Читать книгу Ethics and Law for School Psychologists - Susan Jacob - Страница 40

Madeleine Fine, a new first-grade teacher, asks Maria Delgado, the school psychologist, for some ideas on handling Kevin, a child who has demonstrated some challenging behaviors in the classroom. After Maria observes in the classroom, it is evident to her that Madeleine needs some help working with Kevin and developing effective classroom management strategies. Maria offers to meet with Madeleine once a week over a six-week period to work on classroom management skills, and Madeleine agrees. Shortly after their third consultation session, the principal asks Maria for her assessment of Madeleine’s teaching competence. The principal indicates that she plans to terminate Madeleine during her probationary period if there are problems with her teaching effectiveness. Maria is not sure how to respond to the principal’s request.

Case 1.3 illustrates the importance of openly defining the parameters of the services to be offered in the school setting. Madeleine has become Maria’s consultee in this school psychologist–consultee relationship. In this situation, Maria is bound by the obligation and expectation that what is shared and learned in their professional interaction is confidential; she may not share information about her consultee with the principal without Madeleine’s explicit consent to do so. If Maria violated the confidentiality of the consultative relationship and shared information about Madeleine’s teaching with the school administration, her actions would most likely undermine teacher trust in school psychologists and diminish her ability to work with other teachers in need of consultative services.

However, as is discussed in Chapter 8, not all psychologist–teacher consultative relationships are confidential. In defining their job roles to the school community, school psychologists identify the services they provide and those that are outside the scope of their job roles (NASP Standard III.2.1, III.2.2; APA Principle E). It is the job role of the principal, not the school psychologist, to gather information on teacher effectiveness (also NASP Standard III.2.4). The ethical issues associated with the consultation role are also discussed in Chapters 8.

Furthermore, consistent with the general principle of integrity in professional relationships, psychologists must be honest and straightforward about the boundaries of their competencies (NASP Standard III.1.1, III.2.1). “Competency levels, education, graduate preparation, experience, and certification and licensing credentials are accurately represented to clients, recipients of services, and others” (NASP Standard III.1.1; also APA Principle C). School psychology interns and practicum students identify themselves as such when seeking to establish a school psychologist–client relationship.

School psychologists also respect and understand the areas of competence of other professionals in their work settings and communities, and they work in full cooperation with others “in relationships based on mutual respect” to meet the needs of students (NASP Guiding Principle III.3; also APA Principle B). As noted previously, school-based practitioners work in a context that emphasizes multidisciplinary problem solving and intervention. Consistent with their professional obligations, they “encourage and support the use of all resources to serve the interests of students” and they “genuinely consider input from nonschool professionals regarding student classification, diagnosis, and appropriate school-based interventions” (NASP Standard III.3.1).

In addition, the principle of integrity in professional relationships also requires school psychologists to avoid multiple relationships and conflicts of interest that may interfere with professional effectiveness (NASP Guiding Principle III.4; III.5; APA 3.05a). Multiple relationships occur when a psychologist is in a professional role with a client and at the same time is in another role with that person or in a relationship with an individual related to or closely associated with the client. NASP’s code states: “School psychologists refrain from any activity in which multiple relationships with a client or a client’s family could reasonably be expected to interfere with professional effectiveness” (Standard III.4.1). Similarly, the APA’s ethics code requires psychologists to refrain from entering into a multiple relationship “if it can reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist’s objectivity, competence, or effectiveness” in providing services (APA Standard 3.05a). For example, it would not be appropriate to provide services to a friend’s child.

However, both codes recognize that multiple relationships are not always unethical. School psychologists must think carefully about whether the existence of multiple roles in relation to a client or the client’s family will impair professional objectivity or effectiveness or could be viewed by the public as inappropriate (Flanagan et al., 2005). Furthermore, sometimes multiple relationships are unavoidable, such as when there is a lack of alternative service providers. In such situations:

school psychologists take the necessary steps to anticipate and prevent conditions that might compromise their objectivity, professionalism, or ability to render services. They establish and maintain clear professional boundaries, clarify role expectations, and rectify any misunderstandings that might adversely affect the well-being of a client or a client’s family. In all cases, school psychologists prioritize the needs of the client and attempt to resolve any conflicts that emerge in a manner that provides the greatest benefit to the client. (NASP Standard III.4.2)

Practitioners are also “forthright in describing any potential conflicts of interest that may interfere with professional effectiveness, whether these conflicts are financial or personal belief systems” (Guiding Principle III.5; also see Standard III.5.2). Standard III.5.3 states:

School psychologists recognize when their own beliefs, attitudes, or experiences pose a barrier to providing competent services to a particular client or family. In such situations, the school psychologist obtains supervision that would allow them to provide quality services, if feasible. If not feasible, they ask for reassignment of the case to a different school psychologist, or they direct the client to alternative services and facilitate the transition to those services.

As discussed previously, school psychologists may not discriminate against persons, including students and their families, based on actual or perceived characteristics such as race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity (NASP Standard I.3.1). Furthermore, public school staff generally have no legal right to refuse to teach or provide school services to a specific student (e.g., Hatton v. Wicks, 1984). Standard III.5.3 was written to acknowledge that, in unusual circumstances, a school psychologist’s own beliefs, attitudes, or experiences may pose a barrier to working with a specific client, family, or type of problem. The purpose of the standard is to assure school psychologists that it is ethically permissible to ask for supervision, assistance, or assignment of a client to a different school psychologist when such situations arise.

School psychologists also do not engage in exploitation of “clients, supervisees, or graduate students through professional relationships or condone these actions by their colleagues. They do not participate in or condone sexual harassment of children, parents, other clients, colleagues, employees, trainees, supervisees, or research participants” (NASP Standard III.4.3). Furthermore, they “do not engage in sexual relationships with individuals over whom they have evaluation authority” or “with their current or former pupil-clients; the parents, siblings, or other close family members of current pupil-clients; or current consultees.” And, “because they have an obligation to consider the well-being of all family members and to safeguard trust in psychologists, school psychologists are cautious about entering into sexual relationships with parents, siblings, or other close family members of the former client after the conclusion of the professional relationship” (NASP Standard III.4.4).

Consistent with the general principle of honesty and integrity, psychologists also do not take credit for work that is not their own (APA Principle C). “When publishing or presenting research or other work, school psychologists do not plagiarize the works or ideas of others” (NASP Standard IV.5.8). Furthermore, they take credit “only for work they have actually performed or to which they have contributed” (APA 8.12; also NASP Standard IV.5.9).