districts, and hospitals for employees. Programs must directly relate to the performance and practice of speech-language pathology or audiology for the purpose of developing and updating professional skills.
CPR classes for a maximum of two (2) hours credit during the two-year licensing period.
A universal health precautions class for a maximum of one (1) hour credit during the two-year licensing period.
Special approval may be obtained by the board for alternative continuing education not listed above but relating directly to professional skill sets.
Resources for continuing education directly pertaining to speech pathology are listed on the board’s website.
Continuing Education Monitoring
TSPC Board of Examiners Speech Pathology
Continuing education credits listed on a clinician’s Professional Development report are not audited nor monitored once submitted to TSPC. Over-site and review is completed by the clinician’s employer.
The information is maintained by TSPC should a concern or complaint be filed.
The board randomly audits 5-15% of renewal requests submitted.
Clinicians audited must submit paperwork documenting continuing education. A series of fines may be levied for out of compliance continuing education.
Information is maintained by the board should a concern or complaint be filed.
The board reports they are exploring additional ways to monitor continuing education of licensees.
Ethical Standards
According to Oregon Administrative Rule 584-020-0035 the following are the ethical standards for educators licensed with TSPC:
The ethical educator is a person who accepts the requirements of membership in the teaching profession and acts at all times in ethical ways. In so doing the ethical educator considers the needs of the students, the district, and the profession.
(1) The ethical educator, in fulfilling obligations to the student, will:
(a) Keep the confidence entrusted in the profession as it relates to confidential information concerning a student and the student's family;
(b) Refrain from exploiting professional relationships with any student for personal gain, or in support of persons or issues; and
(c) Maintain an appropriate professional student-teacher relationship by:
(A) Not demonstrating or expressing professionally inappropriate interest in a student's personal life;
(B) Not accepting or giving or exchanging romantic or overly personal gifts or notes with a student;
(C) Reporting to the educator's supervisor if the educator has reason to believe a student is or may be becoming romantically attached to the educator; and
(D) Honoring appropriate adult boundaries with students in conduct and conversations at all times.
(2) The ethical educator, in fulfilling obligations to the district, will:
(a) Apply for, accept, offer, or assign a position of responsibility only on the basis of professional qualifications, and will adhere to the conditions of a contract or the terms of the appointment;
(b) Conduct professional business, including grievances, through established lawful and reasonable procedures;
(c) Strive for continued improvement and professional growth;
(d) Accept no gratuities or gifts of significance that could influence judgment in the exercise of professional duties; and
(e) Not use the district's or school's name, property, or resources for noneducational benefit or purposes without approval of the educator's supervisor or the appointing authority.
(3) The ethical educator, in fulfilling obligations to the profession, will:
(a) Maintain the dignity of the profession by respecting and obeying the law, exemplifying personal integrity and honesty;
(b) Extend equal treatment to all members of the profession in the exercise of their professional rights and responsibilities; and
(c) Respond to requests for evaluation of colleagues and keep such information confidential as appropriate.
According to Oregon Administrative Rule 584-020-0035 the following are the ethical standards for speech pathologists licensed with the Oregon Licensing Board:
335-005-0010
Definitions
Misrepresentation includes any untrue statements or statements that are likely to mislead.
Misrepresentation also includes the failure to state any information that is material and that ought, in fairness, to be considered. Unprofessional Conduct means:
(1) Failure or refusal of an applicant for a license from the Board or of a licensee of the Board to cooperate fully in any investigation conducted by the Board.
(2) Making a false statement to the Board.
(3) Attempting to obtain a license from the Board by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or
concealment of material facts.
(4) Sexual misconduct with a client.
(5) Any act of theft, dishonesty or misrepresentation involving a client, another practitioner, third party providers, or a government agency.
(6) Habitual or excessive use of intoxicants, drugs or controlled substances.
(7) Assisting or permitting any person to practice speech-language pathology or audiology without a license.
(8) Practicing speech-language pathology or audiology when impaired by drugs, alcohol or
any other substance.
(9) Verbal or physical abuse of a client.
335-005-0015
Welfare of Clients
(1) Individuals shall honor their responsibility to hold paramount the welfare of persons they serve professionally.
(2) Individuals shall provide all services competently.
(3) Individuals shall use all appropriate resources, including referral when appropriate.
(4) Individuals shall not discriminate in the delivery of professional services on the basis of race or ethnicity, sex, age, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability.
(5) Individuals shall fully inform the persons they serve of the nature and possible effects of services rendered and products dispensed.
(6) Individuals shall evaluate the effectiveness of services rendered and of products dispensed and shall provide services or dispense products only when benefit can reasonably be expected.
(7) Individuals shall not guarantee the results of any treatment or procedure, directly or by implication; however, they may make a reasonable statement of prognosis.
(8) Individuals shall not evaluate or treat speech, language, or hearing disorders solely by
correspondence.
(9) Individuals shall maintain adequate records of professional services and products dispensed and shall allow access to these records when appropriately authorized.
(10) Individuals shall not reveal, without authorization, any professional or personal
information about the person served professionally, unless required by law to do so, or unless doing so is necessary to protect the welfare of the person or of the community.
(11) Individuals shall not charge for services not rendered, nor shall they misrepresent in any fashion, services rendered or products dispensed.
(12) Individuals shall use persons in research or as subjects of teaching demonstrations only with their informed consent.
(13) Individuals whose professional services are adversely affected by substance abuse or other health-related conditions shall seek professional assistance and, where appropriate, withdraw from the affected areas of practice.
(14) Individuals who have reason to believe that the Professional and Ethical Standards have been violated shall inform the Board.
(15) Individuals shall not exploit persons in the delivery of professional services.
(16) Individuals shall maintain clinical records as required by the Board's rules to ensure the provision of competent and appropriate care for persons served.
335-005-0020
Professional Competence
(1) Individuals shall engage in only those aspects of the professions that are within the scope of their competence, considering their level of education, training, and experience.
(2) Individuals shall continue their professional development throughout their careers.
(3) Individuals who supervise shall prohibit any of their professional staff from providing services that exceed the staff member's competence, considering the staff member's level of education, training, and experience.
(4) Individuals shall ensure that all equipment used in the provision of services is in proper working order and is properly calibrated.
(5) Individuals shall prohibit anyone under their supervision from engaging in any practice that violates the Professional and Ethical Standards.
(6) Individuals shall not provide professional services without exercising independent professional judgment, regardless of referral source or prescription.
(7) Individuals shall not discriminate in their relationships with colleagues, students, and members of allied professions on the basis or race or ethnicity, gender, age, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability.
(8) Licensees will provide current addresses and telephone numbers.
(9) Individuals shall cooperate fully with the Board in every matter related to these Professional and Ethical
Professional licensing expense
TSPC Board of Examiners
$100 for three years, with no additional fee for application.
Renewal of license $100
Duplicate License $20
Adding an endorsement $100
No additional fee is required to add an endorsement in conjunction with an application for renewal or reinstatement of a license.
Expedited Service fee $99
Fingerprint fee $62
Highly Qualified Teacher evaluation $50
$275 for two years, renewable in Jan of even years. If a person is licensed in an odd year, there is no proration.
$200 one-time application fee
(ASHA $225/year)
Conditional CF license: $325 (includes application fee)
According to TSPC website: TSPC has currently activated 36 SLPs holding on a Bachelor’s degree only
Perceptions/Questions directly posed to the subcommittee
PERCEPTION:
The Oregon state licensing board for speech pathologists is perceived by Human Resource personnel as a more "medical" license while TSPC is perceived to be a more "educational" license in general.
FACT:
The educational background is the same for both licenses. Continuing education demands with both boards leave decisions to service providers, neither mandating specific coursework.
PERCEPTION:
An educational license from TSPC may provide administrators appropriate latitude in utilizing SLPs as classroom substitutes.
FACT:
Neither license equates to SLPs being qualified to develop, teach, manage, or classroom instruction.
Observations of the sub-committee following fact-finding:
1. ASHA, our national professional organization and advocacy group, makes a clear recommendation of a collaborating licensing effort within the state with the professional licensing board being in primary standing.
2. There is a significant difference between continuing education expectations between the two licensing groups. The board’s requirements are grounded in discipline specific requirements, whereas, TSPC requires graduate level credits or professional clock hours that are not required to be connected to the discipline.
3. There is a different ethical expectation between the two licensing agencies. The board is more discipline oriented regarding client needs, such as, our role with intervention and diagnosis. TSPC ethical standards do not necessarily address the specifics of our clinical role.
4. TSPC has no monitoring, approval, or auditing mechanism for continuing education. Accountability to outlined standards is based on an employer’s review and signature. Should staffing shortages be a concern, this could put districts in a position where there is a conflict of interest between ensuring staff remained licensed and reporting staff as out of compliance to TSPC. It also puts review of continuing education potentially in the hands of non-SLP administrative staff that may have less knowledge of workload/clinical demands.
PART-TWO
Following the subcommittee’s fact-finding efforts, the subcommittee outlined pros and cons of three different licensing scenarios in an effort to identify the best option for the state. Currently, there is much confusion and miscommunication regarding licensing options and related facts (see Part One).
As chair, I directed members to frame scenarios from the consumer protection perspective. I believe this orientation will be the most objective orientation and in keeping with our ASHA ethical mandate, Principal of Ethics I: Individuals shall honor their responsibility to hold paramount the welfare of persons they serve professionally.
It is the hope of this committee that all this information will be shared with constituents and interested parties for potential discussion and possible educated debate.
Three Licensing Scenarios:
1. Oregon follows ASHA's recommendation of a required, primary license by the state board of examiners for speech pathology to be the standard state-wide license with TSPC being an additional license that can be added but not stand independently. [note: additional of TSPC licensing should be at nominal expense to clinicians]
2. Oregon implements a complete disassociation from TSPC with no licensing option for SLPs within TSPC
3. Oregon continues to follow the status quo: TSPC would continue to stand in isolation as potential licensing option for state SLPs, in addition to the state licensing board.
Potential Licensing Scenarios Pros Cons
ASHA recommendation of collaborative licensing with the state board of examiners standing primary with TSPC capable of being added secondary We wish we more people knew ASHA’s recommendation; our impression is that it’s not known right now
Ethical commitment of our members would be demonstrated by adopting board standards
Third party over-sight is good
TSPC can provide over-sight but it is not specific to our field (very broad in terms of educator standards only).
Side note: TSPC had difficulty responding to calls and providing a call back when directly requested. Multiple efforts were made over a period of time. Perhaps greater administrative support would increase capacity for public interaction. The board was consistently responsive to all inquiries.
Streamlines expectations within the state.
Stronger ethical standards; protection of the consumer is paramount.
Cost of board licensure is higher than that of TSPC
There may be some concern that the board would function as an oversight committee that doesn’t have a right to review work of clinicians
TSPC Mike reported that many SLPs would not qualify for board licensing but would for TSPC standards: (our perspective below)
• “TSPC views their job as to license as many people as possible to place people in positions”
• “The board views their job as protecting the public’s interest”
Continuing education demands would be higher with the potential for an audit and resulting fines.
Disassociation from TSPC with no licensing option for SLPs within TSPC
Simplification within the state
More focused ethical standards
Consistent hiring standard across the state
A higher standard can equate to a higher pay (due to cont. ed. demands and board certification) i.e., see Coos Bay SD and recent 7% raise for board certification [a higher standard]
Eliminates substitute option for administrators for general education staff (brings awareness to differentiating skill sets between professionals; can’t treat all professionals alike)
Cost of moving (for those with TSPC licensure only) to acquire board license
Alienates SLPs interested in maintaining additional endorsements
Presents as a drastic option without 90% of practicing SLPs input providing feedback and direction to OSHA.
[Will still would not include some SLPs that are not OSHA members.-some will always be omitted]
TSPC would continue to stand in isolation as a potential licensing option for state SLPs, in addition to, the state licensing board. (this is the status quo)
Folks with only TSPC may be pleased
Expenses would remain lower for some
Mass confusion among SLPs, HR, and Administrators about expectations/differences in licensing
Unclear presentation to families (consumers)-differing standards for professionals
It’s not a solution to the shortage; “emergency licensing” waters down the integrity of the profession and still does not meet demand.
Requirements are less stringent for continuing licensure with TSPC
No audit of continuing education efforts by TSPC
Conflict of interest with supervisors reviewing and approving continuing education plans (TSPC model)
Within TSPC, SLPs new to the state can be asked to complete graduate credit hours; initial licensing requires graduate hours. (lots of expense and difficult to find)
Difficult to obtain consistent feedback from TSPC
Would require a consistent education campaign for everyone on everything and still conclude with inconsistent standards across the state.
No inherent method to protect the consumer.
All committee members encourage the state association to share this report, our best effort at accurate information, with SLPs and interested stake-holders across the state. ASHA representatives have offered to come to the state to address association members and stake-holders and we feel this would be a critical step in education of the discipline. In addition, an effort to share the results of this report via the website and in a live question and answer format across the state is highly encouraged. Although we do not expect 100% consensus on such a topic, it is reasonable to expect that a discipline would have a shared understanding of licensing demands within the state.
On a final note, we believe a state-wide discussion should be framed from the perspective of what is best for the consumer as that is our first ethical mandate within ASHA guidelines. Although all stake-holders and members will have perspectives in relationship to their own situation, exploring licensing options through a shared lens should help to focus a possible conclusion or recommendation the board adopts in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Soliday, MS, CCC-SLP
The Hello Foundation, LLC
www.thehellofoundation.com
cc:
Andy McMillin, subcommittee
Carol Tucker, subcommittee
Debbie Davis, subcommittee
Janet Wagner, subcommittee
Eli Standard, subcommittee
Pam Camfield, subcommittee
Wendy Gunter, President, OSHA
335-005-0010
Definitions
Misrepresentation includes any untrue statements or statements that are likely to mislead.
Misrepresentation also includes the failure to state any information that is material and that ought, in fairness, to be considered. Unprofessional Conduct means:
(1) Failure or refusal of an applicant for a license from the Board or of a licensee of the Board to cooperate fully in any investigation conducted by the Board.
(2) Making a false statement to the Board.
(3) Attempting to obtain a license from the Board by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or
concealment of material facts.
(4) Sexual misconduct with a client.
(5) Any act of theft, dishonesty or misrepresentation involving a client, another practitioner, third party providers, or a government agency.
(6) Habitual or excessive use of intoxicants, drugs or controlled substances.
(7) Assisting or permitting any person to practice speech-language pathology or audiology without a license.
(8) Practicing speech-language pathology or audiology when impaired by drugs, alcohol or
any other substance.
(9) Verbal or physical abuse of a client.
335-005-0015
Welfare of Clients
(1) Individuals shall honor their responsibility to hold paramount the welfare of persons they serve professionally.
(2) Individuals shall provide all services competently.
(3) Individuals shall use all appropriate resources, including referral when appropriate.
(4) Individuals shall not discriminate in the delivery of professional services on the basis of race or ethnicity, sex, age, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability.
(5) Individuals shall fully inform the persons they serve of the nature and possible effects of services rendered and products dispensed.
(6) Individuals shall evaluate the effectiveness of services rendered and of products dispensed and shall provide services or dispense products only when benefit can reasonably be expected.
(7) Individuals shall not guarantee the results of any treatment or procedure, directly or by implication; however, they may make a reasonable statement of prognosis.
(8) Individuals shall not evaluate or treat speech, language, or hearing disorders solely by
correspondence.
(9) Individuals shall maintain adequate records of professional services and products dispensed and shall allow access to these records when appropriately authorized.
(10) Individuals shall not reveal, without authorization, any professional or personal
information about the person served professionally, unless required by law to do so, or unless doing so is necessary to protect the welfare of the person or of the community.
(11) Individuals shall not charge for services not rendered, nor shall they misrepresent in any fashion, services rendered or products dispensed.
(12) Individuals shall use persons in research or as subjects of teaching demonstrations only with their informed consent.
(13) Individuals whose professional services are adversely affected by substance abuse or other health-related conditions shall seek professional assistance and, where appropriate, withdraw from the affected areas of practice.
(14) Individuals who have reason to believe that the Professional and Ethical Standards have been violated shall inform the Board.
(15) Individuals shall not exploit persons in the delivery of professional services.
(16) Individuals shall maintain clinical records as required by the Board's rules to ensure the provision of competent and appropriate care for persons served.
335-005-0020
Professional Competence
(1) Individuals shall engage in only those aspects of the professions that are within the scope of their competence, considering their level of education, training, and experience.
(2) Individuals shall continue their professional development throughout their careers.
(3) Individuals who supervise shall prohibit any of their professional staff from providing services that exceed the staff member's competence, considering the staff member's level of education, training, and experience.
(4) Individuals shall ensure that all equipment used in the provision of services is in proper working order and is properly calibrated.
(5) Individuals shall prohibit anyone under their supervision from engaging in any practice that violates the Professional and Ethical Standards.
(6) Individuals shall not provide professional services without exercising independent professional judgment, regardless of referral source or prescription.
(7) Individuals shall not discriminate in their relationships with colleagues, students, and members of allied professions on the basis or race or ethnicity, gender, age, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability.
(8) Licensees will provide current addresses and telephone numbers.
(9) Individuals shall cooperate fully with the Board in every matter related to these Professional and Ethical
Professional licensing expense
TSPC Board of Examiners
$100 for three years, with no additional fee for application.
Renewal of license $100
Duplicate License $20
Adding an endorsement $100
No additional fee is required to add an endorsement in conjunction with an application for renewal or reinstatement of a license.
Expedited Service fee $99
Fingerprint fee $62
Highly Qualified Teacher evaluation $50
$275 for two years, renewable in Jan of even years. If a person is licensed in an odd year, there is no proration.
$200 one-time application fee
(ASHA $225/year)
Conditional CF license: $325 (includes application fee)
According to TSPC website: TSPC has currently activated 36 SLPs holding on a Bachelor’s degree only
Perceptions/Questions directly posed to the subcommittee
PERCEPTION:
The Oregon state licensing board for speech pathologists is perceived by Human Resource personnel as a more "medical" license while TSPC is perceived to be a more "educational" license in general.
FACT:
The educational background is the same for both licenses. Continuing education demands with both boards leave decisions to service providers, neither mandating specific coursework.
PERCEPTION:
An educational license from TSPC may provide administrators appropriate latitude in utilizing SLPs as classroom substitutes.
FACT:
Neither license equates to SLPs being qualified to develop, teach, manage, or classroom instruction.
Observations of the sub-committee following fact-finding:
1. ASHA, our national professional organization and advocacy group, makes a clear recommendation of a collaborating licensing effort within the state with the professional licensing board being in primary standing.
2. There is a significant difference between continuing education expectations between the two licensing groups. The board’s requirements are grounded in discipline specific requirements, whereas, TSPC requires graduate level credits or professional clock hours that are not required to be connected to the discipline.
3. There is a different ethical expectation between the two licensing agencies. The board is more discipline oriented regarding client needs, such as, our role with intervention and diagnosis. TSPC ethical standards do not necessarily address the specifics of our clinical role.
4. TSPC has no monitoring, approval, or auditing mechanism for continuing education. Accountability to outlined standards is based on an employer’s review and signature. Should staffing shortages be a concern, this could put districts in a position where there is a conflict of interest between ensuring staff remained licensed and reporting staff as out of compliance to TSPC. It also puts review of continuing education potentially in the hands of non-SLP administrative staff that may have less knowledge of workload/clinical demands.
PART-TWO
Following the subcommittee’s fact-finding efforts, the subcommittee outlined pros and cons of three different licensing scenarios in an effort to identify the best option for the state. Currently, there is much confusion and miscommunication regarding licensing options and related facts (see Part One).
As chair, I directed members to frame scenarios from the consumer protection perspective. I believe this orientation will be the most objective orientation and in keeping with our ASHA ethical mandate, Principal of Ethics I: Individuals shall honor their responsibility to hold paramount the welfare of persons they serve professionally.
It is the hope of this committee that all this information will be shared with constituents and interested parties for potential discussion and possible educated debate.
Three Licensing Scenarios:
1. Oregon follows ASHA's recommendation of a required, primary license by the state board of examiners for speech pathology to be the standard state-wide license with TSPC being an additional license that can be added but not stand independently. [note: additional of TSPC licensing should be at nominal expense to clinicians]
2. Oregon implements a complete disassociation from TSPC with no licensing option for SLPs within TSPC
3. Oregon continues to follow the status quo: TSPC would continue to stand in isolation as potential licensing option for state SLPs, in addition to the state licensing board.
Potential Licensing Scenarios Pros Cons
ASHA recommendation of collaborative licensing with the state board of examiners standing primary with TSPC capable of being added secondary We wish we more people knew ASHA’s recommendation; our impression is that it’s not known right now
Ethical commitment of our members would be demonstrated by adopting board standards
Third party over-sight is good
TSPC can provide over-sight but it is not specific to our field (very broad in terms of educator standards only).
Side note: TSPC had difficulty responding to calls and providing a call back when directly requested. Multiple efforts were made over a period of time. Perhaps greater administrative support would increase capacity for public interaction. The board was consistently responsive to all inquiries.
Streamlines expectations within the state.
Stronger ethical standards; protection of the consumer is paramount.
Cost of board licensure is higher than that of TSPC
There may be some concern that the board would function as an oversight committee that doesn’t have a right to review work of clinicians
TSPC Mike reported that many SLPs would not qualify for board licensing but would for TSPC standards: (our perspective below)
• “TSPC views their job as to license as many people as possible to place people in positions”
• “The board views their job as protecting the public’s interest”
Continuing education demands would be higher with the potential for an audit and resulting fines.
Disassociation from TSPC with no licensing option for SLPs within TSPC
Simplification within the state
More focused ethical standards
Consistent hiring standard across the state
A higher standard can equate to a higher pay (due to cont. ed. demands and board certification) i.e., see Coos Bay SD and recent 7% raise for board certification [a higher standard]
Eliminates substitute option for administrators for general education staff (brings awareness to differentiating skill sets between professionals; can’t treat all professionals alike)
Cost of moving (for those with TSPC licensure only) to acquire board license
Alienates SLPs interested in maintaining additional endorsements
Presents as a drastic option without 90% of practicing SLPs input providing feedback and direction to OSHA.
[Will still would not include some SLPs that are not OSHA members.-some will always be omitted]
TSPC would continue to stand in isolation as a potential licensing option for state SLPs, in addition to, the state licensing board. (this is the status quo)
Folks with only TSPC may be pleased
Expenses would remain lower for some
Mass confusion among SLPs, HR, and Administrators about expectations/differences in licensing
Unclear presentation to families (consumers)-differing standards for professionals
It’s not a solution to the shortage; “emergency licensing” waters down the integrity of the profession and still does not meet demand.
Requirements are less stringent for continuing licensure with TSPC
No audit of continuing education efforts by TSPC
Conflict of interest with supervisors reviewing and approving continuing education plans (TSPC model)
Within TSPC, SLPs new to the state can be asked to complete graduate credit hours; initial licensing requires graduate hours. (lots of expense and difficult to find)
Difficult to obtain consistent feedback from TSPC
Would require a consistent education campaign for everyone on everything and still conclude with inconsistent standards across the state.
No inherent method to protect the consumer.
All committee members encourage the state association to share this report, our best effort at accurate information, with SLPs and interested stake-holders across the state. ASHA representatives have offered to come to the state to address association members and stake-holders and we feel this would be a critical step in education of the discipline. In addition, an effort to share the results of this report via the website and in a live question and answer format across the state is highly encouraged. Although we do not expect 100% consensus on such a topic, it is reasonable to expect that a discipline would have a shared understanding of licensing demands within the state.
On a final note, we believe a state-wide discussion should be framed from the perspective of what is best for the consumer as that is our first ethical mandate within ASHA guidelines. Although all stake-holders and members will have perspectives in relationship to their own situation, exploring licensing options through a shared lens should help to focus a possible conclusion or recommendation the board adopts in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Soliday, MS, CCC-SLP
The Hello Foundation, LLC
www.thehellofoundation.com
cc:
Andy McMillin, subcommittee
Carol Tucker, subcommittee
Debbie Davis, subcommittee
Janet Wagner, subcommittee
Eli Standard, subcommittee
Pam Camfield, subcommittee
Wendy Gunter, President, OSHA