Читать книгу Ethics and Law for School Psychologists - Susan Jacob - Страница 49

Three broad types of ethical-legal challenges arise in professional practice: ethical dilemmas, ethical transgressions, and legal quandaries. Ethical dilemmas occur when “there are good but contradictory ethical reasons to take conflicting and incompatible courses of action” (Knauss, 2001, p. 231; also Beauchamp & Childress, 2019), and may foster moral distress among psychologists (Austin et al., 2005). Ethical transgressions or violations are those acts that go against professional expectations for ethical conduct and violate enforceable ethics codes. Ethical transgressions can result in harm to students or others and create a problematic situation for colleagues who must decide whether and how to confront the misconduct (Dailor & Jacob, 2011). Finally, legal quandaries can arise when disregard for federal or state law results in infringement of the legal rights of students and families. Parent–school disputes, especially with regard to special education law, can trigger legal action against the school or school psychologist.

Sinclair (1998) observed that “some ethical decision making is virtually automatic and the individual may not be aware of having made an ethical decision. In other situations, ethical decision making is not automatic but leads rapidly to an easy resolution,” particularly if a clear-cut standard exists. However, “some ethical issues … require a time-consuming process of deliberation” (p. 171). Eberlein (1987) and others (Behnke & Jones, 2012; Knapp, VandeCreek et al., 2017; Tymchuk, 1986) suggested that mastery of an explicit decision-making model or procedure may help the practitioner make informed, well-reasoned choices when dilemmas arise in professional practice. Tymchuk (1986) has also noted that in difficult situations, the course of action chosen may be challenged. Use of a systematic problem-solving strategy will allow the practitioner to describe how a decision was made. This may afford some protection when difficult decisions come under the scrutiny of others. Furthermore, practitioners may find a systematic decision-making model helpful in anticipating and preventing problems from occurring (Sinclair, 1998). Consistent with the literature, NASP Standard IV.3.1 advises that, “In difficult situations, school psychologists use a systematic, problem-solving approach to decision making.”

There are a variety of multi-step decision-making models available for practitioners to choose from to guide their problem-solving process. The DECIDE ethical decision-making model shown in Table 1.1 is a six-step model developed by Diamond et al. (2021) to assist school psychologists as they navigate the variety of complex situations encountered in their many roles and responsibilities in school settings. Specifically, the DECIDE model asks practitioners to (a) Define the problem; (b) Ecological Lens—identify and examine cultural and contextual factors; (c) Consider ethical, legal, and policy guidelines; (d) Identify rights and responsibilities of all parties; (e) Determine courses of action and consequences; and (f) Establish a plan that is consistent with a socially just, anti-discriminatory, and anti-racist practice. The DECIDE model emphasizes the importance of recognizing cultural and contextual factors through an ecological lens, with a primary goal of aiding school psychologists to make socially just decisions in their work. Furthermore, the model encourages practitioners to examine how their own biases could affect their perception of the situation and the decision-making process.

Table 1.1 DECIDE Ethical Decision-Making Model.

Step 1. Define the Problem. Identify key elements of the situation and articulate any specific challenges or concerns. Differentiate the essential details from the nonessential details.Questions to guide this step: What has happened or is happening? Who is involved? Who has been impacted or may be impacted (both directly and indirectly)?Step 2. Ecological Framework. Look at the situation through an ecological lens and identify any cultural or contextual factors that may have been overlooked in step one. Taken from the NASP Guiding Principle I.3, characteristics can include (but are not limited to) “race, ethnicity, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, immigration status, socioeconomic status, primary language, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, or any other distinguishing characteristics.” Beyond individual characteristics, use an ecological framework to identify contextual variables that may be influencing the situation (e.g., family members, family structure, peers, school systems, work systems, neighborhoods, resources, social conditions, economic systems, policies, etc.). What individual characteristics and identities, system level variables, and interactions may be notable? This step provides space to consider how to engage in a socially just practice, as is the ethical duty of a school psychologist (NASP Standard I.3.2).Questions to guide this step: What cultural variables are present? What contextual variables are present? What intersectionality is present? The term intersectionalities refers to a paradigm that addresses the multidimensions of identity (e.g., ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, sexual orientation, age) and how they intersect with one another and relate to inequality and oppression (Ingraham et al., 2019; also APA, 2017a). What systemic influences are present? How might power, systemic racism, or implicit biases be influencing the situation? Is this situation part of a larger systemic pattern (e.g., within the school, community, neighborhood, etc.)? How do individual social identities function in contextualized systems of inequality? Have any voices or perspectives been left out of the conversation? What biases have not been addressed?Step 3. Consider Ethical, Legal, and Policy Guidelines. Identify ethical, legal, and policy guidelines relevant to the problem or dilemma. Consider the guidelines collectively and identify any conflicts. Consult as applicable (e.g., direct supervisor, special education director, other school psychologists, school district legal counsel).Questions to guide this step: What laws are relevant to this situation? What ethical standards are relevant to this situation? What district policies are relevant to this situation? Is there other relevant guidance to consider (e.g., position statements from professional organizations, technical assistance papers, etc.)? Who do the policies serve? What are the historical foundations of the policies?Step 4. Identify the Rights and Responsibilities of all Parties. Identify all individuals or groups involved in the situation, both directly and indirectly, and articulate their rights and responsibilities. Keep in mind the cultural and contextual factors from step two and the legal, ethical, and policy guidelines from step three.Questions to guide this step: Who is directly involved and/or impacted by this situation? Who is indirectly involved and/or impacted by this situation? What are their rights? What are their responsibilities?Step 5. Determine Courses of Action and Consequences. Identify several possible courses of action to respond to the problem or dilemma and consider the possible outcomes or consequences for each. Consider the welfare of those affected by the various outcomes. Keep in mind the cultural and contextual factors identified in step two. Consult as applicable (e.g., supervisor, special education director, school district legal counsel, district equity and inclusion director, cultural brokers, and/or other school psychologists).Questions to guide this step: What are the ethical, legal, and policy ramifications associated with each option? How do the proposed actions effect the welfare of those impacted by the situation? Do the proposed actions and anticipated consequences align with a socially just, anti-discriminatory, and anti-racist practice?Step 6. Establish a Plan. Identify a decision, make a plan to enact the decision, and monitor the outcome. Ensure that the final decision aligns with legal, ethical, and policy guidelines and is consistent with a socially just, anti-discriminatory, and anti-racist practice, taking into consideration cultural and contextual factors of those involved and impacted by the situation. Consult as applicable (e.g., supervisor, special education director, school district legal counsel, district equity and inclusion director, cultural brokers, and/or other school psychologists).Questions to guide this step: Does the decision align with legal, ethical, and policy guidelines? Does the decision align with a socially just, anti-discriminatory, and anti-racist practice? What is the plan to monitor the outcome of the decision? Who will be responsible for following up, and what is the proposed timeline? How will you know when the problem or dilemma has been resolved?Note: The content in this table is adapted from Diamond et al. (2021). National Association of School Psychologists. Reprinted with permission of the publisher. www.nasponline.org .

Note that the model described here may be applied in whole or in part, depending on the degree of complexity of the specific situation and the type of ethical issues involved. Also, when using a decision-making model, it is not necessary to follow the steps in sequence. For example, a practitioner might begin by consulting with a colleague to identify the specific legal, ethical, and policy guidelines pertinent to a situation (step 3) or may continue to circle back to important cultural and contextual factors identified in step 2 while working through the remaining steps of the model. Further, a school psychologist might stop at step 1 after discovering that what appeared to be an ethics violation by a colleague was simply a misunderstanding.

When faced with a difficult dilemma, the use of a decision-making model is now widely considered be “best practice.” As Cottone (2012) noted, “the profession has advanced to the degree that a psychologist who makes a crucial ethical decision without the use of a model would appear naive, uneducated, or potentially incompetent” (p. 117). NASP’s code of ethics requires practitioners to use a systematic procedure to resolve difficult situations (Standard IV.3.1). Additional research is needed, however, to assess the impact of various decision models on the quality of ethical choices made by psychologists (Boccio, 2020; Cottone, 2012).

Dailor and Jacob (2011) asked school psychology survey participants to identify the types of problem-solving strategies they used when handling difficult situations in the previous year. Less than one-quarter of respondents reported using a systematic decision-making model. Respondents who had received multilevel university training (coursework in ethics, discussion of ethical issues in multiple courses, and supervised discussion of ethical issues in practica and internships) were more likely to report use of a systematic decision-making model than those who had not received multilevel ethics preparation. However, two-thirds of survey participants did report consulting with colleagues when faced with a challenging situation. Gottlieb (2006) identified best practices in providing consultation to colleagues who are facing a difficult ethical situation.