Tele-Practice in Speech-Language Pathology in Schools

What virtual speech-language therapy looks like in a school, what the research on it reports, and where it stops being the right call.

The structural answer is that most of it is the same work: direct service against IEP goals, evidence-based methods, ongoing progress monitoring. The paper is specific about the differences too — a virtual facilitator, a pull-out model only, assessment conducted fully online, IEP meetings virtual or hybrid, and classroom observation that is either reported or done remotely. Some of the modality's tools have no in-person equivalent: self-view as a mirror for articulation, captioning, session recording, and interactive digital materials.

On outcomes it reports the comparison studies rather than asserting a conclusion. Grogan-Johnson and colleagues found progress similar across metrics with satisfaction reported as strongly positive by students, parents, teachers, principals and both sets of SLPs; a later study of theirs reported greater IEP goal mastery in the tele condition; Forducey reported favorable results across a large Oklahoma program; and a systematic review by Wales and colleagues concluded outcomes are at least as good.

Then it names the limits honestly. Seven conditions make a student a poor fit — no quiet space or reliable internet, low motivation online, attention and hyperactivity difficulties, emotional dysregulation, technology as a cognitive barrier, being overwhelmed by the computer, and students who are not communicating at all. The recommendation is an individual determination by the SLP in consultation with school staff, not a blanket policy.