[A] state senator is trying once again to wrest control of licensing for some speech language pathologists from the Agency of Education’s grip to give it to the secretary of state.
The move is part of an ongoing turf war between the agencies that flared up in the waning days of the last legislative session.
S.130, a bill that makes changes to education laws, has a “split the baby” provision that deals with the debate over where to license what are known as SLPs. These practitioners diagnose and treat communication and swallowing disorders and can work in private practice, hospitals or school classrooms.
The Senate Committee on Education’s language would require classroom speech language pathologists to get their license at the Education Agency. All others would go through the Office of Professional Regulation, or OPR, part of the secretary of state’s office.
It used to be that all speech pathologists were licensed by the Agency of Education, no matter where they worked.
In 2015, the Legislature moved licensing for speech language pathologists to the Office of Professional Regulation. School speech language pathologists were expected to get an endorsement from the Education Agency, but the agency said it can’t provide an endorsement unless the applicant gets a teaching license. This means school speech language pathologists were paying two fees — one to OPR and one to the Education Agency.
The fees at the education agency went up when the new process was implemented in September 2015 — from $35 a year, for a total of $105 for three years, to $50 a year, for a total of $300 for five years including a $50 processing fee. Continuing education requirements for speech language pathologists also increased from 30 hours for three years to 45 hours for three years.
As a result of the licensing change in 2015, the Agency of Education would have lost about $100,000 a year in fees.
Last year, SLPs asked lawmakers to fix the double fee problem, and a turf war erupted between the two agencies vying for control over licensing. OPR argues it can better streamline licensing, making it more convenient. The Education Agency says the move threatens the workers’ status and benefits as teachers and interferes with the agency’s ability to make sure classroom SLPs are highly qualified teachers, which is a federal requirement.
Last year, the Senate Government Operations bill included language that would have put school speech pathologists under the purview of OPR. Senate Finance stripped that provision out amid promises from Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham, to bring it back this session.
This year, the issue was revived by the Senate Education Committee. Members decided to keep licensing of school SLPs at the Education Agency. Sen. Becca Balint, D-Windham, said lawmakers didn’t want to force education SLPs to pay two fees. “AOE is responsible for SLPs employed in schools. OPR has responsibility for SLPs employed outside,” she said.
An SLP who works both in a school and clinical environment would have to be licensed by both agencies, Balint said.
But White, chair of the Government Operations Committee, sought to restore control over all SLP licensing for the Office of Professional Regulation with an amendment that would strike the committee’s language.
“It is an issue we have to solve, and this does not just solve the issue. This sets up an entirely new profession, and this isn’t the way we should set up a new profession,” White said.
Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland, a member of the Senate Education Committee, said that last year, it was expected that Government Operations would solve the problem, but after spending a lot of time on it members weren’t able to come up with a solution everyone could live with. When the Education Committee looked at it, members realized the issue was complicated, but “to punt it again for another year doesn’t give a lot of faith to those of us who were told this situation would be resolved,” Mullin said.
Mullin said schools are unique and that the Education Agency made a compelling argument why it needed to maintain oversight. “The Education Committee doesn’t claim this is the ultimate fix, but this is something that works, so this is a step in the right direction,” he said.
The committee took testimony from White but was not swayed by her and decided against the amendment in a vote of 6 to 0.
In a voice vote the Senate also voted against the amendment.