Best Practices in Dismissal: School Services in Speech-Language Pathology
Navigating the dismissal process for students receiving speech-language pathology services can often feel like a daunting task. Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) across the nation report the need for a more structured, evidence-based framework to determine when students are ready to transition out of services (Campbell & Bain, 1991). Research indicates that nearly half of the students receiving school-based speech-language support continue in therapy even after meeting established criteria for dismissal (Eger et al., 1986). This raises critical questions: Are we effectively evaluating student readiness? Are we allowing misconceptions and external pressures to dictate our decisions?
For many SLPs, the journey toward dismissal is fraught with uncertainty, resistance, and challenges. The absence of clear dismissal criteria in many states leaves practitioners unsure of when a child is truly ready to step down from services. Compounding this is the often complex dynamic with parents, who may need clarification regarding the distinct purposes of school-based services versus private therapy. Additionally, the emotional weight of ending long-standing therapeutic relationships can create further hesitation (Cowan, 2017). Perhaps most importantly, many SLPs face pressure from colleagues and school teams to continue providing "all the help possible," even when a student has achieved their goals.
To address these challenges, this article presents a structured approach to dismissal, integrating practical, evidence-based strategies that can be implemented immediately. By embedding the concept of dismissal into treatment planning from the outset, we can foster a proactive mindset that prepares students—and their support teams—for a successful transition. Throughout this article, we will explore nine best practices for assessing readiness for dismissal, maintaining open lines of communication with families, and ultimately celebrating the successful outcomes of our students. The subsequent best practices equip SLPs with the resources and confidence necessary to navigate dismissal discussions, ensuring that teams can make informed, compassionate decisions that prioritize each student's unique journey.
Best Practice #1: At the onset of eligibility, be transparent regarding the goal of school-based speech and language services.
According to ASHA’s "Implementing IDEA 2004 Part I: Conducting Educationally Relevant Evaluations, Technical Assistance for SLPs,” the SLP should make the goals of speech-language pathology services clear to parents/guardians and teachers when the student is first determined to be eligible for services through an IEP.
The overarching goal of speech-language services in public schools is to address and improve a student's communication so that it does not hinder academic achievement and functional performance (ASHA, n.d.-a).
The specific goals are as follows:
- To determine if the student's communication disorder is adversely affecting academic achievement and functional performance;
- To provide intervention for those communication disorders that are adversely affecting academic achievement and functional performance, specifying goals leading to specific criteria for dismissal;
- To dismiss the student from speech-language pathology services once the criteria for eligibility are no longer met.
Best Practice #2: Emphasize the universal, federal criteria for eligibility in IDEA.
While specific dismissal criteria may differ from state to state, or not be present, the SLP must rely on their knowledge of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which offers dismissal criteria that applies to every SLP (Sylvan, 2016). IDEA dictates that dismissal should be considered when one or more of the following scenarios occur:
- The student’s disability no longer adversely affects their educational performance or social, emotional, or vocational development.
- A student whose disability has an adverse effect on educational performance or social, emotional, or vocational development but does not require specially designed instruction.
This means that when considering dismissal of services for a student during a reevaluation, the team would discuss whether or not the student’s disability continues to have an adverse impact on educational performance (academic or social or emotional development) and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction. A student who does not need specially designed instruction would be considered for dismissal of services. For example, a child may speak with a lisp but the team doesn’t report any instances of adverse educational impact.
Adverse educational impact includes negative impacts on a student’s access, engagement, or progress in age or grade level general education curriculum, instruction, environment, or activities. Impact is evident when a student’s disability negatively impacts their:
● Involvement and advancement in the general education program (i.e., academic impact);
● Education and participation with other students without disabilities (i.e., social or behavioral impact), including participation in extracurricular and other non-academic activities (i.e., vocational or functional impact).
Students who no longer demonstrate an adverse educational impact and no longer need specially designed instruction may require the initiation of a reevaluation to discuss whether there is a continued need for special education and determine if the student should be exited from speech-language services.
Best Practice #3: At the onset of eligibility, discuss general dismissal expectations.
SLPs should foreshadow expectations by establishing a mindset for dismissal at the time of enrollment (Campbell & Bain, 1991). As noted above, best practice includes an IEP team dismissal discussion during the initial provision of services from an SLP (Section 1414-IDEA, 2019, November 7). This generally outlines the desired development of communication skills and provides clear expectations for all team members early in the process. It includes the type and level of performance the team hopes the child will ultimately achieve. This means that upon the child first being eligible for services, expectations around dismissal are shared.
Campbell and Bain (1991) describe this as operationally defining what behaviors will result in dismissal from intervention. For a student with a speech sound disorder, for example, this may sound like, “When Joey’s intelligibility has improved to the level that he is understood as well as his peers, we will discuss if speech therapy is still warranted.”
This discussion creates a long-term vision of communication skills. It should take into consideration the guiding state standards, the skills of classmates, the student's educational performance, consideration of the student’s age, culture, language background and dialect as well as their social, emotional, or vocational development. By having this discussion, the IEP team can ensure that all members have a shared understanding of the expected outcomes of provided services (Prath, 2022).
Best Practice #4: Consider the student’s performance in the classroom when accommodations and supports are provided.
The student outcome for performance should focus on bringing skills, with accommodations and supports provided as necessary, within the expected range for the student’s age and grade (Prath, 2022).
Teams may need to reject the idea of perfection and recognize that the pursuit of perfection is not a realistic goal, nor the intent of school-based speech-language pathology services. Instead, they can ask whether the student is able to function adequately in their educational setting (ASHA, 2003).
By ensuring that supplemental aids and services are effectively integrated, we can create a comprehensive set of accommodations that not only enhance student performance but also facilitate a smoother transition for students being dismissed.
Best Practice #5: Reference progress toward dismissal consistently.
Annual IEP meetings should include a discussion of current goals and objectives in comparison to the ultimate communication goal to be achieved. Progress reports provide another opportunity for the SLP to reference the student’s progress toward dismissal. In this way, families are part of consistent discussions regarding current progress in comparison to the expected end goal of services from an SLP (IDEA, 2019). Parents and professionals are far more likely to agree with the decision to dismiss if they have been actively involved as part of a collaborative team to help the student achieve academic and functional success (Schraeder, 2011). These discussions are especially important for successful dismissal, because according to IDEA, Section 1414, one member of the IEP team cannot solely determine a student’s eligibility.
Best Practice #6: Focus on the Free and Appropriate Public Education and Least Restrictive Environment Mandates.
Another best practice in dismissal includes focusing on delivery of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) by considering various service delivery models (e.g., setting, dosage, format, provider) based on the student’s need(s) and progress (IDEA Part B, 2004; ASHA, n.d.-c.). Individual or small group pull-out may be the starting point, but it is not the final destination. The goal is to provide the student with the Least Restrictive Environment. Therefore, be sure to explain the philosophy of IDEA and the evidence-base that supports it (Schraeder, 2011). SLPs can find detailed guidance regarding IDEA, FAPE, and LRE in A Guide to School Services in Speech-Language Pathology (Schraeder & Seidel, 2026).
Best Practice #7: When there's sufficient evidence for dismissal but team disagreement exists, discuss the ethical implications and best practices for SLPs.
At times, the SLP can feel pressure from parents/guardians or colleagues to offer services that may not be warranted (Sylvan, 2016; Ulrich, 2004). Sentiments such as, “We just want to get them as much help as we can” are common among IEP team members. Sometimes parents/guardians and colleagues have a more-is-better mindset. Sylvan (2016) notes that parents almost always insist that services by speech-language pathologists continue.
If the SLP reasonably believes that the amount and type of treatment recommended is optimal and that the student is able to, or is already making progress toward their goal, then they should call upon the ASHA Code of Ethics and ASHA’s Preferred Practice Patterns. When needed, it is important that SLPs evoke these principles as a best practice.
Principle I of the ASHA Code of Ethics applies to these situations. Principle I states that individuals shall honor their responsibility to hold paramount the welfare of persons they serve professionally. Furthermore, Principle I, Rule K specifically addresses this issue: “Individuals who hold the Certificate of Clinical Competence shall evaluate the effectiveness of the services provided ... and they shall provide services .... only when benefit can be reasonably expected” (ASHA, 2023).
Shermanski and Glasgow (2022) remind us that if we have analyzed our data and found “a reasonable statement of prognosis” (Principle I, Rule L), then the team will have the information they need to consider dismissal of the student.
Finally, ASHA’s Preferred Practice Patterns highlight that we should only provide intervention or consultation services when there is a reasonable expectation of benefit to the student’s body structure/function and/or activity/participation (ASHA, 2004).
Best Practice #8: Intentionally employ clinical strategies that will maximize progress and move students toward dismissal.
Intentionally implementing evidence-based clinical strategies to maximize student progress toward dismissal is crucial. Ensuring you decrease your prompting from maximal to minimal as soon as applicable creates a continuum of support that will accelerate the results of your treatment, thus leaving you confident in the work you are doing. Continua also leaves you feeling assured that you have long-term goals for students and know where to go next, because you have a map to guide you. That map motivates best practice by ensuring that your care evolves with your student’s needs. This approach also aligns with the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association’s “bottom line” to support transition and generalization of skills (ASHA, n.d.-b, Transitions/Generalization of Skill). The majority (87%) of SLPs identify that the generalization of therapy gains to different situations and environments is essential. However, specific strategies used to achieve this generalization are rarely detailed (Morgan et al., 2019).
Readers are encouraged to explore Schraeder and Seidel’s A Guide to School Services in Speech-Language Pathology (2026) where you can find a current set of evidence-based clinical strategies for each area of the field. This menu of clinical techniques can help you actively and deliberately move through the components of self-advocacy and generalization. Purposefully embedding these strategies in your treatment guarantees that you are not unwittingly holding students back from moving through their zone of proximal development and reaching dismissal.
Best Practice #9: Celebrate and create a positive culture around dismissal.
Remember that dismissal of the provision of services by an SLP is a positive outcome for students (IDEA, 2019). Embrace this concept in your interactions with parents/guardians, students, and colleagues.
As noted, navigating the dismissal process for students in speech-language pathology presents numerous challenges for SLPs, including the absence of clear criteria, external pressures from families and colleagues, and the emotional complexities involved. Research indicates that many students remain in therapy despite meeting dismissal criteria, highlighting the need for a structured, evidence-based approach to evaluate readiness for transition out of services.
This article outlines best practices for effective dismissal, emphasizing the importance of early transparency about service goals, ongoing communication with families, and a proactive mindset that prepares all stakeholders for a successful transition. By focusing on the criteria established by IDEA, discussing dismissal expectations at the onset of services, and consistently referencing progress, SLPs can facilitate informed, collaborative decisions.
Additionally, employing evidence-based clinical strategies to enhance skill generalization and fostering a positive culture around dismissal are crucial steps toward achieving successful outcomes. Ultimately, prioritizing the unique needs of each student and creating a supportive environment for dismissal can lead to a more effective and compassionate transition process, reinforcing the ultimate goal of empowering students to thrive independently.
References
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.-a). Eligibility and dismissal in schools. https://www.asha.org/slp/schools/prof-consult/eligibility/
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.-b). Transitions/generalization of skill. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Retrieved September 20, 2022, from https://www.asha.org/njc/transitions-generalization-of-skill/
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.-c.). School-based service delivery in speech-language pathology. https://www.asha.org/slp/schools/school-based-service-delivery-in-speech-language-pathology/
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (out of print). Implementing IDEA 2004 Part I: Conducting Educationally Relevant Evaluations, Technical Assistance for Speech-Language Pathologists.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). 2003. Admission/discharge criteria in speech-language pathology. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. https://www.asha.org/policy/gl2004-00046/#sec1.4
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Preferred practice patterns for the profession of speech-language pathology [Preferred Practice Patterns]. Available from https://www.asha.org/policy/.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2023). Code of ethics. https://www.asha.org/policy/et2016-00342/
Campbell, T. F., & Bain, B. A. (1991). How long to treat: A multiple outcome approach. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 22(4), 271–276. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461.2204.271
Cowan, J. (2017). Making Treatment Transitions Easier for Clients. Available from https://leader.pubs.asha.org/do/10.1044/making-treatment-transitions-easier-for-clients/full/
Eger, D. L., Chabon, S. S., Mient, M. G., & Cushman, B. B. (1986, May). When is enough enough? ASHA, 28(5), 23–25. Retrieved from https://www.asha.org/siteassets/publications/0586-asha-magazine.pdf
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2019, November 7). Section 1414. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-chapter-33/subchapter-ii/1414#:~:text=An%20agency%20that%20is%20responsible,related%20services%20to%20the%20child
Morgan, L., Marshall, J., Harding, S., Powell, G., Wren, Y., Coad, J., & Roulstone, S. (2019). ‘it depends’: Characterizing speech and language therapy for preschool children with developmental speech and language disorders. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 54(6), 954–970. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12498
Prath, S. (2022, October 20). Duplication of services for speech dismissals–How to determine and write it up. Bilinguistics. https://bilinguistics.com/duplication-of-services-for-speech-dismissals-how-to-determine-and-write-it-up/
Schraeder, T. (2011, March). Managing your caseload: When & how to dismiss. CESA #5 Speech-Language Pathology Institute. Wisconsin Dells; Kalahari Resort & Convention Center.
Schraeder, T., & Seidel, C. (2026). A guide to school services in speech-language pathology. Plural Publishing, Inc.
Shermanski, R., & Ellison Glasgow, S. (2022). Everyday ethics: Dismissing a student no longer benefitting from intervention. The ASHA LeaderLive. https://leader.pubs.asha.org/do/10.1044/2022-1003-schools-dismissal-slps/full/
Sylvan, L. (2016). When it’s time for goodbye: When a student is ready to “graduate” from services, how do you handle resistance from parents? The ASHA Leader. https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR1.21092016.44
Ulrich, S. R. (2004, November 1). Ethical considerations in patient discharge. ASHAWire. https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.MIW.09202004.21
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Public Law 108-446. https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/1350/text