Will AI replace Speech-Language Pathologists?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 23 official task statements scored for Speech-Language Pathologists (United States, SOC 29-1127), 10% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 27 out of 100 (range 21–33, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.

Which tasks in “Speech-Language Pathologists” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Complete administrative responsibilities, such as coordinating paperwork, scheduling case management activities, or writing lesson plans” (75/100, high); “Write reports and maintain proper documentation of information, such as client Medicaid or billing records or caseload activities, including the initial eval…” (66/100, high); “Conduct or direct research on speech or hearing topics and report findings for use in developing procedures, technologies, or treatments” (56/100, partial). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.

Which tasks in “Speech-Language Pathologists” stay human?

About 83% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Teach clients to control or strengthen tongue, jaw, face muscles, or breathing mechanisms” (3/100, minimal); “Conduct lessons or direct educational or therapeutic games to assist teachers dealing with speech problems” (7/100, minimal); “Communicate with students who use an alternative method of communications, using sign language or computer technology” (8/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.

What should someone working in “Speech-Language Pathologists” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 10% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 83% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.

How is the AI exposure score for Speech-Language Pathologists calculated?

Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 23 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

US dataswitch to UK

Speech-Language Pathologists

evaluating hearing or speech and language test results, participating in and writing reports for meetings regarding patients' progress and instructing clients in techniques for more effective communication. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: administering hearing or speech and language evaluations is work software can't reach.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 10%
changing shape: 7%
staying human: 83%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 27 out of 100 (21–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 23 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.

How we know this

What is measured: Every published task statement for speech-language pathologists is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

What shifts is completing administrative responsibilities, such as coordinating paperwork, scheduling case management activities or writing lesson plans: the paper around the work, not the work.

Your week, as this page understands it

Assess and treat persons with speech, language, voice, and fluency disorders. May select alternative communication systems and teach their use. May perform research related to speech and language problems. The job title says “speech-language pathologists”. The real job is the part underneath: administering hearing or speech and language evaluations. That is the thing someone has to be right about.

The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But speech-language pathologists is not one task. It is 23 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is administering hearing or speech and language evaluations, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 10%
changing shape: 7%
staying human: 83%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
2 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Shifting to AI

2 tasks

Tasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.

Writing reports and maintaining proper documentation of information
This is reading one thing and writing another: reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Write reports and maintain proper documentation of information, such as client Medicaid or billing records or caseload activities, including the initial evaluation, treatment, progress, and discharge of clients.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing up evaluations, progress notes and billing records is documentation software drafts well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Completing administrative responsibilities, such as coordinating paperwork, scheduling case management activities or writing lesson plans
This is reading one thing and writing another: administrative responsibilities in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Complete administrative responsibilities, such as coordinating paperwork, scheduling case management activities, or writing lesson plans.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Paperwork, scheduling and lesson planning is administrative work software handles quickly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Changing shape

2 tasks

Tasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.

Consulting with and referring clients to additional medical or educational services
The software now makes the first pass at and referring clients, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Consult with and refer clients to additional medical or educational services.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 46 out of 100 (39–53 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Referral options are documented, though the recommendation carries clinical weight and comes through conversation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting or directing research on speech or hearing topics and reporting findings for use in developing procedures
The software now makes the first pass at research, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Conduct or direct research on speech or hearing topics and report findings for use in developing procedures, technologies, or treatments.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Conducting research and writing up findings is desk work software supports strongly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

19 tasks

Tasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.

Evaluating hearing or speech and language test results
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for speech, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Evaluate hearing or speech and language test results, barium swallow results, or medical or background information to diagnose and plan treatment for speech, language, fluency, voice, or swallowing disorders.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Test results and history can be analyzed, but the diagnosis and treatment plan must come from a licensed therapist.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing or implementing treatment plans
This work happens in the physical world: treatment plans, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Develop or implement treatment plans for problems such as stuttering, delayed language, swallowing disorders, or inappropriate pitch or harsh voice problems, based on own assessments and recommendations of physicians, psychologists, or social workers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (8–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Treatment approaches are documented, but the plan is a licensed clinical decision tied to that individual.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring patients' progress and adjusting treatments accordingly
This work happens in the physical world: patients' progress, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Monitor patients' progress and adjust treatments accordingly.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Adjusting therapy depends on how the patient responds in session with a licensed therapist.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Administering hearing or speech and language evaluations
This work happens in the physical world: speech, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Administer hearing or speech and language evaluations, tests, or examinations to patients to collect information on type and degree of impairments, using written or oral tests or special instruments.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Administering speech and language tests means working through them live with the patient.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Participating in and writing reports for meetings regarding patients' progress
The value here is that a specific person handles and writing reports and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Participate in and write reports for meetings regarding patients' progress, such as individualized educational planning (IEP) meetings, in-service meetings, or intervention assistance team meetings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 34 out of 100 (27–41 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Progress reports for school and team meetings draft well, though the meeting itself is a live discussion.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Educating patients and family members about various topics
The value here is that a specific person handles patients and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Educate patients and family members about various topics, such as communication techniques or strategies to cope with or to avoid personal misunderstandings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 27 out of 100 (20–34 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Explaining communication strategies draws on documented material, though families act on it through a therapist they trust.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Show the other 13 tasks

Developing speech exercise programs to reduce disabilities
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for speech exercise programs, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop speech exercise programs to reduce disabilities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Exercise programs follow published approaches, though a licensed therapist tailors and owns them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Using computer applications to identify or assist with communication disabilities
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for computer applications, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Use computer applications to identify or assist with communication disabilities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 36 out of 100 (29–43 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Using software to spot and support communication difficulties is itself a computing task, under clinical oversight.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing individual or group activities or programs in schools to deal with behavior
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for individual, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Develop individual or group activities or programs in schools to deal with behavior, speech, language, or swallowing problems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 36 out of 100 (29–43 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: School programs can be designed from documented material, though they are run with real groups of children.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Consulting with and advising educators or medical staff on speech or hearing topics
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for and advising educators, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Consult with and advise educators or medical staff on speech or hearing topics, such as communication strategies or speech and language stimulation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Advising teachers and medical staff draws on documented knowledge and lands as a professional conversation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Participating in conferences, training
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: conferences, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Participate in conferences, training, continuing education courses, or publish research results to share knowledge of new hearing or speech disorder treatment methods or technologies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Reading and writing up research is desk work, but conferences and courses mean attending them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Designing, developing or employ alternative diagnostic or communication devices or strategies
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: employ alternative diagnostic, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Design, develop, or employ alternative diagnostic or communication devices or strategies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Choosing or building a communication aid means fitting it to a specific person, usually in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing communication instruction to dialect speakers or students with limited English proficiency
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: communication instruction, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Provide communication instruction to dialect speakers or students with limited English proficiency.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (7–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Teaching pronunciation and language to learners happens through live practice with a person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Instructing clients in techniques for more effective communication
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: clients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Instruct clients in techniques for more effective communication, such as sign language, lip reading, or voice improvement.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Communication techniques are documented, but they are taught live by a licensed therapist the client works with.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Supervising or collaborating with therapy team
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for therapy team, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Supervise or collaborate with therapy team.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Leading a therapy team runs on standing and trust with those colleagues.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Supervising students or assistants
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for students, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Supervise students or assistants.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Supervising students and assistants depends on an ongoing working relationship.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Communicating with students who use an alternative method of communications
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: students who use an alternative method of communications, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Communicate with students who use an alternative method of communications, using sign language or computer technology.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Communicating with a student through sign language or a device happens in the moment with them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting lessons or directing educational or therapeutic games to assist teachers dealing with speech problems
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: lessons, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Conduct lessons or direct educational or therapeutic games to assist teachers dealing with speech problems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (3–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Running therapeutic lessons and games happens live with the children.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Teaching clients to control or strengthen tongue
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: clients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Teach clients to control or strengthen tongue, jaw, face muscles, or breathing mechanisms.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Teaching someone to control tongue, jaw and breathing means working physically alongside them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $97,870a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
People doing this job: 183,390in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)

What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.

Why this is shifting

The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: administrative responsibilities in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: completing administrative responsibilities, such as coordinating paperwork and writing reports and maintaining proper documentation of information. What it cannot do is be answerable: speech needs a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

Start with what does not change: administering hearing or speech and language evaluations is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 10% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 7% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 83% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 23 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Completing administrative responsibilities, such as coordinating paperwork, scheduling case management activities or writing lesson plans is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.

This week: one thing

Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to administrative responsibilities, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.

What you end up holding: a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
How long it takes: ten minutes

If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether treatment plans are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.

Over the next 90 days

Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near consulting with and referring clients to additional medical or educational services. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.

Over the next 12 months

On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them

I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.

I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to speech-language pathologists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was audiologists: only about 19% of its durable work is work you already do and there are far fewer of those jobs than of yours. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 27/100 here, with only 10% of the task list in the top band, and “evaluate hearing or speech and language test results, barium swallow results, or…” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.

How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

Audiologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already administer hearing or speech and language evaluations, tests, or examinations to patients to…, and their equivalent is to administer hearing tests and examine patients to collect information on type and degree…. Across both published task lists that is about 19% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 19% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. And it is a narrow door: about 13,660 of those jobs against 183,390 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 7% as many seats.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Healthcare Support Workers, All Other
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already consult with and advise educators or medical staff on speech or hearing topics, and their equivalent is to assist speech-language pathologists in the remediation or development of speech and language skills. Across both published task lists that is about 9% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 9% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $48,430 against your $97,870, 50.5% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already monitor patients' progress and adjust treatments accordingly, and their equivalent is to monitor patients' conditions and progress and reevaluate treatments as necessary. Across both published task lists that is about 6% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 6% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $292,910 against your $97,870 is 2.99× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 6% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route. And it is a narrow door: about 21,260 of those jobs against 183,390 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 12% as many seats.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.

The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 10% of its task weight, across 23 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like administering hearing or speech and language evaluations arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

You are reading the United States figures

The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Speech and language therapists is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.

Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match

In UK official statistics this job is counted as Speech and language therapists. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
American Job Center locator
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
- CareerOneStop local help hub
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop
Free

No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it

Nothing Collab365 runs is built for speech-language pathologists, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 10% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.

Try The AI Authority free →

7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.

The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for speech-language pathologists. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for speech-language pathologists launches. Nothing else.

That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.

We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.

No Space for speech-language pathologists yet. Should there be one?

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for speech-language pathologists existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

Your email

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for speech-language pathologists launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Speech-Language Pathologists?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 23 official task statements scored for Speech-Language Pathologists (United States, SOC 29-1127), 10% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 27 out of 100 (range 21–33, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Speech-Language Pathologists” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Complete administrative responsibilities, such as coordinating paperwork, scheduling case management activities, or writing lesson plans” (75/100, high); “Write reports and maintain proper documentation of information, such as client Medicaid or billing records or caseload activities, including the initial eval…” (66/100, high); “Conduct or direct research on speech or hearing topics and report findings for use in developing procedures, technologies, or treatments” (56/100, partial). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Speech-Language Pathologists” stay human?: About 83% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Teach clients to control or strengthen tongue, jaw, face muscles, or breathing mechanisms” (3/100, minimal); “Conduct lessons or direct educational or therapeutic games to assist teachers dealing with speech problems” (7/100, minimal); “Communicate with students who use an alternative method of communications, using sign language or computer technology” (8/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Speech-Language Pathologists” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 10% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 83% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
How is the AI exposure score for Speech-Language Pathologists calculated?: Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 23 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

About the data on this page

One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
2 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Task statements: onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights: onet-db (im-rt)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-04.
Pay and employment: bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.

Plain text

Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).

BibTeX

@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
  title        = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
  author       = {{Collab365}},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
  note         = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.