Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which professional organizations (ASHA) responded to any DOE reclassification and how are they advocating for SLP funding?
Executive summary
ASHA (the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association) and its state affiliates have actively advocated for school-based SLP funding and related policy changes through grants, toolkits, letters, and public-policy priorities; ASHA reported 22 state associations used 2023 advocacy grants for salary supplements, licensure, caseload work and related school funding efforts [1]. ASHA’s 2024 advocacy priorities explicitly push for statewide salary supplements for school-based SLPs and wider funding/coverage changes, and ASHA supplies advocacy resources and talking points districts and practitioners can use to pursue IDEA, Medicaid, and local funding [2] [3] [4].
1. Who responded and at what levels — national ASHA plus state affiliates
ASHA’s national Government Affairs and Public Policy apparatus issues public priorities, comments and testimony and coordinates responses that affect schools and federal funding, while ASHA-recognized state associations use ASHA grants and toolkits to advance local campaigns; ASHA documented that 22 state associations used 2023 advocacy grants for items including salary supplements for school SLPs, SLPA licensure campaigns, caseload investigations, and Medicaid/early intervention advocacy [1]. ASHA’s public materials (Advocacy Priorities, State Advocacy Resources, School Advocacy Resources) make clear the national organization and its state networks (e.g., SEALs, STARs, StAMPs) are the actors providing coordinated responses and tools [2] [4] [5].
2. How they framed the issue — funding, workforce, and coverage
ASHA frames the problem as three linked policy failures: workforce shortages, low/reducing payment rates, and inadequate coverage that limit access to care and school-based services; its 2024 agenda highlights unsustainably low payment rates and inadequate coverage as priority drivers for advocacy action [2]. ASHA’s Scope of Practice and advocacy handbooks also place funding and recruitment/retention squarely within professional responsibilities, urging members to “advocate at the local, state, and national levels for funding for services, education, and research” [6].
3. Concrete advocacy tactics and tools ASHA is supplying
ASHA supplies direct tools for districts and practitioners: talking points for advocating salary supplements and using IDEA/Medicaid funds, template letters and backgrounders (e.g., NEA workload model), state advocacy toolkits, and grant programs that seed local advocacy campaigns [3] [5] [4] [1]. The organization also files formal letters and testimony (ASHA comments and support letters to states and congressional committees are catalogued for 2025), showing a mix of grassroots resources and formal policy engagement [7].
4. Funding targets — where ASHA tells members to look for dollars
ASHA directs advocates toward [8] increased IDEA funding and state/district allocation of those funds to offset salary supplements, [9] Medicaid payments and state Medicaid rate advocacy to expand school-based reimbursement, and [10] state-level salary supplement legislation for professionals holding ASHA’s CCC credential [3] [2]. ASHA also highlights local and private sources and provides guides to identify grants, United Way funds and other local programs [11] [12].
5. Examples of state-level actions supported by ASHA grants
ASHA’s 2023 grant summary lists concrete uses: salary supplement campaigns (Maryland), SLPA licensure lobbying (Kansas), Medicaid reimbursement lobbying (Louisiana, Georgia), caseload summits (Indiana), hearing-aid coverage efforts (Mississippi), and licensure/ASLP-IC work in Alaska and Montana — demonstrating a diverse set of state strategies to secure funding, staffing, and payment reforms [1].
6. What ASHA is not shown doing in these sources
Available sources do not mention specific responses by ASHA (or state affiliates) to any Department of Education “reclassification” action; the search results about AHSAA reclassification concern athletics and state education reclassification documents (p1_s1–[13]1) and do not connect to ASHA advocacy materials. The provided ASHA materials focus on funding, Medicaid, IDEA, telehealth, licensure, and salary supplements — not on athletic or school reclassification policy [2] [3] [1].
7. Points of contention and limitations in the record
ASHA emphasizes using IDEA and Medicaid funding and state salary-supplement laws, but the provided materials do not prove success rates for these campaigns or quantify how often districts convert advocacy into sustained salary increases; ASHA’s grant summary shows activity but not universal results [1]. Additionally, ASHA’s national priorities and toolkits assume states and districts will implement changes — the sources do not report counterarguments from school finance officials, budget offices, or DOE actors in response [2] [4].
8. What reporters and advocates should watch next
Monitor ASHA’s comment/testimony pages and the ASHA Advocate newsletters for formal letters to federal/state agencies and for follow-up reporting on campaigns (e.g., Medicaid rate wins or enacted salary-supplement laws), and look for state association reports that document outcomes of the 2023 grant-funded efforts [7] [1]. If you are investigating any DOE “reclassification” impacts on SLP funding specifically, existing ASHA materials do not address that link and further reporting or FOIA requests would be necessary (not found in current reporting).