THESIS

(3‘0 0

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

3 1293 0205060

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

EXPLORING ETHICAL DIMENSIONS OF PRACTICE:
LISTENING TO VOICES OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS

presented by
NICOLE DANA STAHL
has been accepted towards fulﬁllment

of the requirements for

Ph.D. degreein School Psychology

 

 

Date_ﬂecember__lA_._1999

0-12771

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 
   
     

  

UBRARY
Michigan State
University

EXPLORING ETHICAL DIMENSIONS OF PRACTICE:
LISTENING TO VOICES OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS

VOLUME 1
By

Nicole Dana Stahl

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education (CEPSE)

1999

ABSTRACT

EXPLORING ETHICAL DIMENSIONS OF PRACTICE:
LISTENING TO VOICES OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS

By

Nicole Dana Stahl

The purpose of this study was to explore ethical dimensions of school psychology
and to address some limitations of our present understanding of school psychologists’
ethical concerns and commitments. Historically, the topic of ethics in school psychology
has been explored mainly through studies providing objective, quantiﬁed descriptors of
ethical concerns, with minimal attention given to the active construal of ethical concerns
and commitments by individual practitioners. Researchers such as Gilligan (1983) and
Lyons (1982) have explored moral development, suggesting the presence of two moral
voices—the ethic of justice and the ethic of care—that characterize people’s
understandings of moral and ethical concerns. Using the moral voices framework as a
starting point for analysis and discussion, the goal of the present study was to provide a
qualitative exploration of school psychologists’ active constructions of ethical practice.
This research was intended to build upon existing knowledge of school psychologists’
understandings of ethical concerns and commitments characterizing their role.

The ﬁrst section of the study, Understanding the Silence, outlined the limited
manner through which school psychologists’ moral concerns have been understood and
represented. Socio-historical, systemic and political reasons for these limited

perspectives and understandings were explored. Given the recent call for role expansion

 

 

and new legislation and socio-political climates, a more comprehensive understanding of
ethics in practice is warranted.

The second section, Breaking the Silence, provided a thematic representation of
the conversations of ten school psychologists who participated in semi-structured
interviews. Five themes emerged from the interviews and were described: Ethical
commitments reﬂected in role deﬁnitions; intersection of personal and professional
commitments; construing ethical conﬂict as system versus individual tensions; construing
ethical practice as a complex web of relationships; and the development and emergence
of moral voice.

The third section, Amplifying the Voices, provided discussion of the active process
that school psychologists engaged in as they construed their ethical commitments. The
voice of justice was ampliﬁed and the voice of care suppressed in these discussions.
Socio-historical, systemic and political reasons for the suppression of care—including
ﬁnancial barriers, role perceptions, justice focus in education, nature of training, and
professional survival—were discussed. Results indicated that ethical concerns in school
psychology must be contextualized to understand the moral voices that are heard. One
place that school psychologists expressed both moral voices most freely was the role of
child advocate. Data indicated that a clear justice/care dichotomy of the type described
by Gilligan was insufﬁcient for understanding the complex ethical commitments of
school psychologists; rather, these concepts must be reconceptualized and situated within
the unique contexts where school psychologists practice. Implications for research and
practice, including recommendations for encouraging an ethic of care in schools and in

school psychology practice, were asserted.

Copyright by
NICOLE DANA STAHL
1999

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Without the love, prayers and support of many important people in my life, this
work would never have been transformed from the thinking stage into written form.
First, I thank my family and especially my parents, Ken and Gail Stahl, to whom I am
forever grateful for their Christian inﬂuence and for instilling within me the belief that
nothing worthwhile in life is beyond my grasp. I owe special thanks to my sister, Kendra
Stahl, who spent many hours helping me transcribe the interviews, as well as listening to
my triumphs and my frustrations. My future husband, Matthew McDonald, provided
unconditional support and encouragement through the later stages of this dissertation; I
am conﬁdent that living through this process has prepared us well for married life!

My dissertation committee members—Dr. Evelyn Oka (Chair), Dr. Linda
Forrest, Dr. Anna Neumann, and Dr. Steven Weiland—have spent many hours reading,
advising, editing, and challenging me to push my thinking to the next level. For their
generous gifts of time and critical reﬂection, I will forever be grateful.

Dr. Evelyn Oka, my graduate advisor, has in so many ways extended beyond her
required role in my training. She has invested in me not only as a student and a school
psychologist, but also as a person. With her intellect, integrity and standards of
excellence, she has encouraged me to stretch my thinking and to grow as a person and a
professional. As teacher, mentor, and friend, she has had a major inﬂuence in my life.

It is my ultimate goal that the honor for this work would be given to the Lord
Jesus Christ. May every person who reads this work somehow gain a clearer sense of

the powerful, loving presence of my Savior, to whom I have dedicated my life and work.

List of Tables .......

SECTION ONE

Chapter 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
................................................................................. xii
UNDERSTANDING THE SILENCE
Historical Context and Shifting Paradigms
Framing Ethical Dimensions of Practice ............................. 6-7
Standards of Practice in School Psychology:
Exploring Ethical Resources ........................................ 7-17
Ethical Codes .................................................. 7-10
Training ...................................................... 10-1 1
Research Literature ......................................... 12-14
Peer Consultation ............................................... 14
Legal Guidelines ............................................ 15-17
Deﬁning Ethics and Morality ...................................... 17-20
Statement of the Problem: Limited
Understanding of Ethics in the Field .............................. 20-21
A New Approach to Understanding Ethics
In School Psychology ................................................... 21
Articulating Ethical Practice as Moral Voice .................... 21-29
Gilligan Criticized .......................................... 29-31
The Concept of “Voice” as a Tool of Inquiry .................... 31-35
The “Silenced” Voices of School
Psychologists ................................................ 32-35
Research Questions ...................................................... 36
Unique Methodological Issues in Interpretive
Research ............................................................... 37-39
Expected Contributions ............................................. 39-40

vi

 

V‘..._~ .- -

Chapter 2 Methods

Validity, Applicability and Reliability in

Interpretive Inquiry .................................................. 43-49
Validity ....................................................... 43-44
Applicability ................................................. 44-47
Reliability .................................................... 47-49

Participants and Settings ............................................ 49-52
Participants ................................................... 49-50
Participant Characteristics ................................. 51-52
Settings ....................................................... 51-52

The Interview Process ............................................... 53-55
Instrument .................................................... 54-55

Investigating and Analyzing the Data ................................. 55

Thematic Organization .............................................. 56-58

SECTION TWO BREAKING THE SILENCE

Chapter 3 Ethical Obligations and Commitments Reﬂected in Role

Deﬁnitions

Child Advocate First and Foremost: A

Common Thread in Role Deﬁnition ............................... 60-65

Unique Constructions and Interpretations of the Child

Advocacy Role ....................................................... 66-84
The “Balancing” Function ................................. 66-67
Tester and “Gatekeeper” .................................... 67-72
Consultant ................................................... 72-74
Problem-Solver .............................................. 75-82
Facilitator ..................................................... 82-84

The Salience of Ethical Concerns in Practice .................... 84-90

Summary ............................................................... 90-91

vii

Chapter 4 Intersection of Personal and Professional Commitments
Understanding Ethics as Inherent in Personhood .............. 93-105
Ethics and Self-Awareness ............................. 103-105
Speciﬁc Factors and Experiences Impacting
Ethical Commitments ............................................ 105-1 13
Family Upbringing and Religious Belief ............. 106-108
Social and Civic Responsibility ........................ 108-109
Parenthood ................................................ 109-113
Summary ........................................................... 113-115
Chapter 5 Construing Ethical Conﬂict as System versus Individual
Tensions
Factors Contributing to System versus Individual
Ethical “Tugs” ..................................................... 118-158
Limited Resources ....................................... 1 19-125
Heavy Testing Caseloads ................................ 125-127
Others’ Perceptions of the Role ........................ 127-128
Inﬂexible Eligibility Criteria ........................... 128-130
Confusion about Client Identiﬁcation ................. 130-142
Transient Nature of the Role ........................... 143-144
Educational Philosophy ................................. 144-146
Administrative Pressure ................................. 146-155
Lack of Empirical Support for Special
Education Intervention .................................. 155-158
Summary ..................................................................... 158-159
Chapter 6 Construing Ethical Practice in School Psychology as a

Complex Web of Relationships

Untangling the Complex Web: Balancing the Needs

Of Multiple Players in the System .............................. 161-209
Relationships with Students ........................... 173-175
Relationships with Families ............................. 175-185
Relationships with Teachers ............................ 185-193
Relationships with Administrators .................... 193-197
Relationships with Other Team Members
and School Professionals ................................ 197-208

viii

Relationships with Community Professionals ....... 208-209

Existing in the Web of Relationships:

The Need for Conﬁdentiality .................................... 209-213
IDEA ’97 and Relationships ..................................... 213-216
Summary ........................................................... 217-21 8

Chapter 7 Development and Emergence of Moral Voice
Moral Voice as 3 Developmental Phenomenon ............... 222-240

The Early Years: The Ethical Facets

of Testing .................................................. 222-224
Moving Beyond the Testing Role: Grasping

the “Bigger Picture” ...................................... 224-228

Mistakes in Decisions and Ethical Development. . ..229-232

Accumulated Experience ................................ 232-238

Personal Growth and Parenthood ...................... 23 8-240

Moral Voice as an Emergent Phenomenon .................... 240-253

Emergence of Voice from System Barriers ........... 241-243

Ethical Behavior of Team Colleagues ............. 243

Administrative Support ......................... 244-253

Clinical Judgment ............................... 244-253

Summary ........................................................... 253—256

SECTION THREE AMPLIFYING THE VOICES

Chapter 8 Understanding Justice and Care Within the Schools

Concepts of Care within the Schools ........................... 260-272
Barriers to Care in the Schools ......................... 262-265

The Nature of Care and Relationship in School
Psychology ................................................ 265-272
Concepts of Justice in the Schools ............................. 272-278
Summary .......................................................... 278-279

 

 

Chapter 9 Reframing Moral Voice in School Psychology

Understanding Moral Voice as a Contextualized

Phenomenon ....................................................... 281-288
Interpersonal Context of Relationships ............ 283-284
Institutional Context of Schools ..................... 284-285
Socio-Historical Context of the Profession ......... 285-288

Justice as the Ampliﬁed Voice and Care as the

Suppressed Voice in School Psychology Practice. . . . . . ...288-296
Contextual Filters ............................................. 291
Professional Survival Strategy ......................... 292-293
Training ................................................... 293-296
Refrarning Care in School Psychology: The Multiple
Faces of Care ...................................................... 296-304
Advocacy as a Navigation Strategy: Melding Justice
and Care on the Ethical Terrain of Practice ................... 304-308
Hearing the Moral Voice of School Psychologists:
Conclusions and Implications ................................... 308-327
Conclusions ............................................... 308-3 12
Implications for Training and Practice ................. 312-324
Understanding and Assessing Broader
Contexts .......................................... 312-3 1 3
Understanding the Contextualized Nature
Of Ethical Commitments ....................... 313-315
Reconceptualizing and Reforming
Training Practices ............................... 315-320
Revisiting Ethical Codes ....................... 320-321
Returning to Relationship: A Challenge
To Reform for School Psychologists ......... 321-326
Implications for Research .............................. 324-326
Appendix A — Table of Participant Characteristics ........................................... 329
Appendix B - Initial Invitation Letter ..................................................... 331-334
Appendix C - F ollow-Up Invitation Letter ............................................... 336-339
Appendix D — Interview Protocol .......................................................... 341-348
References .................................................................................... 350-372
X

 

LIST OF TABLES

Participant Characteristics (Appendix A)

 

Chapter 1

Historical Context and
Shifting Paradigms

Historically, the ﬁeld of school psychology has been narrowly deﬁned as the
science and practice of assessing and placing students into appropriate educational
programs based on standardized tests and other assessment data (Bardon, 1994; Fagan &
Wise, 1994). This deﬁnition can be traced back to the earliest research investigating the
school psychologist’s role. Wallin (1914, as cited in Fagan & Wise, 1994) found that
practitioners were not well-trained or well-equipped to provide a broad range of
psychological services; rather, the role of “psychometrician” was considered appropriate
and essential. This limited role has persisted through subsequent decades with school
psychologists being largely restricted to the role of a “gatekeeper” of special education
whose main function is to “test and place” students (Fagan & Wise, 1994).

Nevertheless, school psychologists across the nation are increasingly being called
upon by parents, school professionals and professional organizations to provide a wider
range of services and functions (Cummings, 1996; D011, 1996; Harrison, 1996). This
expansion has resulted not only from within the ﬁeld of school psychology, but also from
theoretical, educational, legal, economic and socio-cultural reforms outside the ﬁeld.
First, within the ﬁeld itself, many school psychologists continue to express the desire to
utilize their skills in a broad spectrum of services, rejecting the limitations of traditional
roles (Reschly & Wilson, 1995). School psychologists often believe that their broad
Spectrum of skills, knowledge and expertise are underutilized and even wasted when their

functions are strictly limited to testing (F agan & Wise, 1994). This desire is reﬂected in

1

 

 

the recent literature of the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) and the
American Psychological Association (APA), most of which highlights nontraditional
roles of school psychologists.

Second, theoretical perspectives have emerged in related disciplines (e.g.,
Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1994; Henning-Stout, 1994; Munger, 1991) which focus on
contextual and systemic inﬂuences on learning, development and behavior. Rather than
conceptualizing, studying and understanding individuals in isolation, researchers and
practitioners now recognize that an individual’s development, thoughts, actions, and
decisions cannot be understood apart from the dynamic contexts in which he or she
functions. For school psychologists, this necessitates broadening their view and practices
in assessment and intervention to include the various contexts in which children and
families operate.

Third, the role of educational institutions in the lives of today’s students and
families has undergone signiﬁcant change, due in part to the changing “face” of today’s
family. The circumstances facing families today—increasing poverty, dual-working
families, single- and step-families—have introduced new and complex issues. Facing
this complex web of changes, schools have found it necessary to expand beyond a strictly
academic role to address many social, emotional and psychological needs of students
(Munger, 1991). “F ull-service schools” and collaborative multi-agency treatment
approaches where the school is often the “hub” of comprehensive service delivery
(Ascher, 1990; Knitzer, 1993) reﬂect this changing role of educational institutions. As

school professionals, school psychologists must seek to establish their role within this

newly deﬁned institutional mission, with potential roles including serving as a member of

 

 

an interdisciplinary team, acting as coordinator of the cross-agency team, or serving as a
university-based consultant (Reeder, Maccow, Shaw, Swerdlik, Horton & Foster, 1997).

Fourth, changes in the laws regulating special education have promoted inclusive
education, challenging traditional segregated systems of special education and general
education (Vaughn & Schumm, 1995; Yell, 1995). The passing of Public Law 94-142 in
1975 played a major role in the movement to educate children with disabilities in the
general education environment in a manner that involves the least amount of restriction
(Jacob-Timm & Hartshome, 1994, 1999). Revised legislation, such as The Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (PL. 101-476), has mandated
extensive parent and family involvement in educational assessment and broader-scale
intervention. These reforms have resulted in the need for school psychological services
that extend beyond narrow testing roles to include collaborative problem-solving,
consultation, and intervention.

F iﬁh, within the ﬁeld of mental health services, there is rising consumer
awareness and accountability (Keith-Spiegel & Koocher, 1985). For example, it is
increasingly common for parent and community advocacy groups to maintain active
involvement in school programming and education-related political activities. Compared
to the historical autonomy of educational institutions, parents and advocacy groups in
today’s society are more apt to ensure actively that school psychologists and other
educational professionals are providing quality services according to ethical, legislative
and educational best practice.

Finally, in the face of limited economic resources leading to ﬁnancial cutbacks

and downsizing, school psychologists ﬁnd themselves in the position of having to prove

their “indispensability” (Han'ison, 1996). To avoid eventual reduction or elimination of
their role and to ensure professional survival in an institution where the budget drives
many decisions, the school psychologist must be prepared to expand their repertoire of
services to meet needs within the system.

Undoubtedly, these changes have signiﬁcant implications for the roles and
functions of school psychologists. As one school psychologist stated regarding the
school psychologist’s changing role in the schools, “school psychologists must concern
themselves equally with intellectual, social and emotional development if they are to
promote health” (Sandoval, 1996, p. 6). As a result, some suggest that school
psychologists should be equipped to provide an extensive spectrum of services including
individual and group counseling (Pagliocca & Sandoval, 1995; Tharinger & Stafford,
1995), parent and teacher consultation (Newman, 1993; Scholten, 1993), family therapy
(Hansen, Green & Kutner, 1989), intervention with at-risk infants (1995), design and
implementation of staff inservices (Green, 1995), community intervention and education
(Schensul, 1998), and crisis intervention (Poland, Pitcher & Lazarus 1995; Sandoval,
1997)

Despite its appeal, there is some question as to whether this call for role
expansion is conﬁned to rhetoric or whether, in fact, the school psychologist’s role will
expand beyond the traditional limits. In many ways, the role continues to be narrowly
deﬁned and perceived by students, parents, teachers, administrators, and other
educational professionals, as well as by many school psychologists (F agan & Wise,
1994). Empirical data continue to document that school psychologists spend more than

half of their time in “traditional sorting activities,” despite their desire to perform a

broader range of functions (Reschly & Wilson, 1992). Nevertheless, despite the
resistance of the traditional role to change, the rhetoric of expansion has in itself
stimulated a great deal of enthusiasm among practitioners interested in utilizing their
clinical skills in a broader way. In light of limited resources facing educational
institutions today, many psychologists are embracing this expanded role as a way of
making psychologists in the schools “indispensable” (Sandoval, 1996), thereby ensuring
the future of their job and profession.

Many school psychologists agree that the expanding roles and ftmctions available
to them are exciting and embody the potential for new levels of efﬁcacy in the lives of
children and families, as well as greater personal and professional ﬁrlﬁllment for
practitioners. However, there are unintended consequences of the proposed call for role
expansion: A host of new and complex ethical challenges, responsibilities and conﬂicts.
Rather than being responsible for the professional and ethical demands of the testing role
alone, school psychologists increasingly ﬁnd themselves needing to be aware of and
incorporate into their practices a wide array of professional expectations, legislation, and
ethical guidelines relating to multiple roles and functions. In the next section, I will
articulate these infrequently discussed consequences, with particular emphasis on the
implications of role expansion for school psychologists’ ethical responsibilities and

obligations.

Framing Ethical Dimensions of Practice

School psychologists’ roles have always worked within a network of relationships
with others. They work with people in the varied roles of counselor, mentor, teacher,
colleague, evaluator and consultant. This is true even when these relationships are based
on assessment and testing. Role expansion will likely change both the range and the
nature of relationships in which a school psychologist is involved. Whereas traditional
roles may have been limited to assessment, school psychologists will have opportunities
to fulﬁll intervention needs in the lives of children, families, school professionals, and
communities (Cummings, 1996; D011, 1996; Harrison, 1996). They also may be asked to
collaborate with agencies outside of the school to design and implement comprehensive,
multi-context treatment and intervention. These functions will demand skills,
competencies and knowledge that differ ﬁ'om those utilized in an isolated testing role.

With shifting and developing relationships, new and different moral and ethical
concerns are likely to emerge. With the increasing demand for varied services, school
psychologists may be under pressure to provide a wider range of services than any one
person is capable of providing. In the words of one psychologist, “it would probably take
a super psychologist--not just a school psychologist--to do all of these things very well"
(French, 1996, p. 17). One new ethical challenge might therefore arise if a school
psychologist is placed in the position of providing services beyond his or her knowledge
and expertise. Another ethical problem that has been aggravated by the changing role is
that of clear identiﬁcation of the client (Hansen, Green & Kutner, 1989): Is the primary

client the student, the parent, or the school? What does a psychologist do when the needs

of the parent and child come into conﬂict with the needs and desires of school
professionals? Where and with whom do school psychologists’ commitments lie? With
the potential for more complex social networks and commitments, psychologists may
increasingly ﬁnd themselves dealing with situations where the needs and demands of
various relationships come into conﬂict, creating new ethical concerns and dilemmas. It
may no longer be clear where school psychologists’ moral and ethical commitments
should and do lie. Clearly, school psychologists must navigate these shitting relationships
and responsibilities to ensure that their services will beneﬁt and not harm the client. Yet,
virtually nothing is known about how school psychologists think about ethical concerns

in relation to professional practice and roles.

Standards of Practice in School Psychology:
Exploring Ethical Resources

In dealing with the ethical demands of their roles, school psychologists have a
variety of possible resources available to them. Five of the major resources include
ethical codes, graduate-level ethics training, research literature, consultation with

colleagues, and relevant laws.

Ethical Codes. Within the ﬁeld of psychology, professional typically agree that
the responsibility for professional ethical conduct rests with the individual practitioner
(Eberlein, 1987, as cited in Jacob-Timm & Hartshome, 1999). Given that this
r68ponsibility lies with practitioners, the primary purpose of ethical codes is to outline

professionals’ obligations for protecting the public (Jacob-Timm & Hartshome, 1999).

Practitioners typically adhere to ethical guidelines for the profession, such as the
Principles for Professional Ethics, fnst adopted in 1974 and revised in 1984, 1992 and
1997, and the Standards for the Provision of School Psychological Services, developed by
the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP, 1974, 1984, 1992 & 1997).
The NASP ethical guidelines address the following areas: Professional competence and
training; maintaining competence; professional relationships and responsibilities to
students, parents, school, community, related professions and other school psychologists;
advocacy of the rights and welfare of the student/client; professional responsibilities in
assessment and intervention; use of materials and technology; school-based research and
evaluation; reporting data and conferencing results; and professional responsibilities in
private practice settings (J acob-Timm & Hartshome, 1999).

In addition to the NASP ethical guidelines, doctoral-level school psychologists
also abide by the ethical standards outlined in the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and
Code of Conduct (1992). The current version was preceded by the APA’s Ethical
Standards of Psychologists, ﬁrst adopted in 1952 and revised eight times between 1958
and 1990. In addition to addressing concerns that may be speciﬁc to schools, the APA
guidelines were developed for psychologists with training in diverse specialties who
work in multiple settings (Jacob-Timm & Hartshome, 1998). This differs from the
NASP guidelines, which were designed speciﬁcally for school psychologists employed in
public schools or in private practice settings (J acob-Timm & Hartshome, 1999). Both the
NASP and APA guidelines provide general ethical principles--”aspirational goals to
guide psychologists toward the highest ideals of psychology” (APA, 1992, Introduction)-

-and ethical standards--”enforceable rules for conduct as psychologists” (APA, 1992,

Introduction).

Additionally, both NASP and the APA provide standards for the delivery of
school psychological services (Jacob-Timm & Hartshome, 1998). J acob-Timm and
Hartshome (1998) also noted that school psychologists should be familiar with the
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, a document presented by a joint
committee of the American Educational Research Association, American Psychological
Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education (1985). This
document provides guidelines for evaluating the technical psychometric features of tests
and assessment processes. Additionally, a new edition of this set of standards has been
approved by all three professional organizations in 1999 and will be published soon
(Forrest, 1999). Finally, a third set of guidelines, focused solely on the practice of school
psychology, has been developed by the International School Psychology Association
(Oakland, Goldman & Bischoff, 1997). These three sets of standards, designed to
provide guidance necessary to support ethical conduct in practice, represent valuable
resources for school psychologists as they face the ethical challenges of daily practice.

Despite the availability of formal guidelines to support ethical reasoning and
decision-making in psychological practice, these guides are insufﬁcient, by their very
nature, to provide concrete answers for every possible dilemma (Kitchener, 1984). On
their face, ethical guidelines appear to provide a clear order and direction regarding how
an ethical dilemma should be approached and resolved. Formal ethical guidelines are
intended to provide a common standard of behavior that guides professionals in their
daily work, in addition to containing aspirational levels of ethical behavior toward which

the professional should strive (Meara, Schmidt & Day, 1996). However, in reality,

 

5'"

 

‘n.

Ii.I

‘n.

.51

u
-p

“‘1

 

 

ethical guidelines possess inherent contradictions and gaps that can and often do result in
ambiguity and even ﬁ'ustration for the professional who is faced with an ethical situation
(Bersoff & Koeppl, 1993; Haas & Malouf, 1989). A written document, crafted by human
hands and minds, could not possibly anticipate and address adequately the precise nature
and circumstance of every possible ethical conﬂict. After all, “in many situations, more
than one course of action is acceptable. In some situations, no course of action is
completely satisfactory” (J acob-Timm & Hartshome, 1998, p. 5). Clearly, despite the
availability of multiple sets of ethical guidelines, a school psychologist’s ethical conduct

is comprised of much more than adherence to formal written guidelines.

Training. Graduate-level ethics training represents a second major resource
available to school psychologists. This training oﬁen consists of both classroom-based
activities, such as analyzing case incidents, role-playing difﬁcult situations, and
reviewing ethical codes, and ﬁeld-based activities, centered on reasoning through actual
ethical dilemmas under the supervision of certiﬁed school psychologists. Many
researchers have suggested that ethical thinking and problem solving skills must be
explicitly taught in graduate training programs (Bersoff, 1996; Haas, Malouf &
Mayerson, 1986). Further, ethical education should be part of a “planned, multi-level
approach that includes formal coursework along with supervised discussion of ethical
issues in practica and internship settings” (Fine & Ulrich, 1988; Kitchener, 1986; as cited
in Jacob-Timm & Hartshome, 1994). This training provides a crucial foundation from
which school psychologists can draw as they begin and develop in their professional

practice. Recognizing the essential nature of this resource, both the National Association

10

of School Psychologists and the American Psychological Association require formal
graduate-level coursework in ethics as well as a ﬁeld-based internship.

Historical approaches to teaching ethics were unsystematic, relying heavily on the
supervised practices and internships. The effectiveness of these graduate-level university
training practices in ethics has been brought into question (N agle, 1987), backed by
arguments of the need for explicit, systematic teaching of professional ethics. Part of the
problem lies in the limited empirical data regarding the effectiveness of formal ethics
training (Welfel, 1992). Several researchers (i.e., Nagle, 1987; Welfel, 1992) have
argued for additional research to investigate methods of ethics training and their
effectiveness in supporting ethical conduct. Researchers and practitioners agree that
psychologists’ formal preparedness in ethics and the inherent inadequacy of the codiﬁed
resources available to them may not be sufﬁcient to support ethical thinking and to guide
the navigation of the complex ethical dimensions of practice. Neukrug and colleagues
(1996), in their discussion of counselors’ ethical decision-making, observed that,
“perhaps ethical decision-making is a much more complex process than one might think,
for the way a counselor selects and employs codes....surely must be inﬂected by all of the
intrapsychic and environmental processes that are characteristic of a counselor’s world”
(p. 102). The deﬁnition of ethical conduct is not restricted to ethical codes but involves
careful, reasoned decisions based on codes and standards, reasoning processes, and
personal factors (J acob-Timm & Hartshome, 1999). In smn, it is clear that the ethical
concerns inherent in the practice of school psychology are far more complex and multi-

faceted than can be represented or embodied in a formal code, model or training program.

11

rm

..m“

n. .
.

 

Dar-

us,

 

F7 -
I/‘ r

If:

 

Research Literature. As will be discussed in a later section of this proposal,
empirical research on the ethical facets of school psychology is extremely limited.
Nevertheless, there is a substantial body of work in the ﬁelds of clinical psychology and
counseling psychology that can provide direction to school practitioners as they face
ethical situations and attempt to determine best practice. The school psychology
literature addresses a broad spectrum of topics. To illustrate, the following list includes
only a sampling of the topics addressed within the school psychology literature with the
past ﬁve years: Multicultural assessment and intervention (Baker & Good, 1995; Reid,
1995), temperament (Carey, 1998; Rothbart & Jones, 1998; Teglasi, 1998), mental health
problem prevention (Eidle, Truscott, Meyers & Boyd, 1998), interventions for students
with learning problems (Fleischner & Manheimer, 1997; Skinner & Berninger, 1997;
Skinner, Logan, Robinson & Robinson, 1997) and behavioral problems (Stage & Quiroz,
1997), consultation (Erchul, Covington, Hughes & Meyers, 1995; Gutkin, 1993; Sheridan
& Steck, 1995), use of computer technology in classrooms (McCullough, 1995), suicide
assessment and intervention (Reynolds & Mazza, 1999), risk assessment (Stoiber &
Kalafat, 1998), and community violence prevention (Schensul, 1998).

Nevertheless, compared to the breadth of topics addressed in school psychology
literature, research that overtly addresses the ethical facets of practice are limited. Abeles
(1992) addressed ethical responsibilities involved when parents request that psychologists
disclose test items, a situation commonly encountered by school psychologists. While he
was not limiting his discussion to school psychologists, he described this ethical dilemma
that commonly occurs in assessment practice. Another issue addressed in the literature

has involved balancing professional intervention against a child’s autonomy or freedom

12

of choice (Barnett, 1987). In this discussion, Barnett asserted that school psychology
training programs needed to emphasize the discussion and consideration of children’s
rights. Further, he argued that programs also needed to devote more time and attention
to addressing the ethical concerns and issues in practice.

In his discussion of school psychologists’ participation in psychopharrnacological
interventions with children, DeMers (1994) suggested that this expanded role would raise
ethical issues including record keeping, training for competent practice, conﬁdentiality,
relationships with physicians and other professionals, and welfare of the client. He raises
concern about the potential negative consequences of advocating for this expanded role,
particularly given historical efforts of school psychologists to differentiate their specialty
and to establish themselves as legitimate psychological professionals.

J acob-Timm is one of the main researchers who has addressed ethical issues in
school psychology in both research and practice. In one article (J acob-Timm, 1996), she
addresses the controversial use of aversive behavioral techniques with students having
autism, suggesting that this intervention is associated with several ethical issues such as
students’ rights to treatment, school psychologists’ ethical obligation to beneﬁcence
(responsible caring) in their work with clients, and the obligation of helping professionals
to respect the dignity of all human beings. Also relevant to this issue are the ethical
principles of respecting client and self-detennination. In examinations of the ethical
issues surrounding computer-assisted assessment (Jacob & Brantley, 1987, 1989; J acob-
Timm & Hartshome, 1999), Jacob-Timm and colleagues raised concerns about the
validity of computer-assisted assessment, the interpretation of computer-based test

results, the storage of data, and the computer-generation of written reports. Others have

 

examined administrative pressures to act unethically and the consequences of this type of
pressure for practicing school psychologists (Jann & Hyman, 1991; J ann, Hyman &
Reinhardt, 1992).

Most recently, J acob-Timm (1999) conducted a survey of practicing school
psychologist to identify the frequency of ethical conﬂict and the types of ethical
problems, what she terms ethical “tugs,” that they encounter in practice. Results
indicated that the most common ethical tugs were present in situations involving
competing ethical principles, conﬂicts between ethics and legal mandates, dual roles of
school employee and pupil advocate, conﬂicting interests of multiple clients, and poor
educational practices. In short, while there is some literature that addresses ethical issues
in school psychology practice, it is limited relative to the spectrum of areas in which the

school psychologist is expected to have knowledge and expertise.

Peer Consultation. Another resource available to school psychologists as they
encounter and reason through ethical concerns is their professional colleagues. As
members of multi-disciplinary teams, school psychologists typically have several
potential consultants available to them (Maher & Pfeiffer, 1983; Shaw & Swerdick,
1995). School psychologists may consult with other school psychologists to evaluate and
reason through ethically and legally challenging situations. Also, as members of multi-
disciplinary teams, school psychologists may consult with other professionals whose
training may be slightly different and who may be able to offer a different perspective.
Both within-discipline and cross-disciplinary consultation are resources that are critical to

ethical practice.

14

Legal Guidelines. Ethical standards are often equated with legal mandates. Yet,
legal and ethical resources sometimes present conﬂicting guidance, leaving the
professional to decide the appropriate course of action. Nevertheless, laws and legal
guidance can be an important source of information in light of ethical conﬂicts in
educational practice. School psychologists have access to a large body of laws and legal
precedents that can assist them as they deal with ethical issues in practice. This is
particularly true given the multiplicity of laws that regulate education, especially in
regard to special education. Three basic sources of law include the United States
Constitution, statutes and regulations, and case law. The Constitution has established the
foundation for many decisions related to public school education, including children’s
right to equal educational opportunities, student rights in the school setting, due process
rights, privacy rights, and church-state-school relationships (J acob—Timm & Hartshome,
1998). Second, statutory law and regulations have had a strong inﬂuence on public
school education, particularly in two areas: Funding of programs and anti-discrimination
legislation. Examples of statutes include the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA, PL. 101-336), legislation regarding nondiscrimination on the basis of disability;
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (PL. 101-476), a series of
federal statutes that were amended in 1997 and that address the education of children
with handicaps; the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of1974 (a part of PL.
89-750), a statute designed to ensure schools’ adherence to strict conﬁdential record-
keeping practices; and The Rehabilitation Act of1973 (PL. 93-112; regulations

implementing Section 504 appear at 34 C.F.R., Part 104, 1996), civil rights legislation

15

that prohibits state and school ofﬁcials from discriminating on the basis of race, color,
nationality, sex, or handicapping condition.

Finally, the third source of legal authority consists of case law, laws that emerge
from court decisions. Examples of cases with implications for school psychologists
include Larry P. v. Riles (1984), a case related to whether intelligence tests are racially
and culturally biased; Board of Education v. Rowley (1982), a suit addressing what it
means to provide an “appropriate” public education; and Board of Education,
Sacramento City Uniﬁed School District vs. Holland (1992; on appeal, Sacramento City
School District vs. Rachel H., 1994), a case addressing inclusion and placement in the
least restrictive environment (Rothstein, 1995). Clearly, school psychological practice
involves a complex legal dimension that must be considered in making sound ethical
decisions.

The recent passage of the IDEA Amendments of 1997 (PL 105-17)represents a
powerﬁrl inﬂuence on the future of special education and of school psychological
services. Major changes in this new legislation consist of the increased participation of
parents and students in every aspect of special education, decreased regulation of the
nature and extensiveness of three-year re-evaluations, and stricter regulations for dealing
with disability-related behavior problems and resulting school suspensions and
expulsions. These legal changes will affect the nature of the school psychologists’ role
and will introduce new ethical challenges to educational professionals. For example, the
greater involvement of parents in all facets of the evaluation process will increase the
potential for conﬂicting opinions between parents, teachers, and administration. School

psychologists, who work closely with all these individuals, will be challenged to assist in

16

 

resolving these differences in the best interest of children.
Deﬁning Ethics and Morality

Prior to investigating empirically ethics and morals in the professional practice of
school psychology, the deﬁnitions of these complex terms must be explored. Within the
literature, there is little agreement on the distinct deﬁnitions of these terms, how they
relate to one another, and how they translate into everyday concerns. Nevertheless,
because this study is focused on professional ethics, it is necessary to articulate brieﬂy
the controversy and to explicate my present use of these terms. In this way, readers of
this research will understand the ways that I used the terms as I designed and conducted
the study and as I interpreted results. Clear deﬁnition of these terms as I have used them
is necessary to facilitate the contextualization of the results of this study within the body
of existing research on ethics and morals.

The task of clearly deﬁning and distinguishing the concepts of morality and ethics
is a complex one that has occupied philosophers, scholars and practitioners throughout
history. Often, these words are used interchangeably. This is evident, for example, in the
manner that Carol Gilligan terms the ethic of care as a moral voice, neglecting to make a
clear distinction between these two concepts. However, although these terms are
inherently related, many argue that there are important distinctions to be made.
According to Martin (1995), ethics is the “philosophical study of moral values” involving
four important components: 1) Clariﬁcation of important moral ideas and issues; 2)

Critical assessment of moral claims, 3) Development of a comprehensive vision of moral

l7

 

concerns and how they relate to our everyday lives; and 4) Moral guidance about what
we should aspire to be, how we should relate to people and how we should seek to meet
these goals (pp. 7-8).

Morality, according to others, is concerned with perspectives of right and proper
conduct (Meara, Schmidt & Day, 1996). Addressing morality, Socrates stated, “We are
addressing no small matter, but how we ought to live” (as cited by Rachels, 1993, p. 1).
According to Rachels (1993), the minimum conception of morality is “the effort to guide
one’s conduct by reason—that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing—while
giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected by one’s
conduct” (p. 13). Morals are sometimes viewed as “more important, fundamental,
universal, rational and objective” (Solomon, 1984, p. 6-7, as cited in Jacob-Timm &
Hartshome, 1994, p. 2).

When ethical principles are applied to life contexts and relationships, the term
applied ethics is frequently utilized. Martin (1995) deﬁnes applied ethics as “the activity
of clarifying, organizing, and occasionally reﬁning moral ideas with the goal of enriching
moral experience and judgement” (p. 8). More speciﬁcally, when speaking of moral and
ethical concerns in relation to a professional context, the term applied professional ethics
is often employed. Applied professional ethics in the ﬁeld of school psychology have
been deﬁned as “the application of broad ethical principles and speciﬁc rules to the
problems that arise in professional practice. . ..a combination of ethical principles and
rules, ranging from more basic rules to rules of professional etiquette, that guide the
conduct of the practitioner in his or her professional interactions with others” (J acob-

Timm & Hartshome, 1999, p. 2).

18

When considering this debate over deﬁnitions, the context within which ethics are
being examined must be considered. School psychologists are uniquely positioned within
the school system as they face ethical challenges. Thus, their ethical thinking and action
must not be conceptualized as isolated from their context; rather, focus must rest on “the
process by which a moral agent determines how most effectively to instantiate a
particular virtue within the conﬁnes of the current unique circumstances” (Punzo, 1996,
p. 10). The major question, in Punzo’s words, should be the following: “How are moral
actions tailored to the changing complexities of social reality?” (1996, p. 10). To
maintain this focus, the emphasis in the present study will be placed upon how ethics are
applied in professional practice of school psychology. In the present research, I will not
make a sharp distinction between ethics and morality, and subjects will be allowed to use
these terms interchangeably.

Another important deﬁnitional concern that must be addressed is that of the nature
of professional ethics. Often, discussions of ethics are limited to discussion of conﬂict;
however, this rests on the assumption that ethics involves inherent conﬂict and only
applies when disagreement or problems arise. The emphasis in the present study is to
understand participants’ thinking about and handling of ethical issues and is not limited
to the examination of ethical conﬂict. Arguably, ethics are integrally intertwined in every
decision, thought and action in a human being’s personal and professional life. Thus,
every conceivable thought and action made by people has inherent ethical and moral
dimensions. Yet, it is often only when ethical dilemmas arise that the question of “What
is ethical and what it not?” is brought to the forefront of thinking and discussion.

Kitchener (1984) has deﬁned an ethical dilemma as “a problem for which no course of

19

unu-I

1....

‘ 1
t-.. D.
..

l
‘~a .
.
.‘h ~
aha.»
.Il
mus;
u
‘-..
r
u. A

 

4.

“J

g.

 

 

action seems satisfactory. The dilemma exists because there are good, but contradictory,
ethical reasons to take conﬂicting and incompatible courses of action” (p. 43).
Kitchener’s conception of ethical dilemma provides a useful perspective in this study for
exploring school psychologists’ thinking about ethical issues in professional practice.
Ethical dilemmas are a good starting point for beginning to understand professionals’
thoughts related to ethics. Nevertheless, this study is aimed at understanding broader

conceptions of ethics as a potentially integral issue throughout all aspects of practice.

Statement of the Problem:
Limited Understanding of Ethics in the Field

Despite the importance and centrality of applied ethics in the practice of school
psychology, the factors that inﬂuence ethical thinking and behavior have been a grossly
understudied topic within the ﬁeld. The literature that does exist has been limited largely
to identifying the types of dilemmas that school psychologists face, revealing the

frequency with which they are faced with such dilemmas, and discussing the implications
of ethical decisions for the changing role of the school psychologist. As previously
discussed, examples of such studies have included disclosing test items to parents
(Abeles, 1992), balancing professional intervention against a child’s autonomy or
freedom of choice (Barnett, 1987), participation in psychopharrnacological interventions
with children (DeMers, 1994), school psychological consultation (Scholten, 1993), the
use of aversive techniques with students having autism (Jacob-Timm, 1996), and
computer-assisted assessment (Jacob & Brantley, 1989). This work represents important

contributions to our understanding of the ethical implications of discrete issues within the

20

 

 

 

 

...

r
\j‘

 

ﬁeld by providing us with a framework and order. However, it has done so largely

without acknowledging and investigating the central role of the individual practitioner in

actively making sense of ethical concerns and responsibilities.

A New Approach to Understanding
Ethics in School Psychology

Ethics in school psychology have been examined largely from an objective
position focused on quantifying, cataloguing, and describing rather than explaining the
nature of subjective meaning-making with which individual practitioners encounter daily
professional life. The question of how school psychologists actively make sense of
evolving professional roles and responsibilities, namely of the ethical facets of their role

and commitments, is the question that drives the present inquiry.

Articulating Ethical Practice as Moral Voice

Historically, explorations of human ethics and morality have been ﬁrmly rooted in
the work of Kohlberg, who posited a cognitive-developmental approach to moral
reasoning. To Kohlberg, moral thinking and development were closely tied to
individuals’ understandings of their role and responsibility in promoting justice in
society. As Kohlberg originally wrote, “I assumed that the core of morality and moral
development. . ..was a matter of rights and duties or prescriptions (Kohlberg, 1982, p.

225). According to Kohlberg (1981; 1984), humans progress through invariant and

hierarchical stages of moral development as they develop greater cognitive understanding

21

of society and social roles and responsibilities. The lowest stage of moral reasoning
involves behavior based on punishment and obedience to social rules. The ﬁnal stage of
moral reasoning involves holding to a universal ethical principle of total justice and
fairness. For Kohlberg, what is moral is universal and is organized around justice and
fairness. Thus, one’s morality depends upon the level of understanding and application
of principles of justice within society.

Within existing school psychological ethics literature, the topic of ethics is
approached largely from a traditional Kohlbergian ﬁamework that positions moral
development as closely tied to the professional’s role and sense of responsibility in
promoting justice in society’s educational institutions. For example, Barnett (1987)
speaks of the need to balance the responsibility of children’s rights and autonomy against
professional intervention. Similarly, DeMers (1994), in discussing the legal and ethical
issues in school psychologists’ participation in psychopharrnacological intervention,
focuses on the need to balance these activities against the rights of children, families and
the psychology profession at large. The language of both of these analyses reﬂects a
conception of ethics as an issue of justice which focuses largely on fairness and balance
of rights. One major consequence of this justice perspective is that the individual
practitioner has been treated and understood largely as “a disengaged observer of moral
action” szo, 1996). In other words, ethics have been understood and conceptualized
largely as somehow separate fi‘om the individual and from the overall practice of school
psychology. A second consequence is that morality and ethics, congruent with
Kohlberg’s approach, have been deﬁned in an extremely limited, isolated manner as

objective, consistent across people and setting, and representable apart from an

22

.
u-r

.v...

 

In! .

 

 

 

 

 

individual’s conception of practice, professional role, and personal background.

In contrast to Kohlberg’s ideas, constructivism views individuals as having an
active role in the creation of their reality (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Henning-Stout, 1994;
Piaget, 1965). According to Robert Kegan (1982), “the fundamental activity of ‘human
being’ is making meaning” (p. 53). Thus, people holding the same professional title or
encountering the same situation will construe these situations differently and attach
different meaning and signiﬁcance to the phenomena (I-Ienning-Stout, 1994; Lincoln and
Cuba, 1985; Belenky, Clinchy, Goldverger & Terule, 1987). The way an individual
makes sense of a situation will impact how he or she behaves in reaction to the situation.
Stated succinctly, “the way we make sense of the world determines the way we act within
it” (Henning-Stout, 1994, p. 194). This theoretical perspective differs markedly from that
of Kohlberg, who posited a much narrower, isolated view of ethical thinking where the
individual was separate from an abstract and cognitive moral decision-making process.

The focal role of the individual person and his or her perspective in ethical
concerns is by no means a new idea. The question ﬁnds its roots in the ideas of early
philosophers such as Aristotle and Aquinas, who espoused the belief that morality and
selﬂrood are intimately intertwined (Punzo, 1996). Such thinking has found new birth in
the psychological ﬁeld with researchers interested in questions of the relationships
between individual identity and morality (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger & Tarule, 1986;
Damon & Hart, 1992; Gilligan, 1982, 1990; Lyons, 1983, 1990). These recent theorists
have asserted that ethical concerns are inextricably intertwined in human relationships in
both professional and personal contexts. This thinking has emerged largely from feminist

literature examining the nature of women’s thinking, knowing and relating (Belenky et

23

 

 

‘J
i\

 

 

 

al., 1986; Gilligan et al., 1990; Lyons, 1990). Lyons (1990) emphasized both the
inextricable nature of moral and ethical concerns in human relationships, as well as the

centrality of individual meaning-making:

...for relationships are linked to moral imperatives, to concerns about good and
evil, right and wrong. . .Questions of value are implied in human relationships.
But, if morality arises in the relations between people, it most centrally implies a
self and involves a question of interpretation: How do individuals see and
construct their own understanding of relational problems? What are the moral
concems that emerge in their relationships with others—the questions of right or

wrong? (p. 31).

As Gilligan and her colleagues pointed out, even Piaget recognized this relationship when
he asserted that “apart from our relations with others, there can be no moral necessity”
(1932, as cited in Lyons, 1990, p. 31). Such a theoretical perspective—consistent with
constructivist theory—emphasizes the need to examine and understand how individuals
make sense of the ethical concerns that are inherent in their professional roles and
relationships. After all, as stated by Henning-Stout (1994), “ ...... the way humans make
sense of the world depends on the way they perceive and describe their perceptions. . ..we
are all engaged in constructing our best individual and collective understandings of our
experiences” (p. 29).

Researchers, including Gilligan (1990), Lyons (1990) and Belenky and colleagues

(1986), who have criticized traditional approaches to understanding ethics, suggest that

24

individuals do not think about and make sense of morality in a uniform way. Rather, in
coming to understanding morality, one must make a distinction between different ethics,
what some have termed moral voices, or moral frames. According to Gilligan (1982),
research has identiﬁed at least two different frameworks or voices whereby individuals
make sense of and speak about ethics and morality. One moral frame in reﬂected in the
work of Kohlberg, represented as an ethic of justice. Kohlberg viewed the self as
separate and distinct from the moral domain. Within this frame, morality is deﬁned as
justice and is based upon such issues as fair treatment, broadly contractual rules, and
individual rights that govern behavior. Within an ethic of justice, relationships are based
on a contract of fairness and equality. Traditionally, it is this standard against which
moral thinking and development have been judged—that issues of morality be handled
and deﬁned “irnpersonally, impartially and fairly” GBeIenky et al., 1986, p. 8 ).
Nevertheless, an additional moral voice stems ﬁom a deﬁnition of morality as
based on responsiveness to others. This frame has been termed the ethic of care
(Gilligan, 1977, 1982; Lyons, 1982, 1983), or the ethic of response, and is based on the
idea that self, relationships and ways of thinking are interconnected to ideas about
morality and ethics (Lyons, 1990). In contrast with the ethic of justice, which is
organized around a morality of justice and rights, Gilligan’s ethic of care is organized
around a morality of responsibility and care (Belenky et al., 1987). Gilligan argued that
in the development of an ethic of care, three levels and two transition periods are
apparent in development (1977). The ﬁrst level is characterized by an orientation to
individual survival, where issues of the survival of the self are central, and where moral

considerations are based on the needs of self. Individuals, as they develop, transition

25

ﬁ'om selﬁshness to responsibility and connection to others. The second level involves
concern for others as reﬂected in self-sacriﬁce and the need for approval. In transitioning
to the third and ﬁnal level, individuals gain a greater sense of responsibility for care to
themselves and to others simultaneously. Finally, the ethic of care cuhninates in a
universal obligation, the morality of nonviolence (Gilligan, 1977). According to
Gilligan, morality involves a concrete connection between people that exists prior to
formal knowledge about right and wrong (Blum, 1992). The ethic of care orientation
centers on the responsibility one has in maintaining care and responsiveness, while
minimizing harm, within relationships with other people.

This theoretical distinction between ethical orientations has stimulated an
impressive body of research validating the existence of these two moral voices as
individuals think about and make sense of morality in their lives (Gilligan, 1982; 1990;
Lyons, 1983, 1990). Much of the work of this nature has been devoted to exploring
gender differences in the two ethical orientations. Nevertheless, the two moral voices are
not separate molds within which an individual is cast. Rather, most people utilize both
voices in their thinking and meaning-making related to ethical concerns. Individuals, both
men and women, tend to employ one voice more strongly than the others in speaking and
thinking about moral issues; hence, it is the “patterning of responses so that one mode
predominates, shaping the way issues are constructed and resolved, and the logic that this
implies that are of interest” (Lyons, 1990, p. 44). Data regarding the gender-speciﬁcity
of the two ethical orientations are, at best, inconclusive. Some empirical evidence seems
to indicate that although both men and women express concerns about both justice and

care, women are more likely to center their concerns on ideas of care and relationship

26

(Gilligan & Attanucci, 1988). On the other hand, a recent metanalysis suggests that both
males and females use each of these moral voices in speaking about relationships and
ethical concerns (Walker, 1993).

The moral voice serves many critical purposes, providing a mode through which
one views, communicates, represents and constructs one’s day to day circumstances and
relationships. The voice one employs will impact how and what one identiﬁes as a moral
problem. In a morality of care, a moral problem is represented in terms of relationships
and the activities of care, resting on an “understanding of relationships that entails
response to another in that person’s terms and contexts” (Lyons, 1990, p. 42). Moral
problems relate to issues surrounding potential problems that arise between peopleL—the
“severing of ties between people, or conversely, with restoring or maintaining
relationships” (p. 42)—not with the breaking of contractual agreements. The focus rests
on ways of promoting the welfare of another or to relieve their hurting and burdens. Care
and promotion of the self’s well-being, especially in the self‘s relationship to others, is
important.

On the other hand, a morality of justice or fairness is based upon an understanding
of relationships as “reciprocity between separate individuals.” Thus, a moral problem
relates “either with mediating issues of conﬂicting claims in relationships. . ..or with how
one is to decide conﬂicts or how one can justify one’s actions and decisions” (Lyons,
1990, p. 43). The major goal, ﬁ'om the justice perspective, is to consider and preserve
fairness in relationships between people. By keeping an impartial, objective measure of
choice that ensures fairness, an individual must weigh conﬂicts of obligations, duty or

commitment that stem from different relationships, including relationships between self

27

and others, self and society, or self and one’s own values and principles.

The voice that one uses in making meaning of relationships and ethical concerns
will also be reﬂected in how one resolves moral conﬂict (Lyons, 1982). In the morality
of care, resolution of conﬂict is aimed at restoring relationships and connection between
people, and in exercising activities of care that will facilitate positive outcomes for
others. In the morality of justice, resolution of conﬂict is based on the primary
consideration of meeting obligations, commitments and duties, and upholding one’s
standards and principles, particularly faimess (Lyons, 1982, p. 43).

Finally, one’s moral voice will impact how one evaluates resolution of moral
conﬂict. From a morality of care perspective, the evaluation of an ethical resolution is
largely based upon whether relationships were maintained or restored. Particular focus is
given to whether things work out in the long run, (that is, whether results and
relationships continue to be maintained longitudinally over time). From the morality of
justice perspective, on the other hand, resolution is evaluated against whether one’s
values, principles and standards were upheld in one’s moral decision and action. Thus,
an individual employing this voice must ascertain whether the decision was justiﬁed (i.e.,
fair), and whether one was able to live up to his or her own values, standards and
obligations (Lyons, 1982).

In sum, the moral voice that one employs will signiﬁcantly impact one’s
interactions with other people, one’s identiﬁcation of moral conﬂict, one’s decisions
regarding moral action, and one’s evaluation of ethical resolution. As Lyons argues, “the
different logics of the two moral orientations suggest an interpretation of differences

in. . ...day-to-day behaviors and their way of interacting with others” (p. 33). School

28

psychologists do not simply internalize and apply uniformly to all situations the codiﬁed
ethical principles and guidelines that govern the ethical facet of practice. To completely
understand ethics within school psychology, one must come to understand the moral
voices that school psychologists use to make sense of, represent, and guide their moral
thinking and action. The process is highly complex and may involve a combination of
voices, frames, and perspectives. Even Kohlberg acknowledged that his virtue of justice
“does not fully reﬂect all that is recognized as being part of the moral domain” (1982, p.

227, as cited in Flanagan & Jackson, 1992).

Gilligan Criticized. Gilligan’s work, in contrasting the ethic of care with the ethic
of j ustice, has elicited much scholarly criticism. First, many theorists and researchers
have rejected the idea of a clear dichotomy of ethical orientations. As Tong (1993) has
asserted,“To meet with our full approval, the just person must be caring, and the caring
person must be just. Far from being dichotomous moral concepts, justice and care are at
least mutually compatible if not actually symbiotically related” (p. 92). Rather than
conceptualizing two moral voices, then, scholars such as Tong view justice and care both
as necessary components for moral thinking and action. Gilligan herself acknowledges
that a moral dilemma may be framed either in terms of justice or care; however, she
draws upon the analogy of a Gestalt drawing that may be seen either as a duck or a rabbit
to argue that some individuals, no matter how hard they try, can see only one object or
the other (Gilligan, 1987).

Second, some have asserted that Gilligan has misinterpreted Kohlberg’s work

(Greeno & Maccoby, 1986). Rather than revealing gender-related differences in moral

29

reasoning, Gilligan may actually be illustrating a difference in educational and
occupational experiences between men and women. In a society where men historically
have had economic and social advantages over women, differential experiences may
foster different ways of framing and thinking about one’s morality and moral obligations.
Thus, critics have argued that Gilligan’s error lies in her claim that the difference is
somehow inherent to gender. Third, Gilligan’s distinction between ethics of justice and
care has been attacked as an old idea rather than a novel concept. Critics such as Sher
(1987) argued that Gilligan’s contrast reﬂects distinctions made by early ethicists and
philosophers such as Kant, Schopenhauer, and F rankena. Fourth, many empirical and
conceptual works have criticized the argument that justice and care are gender-correlated.
As Tong (1993) stated, in one of Gilligan’s own studies, thirty-one men and twenty-two
women focused equally on justice and care (1988). This trend, according to Tong,
suggested that the supposed differences between men’s and women’s morality may be
more ideological than empirical. Although Gilligan and colleagues typically discussed
their results as supportive of two moral voices, the actual data may not support this
interpretation, rather pointing to more even distribution of justice and care thinking.
Fiﬁh, some have asserted that although the distinction between justice and care is
valid in itself, the ethic of care is an inferior approach to explaining morality. Care,
rather than being a moral virtue that is comparable in rank to justice, may be more
appropriately characterized as a psychological or personality trait (Puka, 1991).
Kohlberg himself seemed to support this notion, stating that many of the tenets of the
care orientation are “personal rather than moral in the sense of a formal point of view”

(1983, p. 360). This contrasts with the view that care is necessary for m sense of ethics

30

or morality (Noddings, 1984). Despite, the appeal of the work of Gilligan and her
colleagues, the work has clearly not gone without valid criticism. The present inquiry
contributes to the ongoing debate regarding the utility of the concepts of moral voices in
making sense of how individuals think about and deal with moral and ethical issues in

professional practice.

The Concept of “Voice” as a Tool of Inquiry

The concept of “voice” has become a particularly useful tool in qualitative
inquiry. Within literary contexts, voice has been deﬁned as “the set of textual signs that
characterizes the narrator in a text. . ...(and) provides information about who the narrator
is, who ‘speaks’ ” (Schwandt, 1996, p. 175). Within feminist literature, there is also great
concern with voice, with “who speaks, who is heard, what is voiced, or given a voice” (p.
175). In their book Women 's Ways of Knowing, Belenky and colleagues (1986) asserted
that women’s voices have been silenced through various social practices and customs,
including how and whether they have been represented in traditional psychological
research and inquiry. In her work, Belenky noted that women tend to ground their
statements in metaphors of listening, hearing, and voice. She discussed the advantages of

this metaphor over metaphors of vision and the eye:

Visual metaphors such as ‘the mind’s eye,’ suggest a camera passively recording

a static reality and promote the illusion that disengagement and objectiﬁcation are

central to the construction of knowledge. Visual metaphors encourage standing at

31

a distance to get a proper view, removing—it is believed—subj ect and object
from a sphere of possible intercourse. Unlike the eye, the ear operates by
registering nearby subtle change. Unlike the eye, the ear requires closeness
between subject and object. Unlike seeing, speaking and listening suggest

dialogue and interaction (p. 18).

The concepts of voice, hearing and listening thus provide an ideal metaphor through
which to explore, understand and validate previously silenced stories, constructions and

perspectives.

The “Silenced” Voices of School Psychologists. The ﬁeld of school psychology,
as well as the nature of school psychologists’ historical and present roles within the
school, embodies an ideal context within which to examine morality in terms of “voices.”
Within the schools and within society collectively, the voice of school psychologists has
in many ways been misrepresented, subdued and, in many cases, even silenced. School
psychology has experienced much criticism and misunderstanding, both on an individual
(district) level and on a broader societal level (Bardon, 1994; Fagan & Wise, 1994).
Research, for instance, has documented discrepancies between school psychologists’
understandings of their roles and functions and those perceptions held by others within
the school setting (e. g., Hughes, 1979). School psychologists report that although much
of their time continues to be devoted to “sorting” children with and without handicaps
into appropriate programs, they would prefer to spend more time in other activities

(Reschley & Wilson, 1995). The prevailing perceptions, in many ways, continue to limit

32

the role of the school psychologist to normative assessment and placement into special
education programs (Fagan and Wise, 1994). To dispel these notions and to translate the
rhetoric of role expansion into reality, school psychologists might begin by seeking
greater visibility.

Arguably, one way of increasing visibility is to listen to the voices of school
psychologists as they communicate personal accounts of the many facets of their roles
and responsibilities. Harnmersley and Atkinson (1995) argue that personal accounts of
experience are important not only “for what they tell us about the phenomena to which
they refer” (p. 124), but also for “evidence about their perspectives, and perhaps about
the larger subcultures and cultures to which they belong” (p. 125). The well-documented
discrepancy between school psychologists’ perceptions of their roles and functions and
the perceptions of the school psychologists’ role reported by others in the school
environment indicates that school psychology continues to be regarded in a limited way
as a test-dominated profession. Little attention has been given to individual practitioners’
perceptions of their professional ethical practice. As previously suggested, the moral and
ethical concerns of school psychologists have been reduced to quantitative
representations and examinations of ethical dilemmas and responsibilities. A greater
understanding of the unique perspectives and struggles of school psychologists in the
ethical domain will serve to illuminate the complexity and multi-faceted nature of the
field.

Drawing on this metaphor of voice, I have chosen to organize this discourse into
three major sections entitled Understanding the Silence, Breaking the Silence, and

Amplifying the Voices. This framework was chosen to reﬂect the evolving process that

33

characterized this intellectual work as I articulated my questions, explored existing
literature, and gave ten school psychologists the opportunity to express their moral
voices. The ﬁrst section has been entitled Understanding the Silence for two reasons.
One purpose of these two introductory chapters was to explore the various theoretical,
educational, legal, economic and socio-cultural factors that have contribute to
misunderstandings of the school psychologists’ role. Historically limited to strict
standardized testing functions, school psychologists have begun recently to voice
opposition to a uni-lateral testing role, instead desiring to use their broader skills in
assessment and intervention to assist children, families, school systems, and
communities. Nevertheless, despite these efforts to broaden their roles and functions,
school psychologists continue to be faced by administrators and educators who perceive
the school psychologists’ role as narrow and conﬁned to assessment. In this way, the
school psychologist’s voice continue to be limited, misunderstood, and suppressed.

The second purpose of the ﬁrst section, Understanding the Silence, is to explain
the rationale for exploring the ethical facets of school psychology practice using a
qualitative interpretive inquiry approach. As I have previously argued, the moral voices
of school psychologists have been conﬁned in many ways by the traditional manner in
which ethics in the ﬁeld have been conceptualized and studied. Moral thinking,
decisions, and actions have been collapsed into discrete categories and represented
numerically, thus failing to represent the full complexity of how school psychologists
perceive their ethical responsibilities and commitments.

Understanding the reasons for the historical and continued silence of school

psychologists and the limited representation of their ethical concerns represents a

34

breaking of the silence. The second section, Breaking the Silence, represents an attempt
to begin allowing the voices of the ten participating school psychologists to be heard. I
will represent these voices through the discussion of ﬁve major themes that were
reﬂected in participants’ discussions of their ethical concerns, responsibilities, and
commitments as they arose in the practice of school psychologists. Gilligan and
colleagues (1990), in their investigation of adolescent girls’ moral concerns entitled
Making Connections, chose to title one of their chapters. Listening to Voices We Have
Not Heard. This title reﬂects an effort to overcome the historical tendency to “turn an
ear” away from the moral voices of women in this society by striving to hear and
understand women’s moral voices in their natural form. In similar fashion, I will argue
that school psychologists’ voices have historically been misunderstood and that the tools
of the moral voices of justice and care may be a useful means of beginning to move
beyond historical barriers to understanding the full complexity of the ethical dimension of
school psychology.

The third section, Amplifying the Voices, is devoted to discussing the core ideas
expressed by the participants and illuminating the implications of these data for present
and future school psychology research and practice. I deliberately selected the word
“amplify” to communicate the fact that having the opportunity to express one’s voice
does not necessarily guarantee that the voice will be heard or understood. To ampliﬁz is
deﬁned as “to make larger or more powerful; to expand; or to express at length”
(Webster, 1994). In the ﬁnal section, I will attempt to place school psychologists’
perceptions of professional ethical responsibilities, concerns, and commitments in a

broader context by focusing on the implications of this present study for the profession.

35

Research Questions

The purpose of the present study was to examine and develop a better
understanding of how school psychologists make sense of the ethical dimensions of
school psychology practice. To investigate these issues, I addressed the following

questions:

0 How do school psychologists construe ethical practice?
0 In what ways can the moral voices--an ethic of justice and ethic of care-~be
useful in understanding ways that school psychologists construe ethical

practice?

0 What strategies and resources do school psychologists draw upon to resolve
ethical conﬂict? How are these resources integrated in practice?

0 How do the ways that school psychologists construe ethical commitments and
problems reﬂect their role deﬁnitions?

The purpose of exploring these questions was to build upon the limited and
simpliﬁed way that school psychologists’ ethical responsibilities and obligations have
been understood and represented. School psychology is an evolving ﬁeld where role
Options are becoming more available and where individual practitioners are increasingly
thinking about their roles in very different ways relative to their colleagues in the ﬁeld.
How individuals think about their professional role will likely impact what they identify
as their ethical responsibilities and obligations, as well as how they see ethics as
applicable to everyday practice. School psychologists do not mindlessly employ a

prescribed set of ethical guidelines when making decisions in their careers; rather, they

36

each have individual ways of thinking about and making sense of these situations and
obligations. They may also have individual ways of identifying and making use of
available resources that may assist them in situations that arise in their practice. By
allowing the voices of ten school psychologists to be heard as they think about and
articulate their perspective on professional ethics, I believe that I am taking an important
step toward developing a more comprehensive understanding of how personal factors,
professional standards, professional training, and other factors meld to form a school

psychologists’ ethical commitments.

Unique Methodological Issues
in Interpretive Research
The representation of human experience in written form represents one of the
critical issues involved in qualitative research. Qualitative researchers and theorists (i.e.,
Behar, 1993; Josselson, 1996; Clifford & Marcus, 1986) have struggled with the question
of how to translate and portray spoken words in a way that preserves its meaning, spirit,
and authenticity. The question remains: How can one represent accurately and
completely the reality of the human being? Schwandt (1997) describes the process of
analyzing and representing qualitative data as a difﬁcult and necessary yet dynamic task

in qualitative inquiry: This task involves

...a variety of procedures that facilitate working back and forth between data and

ideas. It includes the process of organizing, reducing and describing the data;

drawing conclusions or interpretations from these data, and warranting those

37

interpretations. If data could speak for themselves, analysis would not be

necessary (emphasis added) (p. 4).

Reading the interview transcripts and selecting portions to represent participants’ voices
moves beyond reporting the data and becomes an interpretive strategy that is at once
unavoidable, necessary and intentional. Thus, my interpretive role in reporting the results
is necessary and clearly acknowledged in the attempt to capture the unique perspectives
and perceptions of participants.

By choosing to engage in interpretive research, I assume special responsibilities.
First, I acknowledge the biases that are brought to this study. As both a trained school
psychologist and a university faculty member, I have experienced both frustration about
the present perceptions of school psychology and present attitudes toward the ethical
responsibilities and attitudes of practitioners in many of today’s schools. To begin the
process of becoming a successful, effective school psychologist, I believe one must
reﬂect on one’s ethical commitments, become more able to articulate one’s ethical
position, and be committed to maintaining a high degree of professional ethical thinking
and conduct. What qualiﬁcations do I have that allow me to examine the ways that
school psychologists think about and make sense of the ethical responsibilities and
obligations that they encounter in their practice? As a school psychologist, I have
experienced ﬁrst-hand the intense struggles that occur when my own ethical convictions
about what is beneﬁcial for children and families conﬂicts with the restrictions and
demands of historical and systemic contexts. I have been tempted and even, at times,

succumbed, to situations urging me to compromise, if only slightly, my ethical

38

convictions, and have dealt with the personal consequences. I have sensed the depth of
the ﬁ'ustration and hopelessness that can result from feeling thwarted in one’s efforts to
maintain high standards of ethical practice. I have also tasted the hope that can be born
from strong commitment to maintaining one’s ethical convictions despite these barriers.
The ﬁeld’s present understanding of ethics in school psychology, as represented in
textbooks and ethical codes, is limited and distorted, I would argue, compared to the
harsh and sometimes stiﬂing realities of practice. It is from this experience—as well as
my ongoing conversations with supervisors, colleagues and university faculty—that my

passion for this topic has resulted and my desire to do this study was conceived.

Expected Contributions

Present understandings of how school psychologists make sense of their
professional ethics are limited to descriptive data that categorize and quantify behaviors,
problems, and approach strategies. This study is intended to complement these studies by
examining how school psychologists actively make sense of ethics as related to their
professional work. Thus, there will be a strong effort to identify ways that school
psychologists’ moral voices may have historically or may continue to be silenced and to
give participating school psychologists the opportunity to let their moral voices be heard.

This study also represents the ﬁrst attempt to use moral voice as a frame for
making sense of the ethical dimensions of helping professions like school psychology.
To date, the ethic of justice and ethic of care lenses have been applied to document these
ethical orientations in many populations including women, males and females, elderly,

children and adolescents (Gilligan et al., 1990). However, a review of the literature

39

 

indicates that this theoretical perspective has not been utilized within populations of
helping professionals to understand how they make sense of the ethical concerns inherent
in human service ﬁelds. The present inquiry represents one of the ﬁrst attempts to
accomplish this task through listening carefully to the voices of school psychologists as
they make sense of the ethical facets of everyday school psychological practice.
Questions of personal constructions, morality and ethics are questions that are
complex and ever-evolving. Thus, the purpose of this present study is not to provide
deﬁnitive answers to the questions posed above, nor is it to test a pre-established set of
hypotheses. Rather, the value and purpose of this exploratory research rests in its ability
to broaden insight into these complex phenomena by providing rich descriptive data
concerning school psychologists’ thinking about the ethical dimension of their role.
Further, this study may stimulate additional inquiry that will allow us to reﬁne our
understanding of the complex ethical dimensions of school psychology. The nature of
the meaning-making process that individual school psychologists engage in as they think

about their ethical responsibilities and challenges is the question that drives the present

inquiry.

40

Chapter 2

Methods

This study adopted an interpretive approach to inquiry (Denzin, 1989; Erickson,
1986; Schwandt, 1997), a methodology that has entered the school psychology research
community only recently. Schwandt (1997) deﬁned interpretation in qualitative inquiry
as “a clariﬁcation, explication or explanation of the meaning of some phenomenon” (p.
73). Interpretive inquiry assumes that individuals’ experiences are not best understood
by searching for the “reality” that rests within the interview data, nor is there an effort to
evaluate whether or not the participants’ responses, accounts, and perspectives are
“accurate” related to an objective absolute. This approach rests on the assumption that
experiences cannot be adequately represented when they are reduced to numerical or
statistical representation. On the contrary, the individual meanings, perceptions, and
construals reported by the participants are taken as “the beginning point of inquiry”
(Denzin, 1989, p. 64). Interpretive inquiry assumes that participants’ words and
construals reﬂect to some extent that person’s constructed knowledge and understanding
of his or her experience; however, words can never fully capture a person’s inner
meanings and experiences, and it is the person’s experiences and understandings that are
the object of inquiry. In this research, my goal has been to capture the unique viewpoints
and understandings of each participant, to the extent this is possible, as they reﬂect on
their profession and their ethical responsibilities and commitments.

Existing empirical investigations of the ethical facets of school psychology

practice, and of the school psychologists, in general, has been limited to quantitative

41

studies based on surveys and standardized instruments. The assumptions underlying this
methodology include the notion that understanding of practice-related issues and
concerns can be achieved through reducing thoughts and perceptions to numbers and
statistics. The goal of this type of research is to extract from data the “reality” of
individual’s realities and experiences. Only one other study examining the subjective
constructions and meaning-making of practicing school psychologists was found. Gomaa
(1999), in her doctoral dissertation, conducted in-depth interviews with six school
psychologists in an attempt to “tell the stories” of how individual practitioners
constructed their roles based on individual talents, desires, perceptions, and visions.
Gomaa concluded that despite many systemic and historical barriers that school
psychologists continue to face, they draw on many tools to shape and mold their
professional roles.

Recognition of the “position” or “place” of the researcher is, I believe, of central
importance in interpretive inquiry. As the researcher in the present inquiry, I recognize
that my own biases, experiences, perceptions, and understandings necessarily shape my
views and understandings of school psychology and ethical practice, the questions that I
have chosen to pose about these phenomena, and the meaning that I make as I interact
with the participants in this study. Thus, interpretive inquiry represents a conversation or
a dialogue between people who each “come to the table” with unique perceptions, biases,
experiences, and schemata, and these idiosyncracies represent some of the tools that are

used to shape and interpret meaning and knowledge.

42

Validity, Applicability and Reliability
in Interpretive Inquiry

Validity. If the goal of interpretive research is to gain an understanding of the
participants’ views and representations of their work, then the issue of internal validity
becomes one of authenticity, representing the participants’ perspective as faithfully as
possible. Traditional understandings of ‘internal validity,’ as characterized in
conventional quantitative research, is based on the assumption that there is a single
‘reality’ or ‘truth’ that is to be uncovered during the process of inquiry (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). Rather than assuming one objective reality that is true for multiple participants,
interpretive inquiry rests on the supposition that one’s reality actually consists of one’s
individual sense-making and mental construction of meaning. Lincoln and Guba (1985)
refer to internal validity in interpretive research as “truth value,” asserting that the
interpretive researchers’ responsibility is to represent individuals’ unique perspectives on
the issue in question. The extraction of the “truth” or accuracy of an individual
participant’s response does not drive interpretive inquiry. My responsibility instead is to
provide evidence that I have taken steps to understand and represent individuals’
understandings and constructions authentically.

From this perspective, encouraging authenticity and strengthening validity
becomes a process of allowing the participant ample opportunity to convey perceptions
and experiences rather than one of relating reported perceptions to some objective “truth”
and striving to represent those perceptions accurately. Erickson (1986) indicated that one
manner of encouraging subjects’ authentic communication of their experience is to build

rapport with participants. Several steps were taken to establish rapport with participants

43

‘ (Erickson, 1986; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I was personally familiar with several of the
participants so there was a pre-existing relationship in many cases. Second, I frequently
reminded the participants jects that the purpose of the study was not to evaluate responses
as correct or incorrect in relation to some pre-detennined criterion but to understand the
unique understandings and perceptions. Erickson (1986) acknowledged that participants
will frequently assume that their responses are being evaluated in this way. Through
these efforts, I attempted to encourage genuine responses.

As a ﬁnal note, it is important to acknowledge that in the course of a two-hour
interchange, I was not able to grasp fully the complexity of these school psychologists’
understandings of their professional ethical practice. Given the many facets and the
embedded nature of ethical and moral concerns, and the complex process of human
meaning-making in general, this would be impossible. Rather, the goal was to delve
below surface representations to begin understanding the individual and subjective ways
that school psychologists construe and approach the ethical dimensions of their practice
in the schools. This inquiry should be envisioned as the starting point for a process of

further inquiry of this nature.

Applicability. Another important question in empirical inquiry relates to the
appropriateness of generalizing results to other school psychologists or to the ﬁeld of
school psychology. Traditionally, the value of research hinges largely upon whether the
study’s results can be applied generally by another inquirer in another setting with
another sample. The qualitative, interpretive nature of this study necessitates a distinct

deﬁnition of generalizability. Within the interpretive inquiry tradition, this concern is

referred to as “applicability.” Qualitative researchers (i.e., Denzin, 1989; Erickson, 1986;
Lincoln & Guba, 1985) argue against judging interpretive research against conventional
standards of quantitative research. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), the
responsibility of the interpretive researcher is to provide enough descriptive data about
participants and the context of their study to allow consumers of the research to make
judgements about applicability to other cases with similar circumstances.

According to some qualitative researchers, the ﬁnal judgments of applicability to
any speciﬁc individual or population lies with those seeking application of results.
Schwandt (1997) asserted that the concept of applicability in qualitative inquiry is not to
develop explanatory theory based on empirical evidence but rather “to study speciﬁc
cases. . ..to develop powers of perception and thereby enhance practical wisdom” (p. 60 ).
Arguably, by representing the individual meanings that humans construct, the variability
of human experience is magniﬁed. Recognition of the subjective nature of cognition and
experience, in turn, increases the applicability of the research insights to many different
individuals, circumstances, and bodies of knowledge. Thus, the goal is not limited to
informing general theoretical knowledge; rather, unique situations and circumstances are
interesting in themselves. Thus, Schwandt asserted that one way of understanding

applicability in qualitative research is to assess the study’s ability to:

....contribute to theoretical understanding by illuminating interpretive theories
already at work in the connections that frame the stories that are told. . .[and by]
making vivid and critically examining the connections between unique,

uncommon lives experiences and the commonality of groups, social relationships,

45

and culturally constructed images that partially deﬁne those experiences (1997, p.

58).

In the present study, I recognized that the generalizability, as traditionally
conceptualized, is limited. In selecting my sample, I was not striving to gather data that
would be applicable to all school psychologists in all contexts. Hence, I did not focus on
choosing a sample that was representative of the national population of school
psychologists. Nonetheless, the value of this study has not been compromised. Peshkin
(1993) argued that to dismiss qualitative research by evaluating it against traditional
quantitative standards is dangerous. He stated, “Research that is not theory driven,
hypothesis testing, or generalization producing may be dismissed as deﬁcient or worse.
This narrow conception does an injustice to the variety of contributions that qualitative
research can make” (p. 23). By talking to these ten school psychologists and coming to
understand their unique experiences, perceptions and commitments in their unique
contexts, I am conﬁdent that I have provided a starting point for further inquiry. After
begin exposed to the experiences and perceptions of these participants—in Schwandt’s
words, the “speciﬁc, the local, the particular” (p. 58), I believe that consumers of this
work will carry this information into other situations, other schools, and other groups of
school psychologists, and it will inﬂuence the problems they see, the questions they pose,
and the issues they view as important. Schwandt (1997) explains, “The study of the
particular helps train perception and increase the capacity for practical reasoning and
deliberation in those many situations in life that are full of too many details,

idiosyncracies, and exceptional aspects to permit applicability of general lqrowledge” (p.

46

60). Thus, this work will provide part of the “lens” through which I and other school
psychologists will view and construct future inquiry into the ethical experiences and
commitments of school psychologists. Peshkin, quoting the work of Vidich and
Bensman (1968) spoke of this type of work as one step down the “inﬁnite path” of the

“progressive, processual nature” of research:

.....at best, [the researcher] ....can feel that he has advanced his problem along an
inﬁnite path. . ..there is no ﬁnal accumulation and no ﬁnal solution (V idich &
Bensman, 1968, p. 397). The travels we take down the ‘inﬁnite path’ can only be
facilitated by a type of research that gets to the bottom of things, that dwells on

complexity, and that brings us very close to the phenomena we seek to illuminate.

Reliability. Conventional deﬁnitions of reliability hinge on replication and
consistency. Thus, a study is reliable if similar results can be attained using similar
procedures with similar populations. Within interpretive inquiry, however, reliability is
connected to the researcher’s ability to foresee and explain factors that may contribute to
change in the phenomenon being studied (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The researcher is
responsible for accounting for potential instability of the ﬁndings and for describing how
various factors could contribute to changes. Thus, in discussing school psychologists’
perceptions of their ethical commitments and obligations, discussing their present
understandings and perceptions is not sufﬁcient. Rather, to provide reliable data, I need
to describe those personal and contextual factors that inﬂuence their current perceptions

and to strive to characterize the process whereby these factors may inﬂuence stability

47

and, thus, changes in their perceptions and understandings. Likewise, according to
Lincoln and Guba (1985), I must account for “changes in the emergent design as insights
grow and working hypotheses appear” (p. 299). In short, reliability in interpretive
inquiry is achieved when the researcher succeeds in “taking into account factors of
instability and factors of phenomenal or design-induced change” (p. 299).

In summary, I selected the qualitative and interpretive methods of inquiry because
of their promise for allowing the investigation and authentic representation of the
meanings and understandings of individual school psychologists. In approaching data
gathering and analysis, I attempted to create a product that illustrates the complexity and
the dynamic nature of ethical practice in school psychology, without stiﬂing these data
with my own personal, academic, or professional biases. It is not my goal to identify a
“best way” of practicing that will ensure that one’s decisions and actions are ethical, nor
do I claim that these data represent fully the complexity of school psychologists’ ethical
commitments and concerns. I strove to avoid entering the worlds of my participants as
the “omniscient researcher” whose goal it was to evaluate their thoughts and perceptions
against some pre-established standard or criteria. Although my presence as the
investigator inherently and necessarily introduces a degree of distortion, I view my active
presence in this research as critical to understanding the arguments that 1 advance, the
positions that I support, and the conclusions that I draw. Just as the understanding of the
participants’ experiences, contexts and positions is critical to understanding their views of
ethical issues, so is understanding of my active stance as a researcher in the inquiry
process critical to extracting full meaning from this work. I echo the words of Josselson

(1996), who stated, “I bring some intellectual tools and some ﬁrsthand experience, but I

48

 

try not to judge.”
Participants and Settings

Participants. Selection of participants took place in two phases. In the ﬁrst
round, I identiﬁed potential participants from one intermediate school district (ISD) in the
central area of a midwest state , including both ISD employees and employees of local
districts within the ISD’s jurisdiction. An intermediate school district is a county-level
educational agency that works in partnership with several smaller local districts in that
county to ensure the provision of a variety of educational services to all students and
districts. The ﬁrst intermediate school district was selected because of my familiarity and
previous employment with the district. Members of the Michigan Association of School
Psychologists (MASP) who were employed within the selected intermediate school
district were sent letters explaining the study and requesting participation. In addition,
because many of the school psychologists ﬁ'om that intermediate school district were not
MASP members, the original list was supplemented with other potential participants from
that district, based on the researchers’ knowledge of professionals employed in that area.
This knowledge is based on my two years of experience working within that intermediate
school district as a school psychologist. Thus, the combined lists of both MASP and non-
MASP members employed by the intermediate school comprised the list of potential
participants. In all, the ﬁnal list contained 36 potential participants. School
psychologists with less than three ﬁrll years of experience were eliminated, to increase

the likelihood that participants would have sufﬁcient experience to gain a sense of the

49

ethical issues and the challenges of practice.

After the list of potential participants in the given region was compiled, initial
letters of invitation were sent describing the study and inviting their participation (See
letter in Appendix A). Of the 36 letters sent, I received nine responses. Five people
agreed to participate, two people requested further information, and two declined
participation. After approximately four weeks, I mailed a follow-up letter, reminding
potential participants about the study and again requesting them to consider participation
(See letter in Appendix B). As a result of this second mailing, two more positive
responses to participate were received. Because the desired sample of 10 was not
reached, psychologists in a second intermediate school district in the central Michigan
area were contacted by the same process described above. As a result of this mailing,
two more participants were identiﬁed, yielding the ﬁnal sample of ten school

psychologists.

Participant Characteristics. A total of ten school psychologists were included in
this study. The ﬁnal sample involved 6 male participants and 4 female participants with a
mean experience of 17.5 years, ranging from 4 years to 32 years of experience. One of
the school psychologists retired the year prior to the study but continued to work in a
school district under a private contract. All of the participants were Caucasian and
ranged in age from the early-thirties to the late-ﬁfties. Table 1, included in Appendix C,
outlines the nature of the psychologists’ districts, years of experience, and educational

levels of participants.

50

Settings. The school psychologists who participated in this research were
employed within two intermediate school districts located in the central part of a midwest
state. Six of the school psychologists were employed by the intermediate school district,
whereas three of the school psychologists were employed by local districts within one of
the two ISDs. The ﬁnal school psychologist had been employed by the ISD but, at the
time of participation, had retired and was working on a private contractual basis with a
local school district. Each of these intermediate school districts is described below using

pseudonyms in place of real names.

Mayﬁeld ISD. The Mayﬁeld ISD, Covering 675 square miles, serves a total of
12 urban, suburban and rural local districts. Through these local districts, the ISD
services a total of 47,531 students, according to the 1998 annual report. These students
attend a total of 106 public schools, including 73 elementary schools, 19 middle/junior
high schools, and 19 high schools. Of this total student population, approximately 15%
(7,000+) of students are eligible for special education services under the state special
education guidelines. The ISD also serves ﬁve public school academies, seven
alternative education centers, and two self-contained special education centers for
students with severe disabilities. The student population of Mayﬁeld ISD is mainly.
With regard to socioeconomic status, an average of 30.3 percent of the student population
of each district qualiﬁes for ﬁ'ee or reduced lunch programs.

Eight of the participants in the present study were employed within the Mayﬁeld
ISD. Of these eight individuals, four were employed by Mayﬁeld ISD, three were

employed by local districts within Mayﬁeld ISD, and one retired recently from Mayﬁeld

51

but was contracted with a local district served by Mayﬁeld at the time of the present
study. School psychologists in Mayﬁeld ISD were expected to complete an average of
80 evaluations per year, although the required caseload for individual psychologists
varied due to special assignments and other position-speciﬁc responsibilities.

Within Mayﬁeld ISD lies an urban local school district which is not served by
Mayﬁeld ISD staff (Student population is not included in Mayﬁeld numbers above).
Two of the psychologists in the present study were employed by this district, which
served approximately 19,060 students in 41 schools (34 elementary schools; four
middle/junior high schools; and three high schools). Of these students, approximately
4% (768 students) received special education services, according to 1998 data. More
than half of the student population (53%) qualiﬁed for free or reduced lunch programs.
The population of this district was ethnically diverse, comprised of the following
categories: Caucasians (47%); African-American (34%); Hispanic (13%); Asian (5%)
and Native American (1%). To serve these students, the district employed a total of
seventeen school psychologists, each of whom was expected to complete an average of

70 diagnostic evaluations each year.

Englewood ISD. The Englewood ISD serves a total of eight Midwestern
suburban and rural school districts. At the time of this research, recent information about
the composition of Englewood ISD student population was not available. However, in
terms of racial composition, a majority of students served by Englewood ISD are
Caucasian. School psychologists in the Englewood ISD are expected to complete an

average of 80 diagnostic evaluations each year.

52

The Interview Process

I gathered these data by engaging in individual semi-structured interviews with
participating school psychologists. The interviews were tape recorded and transcribed
either by myself or a transcriber whom I employed. Interviews were at a location chosen
by the participant to maximize the participants’ comfort and conﬁdentiality. Interviews
took place in a testing room at a large university, in a conference room at the intermediate
school district ofﬁce, or in the home of the participant. Interviews ranged from one and a
half hours to two and three-quarters hours in duration.

Those psychologists who indicated an interest to participate and who signed and
returned their consent form were contacted via phone or e-mail to schedule the interview
session. Having experienced the emotional and psychological dissonance that can
accompany ethical conﬂict and having reviewed the literature on professional ethics, I
was aware of the sensitive nature of the topic of inquiry. Thus, in an effort to facilitate
participants’ comfort in discussing these issues and to promote honest and thoughtful
responses, I mailed a copy of the interview protocol to all participants after they had
returned written consent to participate. Each psychologist was mailed or faxed the
protocol at least four days prior to the interview to allow them to preview the questions.

Prior to the interview, several steps were taken to promote rapport and to facilitate
the comfort of participants. First, I reviewed issues of informed consent and
conﬁdentiality with the participants. Second, I clearly discussed with all participants the
option for answering some questions “off the record.” Participants were ensured that if
they shared information that had the potential of jeopardizing their personal or

professional status, they could choose the option of sharing the information with me

53

without the information being included in written reports. Third, I reminded participants
that I was not interested in judging the “rightness or wrongness” of their responses;

rather, I was interested in their individual perceptions and constructions.

Instrument. A copy of the interview protocol is included in Appendix D. . The
interview concerned past and present role deﬁnitions, how school psychologists think
about and make sense of the ethical facets of their role, ethical dilemmas that arise in
school psychological practice, and the resources that are used by school psychologists in
deﬁning and resolving ethical concerns. Questions were drawn in part from interview
formats utilized by Gilligan and colleagues (1990), Lyons and colleagues (1983) and
Skoe and colleagues (1996), though a majority of the questions were specially tailored to
the experience of school psychologists. Through this protocol, participants were guided
in examining at least two ethical situations and concenrs that they have encountered in
their professional practice, in addition to being asked to reason through and discuss two
researcher-generated ethical dilemmas. The wording, length, and format of the interview
were revised following pilot interviews with two school psychologists who volunteered
to participate in the interview and provided feedback about the content, clarity and tone
of the questions posed.

Following discussion of the spontaneous and researcher-generated dilemmas,
school psychologists were asked to respond to four different statements prepared by this
researcher. The format of this section of the interview is based upon on the work of
Belenky and colleagues (1987) in which they asked women to respond to various

statements about the nature of knowledge and knowing. In the present study, each of the

54

statements was designed to reﬂect a role deﬁnition or ethical perspective that is rooted in
either an ethic of justice or an ethic of care. Rather than tabulating or representing these
responses numerically, I used these data to further explore of the moral voices employed
by school psychologists. Given the semi-structured nature of the interviews, the protocol
was used as a guide. Participants were allowed and encouraged to speak about other
topics, I used my discretion to pose other questions to pursue new directions introduced

by the participants.

The Evolving Process of
Investigating and Analyzing the Data

I originally planned for analysis to involve composing a brief proﬁle of each
psychologist’s professional roles and responsibilities. Data to be included in this proﬁle
would have included past experience, case load size, nature of district in which one is
employed, functions served in the school psychology role, role changes, and overall
deﬁnition of one’s professional roles and functions. However, after the interviews were
conducted, I believed that some of this information would allow participants to be
identiﬁed, or it would possibly place their employment in jeopardy. To protect the
conﬁdentiality of the participants, I made a post-interview decision to analyze data for
general themes across the interviews, while also being sensitive to unique facets of each
psychologist’s interview. In addition, to protect the conﬁdentiality of participants,
pseudonyms were used in all written materials related to this study. Pseudonyms are

presented in Table l.

55

Thematic Organization

Theme identiﬁcation involved three phases of analysis. First, I read all interviews
completely through at least three times, making notes in the margins and marking salient
comments and points of discussion. After these readings were completed, a matrix was
compiled, identifying the main issues that were reﬂected in each individual’s interview as
they discussed their roles, their understanding of professional ethics, and their own
experiences in facing and dealing with ethical dilemmas and in attempting to practice
ethically. From this matrix, ﬁve major themes were identiﬁed and became the organizing
tool for discussing the data. These themes are: 1) Ethical obligations reﬂected in role
deﬁnitions, 2) Intersection of personal and professional commitments, 3) Construing
ethical conﬂict as system versus individual tensions, 4) Construing ethical practice in
school psychology as a complex web of relationships, and 5) Development and
emergence of moral voice. Each of these ﬁve themes is discussed in greater detail in
separate chapters.

Following identiﬁcation of these major themes, data related to moral and ethical
concerns were analyzed using the tool of moral voices--ethic of justice and ethic of care.
In this process, I drew upon the guidance of Brown and colleagues (1987) and Lyons
(1983). The school psychologists’ responses were analyzed to examine how and whether
they deﬁned and made sense of the circumstances and issues using ideas of justice, care,
or some combination of the two. My goal was to understand and represent participants’
understandings rather than to “rate” the moral development of the participants or to

assess their stage of development by the stage-theories advanced by Kohlberg and

56

Gilligan. After reading and processing the data for several months, I decided that such a
restrictive analytic process would not provide an accurate representation of the subjective
constructions.

Lincoln and Guba (1985) acknowledged that these decisions become apparent
“because of changes in the emergent design as insights grow and working hypotheses
appear" (p. 299). As I reviewed the data, I concluded that categorizing participant’s
statements into either an ethic of justice or an ethic of care undermined the authenticity of
these data. Tallying across each interview and making numerical judgments about which
voice was used most frequently contradicted my argument that such approaches over-
simplify complex material and distort participants’ words and meanings. Instead, I
concluded that I would succeed in representing their words and voices more faithﬁrlly if I
remained ﬂexible to the patterns and alternations of moral voice in their interviews in
ways that labeling and tallying would not allow. Rather than characterizing discrete
chunks of interviews as either an ethic of justice or an ethic of care in a systemic fashion,
I opted to employ the voices of justice and care as a starting point and a discussion tool
for highlighting points where care and justice seemed to be present. For instance, when
interpreting a participant’s discussion of his or her approach to an ethical dilemma, I did
not attempt to simplify the response and label it as either a justice or care response;
rather, I attempted to remain true to the patterns and complexity of the response. In this
way, I hoped to allow alternatives to Gilligan’s conceptions of justice and care, if present,
to emerge from these data. I believed that this approach was much more consistent with
an interpretive inquiry approach, a constructivist theoretical stance, and the study’s

overall purpose of understanding and representing the individual meanings that school

57

psychologists attach to the ethical dimensions of their role and work.

58

Chapter 3

Ethical Obligations and Commitments
Reﬂected in Role Deﬁnitions

Increasingly, school psychology is a profession that is breaking the historical
mold which has had its practitioners locked into a “test and place” role. Despite
continuing pressures of high caseloads, limited funds, and others’ perceptions of the
school psychologist’s role, this movement has allowed individual practitioners to begin
shaping and molding their roles in accordance with perceptions of their personal
background experiences, strengths, interests competencies, and visions for their role
(Gomaa, 1999). Consistent with constructivist theory, ndividuals make sense of the
world and construct meaning based on how they perceive themselves, the world, and their
relationship to the world. Professional roles are not ﬁlled passively by people, but they
are constructed in relation to speciﬁc contexts and individual characteristics. Recently,
within the career literature, researchers have advocated this type of shift from objective
studies of professional roles to more subjective examinations where focus is on the
unique meanings and understandings that individuals have of their own career roles
(Young & Collin, 1992). In my study, I was interested in investigating the active
construction of school psychologists’ professional roles and, more speciﬁcally, their
ethical commitments.

Given the primacy of subjective meaning-making and personal constructions in
how a professional role is understood and manifested in practice, a practitioner’s

perceptions of the professional roles one occupies will affect how ethical problems and

59

situations within the professional are construed. As Deno (1995) suggested, “Successful
functioning in any role requires a clear image of the primary purposes of that role” (p.
471). Thus, one way to understand further the ways in which school psychologists make
sense of and come to understand professional ethics is to develop an understanding of
how they deﬁne their roles and to examine the relationship between how they deﬁne their
roles and how they view their ethical responsibilities in relation to that role. One
common thread, evident in each of the psychologists’ construals, was the primacy of child

advocacy in professional activities and commitments.

Child Advocate First and Foremost: A Common Thread in Role Deﬁnition

At ﬁrst glance, the role deﬁnitions discussed by the ten participants in this study
seemed highly inidividualized. However, upon closer examination of the interviews, I
detected a common thread in their role deﬁnitions: Each of the school psychologists
interviewed expressed some degree of commitment to the role of child advocate. These
school psychologists expressed their central concern as that of advocating for the beneﬁt
of children and families. Nevertheless, the nature of the child advocacy role was not
unitary; rather, the salience of this commitment and the forms of this commitment varied
by individual practitioner. Each person interpreted the role of child advocate in a unique

manner.

60

Mike, when asked to describe his role in one or two words, stated, “I think the
role has always been child advocate ﬁrst, and then parent advocate, and I think that’s still

what I do.” He went on to describe how this commitment has translated into practice:

I think my position has always been child advocacy, and it didn’t matter whether
it was really making the child eligible for special ed., or whether it was getting
them a therapist. I mean, in my early years, one of my goals was to get every kid
in the El (Emotionally Impaired) program hooked up with some community
therapist or myself for a therapist, and their families. I mean, I still will do stuff
like that. This summer, I saw a kid for like 10 bucks an hour because he had no
place to go, so the school paid me 10 bucks an hour to see this kid, so I saw him

for 10 sessions during the summer.

Mike also spoke of the discrepancy between his view of himself as a child
advocate and others’ views of his role: “I think if people observe me, they would say I do
evaluations, I test kids. But I think that that’s a lesser part of the job in terms of how I
view myself in the role.” Mike’s idea of professional ethics is heavily rooted in his

personal ethical comrrritrnents rather than in uniform, prescribed laws or codes:

To me, ethics is not a topic to write laws about. Ethics is really who you are as a
person. It’s your moral self, and so the guidelines in the profession are really your
own moral development guidelines that you have developed and are developing

over the course of your career.

61

Mike’s articulated understanding of professional ethics as intimately rooted in who he is
as a person reﬂects his view of his role as that of a child advocate. Although Mike
recognized that others may view his role in an extremely isolated way as that of tester,
Mike’s own role deﬁnition was closely tied to child advocacy commitments. Rather than
being conﬁned to others’ perceptions of his professional role or to prescribed ethical
guidelines, both Mike’s role and his ethical commitments stemmed from his personhood
and his personal moral commitments.

Joyce also summarized the core of her role by referring to her dedication to child
and family advocacy. She expressed, “To me, to be an ethical school psychologist
would be to keep the needs of the students and the families you serve as your main
priority. . ..to try to keep my ideals with the kids as the most important thing and how can
we help them to be the best people they can be.” For Joyce, to be an ethical practitioner
was “having an ideal of how you should do your job and trying to stick to it.” This
“ideal”, she explained, was formed through “literature that I read, it comes from talking
to other school psychologists, and it comes from my own feeling about what I think is ‘
appropriate and not appropriate.” Joyce’s conception of ethics, similar to Mike’s,
stemmed from a combination of the profession’s standards and one’s personal moral
commitments and obligations.

Robert agreed with the importance of making decisions and practice in a way that
will beneﬁt children: “I see my main role as to conduct myself, as I said before, in a way
that’s not harmful to others. I see myself as conducting myself in a way that is truly
being an advocate for the people that I’m supposed to be there for, and that’s children.”

He further described what he meant when he spoke of his professional ethics, referring to

62

a combination of personal characteristics and professional commitments that have shaped

one’s ethics:

Ethics, to me, means a code of conduct, a code of behavior. A code of moral
behavior that you bring with you in how you relate to others as well as how you
relate to your profession because your profession has a code of conduct that they
consider the best practices that you go by. As far as the individual, it’s the ethical
character that you bring to your job but also how you relate that to your particular

role in the profession of school psych.

Personal character was a central issue in Robert’s understanding of what it means to be an
ethical school psychologist. Similar to Mike, Robert believed that a person enters a
profession with ethical and moral commitments and character that has developed prior to
entering the profession. Upon entering the professional role, these personal ethical
commitments become a central determinant in how one thinks about ethics that arise on
the job. Also important to Robert’s idea of ethics was “knowing yourself and the biases
you bring into a situation” and being aware of his potential inﬂuence in the lives of

others. He stressed the importance of:

....knowing who I am and what is Robert, because I’m bringing myself into a
situation. No matter how objective you try to be. Objectivity is nice but we all
bring in our internal biases, I don’t care where we are or what we are dealing

with, who we are dealing with. It’s just how we deal with it and the strategies we

63

use to deal with it.

Jill believed that her ethics have always centered on her efforts to “do what I feel
is best for children and families.” The facet of the role that she liked best was
“. . ..helping children in systems, allowing them to get to the programs and services that
would help them to learn.” Jill made sense of her role as a guide who knows the system,
knows how to access programs within the system, and assists children and their families
with accessing those programs that will assist the child toward maximal learning and
functioning. Emily also viewed herself as a child advocate within the speciﬁc context,
describing her major role as “. . ..To serve children, to make the best possible decisions
for the child that can be made within the community and the environment that that child
is in.”

Tom explicitly referred to the primacy of the child is his work, stating, “I think
our ﬁrst responsibility is to do what’s right and in the best interest of the kid who is
referred to us. That should be our primary concern, not our only concern, but our primary
concern is to consider what impact decisions will have on that child.” He agreed with the
centrality of child advocacy, however, and recognized that his responsibilities and
obligations go beyond that of the individual child. He aligned himself quite strongly with
the system, understanding his major role as not just advocating for individual children but
“to maximize the potential of the school district.”

Nick’s perception of the relationship between his professional role and his ethical
perspectives differed ﬁ'om the other psychologists in important ways. He believed that

certain ethical obligations become a school psychologist’s upon entry into the ﬁeld.

 

I Thus, he recognized that a commitment to child advocacy is his by virtue of his chosen
profession and the role he has chosen to ﬁll. He stated, “The job really doesn’t mean
anything to me if I’m not focusing on the individual and what’s best for them. If I’m
serving as an administrator, a gatekeeper, or a ‘cog’ in how the system functions, then I
should have gotten an MBA.” Ethically, Nick is committed to “behaving in a principled
way, or your behavior being driven by a set of principles.” He seemed to focus less on
his personal dedication to child advocacy and more on the advocacy responsibilities that
are his because "...your role deﬁnes your responsibility in a given context.” Nick
discussed ethical matters with a strong voice of justice, not referring to personal
corrrrnitrnents to the welfare of children but rather deﬁning his commitments as stemming
from the professional role that he occupies. This point seems to be a key to
understanding his ethical commitments and obligations.

Clearly, for these psychologists, the role of child advocate was primary in creating
and deﬁning one’s professional ethical obligations and responsibilities. Thus,
commitment to advocating for children served both as a way of deﬁning one’s role and a
way of summarizing one’s ethical commitments. Applying the concept of moral voice as
an analytical tool, each of the school psychologists spoke with an element of the voice of
care, construing their entire professional motivation as promoting the welfare of children.

However, strongly intermingled was a voice of justice, embodied as concern for
balancing the needs of multiple individuals within the system to promote fairness and
equality. By virtue of the nature of their roles,the school psychologists seemed to
recognize justice as an important part of their roles as they advocate for multiple children

and others within the school environment.

65

 

Unique Constructions and Interpretations of the Child Advocacy Role

School psychologists commonly understood themselves as child advocates who
are responsible for carrying out this role while also considering the context and needs of
the system. Nevertheless, the role of child advocate is not singular and ruriform; rather,
there were many individual ways that this role was interpreted and articulated. Looking
at the data more holistically, I observed that child advocacy appeared in many different
forms, inﬂuenced by the individual characteristics of each school psychologists, as well
as by the school culture and context in which each school psychologist practices. As
Mike suggested, “It didn’t matter whether it was really making the child eligible for
special ed., or whether it was getting them a therapist.” Hence, although each of the
school psychologists spoke of child advocacy, either implicitly or explicitly, as their main
priority, there are diverse avenues through which child advocacy is pursued by school
psychologists. School psychologists in this study viewed their commitments to child
advocacy being carried out through a variety of roles including liaison/negotiator, tester

and gatekeeper, consultant, and problem-solver.

The “Balancing” Function. A commonality among all of the school
psychologists’ role perceptions was a tension between the system and dedication to
individual children, conditions creating the need for the school psychologist to balance
somehow these often conﬂicting needs. I will examine this theme thoroughly in Chapter
5, but a brief discussion is relevant here in the discussion about the interplay between role

deﬁnitions and ethical commitments. Some of the psychologists, like Jill, clearly viewed

66

 

this as part of their role, though she never explicitly provided a label for this facet of her
role; others explicitly labeled this function as they discussed their roles. Within this latter
group, many different labels were used to describe this role. Robert referred to this role
as one of “negotiator,” needing to discuss and deal with the system to arrive at agreement
on issues pertaining to children in schools. He viewed this skill as crucial to helping
children gain access to services and opportunities within the system.

Joyce described her role as “...the RR. person, the person that is kind of in
between parents and school and is kind of looked on from both sides as somebody that
can be more objective and be a ‘liaison’ between the two.” Hence, she did not align
herself on the side of the system or on the side of the child, rather positioning herself as
somewhere in between. However, I noticed that later in her interview, she positioned
herself as clearly committed to meeting the needs of the children she serves, stating, “To
me, to be an ethical school psychologist would be to keep the needs of the students and
the families you serve as your main priority.” According to Joyce, then, commitment to
child advocacy often necessitates acting as a liaison or “balancing” the needs of the

system and the child.

Tester and “Gatekeeper. ” Although many of the school psychologists spoke of
ways that they have attempted to move beyond the testing role, the emphasis on this
traditional role was evident both explicitly and implicitly in role deﬁnitions as well as in
discussions of ethical concerns. This is congruent with survey studies of school
psychologists which consistently suggest that 2/3 of practicing school psychologists’ time

is spent in activities related to testing, classiﬁcation, and special education placement

67

(Reschly & Wilson, 1995; Smith, 1984). Jennifer, a school psychologist who has been
practicing for four years, explicitly talked about how she feels like a “gatekeeper” on
occasion and senses that others perceive her as “. . ..the test person, the test lady.”
However, as was true of Mike, Jennifer’s self-perception of her role is broader and
encompasses more ﬁrnctions.

This difference between the nature of the school psychologist’s role as perceived
by others (perceived role) and broader multi-faceted functions that school psychologists
view themselves as fulﬁlling has been documented (Fagan & Wise, 1994). Studies of
school psychologists have consistently demonstrated discrepancies between school
psychologists’ desired and self-perceived roles and their demands, expectations, and
desires of their districts (Curtis, Graden & Reschly, 1992). This type of discrepancy was
referred to by many of psychologists, who spoke of their perceived roles as tied primarily
to testing, while their own role deﬁnitions involved broader functions. Jennifer, for

instance, stated:

I like to perceive myself, you know, in a wide variety of ways. I’m a
communicator, I’m an educator, I’m a counselor, all kinds of things. But I think,
but, since the majority of what I do is testing, that’s typically what people come to
me for [but] I do lots of other things. I guess the other one might be consultant,
because I do feel like that kind of summarizes a lot of what I do, is you include

consulting regarding assessment in that.

Jennifer, who equated ethics with “morality, being on your honor. . ..a certain code of

68

discipline,” speaks of ethical practice largely in relation to her testing role, reﬂecting
close ties between her role deﬁnition and her ethical understandings (See further
discussion of Jennifer’s perspective on this issue in Chapter 7). She tries to be
completely honest when reporting test data but also recognized the role of professional
judgment in placement and programming decisions. Even in the face of pressure to
conceal some test results when talking to parents, she believed that it was very important
to communicate the information that she has gathered about a student honestly and

completely:

Personally, I just try to be honest about the scores and what I’m thinking. And I
don’t say, if the scores are there, I won’t tell someone that they’re not. I’ll tell
them they’re there, but this or that. Or “But I don’t think. . ..” And I know from
other people that I’ve talked with sometimes that maybe that’s not always the
case, or other places I’ve worked, people said, “Well, don’t show them the chart,
or don’t show them the scores.” But I always do, and I always tell the parents and
I always tell the teacher, and I will tell them that I’m on the line here, this is a real

borderline case, and what do you think?

Summarizing her perspective of the ethical commitments by which she practices, Jennifer
cited three main factors that she viewed as related to testing and eligibility determination:
Client conﬁdentiality, honesty in working with team members and parents, and an

integration of clinical judgment with speciﬁed eligibility guidelines:

69

rare

; l «I

‘iu§.

“I'm.

"krel
a

r
., N
XI!"

”‘13::
“‘N.

:m A.

There’s three big things. Conﬁdentiality of information is huge. There is, I feel
and I’ve learned, being open and honest about kids and letting yourself be part of
a team with another person and making decisions as a team. The last part

is. . ..taking the guidelines that I am given at this tirne--what we have for eligibility
and things like that, because that’s the main things that I do--and trying to keep
with those guidelines but adding a piece of my and teachers and whoever else is

on the team’s judgment.

For others, although their perception of their own roles was not limited to a testing
function, their actual roles (time allotted to various functions) and the system’s
expectations reﬂected a strong assessment focus. By far, the major function for every
school psychologists was assessment and assessment-related activities (i.e., attending
meetings, writing reports, talking with parents about test results). For example, Joyce
observed that high testing loads and strong testing focus by her district restricted her from

becoming more involved in programming and follow-up:

The way it is now, I can make all kinds of recommendations and I can talk to
parents and talk to students, but I don’t really have time to follow up on most of
that, so it may happen and it may not. I don’t really know that I can really impact

that in a big way.

Robert’s discussion of his role contained evidence of this tension between desired

function and actual function. Consistent with literature (e.g., Fagan & Wise, 1994),

70

 

Robert reﬂected on his 32 years of experience and concluded that he is and almost always
has been perceived mainly as a gatekeeper by teachers, parents, and administrators. He
would like to view himself more as a consultant, but he stated, “. . ..Gatekeeper is still
there. Gatekeeper was there 25 years ago, and gatekeeper is still there.” When asked to
explain why that perception has been so stable, Robert explained that school

psychologists are in many ways restricted by legal and ﬁnancial factors:

The fact that we’re written into the LD deﬁnition, the E1 deﬁnition, that EMI
deﬁnition. That’s where the money comes from. Special education, it’s all about
money. I used to have this notion that there were just altruistic people out there to
help kids, but then it occurred to me that it’s just an altruistic notion. It is
probably mostly based on money. I mean if it wasn’t based on money, I would
assume that districts would be hiring school psychologists to be doing more than

just testing.

Although Robert currently spends about 50% of his time in assessment and 50% in
consultation and intervention, he still believed that school psychologists are in many
ways locked into a prescribed testing role. Given the current structure of special
education funding, Robert believed that he was often unable to render services that he
thought were his duty to provide because his major function was perceived as that of
testing. Even though he may ethically feel that counseling or consultation is what the
child really needs as opposed to testing, he felt pressure to perform only those functions,

mainly testing, that are funded directly. For Robert, ethical commitments must often be

71

sacriﬁced for adherence to the current system whereby school psychologists are typically
funded.

Whereas many of the school psychologists, including Jennifer and Robert,
discussed restrictions created by continuing ties to testing and assessment, their
discussion of ethics reﬂected an awareness of a broader responsibility. Robert, while
discussing the ethical concerns that accompany administering and making test-based

decisions, also referred to his ethical responsibility to act as a role model for children:

I think you need to project yourself as a model of behavior when you are with
kids. So often the kids that we deal with don’t have very good models of
behavior. They have just the opposite, which is what they watch on TV,

or. . ...Especially as a male psychologist, I think there’s an additional burden being
a male in schools, because so many of these kids don’t have a father. . ..I think as a
male person in schools, these little boys and little girls are watching you in terms

of how you are conducting yourself.

Thus, school psychologists reported practicing within conﬁnes and limited perceptions of
their roles and contributions, yet they construed their ethical commitments as broader and
more comprehensive. The breadth and depth of ethical commitments seem to be more

consistent with the psychologists’ desired roles and functions, as opposed to the conﬁned

roles that may be placed on them by others.

Consultant. School psychologists are increasingly being called upon to serve

72

consultative functions with parents, school professionals, and community professionals.
Although the word consultation has been used to mean to advise, counsel, suggest, and
solve problems, school psychologists often understand consultation to mean “a mutual
problem-solving process between two or more professionals” (Fagan & Wise, 1994, p.
122). Consultation has become a preferred alternative to traditional assessment-focused
service-delivery approaches within the school setting (Reschly, 1988, as cited in
Kratochwill, Elliott & Rotto, 1995). This trend has occurred largely because it focuses on
training and empowering individuals who have the most intensive and prolonged contact
with students; it assumes that the consultee will apply learned skills and insights to larger
groups of students; and it has the potential, if transfer of skills occurs, for prevention of
adjustment problems (Conoley & Conoley, 1992).

Reﬂecting on this trend, four of the ten psychologists in the present study deﬁned
themselves ﬁrst and foremost as a consultant. Refening to the problem-solving aspect of
consultation, two more of the school psychologists perceived themselves primarily in a
problem-solving role, reﬂecting the increased emphasis on consultation and the paradigm
shift toward collaborative problem-solving that is currently occurring within the ﬁeld (see
discussion in Reschly & Ysseldyke, 1995). Thus, six of the ten school psychologists
focused on the consultative part of their role, despite the fact that they often felt conﬁned
to testing functions. In her role as consultant, Joyce was concerned primarily with the
gathering and dissemination of information that will in some way support children’s

education:

It seems like a main job of being a school psychologist is gathering and dispersing

73

{W

5rd

information, and it doesn’t necessarily have to be from testing. It could be from
the parents feeling this way, you’re feeling this way, what can we do? You’re
getting information ﬁ'om people or ﬁom what you are doing, and then you are

working with that information.

Other psychologists did not view consultation as their primary function, but they
did nonetheless view themselves as fulﬁlling some degree of consultation function.
Jennifer acknowledged that consultation increasingly has inﬁltrated her role but,
consistent with her overwhelming emphasis on assessment, viewed her consulting role as
largely related to assessment.

Discussion of the schism between perceiving oneself as a consultant and being
conﬁned by testing expectations and role perceptions is necessary, because these school
psychologists saw it as having signiﬁcant implications for their ability to practice in a
manner consistent with their ethical commitments and responsibilities. As previously
stated, the school psychologists in this study deﬁned their ethical commitments relative to
their own role deﬁnitions, as opposed to the perceptions of other people in the school
environment. Viewing themselves primarily as psychoeducational consultants, these
school psychologists recognized their need to gather data from multiple people, to
collaborate with teachers and parents, and to evaluate the sometimes conﬂicting needs of
students, parents, and educational professionals. As a result, their ethical commitments
extended beyond the ethical responsibilities that are tied strictly to testing and
encompassed the ethical commitments that arise in the context of interpersonal

interactions and relationships.

74

Problem-Solver. Assessment continued to be the most visible function of these
school psychologists, but many (i.e., Deno, 1995) have argued that a “broader and more
satisfying role” for school psychologists is that of a “data-based problem solver,”
focusing on how best to address individual and system-level problems to attain desired
outcomes. Data-based problem solving involves a process approach to problems that
arise within the system. After a problem has been identiﬁed, the data-based problem-
solver gathers information from a variety of sources to deﬁne the problem, to make
recommendations, and to evaluate the impact of action. All stages of identifying and
addressing problems are based on data that have been gathered.

Reﬂecting this trend, Jill, a psychologist who spends over half of her time
working with infants and preschool students in the preprimary program, viewed herself as
a person who was able to help people solve problems by bringing a ﬂesh perspective to

situations:

If you have a child that looks like he may need help, what is the approach you
take? You know, is this a child that needs general education intervention ﬁrst,
does it look like it’s a child who really should go directly to special education
referral? In preprimary, I try to come in as an outsider, someone who’s not too
tainted by the perspective of other people that have worked with them....I think

the staff kind of looks to me for providing a different set of eyes.

Jill’s discussion of her views on professional ethics reﬂected her perceived role as

a professional who is called upon to bring an objective, honest evaluation into a situation

75

where the goal is to solve the presenting problem. Honesty is a large part of what Jill
considers to be ethical practice. She explained, “I guess you just try to live ethics in
everything you do, I just try to be honest in everything I do, and I also try to place myself
in the shoes of the person that I’m dealing with, and so I just try to do the right thing.”
Jill provided one example where honesty is important as she seeks to solves problems,
whether she seeks solutions in special education or within the general education

curriculum:

If I felt that a child had a learning problem, I would look for ways to document
that learning problem. But if I felt truly that a child wasn’t eligible for services, I
wouldn’t lie that way either. You know, if I had a ‘slow learner’ who’s
performing at ability, I think it’s important to be honest with the family and the
school and say, “This is a slow learner, we need to look at programming” and

putting a child in special education is not always the answer.

This assessment-related ethical issue was one that several of the psychologists in
this study cited as one that they face frequently in their practice. Jill explained that there
was sometimes a large difference between her impression of a child’s problem and the
speciﬁed special education eligibility guidelines. This scenario creates ethical problems
as she was faced with the following question: Do I "fudge’ the data so it supports my
clinical impression of this child, or do I take the test results at face value and possibly
deny a child’s access to needed support services? Jill’s answer to this ethical dilemma

was to interpret the data honestly at all times and to seek alternate, creative programming

76

options for children who have a learning problem but do not qualify for special education
programs.

Another facet of ethical practice, for Jill, was “to maintain an awareness of the big
picture.” Jill’s responses suggest that seeing the “big picture” involves two issues. First,
Jill asserted that a school psychologist must realize that the effects of decisions are not
always immediately apparent; rather, one must look for improvements and positive
consequences over the long term. She recalled a situation where she made a
recommendation that a child’s certiﬁcation be changed from EMI to TMI, despite strong
opposition from parents and school administration. It was not until nearly 10 years later
that she saw the positive consequences of that unpopular decision unfold. Although the
decision was difﬁcult and put signiﬁcant strain on her relationships with school staff

members, Jill believed that she would make the same decision again:

Yes, especially with the way things turned out in the end. He’s ﬁnally in a
appropriate setting for him. He’s ﬁrll days at a different facility, and I knew
things wouldn’t change overnight. I knew that nobody would really see the
results of that decision and that agony right away, but I knew long-term that it was
the right thing to do, and I think that the better programming for him now has

occurred because it started back then.
For Jill, then, an important facet of her ethical commitments involved standing up
for what she believes, even in the face of majority opinions that are different. She was

willing to risk temporary strain in relationships to advocate for what she thought was best

77

for a student. Part of her willingness to take these risks was her dedication to maintaining
a view of the “big picture.” Although her steadfastness in standing behind her clinical
impression may temporarily strain relationships, she hoped that this steadfastness would
contribute to positive outcomes in the long term. Seeing the “big picture” also involved
having an understanding of the educational system as a whole rather than just one level or

one classroom:

Sometimes, like when I work with preprimary and even in the public schools,
people don’t see the whole spectrum of kids. And I think having been in K-12
setting helps over time, it helps you make decisions so you can see down the road
that this is the outcome. I think sometimes that colleagues that I work with in
early childhood have a very narrow view of children because it’s like 0-3. They
don’t look beyond at the preprimary classroom problems. And sometimes even in
my K-l" grade building, they think every problem has to be solved by the end of
ﬁrst grade. I mean they really feel that they need to solve these problems by end
of ﬁrst grade, and I continually say to them, “You know, there are other people
out there, and when they leave this building, these needs will be met.” When they
want to test kids very early, you just say, “They need some time.” I think I can

ethically say that because I have seen it over the lifespan of children.
Reﬂecting a voice of care, Jill believed that being ethical “. . . just comes ﬁ'om the person,
and always trying to be empathetic with the person who is at the receiving end.” She did

not think that her ethical commitments mainly stemmed from the role or profession;

78

rather, they stemmed from the person whom she is and from her ability to empathize with
others. She continued, “In terms of ethics, you just try to do the best job you can, and I
think you always need to feel you’re trying to keep current with journals and with tests
and things of that nature.” In summary, by fulﬁlling the role of problem-solver in her
various functions, Jill viewed ethical commitments as placing herself in the shoes of her
client, seeing the broad picture in terms of evaluation and programming, remaining
honest in all her communications and interactions, and staying as knowledgeable about
current research as possible. She strived to maintain her ethical commitment to
advocating for children and families and refused to compromise her professional ethical
responsibilities toward sound assessment practices.

Tom viewed himself as broadly attending to the needs of many different people
within the system. His understanding of his role as “consulting problem solver” is

important in making apparent how he positioned himself within the system:

My vision for what I do is to help people achieve goals. Given my knowledge of
the educational process and access to information, my personal orientation is to
try to facilitate resolution of problems or reducing whatever is impeding their
progress toward goals. Mainly, I’ve functioned to try to maximize the potential of
the educational system...I try to be there to support the system and if that’s on a

microcosmic or a macrocosmic level, that’s what I’m here for.

He later referred to himself as a “total mental health service provider” for that

environment. ” Tom’s overarching role deﬁnition did not hinge upon understanding

79

individual students but rather on maximizing the functioning of the entire system by
responding to and addressing the needs of multiple people within the system. Thus, he
considered it critical for school psychologists to be aware of the impact of speciﬁc
contextual factors on their professional work. Returning to Tom’s conception of school
psychologists as “the conscience of the system,” he clearly placed a tremendous
responsibility on the school psychologist for overseeing and even policing the activities
of the system in relation to ethical matters.

Tom’s sense of responsibility toward the system was reﬂected in the ethical
dilemmas that he discussed and in his deﬁnition of ethical. Tom deﬁned his idea of
“ethical,” stating, “When 1 think of ethical behavior of a school psychologist or any
psychologist, my obligation is to ﬁrst ‘do no harm.’ Also, it means to me fairness,
honesty, integrity, and adhering to documented best practice.” In summary, although he
discussed the importance of advocating for children, Tom reﬂected a clear justice
orientation that focused on protecting people’s rights and maximizing the functioning of
the entire system. Another place where this was evident was in his discussion of IDEA

regulations as an element that supports his ethical practice:

Particularly in my setting, there is heavy emphasis on IDEA compliance and to
the extent that we should adhere to those rules because they are there for a reason.
Our boss is really concerned that we do things in a timely manner and that we
follow the letter of the law. That’s important because those laws are there to
provide access to services in a timely manner to people and to protect people ’s

rights [emphasis added]. I deeply believe that those are very important issues and

80

concepts.

Ken’s understanding of his professional role seemed to combine aspects of
testing, problem-solving and facilitating to provide the best possible match between
individual children and their educational programs. He characterized himself as a data-

based problem-solver who is a “matchmaker of abilities to programs”:

Well, I just think that what they want a psychologist to do is tell them about the
kid. That’s what they look in the ﬁle and the ﬁrst report they always read is the
psych. report and usually they want to know how smart the kid is and what his
reading level is and what his math levels are and things like that. They want to
know about abilities so we can match those abilities to programs. So I see that as
more our function rather than some more negative sounding term like gatekeeper

or things like that.

Seeing his main role as that of facilitating student access to appropriate educational
experiences, Ken believed that his ethical obligation as a school psychologist is to help
parents and teachers understand students’ abilities, to accept that student at his or her
level of functioning, and to assist that student in accessing appropriate educational
programs.

Ken’s ideas of what it means to be an ethical practitioner have also evolved as he
has recognized that his own ideas of what is best for a child may not always be the only

way to handle a situation. Early in his career, he described his role as a “rescuer” who

81

thought it was his role to “save” a child single-handedly from failure, but his view of this

role changed with experience:

I think we [school psychologists] are all rescuers in a way. You have to be very
careful about that. I’ve had some wonderful lessons given to me about that.
People who were able to walk away and show me that just because I think
something should be some way doesn’t mean that’s how it has to be. Parents can

choose not to use a program, even though we felt that’s what they should.

Ken’s caution about protecting himself from assuming a “rescuer” function may
in some ways reﬂect the care for oneself that, when balanced with a care for the welfare
of others, characterizes Gilligan’s ethic of care. On the other hand, it is reﬂective of the
emotional detaclunent that was referred to in earlier examination of Ken’s discussion.

For Ken, ethical practice rested on an attitude that inﬁltrates every professional decision
and action: Recognizing the inherent value of every individual and accepting them where

they are without forcing change.

Facilitator. In addition to Ken’s reference to “facilitation,” two of the
psychologists interviewed summarized their roles in the school system mainly as that of a
“facilitator.” The word facilitate means “to make easier” (Webster, 1994). Thus, school
psychologists view themselves as making the lives of children, families, teachers, and
other educational staff easier to handle. For example, Nick viewed himself as a facilitator

who is responsible for “facilitating a lot of things, services for kids, programming,

82

 

information for teachers. . .kind of ‘greasing the wheels’ of the system.” Fulﬁlling an
advocacy role for Nick extends beyond a strict assessment function. He saw himself as
involved in many different aspects of education and, by virtue of his position, viewed it
as his ethical responsibility to fulﬁll this multi-faceted function to facilitate a child’s
access to appropriate educational experiences.

Emily also viewed herself primarily as a facilitator in her role as a school
psychologist. Her role as facilitator was multi-faceted and involved “...facilitating
evaluation, facilitating assessment, facilitating strategies for a child, facilitating decisions
to be made for the child, and coming to a consensus with a group.” Asked whether that
view has changed over the course of her career, Emily stated that it has changed in some
ways but remained the same in others. Consistent across her career, Emily has viewed

herself as a facilitator within the context of a team problem-solving model:

I never wanted to be the sole decision-maker. I really like the emphasis,
especially with the new laws that are coming, on a team and group approach. And
that includes parent. I mean the greater parental emphasis, that has really changed
over the years. I mean, now, it’s much more, the law requires the parent to be
much more involved and I think that has really made them a partner. It brings

them to the table in that way that they weren’t at the table before.
Emily’s conception of ethical practice has been heavily inﬂuenced by her experience as a
parent (as will be discussed further in the next chapter). To Emily, being an ethical

school psychologist means “Making ethical decisions that I can make based on who I am,

83

according to my framework of what is ethical, as well as what the school psychologists as

a group feel is ethical practice.”

The Salience of Ethical Concerns in Practice

To this point, I have focused the discussion on how school psychologists construe
their professional roles and ethical commitments. However, I believe it is worthwhile to
examine also whether and to what extent school psychologist view ethical considerations
as relevant to their own everyday professional world. Also important is the extent to
which school psychologists are aware of and sensitive to the ethical facets of their
practice. As the psychologists were interviewed, they expressed various perspectives on
the extent to which ethics is relevant to the practice of school psychology. Perceptions of
the extent to which ethical concerns inﬁltrate school psychology practice varied notably.
Some of the school psychologists recognized ethics as relevant to every decision and
every day of practice. Tom, for instance, thought that all school psychologists, especially
new practitioners exiting training programming, have the responsibility to be aware of the

major extent to which ethics enters school psychology:

I just think that people coming into the ﬁeld need to be prepared for the fact that
they are going to deal with ethical questions almost daily. It’s a fact of life. It’s
not a bad thing. It just kind of goes along with territory. We’re there to clarify
some of those issues and it’s good to be aware of them, about what our role is in

relation to maintaining ethical and moral behavior. I think it’s one of the more

84

interesting aspects of what we do. It’s a real fundamental question about why we

do what we do as educators and what we are trying to instill in kids.

Torn did not view his ethical commitments and responsibilities as distinct from the rest of
his practice, nor did he think that ethics were irrelevant to the practice of school
psychology. On the contrary, he considerd ethics to be “fundamental” to his daily
practice, a “fact of life” for school psychologists.

Joyce, although recognizing the importance of ethical considerations in her
practice, believed that the ﬁeld has only begun to deﬁne what “ethical practice” looks
like. Despite the existence of ethical guidelines provided by NASP and APA, Joyce
continued to be unsure of the ﬁeld’s stance on what is and is not ethical in practice. This
conclusion was evident when she responded to the question of how ethical training of
school psychologists can be improved: “Maybe they could just have a class on ethics, if
they really know what the ethics in school psychology are. I don ’t know if that is really
obvious.” Joyce’s position seemed to reﬂect some lack of clarity about where a school
psychologist’s ethical commitments and responsibilities should and do lie. On the one
hand, she thought that her duty as a school psychologist was to meet the educational
needs of children and families; however, she acknowledged that the manner of reaching
that goal did not have full consensus within the ﬁeld and is concerned about the
consistency whereby school psychologists are making judgments about what does and
does not constitute ethical practice. Joyce’s confusion illuminated the fact that even
though professional organizations provide various written ethical guidelines, there still

exists tremendous variability in how school psychologists think about, deﬁne and act

85

upon their ethical commitments in their work.

In contrast with these views of ethics as a central consideration in practice, three
of the psychologists interviewed regarded ethics as a minor concern in their practice and
in the ﬁeld of school psychology in general. Dave, when asked to discuss some of the
ethical issues that he has encountered in practice, replied, “I don’t see too many ethical
dilemmas in school psychology. Now maybe I’m missing it. Maybe I’m going in with
blinders. . ..” Asked to talk a little bit about the fact that he doesn’t really see any great

ethical issues in school psychology, he elaborated:

Most of the work in school psychology right now is pretty clear-cut as far as the
types of work that you are doing, whether it’s a behavioral consult or whether it’s
evaluation. Those kinds of things are guided not only by the principles of
behavioral approaches and reinforcement and that kind of thing, but they’re
guided by standardized ways of testing. It seems to me it’s hard to go outside of
those lines too much. Also, as I mentioned to you , and some people will disagree
with me, but I think it’s a less personal kind of relationship we have. Some
people would want it to be more maybe in terms of having more contact. If I
think strictly in terms of my practice right now and compare it to the clinical
settings I’ve been in, it’s less personal. It doesn’t mean, again, that I don’t care
for them, but there’s less opportunity of breaking ethics. . ..It’s pretty standardized

to know what you are doing, and it’s hard to deviate. . ..

Dave seemed to think that the highly prescribed and legislated nature of special

86

education eliminated many of the ethical questions that might otherwise arise in practice.
Additionally, assuming a behavioral approach, Dave’s theoretical perspective inﬂuenced
his views of ethics in practice. Deﬁning his role dually as assessor and consultant, Dave
- deﬁned ethics as “performing the job in a competent manner and not doing anything that
would be, by a reasonable person’s sense, immoral or against the rights of others.” This
deﬁnition suggests a clear universality and rights orientation. What is right, from Dave’s
perspective, did not seem rooted in a relationship, in a speciﬁc context, or in an
individual’s unique circumstances; rather he seemed to focus on ﬁxed, universal ways of
dealing with a situation. He believed that “ethics are ethics. . ...there is a certain
reasonable way of treating other people and working with other people.”
Dave’s contrast of the school psychologist’s role with the clinical psychologist’s

role provides an interesting portrayal of how the school psychologist’s role may present a
barrier to a care orientation in a way that would not be true for other types of
psychologists. Whereas a clinical psychologist has the opportunity to develop more of a
relationship with his or her clients, Dave perceived his role of a school psychologist as
quite strictly limited to “standardized” processes and procedures that govern everything
from testing to behavioral intervention to ethical responsibilities. Considering together
Dave’s theoretical perspective, his role deﬁnition and his view of ethics, Dave viewed all
of these factors, including his ethical commitments, as closely deﬁned and
“Standardized.” Compared to many of the other participants, Dave’s perception of ethics
Was much less deﬁned by his personhood and his personal ethical commitments and
much more heavily conﬁned to delineated standards that he viewed as universally

applicable. His overall conception of his role and his stance regarding professional ethics

87

iii "'U
«Nil
0‘

.M
l! «L
Lilli.“

ital 1

Pick
em.
13h:

Lwil

I Q
'5‘“-
u,

reﬂected concerns about justice, universality, and preservation of rights.

Jill compared her experience working in hospitals with her practice in the schools,
thereby concluding that the ethical facet of school psychological practice is really quite
“minor:” “Maybe in schools, because they are not life-death decisions, we don’t pay
much attention to ethics. But in hospitals, I know there is a lot of emphasis on ethics and
what is to be done. They even have some consultants come in and talk about the need for
handling situations ethically.” Jill’s reference to “minor” ethical considerations in school
psychology is related to her experience in medical settings where she saw life-and-death
decisions being made. In comparison, she saw the decisions that she faced in her practice
in the schools as much less signiﬁcant than those where the consequences could have
involved the loss of life.

Mike in some ways echoed Jill and Dave, differentiating between ethical

judgment and “professional judgment”

I mean, we’re not making a whole lot of moral decisions, in my opinion. I think
we’re making professional judgments, and that if sometimes they fall within
having to make an ethical decision, then I think it falls back on the person’s
personal ethics, as opposed to the guidelines that are written by professional

organizations.
In large part, Mike explained his position by conceptualizing his ethical convictions and
commitments as so closely tied his personhood that ethics do not comprise a distinct

asPect of practice: “I mean ethics, to me, doesn’t enter practice as a separate entity.

88

.Qp‘rn
.umt

if: it):

”2“”
Dub VAL

”.3”'{

V- ‘0‘
r

Ethics enters with you as a person. . ..I don’t think an ethical law or rule ever made
anybody change their behavior.” In contrast to Tom, who viewed every day as

encompassing some sort of ethical issue, Mike did not see ethics as relevant to his daily

practice:

I just don’t have the issue of ethics in my work. Ethics is not a major issue to me
on a legal, day-to-day basis. I do what I do because of who I am, and I’m an
ethical person, and I’ve developed my ethics over the years. . ..even to try to think

about it, I have a hard time coming up with those kinds of speciﬁc dilemmas.

From the following discussion, I might be tempted to conclude that nearly half of
the school psychologists did not consider ethical matters in their practice. However,
closer examination of Mike’s responses indicated that this conclusion is simplistic and
erroneous. At one level, Mike’s response appeared to contain contradictory ideas. On the
one hand, school psychologists “are not making a whole lot of moral decisions” whereas,
on the other hand, ethics entered every facet of practice not as a separate entity but “with
you as a person.” On a deeper level, however, this seeming contradiction illustrates
Mike’s conception of ethics as so intimately integrated into one’s personhood that to
Speak of ethics separately is impossible. Of special note is Mike’s discussion and use of
the word “ethics.” Mike seemed to be understanding and employing this word in a very
Speciﬁc way to mean a prescribed code or set of principles or guidelines. Clearly, based
on his explanation of his conduct as stemming from his personal moral convictions, it is

inaccurate and unfair to conclude that he does not consider moral beliefs or ethical

89

principles in his work. On the contrary, he seemed to be centrally concerned about
ethical thinking and conduct, which he viewed as entering practice with him by virtue of
their inherency in his personhood. Thus, Mike drew a clear distinction between
“professional judgments” and “moral decision,” but he clearly thought that the judgments
that he made in practice are “moral” in nature because he is an individual with personal
ethics occupying a position that necessitates professional decisions. Explanations of
these psychologists’ judgments of the absence of ethical decisions in school psychology

practice will be further explored in Chapters 8 and 9.

Summary. Two major ideas resonated in the participants’ discussions of their
roles and ethical responsibilities and commitments. First, the participating school
psychologists evidenced intimate ties between how they perceive their professional roles
and what they perceive as their primary ethical commitments in practice. For these
participants, a primary commitment to child advocacy, in its many different forms, is
reﬂected foremost in their discussions of professional ethical commitments and decisions.

For some, their main ethical responsibility was articulated as facilitating children’s
access to services in a complex system. For others, their main ethical responsibility was
expressed as solving problems that arose in the education of children. Even those who
described their role as closely tied to the testing function were clear that their decisions in
assessment were driven by their ethical commitment to children’s welfare. Although the
exact words of the school psychologists varied, their core message was the same: To
practice ethically as a school psychologist is synonymous with child advocacy, an

unwavering commitment to making decisions and acting in a way to promote the best

90

interest of children.

Second, many of the school psychologists discussed their professional ethics as
closely integrated with their personhood and personal sense of what is right. Clearly, all
school psychologists did not deﬁne their roles uniformly, nor did they translate the role
into practice in a similar manner. Likewise, to understand the ethics involved in school
psychology practice as clearly prescribed in codes or as a distinct, separate facet of
practice is not sufﬁcient. Rather, these school psychologists expressed their professional
ethical commitments as shaped not only by the standards of the ﬁeld and ethical
principles, a factor actually downplayed by these psychologists, but also to their
personhood and individual ideas of morality that stem from the core of their identity.
Consistent with Damon and Hart’s (1992) assertion that individuals deﬁne ethics and
morality as integrated with their identities to varying degrees, the psychologists were not
uniform in their views on this issue but instead expressed varying degrees of integration
between professional ethics and their personal identity, as well as varying judgments of
the extent to which ethical concerns are apparent in practice. This theme of the
integration of one’s personal commitments and professional ethics is deserving of further

examination and will be the focus of the next chapter.

91

Chapter 4

Intersection of Personal and Professional Commitments

Researchers and theorists have suggested that the self is inextricably connected
with morality and moral decisions (Damon & Hart, 1992; Gilligan et al., 1990; Punzo,
1996). Proponents of this position would reject classic theories (i.e., Kohlberg, 1984) that
isolate moral thinking and action from the individual, arguing that these perspectives
represent incomplete and inaccurate understandings of the complex, multi-faceted nature
of human thinking and behavior in the ethical domain. Rather, to come to an
understanding of how people think about morality and the factors that inﬂuence their
behavior, I consider it important to understand their perceptions of themselves and their
experiences. Only then can a person’s moral commitments and actions be grasped and
their “moral voices” be heard (Gilligan, 1990).

Consistent with Gilligan (1990), Punzo (1996), and Damon and Hart (1992), the
participants in this study actively construed their professional ethical commitments as
related to their roles and commitments outside the profession, clearly referring to the
intersection of personal commitments with professional ethical decisions. Speaking of
their ethical dilemmas and articulating their ethical commitments, the school
psychologists highlighted the integrated and interdependent nature of their ethical
commitments. They suggested that their experiences and their personhood were critical
to understanding the ways that they conceptualize school psychology and the ethical
responsibilities of practice. The main purpose of this chapter is to explore this idea, using

the words of the participants to demonstrate the intimate connection that many of them

92

described as existing between themselves as persons and themselves as professionals
with certain ethical commitments. After this groundwork is laid, I will discuss the more
speciﬁc factors and experiences to which participants referred as they described this

intersection.

Understanding Ethics as Inherent in Personhood

As stated above, proponents of a virtue ethics position hold that ethical and moral
thinking is a phenomenon that is not determined by one’s role in society but rather one
that stems from the ﬁber of one’s being, of one’s personhood (Punzo, 1996). This
intimate relationship between self and morality has been the subject of empirical
investigation. For example, in a study of moral exemplars, Colby and Damon (1992)
argued that “morality and the self grow closer together during the course of normal
development” (p. 306). They further assert, based on their data, that to understand the
place that morality and moral concern occupies in a person’s life, one must come to know
“how the person understands the self in relation to his or her moral beliefs” (p. 306). In
reviewing classical research of adult social and moral development (i.e., Erikson, 1980,
Levinson, 1978; Loevinger, 1976; Perry, 1968; Vaillant, 1977), Damon and Hart (1992)
concluded that “there is every reason to believe that interpersonal and ideological moral
notions become increasingly important pillars of self-deﬁnition for many people” as they
develop (p. 443).

This theme of the close connection between moral concerns and self-deﬁnition
was present throughout several of the interviews, with school psychologists construing

their ethical thinking and behavior not as something that can be learned or taught or

93

legislated, but rather something that is largely inherent to the person. However,
consistent with Damon and Hart’s assertion (1992), each school psychologists’
perceptions of the nature and degree of self-ethics relationship was unique. Empirical
data indicate that “not all people link morality to self in the same way” (Damon & Hart,
1992, p. 444). Thus, to understand school psychologists’ ethical commitments and draw
implications for the profession, one must understand the rmique ways that school
psychologists articulated connections between themselves, their personal and
professional commitments, and the ethical facets of their profession. The school
psychologists in this study, each referring to ethical commitments as stemming from
one’s personhood, did so to different degrees. As cited by Damon and Hart (1992), “For
some, moral values are central to their self-understanding as early as childhood; for
others, morality may always remain peripheral to who they think they are” (p. 444).
Before discussing the participants’ speciﬁc responses, the ways that school
psychologists perceived the connection between self and ethics are important to explore.
Studies have not only linked self-perceptions and ethical thinking, but, more importantly,
they have documented the connection between how a person integrates self with issues of
morality and how that person behaves. Damon and Hart (1992), recognizing the
individuality of how people will integrate self and morality, addressed this issue,
concluding “naturally, such a difference (in connections between self and moral
concerns) can be expected to affect the extent to which people take moral concerns
seriously and translate their values into action” (p. 444). Many empirical studies (i.e,
Blasi & Oresick, 1986) have demonstrated that “the manner in which a person integrates

moral and self concerns is at least as important in determining the person’s moral conduct

94

 

as the nature of the person’s moral judgments” (Damon & Hart, 1992 , p. 444). Moral
perception is regarded as a primary feature of a moral being and is considered an
important determinant of subsequent moral behavior (Punzo, 1996). An individual’s
perspective, perceptions, and character thus provide the “foundation for professional
judgment and action” (Jordan & Meara, 1990). Thus, to begin to understand what
inﬂuences the ethical behavior of school psychologists in their work with children and
families, their individual understandings and constructions of professional ethics must be
explored and understood.

Several of the participants in this study drew intimate links between their
identities as people and school psychologists, and their ethical commitments in practice.
Mike, for example, expressed this idea succinctly, stating, “Ethical isn’t an adjective for
a role, ethical is an adjective for an individual person.” He went on to describe his view

of this intimate intermingling of person and ethics:

To me, ethics is not a topic to write laws about. Ethics is really who you are as a
person. It’s your moral self, and so the guidelines in the profession are really
your own moral development guidelines that you have developed and are
developing over the course of your career and I don’t have a lot of ethical
conﬂicts on the job. . ..I’ve always done what I thought was morally the correct
thing to do, and I guess ethics to me is making moral judgments and decisions that
are appropriate and legal, but more so, personal to the individual. I really see it as

part of your personality.

95

ﬁn
{Um

r
J’t‘
hit

 

HAL

\-

Mike seemed to understand professional ethics as reducable to personal moral
commitments and did not see a clear distinction between himself as a person and his
ethics in or outside of the profession. In discussing his role, he emphasized factors that
would be unique to the ethical responsibilities and commitments of school psychologists
by virtue of their professional position. To Mike, the factors that inﬂuence professional
ethics are “a combination of what your profession views as appropriate or inappropriate
moral behavior, but, I think it’s more what you spiritually believe to be moral and
immoral behavior.” He acknowledged that the school psychology profession’s ethical
standards have inﬂuenced his thinking and behavior, yet he adamantly rejected the idea
that a person can “learn” to be an ethical practitioner. If one comes into the profession as
a “moral person” with “spiritual” convictions regarding what is moral, Mike considered
professional ethical guidelines as “meaningless” because ethical behavior is more a “part

of personality”:

....I think that anybody that has high moral and ethical standards as a person
doesn’t need to look at those rules to know what to do. And so, I really think it
has to do with personality in conjunction with cognition. I really think you need
some cognitive kinds of developmental things, but I also think that it is who you
are and the basis of moral upbringing. I think moral upbringing speaks of both
the personality characteristics you develop out of family, and part of that is the
moral teacher, the religion, whatever that spiritual religion might be, as opposed

to the institutional religion.

96

Personal character and commitments also play a role in what constitutes a

successﬁrl school psychologist:

1 think what you do is you take the talents you have and the things you’ve learned,
and you create a production, a masterpiece, or maybe not so much a masterpiece,
in an artistic way, and you, whether it’s an assessment or therapy, it is who you
are in combination with what you know, that makes you a good psychologist. It
is not learning to give a test by standard procedures. It is not looking at checklists
and coming up with statistical graphs. . ...I think the biggest part of being a school
psychologist that makes you successful is your ability to relate instantly to people
and to develop trust in people. If you don’t have that, I don’t think you’re ever
going to be a good, accepted school psychologist. I mean, that would be the

downfall of a school psychologist.

Mike’s perceptions of ethical practice have strong implications for the selection
and training of school psychologist practitioners. This was especially clear when he
discussed his work with graduate-level school psychology interns. His strong belief
about the intimate integration of personal ethics and professional ethics was apparent not
only in his perspective on professional practice but also in his understanding of his role as
an internship supervisor to assist new school psychologists to integrate personal belief
systems with professional role responsibilities. His supervisory responsibility was not

deﬁned by a passing down of knowledge to novice, but rather through the sharing of

97

personhood between individual human beings. He viewed his most important work as a

supervisor as that of investing himself, as an ethical person, into his interns:

You have to have ethical people training ethical people to be ethical. I think if I
helped [an intern] develop an ethical standard, it would be different than mine, but
if I helped [the intern] to develop it, it would only be a part of the ethical person
he really is. But if I helped [the intern] on the professional side of it get his
personal stuff into the professional decision-making, then I think I’ve really done
my job and done something useﬁrl. . ..I think the training under mentors, whether
it was a direct supervisor of an internships, or a mentor assigned to you on the job,
or a respected colleague that you developed a professional and/or personal
relationship with. I think that’s who help you deﬁne ethics. I think that’s where

you learn it.

Nick also expressed similar ideas regarding the inadequacy of professional codes
in regulating behavior. Like Mike, he referred to the role of personal beliefs, in

conjunction with professional guidelines, as central determinants of ethical behavior:

A code isn’t going to get you to behave ethically, or to think through difﬁcult
ethical situations. I guess what I would see the need for is peOple behaving in a
consistent manner, in terms of what they believe to be ethical behavior. Certainly

the code would provide broad guidelines, absolute guidelines, in terms of how

98

you behave, but so many of the nuances of how you function are not going to be

addressed in a code. They’re going to be addressed by your own personal beliefs.

Nick recognized that this primacy of his personal belief system resulted in differences
between how he and other practitioners would perceive and handle a situation differently
than he would. However, he acknowledged that a different person could make a different

decision than he but still be ethical:

I can’t say that you can ever ensure that people would behave in a way that I
would perceive to be ethical all of the time. But, I can accept that if they have
come to that decision in a reasoned, rational way. Then, that’s just a difference,

and I can live with that.

This variation has been described by Damon and Hart (1992), who noted that “people
who may agree with one another on general moral issues often act in divergent ways
when it comes to their own life choices” (p. 454). Thus, although school psychologists
can hold the same ethical commitments toward the welfare of children, they may make
different choices because morality and ethics may occupy different positions in their self-
understanding (Damon & Hart, 1992). In this way, one’s self- deﬁnition, both as a
person and as a professional, becomes a “mediator” between moral commitments and
moral action (p. 454). In other words, how closely one sees the integration of the self
with moral issues may be one factor explaining the well-docmnented discrepancy

between people’s expressed moral commitments and their actual behavior in practice.

99

Several of the school psychologists, focusing on the role of individual moral
commitments, also acknowledged that written professional guidelines and standards
impact their views of what constitutes ethical practice. Tom, stating that he does
embrace the ethical codes of NASP and MASP in his professional practice, nevertheless
thought that the primary determinant of being an ethical school psychologist was

adhering to his personal ethic:

First of all, I’m responsible to myself. I have a rather high moral standard for my
own behavior in relation to the services I provide to children and families, and I
have to be able to be comfortable with the decisions I make. . ...First of all, if I can
look at myself in the mirror in the morning and know that I made a decision that

will really help the best interest of my clients, then I think I’ve done right.

Because ethical commitments are so central to the individual person, Tom believes that
these personal commitments have shaped his thinking about situations in his professional

dealings:

I think ethical behavior is something that needs to be practiced at all times and if a
person lives their professional and personal life in an ethical manner, then it
becomes sort of a way of thinking that determines your behavior. . ...ethics aren’t
selective. Ethics are about who you are and how you are and how you want other

people to be.

100

 

Robert, too, understood ethical commitment largely as something you “bring
with you” to practice:

....(Ethics are) a code of conduct, a code of behavior. A code of moral behavior

that you bring with you in how you relate to others as well as how you relate to

your profession because your profession has a code of conduct that they consider

the best practices that you go by. As far as the individual, it’s the ethical

character that you bring to your job but also how you relate to your particular role

in the profession of school psychology.

Robert thought that remaining true to oneself and one’s personal standards was crucial to
being an ethical school psychologist. This idea was one of the major lessons that he tried

to instill in school psychology interns that have worked under him in his practice:

I remember telling interns one time, “We’re not in this business to win popularity
contests, because a lot of things we do, people don’t like what we do. There's
always somebody out there that at any given point doesn’t like what you are
doing.” But then you start compromising when you say, “OK, I’m going to
please this person or please that person. . ...” and pretty quick, you’re pleasing
everybody and you catch your ﬁnger in about ten different ways. And where does

that leave yourself? And where does that leave the kids?

lOl

Likewise viewing her ethical decision and actions as stemming from her
personality, Jennifer conceptualized ethical thinking and behavior as a “trait” that
deﬁned her personhood and characterized the way she has chosen to live her life at work
and outside of work. This construal is consistent with a virtue ethics argument that “all
act appraisals are explicable in terms of more basic appraisals of persons or of traits”
(Montague, 1992, p. 54). Thus, the individual who considers himself or herself to be
“moral” will strive to perform moral action to sustain their identity of not just ‘doing
moral’ but of ‘being’ or ‘becoming’ moral (Punzo, 1996). If she consistently models
trustworthy, child-centered behavior and decision making, she will be regarded by her

colleagues, and by herself, as an ethical person and practitioner:

You can be a person who proceeds ethically or in an ethical manner, so that’s just
sort of your style and people know that about you, and you’re sort of looked upon
as a trustworthy person that doesn’t talk about others, that you do things in a

certain way. You don’t fake things. . ..

For some, like Joyce, personal moral convictions had a large part in their decision
to pursue a career in school psychology. Certain ethical commitments occupy such an
important role in a person’s identity that it inﬂuences strongly not only how they choose
to live their lives, but also the profession that they choose to pursue (Colby & Damon,
1992). In this way, one’s “life work” or “life purpose” is fulﬁlled. Joyce expressed a

Strong belief that children in society are often disadvantaged and need individuals who

are Willing to advocate for then. For Joyce, then, it was her own personal belief system

102

a: let

0

hard
I“

that led her to the ﬁeld of school psychology. She was led to this work by “. . .my own
personal belief system and ethics is that children are really important, and I don’t think
they get enough services or resources. A lot of them are in big trouble. I think that is

what brought me to the ﬁeld, and I think that is what keeps me there.”

Ethics and Self-A wareness. The interconnection between professional ethics,
personhood and personal moral commitments creates special responsibilities for school
psychologists in their work with children, families, and educational community members.
These responsibilities can be understood as similar to the concerns that must be regarded
in interpretive inquiry. As the psychologist and researcher conducting this study, I must
acknowledge my presence and be aware of the biases that I bring to this work and the
ways that it may distort the way the information is interpreted and communicated.

Likewise, the school psychologists recognized that they necessarily carry personal
values, beliefs and biases into their work. Because school psychologists are commonly
called upon to, in Jill’s words, “provide a new set of eyes” on a situation, they must be
aware of the biases and slants that they bring with them. Recognition of this

responsibility was expressed by Robert, who stated that ethical practice means:

.....not bringing in your own biases, not judging people, which is real easy to do,
knowing yourself and the biases you bring into a situation. . ...Knowing who I am
and what is [name] because I’m bringing myself into a situation. No matter how

objective you try to be. Objectivity is nice, but we all bring in our internal biases,

103

I don’t care where we are or what we are dealing with or who we are dealing

with....

Self-awareness was also a major concern for Jennifer as she evaluated her ethical
conduct. In her position of power and inﬂuence, she was concerned that she often
advances her own recommendations without fully considering the parents’ and family’s

position and values:

There’s always the piece that I’m subtly inﬂuencing a parent one way or another.
Because you do, whether you are trying to or not, and so if I’m at my one school
where I know the at-risk programs are so great, and the kid is just doing well, and
why would you want to pull him, but they do have the scores [to qualify for
special education], then you have. . ...How am I talking to this parent?’ Am I sort
of. . ..I realize that I’m not really pushing special ed., I’m just kind of telling them
it’s available. . ...whereas in another case, I would probably be saying it
differently. I have just kind of caught myself doing that, like saying, “Oh, we
have this program for him, and it would be so great!” So I think you do do that,
you just kind of catch yourself doing that. So trying to be real open with the

parents, but probably doing some inﬂuencing there.

In summary, professional ethics were not construed by these psychologists as an

“add-on” to their personal lives or professional roles that could be separately explored;

rather, they understood their ethical decisions and behavior in their professional activities

104

and decisions as ﬂowing naturally ﬁom the person whom they are. Along with this
intimate connection between personal and ethical commitments come important
responsibilities for the school psychologist. Because school psychologists, as helping
professionals, are in a position of potentially great inﬂuence in the lives of children and
families, they recognized the need to be aware of their own biases to prevent undue
pressure or inﬂuence to make certain decisions that may contradict families’ beliefs and
values. The participants in this study viewed this responsibility as critical to promoting
the welfare of children and preventing harm.

In addition to stating this connection between personal commitments and
professional commitments explicitly, school psychologists, like Jill, Robert and Emily,
discussed speciﬁc personal commitments that intersected with their professional
commitments, inﬂuencing how they made sense of ethical conﬂict and ethical
responsibilities in their professional world. In some cases, the participants cited personal
ethical commitments as a determining factor in the selection of school psychology as
their profession. Others cited more speciﬁc factors, including family upbringing and
religious belief, commitment to civic duty, and parenthood, as personal factors that
intersected with professional ethical commitments. The next section is devoted to

exploring these critical factors.

Speciﬁc Factors and Experiences Impacting Ethical Commitments

The school psychologists in this study varied in the speciﬁcity with which they

were able to articulate the connection between self and professional ethical commitments.

105

Some spoke of the relationship in broad, abstract terms, whereas others made more
concrete connections between their professional ethical commitments and speciﬁc
personal commitments, experiences and values. Three of these factors—family

upbringing/religious belief sense of civic duty, and parenthood--will now be discussed.

Family Upbringing and Religious Belief The central role of family upbringing
and religion was also important in Jill’s understanding of what it means to be ethical. Jill
believed that her faith development has helped to shape her ethical development and her
resulting professional ethical commitments. This coincides with researchers (i.e, Fowler,
1981) who argue that issues of faith, whether religious or non-religious, are “no longer
seen as an isolated sphere of one’s life. . ...(and) should never be separated off from” the
rest of one’s life and world view” (Lownsdale, 1997, p. 60). Worthington (1989)
explains, “Like two intersecting circles in a Venn diagram, moral and religious
development overlap. They have common elements, but neither fully explains the other”
(p. 559).

Raised in a religious family and attending private religious schools throughout
grade school, Jill has internalized values of honesty and fairness. She does not presently
characterize herself as a “religious” person, but she nevertheless continues to be
committed to these values that were engrained in her early development. For Jill, this

means being honest in her interactions with teachers, parents, and administrators:

It just goes back to the person you are, and I just try to be honest, and sometimes

I’m almost too honest and that becomes problematic. You have to temper honesty

106

with the response of the person that you’re dealing with. I was raised in a
[religious] school, and I think that’s been ingrained in me, that you have to do the
right thing, you know you have a moral code that you follow and you just need to
follow that. That’s what is the right thing to do. And I try to have that permeate
my life. Although I’m not really that religious now, I think I do have a strong

sense of ethics.

Again, the work of Damon and Hart (1992) is useful in understanding Jill’s perceptions
of ethics. Jill described her current ethical commitments as resulting from a
developmental process wherein ethical concerns became increasingly embedded in her
personal identity. Although she no longer subscribes to certain religious denominations,
doctrines, or practices, she is aware that her developmental experience has positioned
particular moral concerns as integral to the person she has become and to the decisions
that she makes in her practice. For example, Jill’s dedication to being completely honest
when interpreting assessments, even at the risk of causing temporary problems in
relationships with parents or administrators, has represented the outgrth of her ethical
commitment to honesty which was developed through her early family experience and
religious training.

Early experiences and development were also cited by other psychologists as
crucial to their present understandings of ethics and ethical behavior. Nick discussed
ethical practice as inﬂuenced by a host of factors, including prescribed ethical guidelines,

as well as his childhood experience and development:

107

APA has guidelines that are more procedural kinds of things, and a set of personal
beliefs as well, about what I want to get out of this job in terms of being a service
provider. . ..certainly your upbringing has a place in it, and the person you are

coming into a job, and how your experience on the job kind of interacts with that.

Participants’ references to early experiences provide further support for a developmental
view of morality and ethical commitments which has been documented by various
theorists and researchers (i.e, Belenky et al., 1986; Damon & Hart, 1988; Gilligan 1982;
Gilligan et al.., 1990). Rather than referring primarily to ethical guidelines that they
became aware of upon entering the profession, they described a more complex,
longitudinal process whereby they developed the present values and moral commitments

that impact their professional work.

Social and Civic Responsibility. Robert possessed a strong personal
commitment to being a good citizen and modeling ethical behavior within his
community. He has carried this view into his profession, seeing part of his ethical
responsibility as being a positive role model for the students with which he comes into

contact:

When you are in schools, when you are walking down those hallways, how you
dress, how you walk, how you talk, how you act in assemblies, how you act in
classrooms, how you do the things you do. . .You’re a model of behavior. I think

you need to project yourself as a model of behavior when you are with kids. So

108

often the kids that we deal with don’t have very good models of behavior. They
have just the opposite, which is what they watch on TV, or. . ..Especially as a male
psychologist, I think there’s an additional burden being a male in schools, because
so many of these kids don’t have a father. If they do have a male ﬁgure at home,
the male ﬁgure is not nurturing, is rejecting, or punitive in some way, or
conducting themselves with behaviors that I wouldn’t consider to be healthy
behaviors. I think as a male person in schools, these little boys and little girls are

watching you in terms of how you are conducting yourself.

In his discussion of this important responsibility, Robert seemed to be taking the
perspective of the child, looking at himself through their eyes, from a stance within their
worlds. For Gilligan and colleagues (1990), this desire and ability to be responsive to an
individual’s unique needs and circumstances was one important aspect of an orientation

of care.

Parenthood. Commitment to child advocacy took on a different nature and
meaning for Emily through the personal experience of having children of her own.
Presently a mother of four children ranging in age from two to 13, Emily believes that
being a parent has transformed her perspectives equipping her with the ability to relate to
and validate parents’ points of view. When asked to discuss how her perceptions of the
ethical facets of practice have changed over the course of her career, Emily replied, “Oh,

I know a lot less. A lot more gray. It’s not nearly as cut and dry.” Upon further

109

prompting to explain her perspective, Emily attributed this change to two factors:

General life experiences and parenthood:

....having children and living longer. . ..I think it’s much more easy to be
judgmental about how a parent is parenting a child or what kind of home this
child comes from, or “the parent is the problem” kind of thing. But I guess the
more I’m a parent and the more I live, not that we don’t judge, but “Until you’ve
walked in a man’s shoes...” that kind of thing. Much more sensitive, and what it
would be like to parent that child 24 hours a day when they have multiple siblings

and working. Yeah, I think I’ve become probably more sensitive.

Being a parent has enabled Emily to be more sensitive and to focus on being responsive
to the individual children and family’s needs, a perspective founded on Gilligan’s notion
of care (1990). Emily cited ethical dilemmas that reﬂected her desire to advocate for
children while simultaneously recognizing the feelings and perspectives of parents and
families. Interestingly, while discussing these dilemmas that she had encountered in her
own professional work, Emily paralleled the discussion with examples from her own
parental experience. For instance, she recalled a situation wherein she and her husband
had to deal personally with the knowledge that something may have potentially been
wrong with her child. Emily cited this experience as one that shaped her present behavior
and thinking about parental involvement and her professional interactions with parents.
Asked to describe these factors further, Emily replied that when working with children

and families, she considers. .

110

Being a parent, and thinking ‘What would I want for my child?” How would I
want to be treated, or how would I hear that. . ..Yeah, and just really does make a
difference when you have teachers or you hear them say something to you about
your child. Or when I thought something was wrong with mine, we had to go
through a bunch of tests. I was pregnant, and how I was treated when we were
going through all that testing and assessment phase. It was very, a very powerful

in how it inﬂuenced me.

This inﬂuence was also apparent in Emily’s discussion about a case involving a Russian-

bom student who was in the third grade.

We have a Russian born girl, adopted at age 5 into this country, and she is
learning disabled, we called her LD. She acquired language quite rapidly but
doesn’t, is not able to do a lot conceptually with the language, so she’s very
misleading because she sounds like she knows what she’s talking about but
conceptually, I don’t think she’s always there. And she really needs resource
support, and there’s no resource support at her school. You know, she’s Russian-
bom and they have her in a school where there’s lots of international kids, and our
decision would be to move her from where she’s comfortable and been in the
neighborhood and lived. . .do you put her in a different school completely, and
give her resource support, or do you give her teacher consultant support in that

building?

111

Emily explained that her experience as a parent made her much more sensitive to the
family issues inherent in this complex case and led her to emphasize these factors and the
child’s existing social relationships as the primary concern rather than the most

appropriate educational services. For Emily, the major conﬂict involved:

Whether it’s best to keep her at the community school where she’s been for the
last three years and struggled to develop relationships and where she feels
comfortable, and she had a very difﬁcult life her ﬁrst ﬁve years in Russia.
There’s a history of abuse, and so she’s become a part of this community. Versus
the other side is that she would be able to get much better services in the other
building because they would be able to give her a lot more service and really

make it an education that would be better for her.

The parents’ desire to keep their child in the neighborhood and school where she was
established and comfortable was a primary factor in Emily’s choice to support

maintaining the child in her home school:

To ﬁnish out this year, we did not move her, we kept her. And I think the parents
have to play a big role, I think the school could certainly offer facts and maybe
even strengths and weaknesses of each choice, but I really feel it’s a parental

decision, and the parents support her staying right now.

112

Emily recognized the importance of accounting for and acknowledging this individual
child’s needs and the cultural and interpersonal contexts in which she resided. Although
she advocates for placing child in the most appropriate educational placement possible,
she placed herself in the shoes of the child and the family, elevating these needs above
what she viewed as the most appropriate placement in a purely academic sense. She
might have made a different decision with a different child under different social and
cultural circumstances. She spoke of this circumstance with a voice of care, focusing on
responsiveness and minimizing harm for this child and family. Rather than describing
this situation in terms of justice and equality, Emily attempted to respond to the child “in
that person’s terms and contexts” (Gilligan et al., 1990, p. 42). She and the team were
careful to consider factors including culture, family values, and community when they
made the decision to maintain the child in her original neighborhood school. She did not
frame the dilemma and its solution in terms of fulﬁlling her obligations or making a fair,
objective decision; rather, she viewed it as the team’s responsibility to make a
recommendation and placement that was sensitive to this child’s individual needs and

CODICXIS.

Summary. The data discussed in this chapter presented strong support for the
well-documented connection between the self and one’s moral and ethical perspectives
and commitments. Often, artiﬁcial lines are drawn between one’s personal ethical
commitments and professional ethical commitments; however, these data indicate that
this line is blurred or even erased in reality as school psychologists think about the roots

of their ethical commitments both inside and outside of their professional roles. These

113

school psychologists conceptualized their ethical position within their profession as
inextricably interconnected to their personal commitments and the essence of who they
are as human beings. They viewed their qualities, habits, characters, values, and ways of
thinking as central to ethical reasoning and behavior in practice, as argued by Punzo
(1996). For some, professional ethical convictions are framed in such a way that it would
be impossible to separate professional ethics from personal moral convictions. Others,
though acknowledging the relationship between their personal and professional ethical
commitments, did not articulate the relationship as indistinguishable or inextricable but
nonetheless referred to their personal ethical commitments when speaking of their
professional roles and responsibilities.

Nearly all of the school psychologists mentioned the role of external ethical
resources, namely the profession’s guidelines and standards, as a factor that they draw
upon in their practice. However, although they acknowledged the role of ethical codes,
ethical training, and professional organizations in the shaping of ethical thinking and
behavior, they did not focus on these external factors as they spoke about their own
ethical thinking and behavior. Rather, consistent with researchers interested in identity
(i.e., Damon & Hart, 1992), ethical thinking, decisions, and behavior ﬁnd their lifesource
in the core of personhood and identity. As cited by Damon & Hart, “Self-understanding
determines the role of morality in one’s life and, consequently, the extent to which one’s
moral values will determine one’s everyday conduct” (1992, p. 458). This theme
embodies important implications for training and professional development, topics that I

will further articulate in the discussion section.

114

Clearly, these school psychologists viewed themselves as carrying and exercising
their ethical commitments within a system that embodies factors capable of either
supporting or hindering ethical practice. The unique characteristics and perspectives of
individual practitioners must be understood to fully grasp their ethical commitments.
Nevertheless, one must maintain a “reality focus” and realize that professionals are often
asked to consider and tailor moral convictions to specific situations and contexts (Punzo,
1996). They are committed to child advocacy, but they face many challenges that
sometimes cause them to become frustrated or even to question the viability of those
ethical commitments within the system. This salient theme is the topic that I will explore

in Chapter 5.

115

Chapter 5

Construing Ethical Conﬂict as
System versus Individual Tensions

One way that school psychologists construe the ethical dimensions of their
professional role is by describing ethical struggles that frequently arise when the needs of
the system conﬂict with the needs of individual children. School psychologists, by the
inherent nature of their roles, occupy a unique position within the educational system.

On one hand, they are employed by a system, a local district, intermediate school district,
or other agency, to ensure the compliance of the organization with state and federal
guidelines, to maintain the system, and to ensure that the system is not unduly threatened.
On the other hand, school psychologists are also ethically bound to promote the interests
of individual children and families. Clearly, this dual responsibility sets the stage for
sometimes subtle and other times intense conﬂicts of interest.

Jacob-Timm (1999) asserted that, “school psychologists who work within the
school system must cope with conﬂicts inherent in the dual roles of pupil advocate and
school employee” (p. 208). Others have also addressed these characteristics, asserting
that professionals in public service positions “creates a real possibility that individual
practitioners will be pressured to put the interests of the agency (as deﬁned by
administrators) ahead of the interests of clients or the ethical mandates of professions”
(Greenspan & Negron, 1994, pp. 186-187, as cited in Jacob-Timm, 1999).

Ethical problems created by conﬂicts between child advocacy and systemic

demands were evident in the present study. Nick, for instance, clearly stated that many of

116

the ethical struggles that he has faced were “system versus individual type of

dilemmas. . ..the needs of the system versus the needs of the individual:”

I would say there is sometimes a variance between the demands of the setting and
what I perceive to be behaving in a principled way. . ..I’m sure the people that
came up with the special ed. regulations believed themselves to be ethical people.
As a school psychologist, I don’t deal with the society at large, I deal with the
individual in front of you. And, getting back to what I saw conﬂicts are, I believe
that there are conﬂicts between the individual needs versus system and societal
needs. An individual may need assistance in a speciﬁc area, and needs that
assistance, but the society or system may see that they do not have the resources
or capabilities to provide that service to somebody like that individual. So,
there’s a conﬂict. The individual has the need, and the system, while they may

recognize the need, may not feel that they have the resources to meet that need.

Given this tension in the present school psychologists’ perceptions as well as in
other empirical studies examining the ethical facets of school psychology practice, I
consider it important to examine further how school psychologists conceptualize more
speciﬁcally the tensions that exist between system employee and child advocate. In the
following section, I will summarize the speciﬁc factors that the school psychologists in
this study pointed to as systemic factors that can create ethical problems when the need of

children and the demands of the system conﬂict.

117

Factors Contributing to System versus Individual Ethical “Tugs”

In their own individual manner, each of the school psychologists referred to
systemic pressures that have created or contributed to the existence of ethical problems
and challenges. Jacob-Timm (1999) identiﬁed this type of pressure as the most frequent
ethical concerns faced by school psychologists. In describing these situations, she refers
to them as ethical “tugs” rather than terrning these concerns as ethical “problems.” In the
present study, I adopted the use of the phrase “ethical tugs” to refer to situations which
led school psychologists to think about ethics. Thus, I am interested not only in
situations that people would term an “ethical dilemma,” but also in those situations that
arouse concern or thoughts about their ethical commitments and obligations.

Emily clearly recognized that inherent in her position as a school psychologist is
the need to be concerned with justice and equity. Asked to contrast the ethical concerns
of school psychologists with those faced by others types of school psychologists, Emily
replied, “Well, you’re dealing with a system and with equity in the system. What’s
equitable for Student A versus Student B, where I think in the clinical practice, you’re
focused more on a particular child.” She recognized that although she desires to make
decisions that will beneﬁt individual children, she must do so within the conﬁnes of the
system. Emily believed that she was practicing ethically if she was making “the best
possible decisions for the child that can be made within the community and the
environment that that child is in.” A tension existed for Emily, and for other school
psychologists, a tension that was expressed through voices of both care and justice. What
were some of the speciﬁc facets of the school community that may hinder ethical

practice? The school psychologists in this study discussed limited resources, high testing

118

caseloads, confusion about client identiﬁcation, role perceptions, and administrative

pressures as particularly problematic.

Limited Resources. One common theme that each psychologist referred to, either
directly or indirectly, involved difﬁculties created by the limited resources to which
schools have access. Limited funds often resulted in restricted program options and
understafﬁng which can create heavy pressures for the school psychologists as well as for
other educational professionals.

Nick explained that limited ﬁnancial resources, translating into limited program
options, was a factor that school psychologists must often face as they strive to make
appropriate program recommendations to support the learning and development of

individual students:

An individual may need assistance in a speciﬁc area and needs that assistance, but
the society or system may see that they do not have the resources or capabilities to
provide that service to somebody like that individual, so there’s a conﬂict. The
individual has the need, the system, while they may recognize the need, may not
feel that they have the resources to meet that need ...... The old one is the low-
functioning kid who doesn’t qualify for special ed., but there’s no program to
meet the needs of that individual. I think it’s becoming worse and worse. . ...I see

the standards being raised, but I, don’t see any programs in place.

119

Having worked with these limited resources in his daily practice, Nick believed that
balancing the needs of the individual and the needs of the system is the primary role of a

school psychologist and that maintaining his ethical standards were critical to
professional survival: “1 think that’s the job of the school psychologist. How I navigate

that is behaving in a way that is ethical. Behaving in a way that is consistent with what I
believe is the right thing to do in a given situation.” Nick believed that ethical behavior
was a necessity for surviving in a position that has placed multiple demands on him and
that often involved conﬂicting interests of various parties. In a system that often pits
individual interests against interests of the system, Nick regarded maintaining one’s
ethical standards as essential for successfully serving children and families as a school
psychologist. In one sense, maintaining his ethical standards became a strategy for
navigating the difﬁcult situations that threaten his commitments. Ethical standards
therefore become a constant, a stronghold, in the demanding “storm” that often
characterizes school psychology practice. When discussing situations where he was
asked to support decisions that were ﬁnancially beneﬁcial to the school system but that
were not in the best interest of children, he asserted that the only way to handle these
situations is to remain committed to his ethical standard of child advocacy. He did not
view ethical behavior as an option or a standard to which a school psychologist should
aspire; rather, he viewed it as essential to practice.

For some practitioners, the existence of limited resources has had a strong impact
on how they deﬁne their roles and conceptualize their professional responsibilities. Tom,

for example, believed that the increasing need to engage in “active management of

120

special education and general education resources” has become a dominant aspect of his

role, one that he has grown to dislike:

It’s having to practice triage in this setting and we are moving closer and closer to
a managed care model in the public schools because of resource management
issues. To me, that’s an unpalatable thing to have to do. I realize that’s where we
are at and I have accepted it, but I wish I did not have to do that. . ...having to
maybe deny resources to people that I think could beneﬁt from them if there were
enough to go around. Sometimes, I have to participate in some decisions that shut

people out of that process.

Tom’s comment embodied a conﬂict between justice and fairness and the care of
individual students. He expressed the simultaneous need to “help people resolve
problems and succeed at what they want to do” while also having to deal with the reality
of “having to maybe deny resources” due to limited resources within the system. He
framed these responsibilities as a tension that has created growing dissatisfaction and that
has in many ways detracted ﬁ'om his ability to support people in reaching their goals.
The nature of the job of school psychologist seemed to have conﬂicted with his beliefs
about what is ethical. Further examination of Tom’s interview fruther illustrated this
tension between ﬁnancial limitations and clinically sound practice and, in some way,

between justice and care:

121

I guess for me, in this [school] setting, I try not to let the economics really get in
the way of my decision-making, although it’s always in the back of my mind.
What impact is this going to have, not only for the kid, but for other kids? You
try not to let that get too much in the way, and that’s really hard, but it’s not my
job to deﬁne the programs or to ﬁrnd the programs. It’s my job to diagnose
whether or not this kid has a handicap, and whether or not they can beneﬁt from

something other than what they are getting now.

In the current funding system for special education, only those students who are
deemed diagnostically eligible as disabled under federal guidelines are eligible for
services. Thus, as a critical member of diagnostic teams within the school system, school
psychologists’ roles typically are inherently tied to special education as they attempt to
determine those students who qualify for services. This current funding structure,
according to several of the participants, embodied barriers to ethical practice and created
many of the systems versus individual ethical tensions that school psychologists face.
Emily, citing time and money as the largest barriers to her ideal conception of quality
practice, explained how limited resources have created burdens and pressures in her

district:

Unfortunately, our roles are tied to special ed., which unfortunately we have to
assess to give kids access to service, and especially [district’s name] has been
very much affected by some of the budget cuts, and special ed. certainly has seen

that. . .yeah, we have decreased school psych. in [district’s name] both because

122

enrollment has decreased, and we’re probably not doing as many assessments
now because of the new laws, and I think that everyone in special ed. in [district]

probably has more work than they can do.

Nick also cited the funding of special education, and the resulting barriers for
justifying a school psychologist’s work, as hindering his practice. He spoke of how he

would remedy this problem:

I think I would be available to every student in the school, as opposed to being
restricted to the special ed. population. That is, if there were questions about a
student and special ed. wasn’t perceived as an outcome of evaluation, but rather
just providing information, that wouldn’t be hindered in any way. . ..yeah, I guess
that would be much more rewarding for me in terms of serving a broader
population, as opposed to the special ed. population. . .I can see kids who aren’t
special ed., but if there isn’t special ed. in there somewhere, there’s no

justiﬁcation for it, because there is no money for it (emphasis added).

Both Nick and Emily cited this issue as ethically problematic in their practice. Given the
limited services available and the funding structure, school psychologists must typically
limit their time to serving only those students who will potentially qualify for special
education support. This often prevents them ﬁom providing support or preventive
intervention for students who are struggling but who are not eligible for special education

because, as Nick stated, “there’s just no money for it.” Second, he felt conﬁned to spend

123

his time only with a limited number of students who have the potential to qualify for
special education services.

Ken, who has been practicing school psychology for 28 years and who practiced
prior to the implementation of IDEA and similar state legislation, recalled a time in his
early career when ﬁnancial limitations did not hinder his ability to implement
recommendations that he deemed necessary for students’ success. He believed that
increasingly limited resources have been the major reasons for his shift from idealism to

realism in his recommendations:

Idealism is part of my personality where I’m saying I’m trying to reach a more
creative side of myself and trying to think of ideas for how to work with the kid.
The idealism also comes out of the early years of special ed when there were so
many resources available and you had the privilege of being able to think more
creatively and let’s take the kid downtown and have him work on this kind of a
skill and you could just pop them into a bus and go on down there. Now you

couldn’t dare do that.

In many ways, then, the limited funding available to implement service recommendations
has altered the manner in which Ken makes recommendations. Whereas he used to be
able to make and implement recommendations that were driven by the students’ needs
and abilities, he must now temper his recommendations due to limited resources. This
situation, according to Kerr, has raised many ethical questions. Although he may believe

that certain recommendations would be the best for a child, he may not make the

124

recommendation or advocate for certain services because he is aware of the limited
resources. Thus, his ethical commitment to child advocacy is in many ways conﬁned

within a system with limited available ﬁnancial resources.

Heavy Testing Caseloads. School districts, faced with budget cuts, often reduce
stafﬁng or make do with present staff coverage, conditions which result in heavier
evaluation caseloads for the school psychologists already employed by the system.
Hence, another systemic factor that can undermine school psychologists’ efforts to meet
the needs of individual children and even tempt school psychologists to compromise the
quality of services rendered is the emphasis on testing and the high testing caseloads that
many school psychologists face. When asked what makes it difﬁcult to be an ethical

school psychologist, Robert responded:

Probably, in some ways, the burden of testing because what happens with that is
sometimes you want to cut comers when you are overloaded, and you’ve got 20
kids to see in a month, and the IEPC (Individualized Educational Programming

Committee) is coming up and stuff.

Ken agreed that the school setting can hinder his ethical practice “. . .because of the
pressure of numbers and needing to work quickly and trying to make sure you cover all
the bases. When you get continual pressure to cut comers.”

Joyce also believed that her practice and efﬁcacy was constrained by the limited

time that results from heavy caseloads. As suggested by Ken, she often perceived that

125

the administrative priority is not to maintain ethical practice but to test as many students

as possible as quickly as possible:

The way it is now, I could make all kinds of recommendations, and I can talk to
parents and talk to the student, but I don’t really have the time to follow up on
most of that, so it may happen and it may not. I don’t really know and I can’t

really impact that in a big way.

Apparent in Joyce’s discussion is the question of whether it is professionally ethical and
responsible to make recommendations that may be necessary but that may be unrealistic
within time and budgetary constraints. In some cases, Joyce felt forced to change her
recommendations because she knew what the school system could and could not provide
for the student. Thus, Joyce has found herself facing the ethical dilemma of whether to
make recommendations that accurately and fully reﬂect the child’s needs or to temper her
recommendations to ﬁt the limits of the system. Thus, she possessed a great deal of
professional liberty on the one hand, but she described unspoken institutional barriers that
inﬂuenced her decisions and recommendations.

Nick also described the relationship between perceived professional liberty and
the systemic conﬁnes of reality. He believed that his ability to move beyond a testing
role to assume other functions has increased over his career; nevertheless, be described
his automony as “another illusion rather than reality.” Asked to explain this statement, he
referred to the rigidity of boundaries, so much so that he described the system and its

barriers as a “maze” that school psychologists must navigate:

126

There are things you have to do, so there are very strong boundaries, although
they don’t always maybe seem that way. In terms of legally, but also
requirements in terms of numbers of evaluations you’re going to do, the services
you are going to provide to a particular school. Um, so that autonomy exists
between very rigid sorts of boundaries. So you’re a rat in a maze, but you don’t

know it.

In a profession that is calling for role expansion, Nick focused on the tremendous barriers
that hinder school psychologists from realizing their desired functions and their desired
ethical commitments. He explained that any liberty school psychologists might appear to
have in deﬁning their roles and functions is conﬁned by the stringent legal and ﬁnancial
barriers that characterize the school system. In Nick’s experience, school psychologists
may have perceived liberty but are actually conﬁned just like “a rat in a maze.” This
certainly raised ethical concems for Nick, because he thought that the system conﬁned
his practice to certain guidelines, speciﬁed functions, and prescribed procedures which

many times conﬂicted with his impression of what is in the best interest of children.

Others ’ Perceptions of the Role. As described in Chapter 3 within the discussion
of role perceptions, a large body of empirical evidence has documented the existence of a
discrepancy between school psychologists’ perceptions of their roles and functions and
the perceptions of school psychologists held by others within the school environment (as

discussed in Fagan & Wise, 1994). This discrepancy may hinder school psychologists

127

efforts to extend beyond a limited testing role in such as way to provide services that
better meet the individual needs of students. Joyce expressed the difﬁcult task of
changing this perception, stating, “I think it’s how everybody already sees the role of the
school psychologist. It’s hard to break the role of tester.” Jennifer also believed that she
was viewed by others as “more of a tester, ‘the test lady’,” despite the fact that she would
like to view herself more “in a variety of ways. . .a communicator. . ..an educator. . ..a
counselor.” Mike explained that he viewed himself as a professional with many different
roles, including consultant, assessor, and systems problem solver. However, he was
aware of others’ limited perceptions, qualifying his role description by adding “though
other people may not see me that way.” Clearly, based on these decriptions, school
psychologists continue to face narrow perceptions of their role that threaten to hinder
efforts to expand the role to ﬁt a variety of student and system needs (See Chapter 3 for a

complete discussion of role constructions and ethical commitments).

Inﬂexible Eligibility Criteria. Historically, legislation has mandated that special
education programs are available only to children who meet prescribed diagnostic criteria
(although recent amendments provide for services for students in general education as
well). Based on this fact, state and federally deﬁned program criteria were also cited as a
factor that can frustrate school psychologists and detract from the provision of services to
individual children in need. Mike believed that the rules were sometimes irrelevant to
his practice, stating “You’re given a set of rules which you’re supposed to comply to, and
yet the rules are sometimes good but sometimes absurd, and the absurdity of the rules

makes it very difﬁcult to be an ethical school psychologist.” Thus, rather than serving as

128

helpful guidelines, Mike thought that the eligibility rules actually prevented him from
being able to access services for those students who have a disability and were truly in
need of services.

Joyce spoke of this dilemma as one that she experienced in her work with early
childhood diagnosis and programming. Asked to discuss the unique ethical issues that

she faces in this role, she replied:

Well, in infant and preschool, there is always the ethical dilemma of seeing a kid
in trouble and you know they are in trouble, but technically, they are not 50% or
lower in any area as being PPI (PrePrimary Impaired), and where do they go? Do
you say ‘Sorry, there is not room. We aren’t going to take you,’ or “You don’t
qualify,’ or do you say, ‘I know this kid is in trouble. He or she needs help. Just

because they don’t meet the criteria, we are still gonna put them in.

Joyce’s discussion of these circumstances reﬂects the tremendous difﬁculty that exists
when an ethic of care—“I know this kid is in trouble. He or she needs help”—and an
ethic of justice—“We aren’t going to take you. You don’t qualify”—conﬂict in a school
psychologist’s world. Working with preschool children, Joyce knows that early
intervention with at-risk children could prevent more serious problems, as well as higher
ﬁnancial costs, down the line for both families and the school system. However, the
eligibility criteria with which she was forced to work often conﬁned her and mandated
that she choose between two options: 1) Meeting a child’s needs and violating the

eligibility requirement, or 2) Strictly adhering to the guidelines and potentially preventing

129

 

access to services for a child who is in need of intervention. Emily also referred to this
pressure to meet strict eligibility requirements while also remaining true to her
professional opinion of what will beneﬁt the child: “You know, sometimes the laws bind
us to meeting certain criteria which may or may not always meet with what we ethically
feel is correct.”

These school psychologists described being in a highly uncomfortable position
where they were often forced to choose between maintaining their ethical standards for
service delivery and adhering to special education eligibility guidelines and established
district practices. In many ways, this struggle epitomized the conﬂict that can exist
between commitments to an ethic of justice and an ethic of care. Given the limited
ﬁrnding and resources, special education guidelines are the designated way of selecting
the sub-group of students who should receive services. Thus, the current special
education system was founded upon concepts of equity, justice, and objective means of
determining what is the “right” decision for any given child. The school psychologists in
this study have frequently found themselves in situations where they are asked to violate
or compromise their ethical commitments to comply with system requirements and legal

regulations.

Confusion About Client Identification. One major consequence of the school
psychologist’s dual role as system employee and child advocate is that school
psychologists must face the often daunting challenge of identifying their primary client.
The uncertainty and complexity of this task stands in contrast to the experiences of

clinical psychologists and other types of psychologists who deﬁne and serve the client

130

 

who comes into their ofﬁces. A substantial body of evidence suggests that as the school
psychologist’s role has expanded beyond a strict test-and-place role, clear identiﬁcation
of the client has become even more problematic (Hansen et al., 1989; F agan & Wise,
1994). Several theorists and researchers have attempted to deﬁne the client of the school
psychologist. Fagan and Wise (1994), who illustrate the multiple deﬁnitions of client and

the resulting consequences of multiple deﬁnitions for the practicing school psychologist:

The term client may refer to the person in need of professional help, the person
who employs a professional, the person paying for the help, the person who is
under the protection of another, the person receiving the services of a
professional, or the person beneﬁting from such services. Thus, in the work of
the school psychologist, the client may include one or more of the following:
Child, parent(s), teacher, principal, special education director, school
superintendent, school board, or an agency administrator or governing board (p.

88).

The presence of multiple clients in the school psychologist’s world set the stage for what
Fagan and Wise termed “divided or mixed loyalties” which exist because they “pit the
school psychologist’s loyalty to one client against that of another client” (p. 89).

As attested to by each of the school psychologists in this study, this problem of
client identiﬁcation, a problem that often results in divided loyalties, can create difﬁcult

ethical problems when the needs of the child and the demands of the system differ. Mike

131

reduced the majority of ethical issues in school psychology to this question of client

identiﬁcation:

I think the key here is the confusion of who the client is, that’s the real problem of
ethics in school psychology. 1 think it’s never clear who the client is. Is the client
the organization you work for, like the school district? Is the client the child? Or
is the client the family? Or even is the client the kid himself without the family,
or the teacher who made the referral? I think that’s the crisis of ethics for the
school psychologists, because then if he or she’s not clear who the client is, the I

think ethical decisions are very hard to make.

Tom agreed, differentiating school psychologists’ ethical concerns from those
faced by other types of psychologists by pointing to the greater variety of consumers and

the resulting increased potential for conﬂict:

One of the things that are unique [for school psychologists] are the personnel
issues that we have to deal with working in an educational setting with large
numbers of people, parents, teachers and administrators. There are so many more
interactions and so many more potential conﬂicts of interest than we might have
as an individual clinician working individually with a client. There is probably
more potential for ethical problems to occur because there are so many competing

interests.

132

 

Reﬂecting similar concerns, Ken’s discussion of his perceptions of ethical
responsibility clearly indicated that he viewed himself as a child advocate whose main
responsibility was to match children and their needs with appropriate educational
programming. He did not merely view assessment as his professional role; rather, he was
committed to getting to know the student and helping that students’ family to value that
student’s individual needs and abilities. Yet, even given his strong dedication to

advocacy, Ken spoke of the complexity of client identiﬁcation of school psychology:

For a clinical psychologist, the client is very clear. It’s a person who’s coming to
you for help, even though they might be paid by a health organization or by the
parent or somebody like that. Still, the client is the primary focus. It’s pretty
clear whose rights must be protected. But in the schools, you’re hired by
somebody, you are working with people, you have all sorts of different possible
clients. . ...parents, teacher, kid, administrator, counselor, all different people.

That makes it a little more complicated.

Although Ken believed that to be an ethical school psychologists is to “be aware of who
is the client,” he acknowledged that this judgment is not always clear. In some of the
cases that he has handled, he must make a difﬁcult determination of who his main client

is:

First you have to ﬁnd out who your client is. It’s not always the child.

Sometimes, it’s the parent, sometimes it’s the administrator. Often, you have

133

 

 

 

more than one client and you have to decide which is the most important one in

some way. That takes a real struggle.

As Ken talked about this struggle, he utilized both a voice of care and a voice of justice.
He expressed a strong desire to be committed to caring for multiple individuals within the
system. Thus, he deﬁned his moral concern, consistent with an ethic of care, in terms of
caring for individuals and advocating for their needs (Lyons, 1982). However, an
element of the voice of justice is also present in Ken’s remarks. In many ways, Ken felt
obligations to the students and families with whom he worked and he was frustrated
when systemic barriers prevented him from meeting the obligations which were his by
virtue of his role. Examining Ken’s interview holistically, however, his obligations
seemed to stem from a true commitment to knowing individual students, understanding
their unique needs, abilities, and contexts, and promoting their welfare while seeking to
prevent harm. Thus, Ken depended more on a voice of care when describing his
commitments to student welfare

To illustrate the struggle that can arise with unclear identiﬁcation of one’s main
client, Ken shared an ethical situation where he was working with a student whose
family, in his professional opinion, needed intervention. However, according to district
referral guidelines and special education eligibility criteria, he did not believe that a
comprehensive evaluation was warranted. However, a dilemma existed because of other

concerns contributing to the decision of whether to evaluate formally:

134

 

.This is a case that was referred to us by the parents. They said that that child
could have a learning disability, could be depressed, could have ADI-ID, this and
that and on and on with all these symptoms. Indeed, the child was having some
difﬁculty with grades in 8th grade. We looked back through the ﬁle and found no
evidence that the child might have a learning disability. We couldn’t ﬁnd
evidence that the child had ever been depressed before from the records a the
school. We were left with a dilemma. Also the parents wanted the child tested to
ﬁnd out what the child’s leaming style was but they didn’t want special ed. So
ﬁrst you have a child that does not have a long-term disability based on what you
found in the ﬁle. Second, you have a child who is probably not disabled as far as
a learning disability goes. And third, the parents are not requesting special ed.
Those are all good reasons to turn down that referral. We knew a little bit more
about the case than what I’ve told you here. We knew that the older sister of this
young man was depressed a few years ago and there was a whole problem of
school phobia that was resolved when the child went to a psychiatrist. We also
knew that the child being referred was starting to miss school. So, we kind of
delayed for a while. We met with the parents and told them we thought they
should take the child for counseling, which would be our standard
recommendation when we see a problem that has come up more recently and
looks like a family issue and not so much a long term special ed issue. They
didn’t go for counseling. They just kept bugging us. They wanted us to test him.
Finally we had this meeting with the child study committee and I presented the

two dilemmas. I said we have these reasons why we shouldn’t test and the

135

reason I think we should test is because I don’t think they are acting in the best

interest of the child.

In thinking about this dilemma, Ken referred to his dedication to child advocacy in the

form of “protecting the interest of the child” which ultimately led him to decide to test:

Based on what we see, we don’t think they [the family] are recognizing what is
gong on with this kid. So we need to protect the kid here even though it may not
be a good reason to test, we think we have to test to ﬁnd out what’s going on. It
might illuminate a whole bunch of family issues and might get them to therapy or

whatever. So we all agreed we are going to test him.

In this situation, Ken and the rest of the team members supported their decision to test,
despite that fact that testing did not appear warranted in relation to formal guidelines, by
elevating child advocacy above concerns about justice or eligibility criteria. The
outcome of the case included identiﬁcation of ongoing family problems that were
undoubtedly affecting the student, as well as identifying intervention for both the student
and the entire family. Thus, Ken and the team’s commitment to promoting the child and
family’s welfare resulted in much needed intervention, despite the fact that they violated

prescribed system guidelines:

Well it turned out to be a child abuse issue and not only that but we sent for

records and found out the child had been in counseling years ago and the father

136

did have a psychiatric diagnosis. Not the child but the father. All sorts of things
were going on. So we did evaluate and did ﬁnd out that the child was
signiﬁcantly depressed now. Then we sent them to a counselor and all sorts of
things got started. Not resolved, but we got it started, so we felt good that the

solution was a good one to protect the kid.

Ken spoke of the need to recognize the presence of multiple clients when he stated, “The
client was the kid, because we were trying to protect the kid, but the issue we were going
after was the family.” He seemed to recognize that to deal with the demands of multiple
clients within a system, a school psychologist must develop the awareness that many
situations involve multiple clients with sometimes competing needs and agendas. As
asserted by Fagan and Wise (1994), this realization may be the hallmark of an

experienced school psychologist:

With experience, the school psychologist comes to understand that almost all
referrals of children involve several clients. To minimize client conﬂicts, the
school psychologist persists in keeping the interest of the child as the most
important focus of the assessment and intervention process. Each of the potential
clients presumably is most concerned with doing what will have the greatest
beneﬁt for the child. . ..School psychologists assure all clients that their job is not
to make decisions for the clients or the child, but rather to provide professional
judgments on behalf of the welfare of the child, who theoretically is the focus of

everyone’s concern (p. 90).

137

Although Ken recognized the need to consider child and farme needs as primary, he also
recognized system factors that make limitation of referrals necessary for professional

survival:

....You have to be careful. Think of all the referrals you get in school. If you
start testing every kid who’s having a semester with poor grades, you’re going to
have no end to referrals. You’re going to be overwhelmed with those kind of

cases. . ..sometimes we have to make hard decisions about that.

Ken’s discussion above provided a prime illustration of the complexity and
intense difﬁculty that school psychologists face. On the one hand, he was committed to
knowing individual children and making recommendations that will promote their
welfare. However, he recognized that within the conﬁnes of a system that has limited
resources, his decisions must also take into consideration such factors as justice, equity
among students regarding potential access to students, and objective means of
determining eligibility.

Tom also described this realization as he talked of his need to focus on the
children’s needs as central and to continue being concerned with other needs within the

system:

Rather than the system detennines the priorities, it’s the need of that child and

their situation that should determine our priorities and decision-making. It

138

 

 

doesn’t mean you ignore. . ..we don’t have unlimited resources, that’s for sure, but
we stay centered on the case that we are working on right then. . .that’s what our

concern is.

Nick also referred to the complexity of client identiﬁcation that sometimes leads
him to make a decision that might differ from his personal moral sense about a situation.
As a school psychologist, he believed that his main role was to advocate for students. He
added, “The job really doesn’t mean anything to me if I’m not focusing on the individual
and what’s best for them. If I’m serving as an administrator, a gatekeeper, or a “cog” in
how the system functions, then I should have gotten an MBA.” When asked to describe a
dilemma that he had encountered in his own practice, he described a situation where he
was evaluating a student with autism to make appropriate programming

recommendations:

When you’re working at the district level and are an employee of the district,
there’s more subtle pressure on the individual to conform to meet administrative
goals. And in this case, the administrative need was to provide as few services as
possible to defray costs. . .but I decided that I wasn’t being paid as an
administrator, I was being paid to advocate for this student, and although the
$70,000 or $60,000 [the district] was spending on him probably could have saved
twenty at-risk kids who would have grown up to be tax payers and returned their

investment to society 100 times, that was not my concern. My concern was what

139

was best for the student, and realizing that, I continued to advocate for as much as

we could get, and I felt just ﬁne about that.

To resolve this ethical conﬂict, then, Nick chose to focus on the needs of this individual
client while disregarding the needs of the administrators and the system. Justifying his
decision in ethical terms, Nick described how his obligations for child advocacy overrode
any systemic needs. Asked to discuss the reasons for making this decision, Nick

conveyed his perception of his responsibilities as a school psychologist

Your role deﬁnes your responsibility in a given context [emphasis added]. If I
were just an average Joe on the street, I would say it’s ridiculous that this
district’s spending this much money on that one kid when they could use that
money and get much more bang for the buck ...... I believe that if an individual is
your client, there are responsibilities associated with that, and they are

responsibilities to that individual and not to the system.

Applying the concept of moral voice to Nick’s dialogue illuminates some
important inherent struggles that he faced in his position. On the surface, Nick’s
reasoning process may seem to reﬂect an ethic of care, emphasizing meeting the needs of
individual students. However, his understanding that his “role deﬁnes [my]
responsibility in a given context” was consistent with analysis of a justice orientation
(Gilligan, 1990) wherein “the moral dilemmas of conﬂicting claims have to do with

conﬂicts of obligation, duty or commitment stemming from role-relationships one might

140

 

have” (p. 43). Nick’s rationale for his decision did not seem to rest mainly on
responsiveness and promotion of an individual child’s needs, though this certainly was a
consideration. Rather, Nick appeared to be motivated to meet his professional obligation
of student advocacy that is his because of the roles that he ﬁlls, reﬂecting more of a
justice orientation. Thus, there was a clear connection between how Nick deﬁned his role
and his resulting ethical commitments (as discussed in Chapter 3). This position was
clear as he further explained his reasons for advocating for the program expenditures for
the student: “I believe that an individual is your client, there are responsibilities that are
associated with that, and they are responsibilities to that individual, and not to the
system.” Nick did not seek resolution of this dilemma to restore relationships or
connections between people. Instead, his major motivation was in meeting his
obligations and responsibilities, reﬂecting a clear justice emphasis. Nevertheless, Nick’s
summary of his perspective on the ethical dimensions of school psychology practice
reﬂects a hint of a voice of care, with Nick focusing on the opportunity that he has for
making meaningful differences in people’s lives. Sometimes, his efforts to help people

may mean that he has strayed from the strict guidelines that govern his practice:

I don’t feel good about this job unless I’m helping other people, and I’m not
making a ton of money, and I did this because that’s what I want to do. I will do
what it takes to meet that goal, and it may sometimes mean that I don’t always

walk the straight and narrow.

141

 

Client identiﬁcation becomes even more complicated for school psychologists
who are employed by an intermediate school district but who are working in local
districts. Joyce, for example, thought that it was most ethical “to keep the needs of the
students and the families you serve as your main priority,” but she struggled with

maintaining this ethical comnritrnent in the face of multiple-level systemic pressures.

Our administration sees their customers as the local school district. I do, to some
extent, but I see my main customers as being the student and their family.
Sometimes you can kind of get into that dilemma because my main customer is
the student but my supervisor’s main customer is the local school district. We can

get into arguments as to what is most appropriate for that person.

Worthy of further examination is Joyce’s choice of the word “customers” to
describe the people whom she serves. This word suggests a distancing, a relationship that
exists not because of personal commitment but rather because of the expectations of
one’s professional role. Thus, although Joyce views the student and the family as the
primary consideration in her practice, her words do not reﬂect the intimacy and
commitment that form the core of an ethic of care (as described in Lyons, 1982). One
must also consider, however, the possibility that Joyce’s use of this word reﬂects the
system’s attitudes about child and family services. This word choice may therefore be
merely another example of how systemic commitments and priorities may inﬁltrate the

thinking of the school psychologist.

142

 

Transient Nature of the Role. School psychologist often serve multiple schools
and may spend only one day, or even less time, in any one building in a given week. This
factor can hinder the development of relationships and thus serve as a systemic barrier to
providing sound school psychological services. F agan and Wise (1994) described the
school psychologist as commonly treated as outsiders or “guests” in the school system

rather than a “family members.” Mike explained:

I think my ideal role would be to have the school psychologist much more
involved with the kid and the family and the program. I think that’s the mistake
that special ed. has made for school psychologists over the years. They’ve
become people that are in and out all the time. You go in, you see the kid, do a
bunch of stuff as fast as you can, you do to the next kid, and then if you have any
kind of professional morals, you invest in the kid as long as you can, and then you

have to move on.

Jennifer also disliked this facet of her role, expressing that it is difficult to form

relationships necessary to feel integrated into the system:

There is just the feeling that I’m in so many different schools, and it’s hard to feel
like you really belong. Sometimes you do, and you get along with teachers well,
but it’s that difﬁcult problem of just being a part of the school. I don’t know,

you’re just never quite ‘in the club.’

143

 

When speaking about their ideal role, many of the school psychologists believed that
being in one district would solve this problem. However, even those psychologists
working in one district described role misperceptions and strained relationships that

created problems with their complete “belonging” within the system.

Educational Philosophy. In Chapter 1, I described the multiple factors that have
inﬂuenced the changing role of the school psychologists. In addition to legal, economic,
and socio-cultural reforms, changing educational philosophies and changing roles of
educational institutions in today’s society have contributed to the broadening roles and
responsibilities of school psychologists. Describing this reform effort, Mike believed
that changing philosophies and expectations regarding the role of the school system have

also created a barrier to ethical practice and quality psychological services for children:

....it’s also a philosophy of “What’s the job of the schools” and there’s been a lot
of historical lawsuits about teaching values in the schools, and don’t do treatment,
and “You’re just supposed to teach my kid” kind of thing. So I think society has
to decide who’s going to take care of the others kinds, the affective kinds of
teaching for kids, and if it’s going to be community mental health that deals with
those kinds of problems, ihen we’ve got to have better community mental health
services. . ...the HMO’s and the restrictions on outpatient therapy for insurance
companies has limited, even for wealthy people, the availability of reasonable

therapy. I think the school has to take part of that.

144

As described in Chapter 1, many researchers and educational reformers have argued that
to meet the needs of today’s students and families, schools must adopt a central role in
multi-agency service delivery that will meet multiple social, emotional and psychological
needs (Ascher, 1990; Knitzer, 1993; Munger, 1991). To survive in and contribute
meaningfully to a school’s efforts, the school psychologist must broaden their skills and
expertise. The broadening role of schools in the lives of children undoubtedly introduces
opportunities for school psychologists to expand their roles, but it also introduces many
complicated ethical questions regarding the appropriate place for values and affective
education, adequate services to meet the mental health needs of a broad spectrum of
children and families, and restriction of therapy by insurance companies. According to
Mike, before schools and school psychologists fully embrace these expanded roles, they
should evaluate careﬁrlly the consequences of this type of reform effort and determine
whether schools are able to provide these services effectively and efﬁciently.

Mike cited a second educational philosophy and practice that made his practice
difﬁcult. Within education over the past 15 years, there has been an increasingly strong
push for the full inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms.
He believed that the move toward full inclusion of students with disabilities has created

new ethical challenges for school psychologists. Mike explained:

One of the big issues is the mainstreaming and the total inclusion of kids. I mean,

I think that’s an ethical issue for me. I think that that is a misguided law or

guideline, and not that it’s wrong, but I think it’s misused, and I think that the

145

 

purpose that people wanted out of having their severely handicapped kids in the

general population has been at least as detrimental to kids as it has been useful.

In some cases, Mike has found himself working with students with severe needs who, in
his opinion, needed more support than could be given in the general education classroom.
However, he has felt pressure from parents, as well as from the ﬁeld of education in
general, to recommend full inclusion for the child for social-emotional reasons. Thus,
this push toward full inclusion, though sometimes serving to meet students needs more
appropriately, can also create ethical struggles for school psychologists in cases when
students would not beneﬁt ﬁom inclusion as much as they would ﬁom more supportive

programming.

Administrative Pressure. A speciﬁc problem that accompanies the lack of
clarity in identifying the school psychologist’s client is administrative pressure to act a
particular way. Recent research (J ann & Hyman, 1991; J ann, Hyman & Reinhardt, 1992;
McMahon, 1993; Pope & Vetter, 1992) indicates that many of the dilemmas faced by
school psychologists involved pressures from administration to act unethically by placing
systemic needs ahead of student needs. Most recently, a survey of school psychologists,
conducted by J acob-Timm (1999), indicated that the most common category of ethically
troubling incidents related to struggles to act in the best interest of students and to
maintain ethical standards, despite pressure from administrators to act unethically. Many
of these ethical conﬂicts between school psychologists and administrators (20 of 49)

related to special education eligibility, placement, and services.

146

Joyce has experienced administrative pressure to act unethically in situations
where her recommendations would result in large monetary costs to the district. She

shared one example of this struggle:

If there is a student who is having a lot of trouble or has CP (cerebral palsy) or
Down Syndrome, and my ethics might tell me that this student isn’t gonna survive
very well without at least some time with an aide to move around the building or

to get things done, and that might not happen.

In this case, Joyce would feel pressure to sacriﬁce the student’s needs to avoid a
substantial cost to the school district. Rather than focusing solely on her professional
impression of what the student needs, the ﬁnancial pressures of the school district entered
into her decision and created ethical struggles for Joyce.

One of the dilemmas described by Jill clearly illustrated the intense
administrative pressure that often accompanies a school psychologist’s diagnostic role.
She recalled a situation wherein an administrator pressured her to retain a certain
diagnostic decision and programming recommendation when she thought a change in
programming was necessary. The administrator seemed to be primarily interested in the
programming costs to the district and the political issues connected to the family’s desire
to retain the original diagnosis. Jill’s conﬂict in this situation involved her desire to be
honest about her diagnostic impression coupled with administrative pressure to make

other recommendations:

147

..being caught between the administration and what I felt was right (emphasis
added), and feeling some pressure from someone else to say something that really
wasn’t true or accurate. And wanting to please people that you have a long-

standing relationships with, like the building principal

Honesty came at a price to Jill in this situation. She described feeling very isolated and

unsupported:

That IEPC was a grueling IEPC, and I had no support. . ..my director sat there and
glared at me, and the building principal was unhappy with me, and the family, at
that meeting. . ..it was a very powerful meeting and they came and talked about
how they had cried about the conversation I had with them. . ..the administration

was really not supportive and [even] wanted me to disappear.

Jill clearly expressed the strong dissonance that she experienced as she tried to balance
the school system’s demands against what she perceived as the child’s and family’s

needs. Asked to discuss the factors that she considered in this situation, she responded:

Existing relationships that I have with administrators. . ..[and], to some extent,
feeling empathy for the family, but also feeling that in the child’s best interest,
that family constellation needed to come to more of a resolution than it had come
to. I needed to be honest, and teachers needed to feel that, you know, they needed

to know accurately where the child was, not pretend he was something else.

148

Jill’s ethical dilemma and how she chose to resolve the dilemma largely reﬂected a voice
of j ustice. For Jill, honesty was a primary motivation for her professional decision-
making and was universally applicable in all situations encountered. The universality
and impartiality of this motivation is characteristic of Kohlberg’s ethic of justice
(Kohlberg, 1969, 1984). Rather than expressing a commitment to remaining responsive
to a child’s unique situations and contexts, she emphasized the need to be honest in all
situations, regardless of the outcome . Thus, although she described her role as one of
child advocate and systemic problem-solver, she emphasized universal applicability when
she identiﬁed and solved this ethical problem.

Ken also reported being faced with a situation wherein a principal unilaterally
placed a child with an emotional impairment into an “inappropriately classiﬁed
classroom.” Believing that this placement was detrimental to the child, a social worker
on Ken’s team reported the case to a protection and advocacy representative. This
referral prompted the principal to call a meeting of all special education staff with the
purpose of identifying the person who had made the report. Ken recalled that although he
supported the social worker’s report and opposed the administrator’s unilateral action, he
did not voice his opinion for fear of losing his job. He stated, “It’s an interesting thing
when you are sitting there and you’ve got a job on the line and you’re paying a mortgage,
and you’ve got a family and all these sorts of things. You’re feeling like ‘Well, how
much am I going to say here?”’

Administrative pressure can also determine in large part the inﬂuence of legal

mandates on a school psychologist’s behavior. Tom explained that in his district, limited

149

monetary resources are a strong determinant in how his administrator enforced

compliance with special education laws:

Well, in our school district, there is a heavy emphasis on IDEA compliance. At
times, we are made to be slaves to those timelines and sometimes there are things
more important in the daily ﬂow of actitivty than whether you are on time with a
re-eval. or not, and we can become a little too rigid and be slaves to that criteria. I
think a lot of that would depend on your boss and what they expect of you, how
much emphasis they place on compliance and so forth ...... In [district’s name], we
don’t have a lot of money or a lot of staff [so] there is a heavy emphasis on
number or quota. How much we should get done and unfortunately we are in a
situation where we have to meter our services so that we can make sure that we

get everything done that must be done. At times, that creates conﬂicts of interest.

Administrative pressure is thus often driven, at least in part, by monetary
restrictions. When asked to identify the kinds of ethical issues encountered in practice,
Tom immediately discussed the way that limited economic resources creates ethical

pressures.

.....the pressure to place kids or not place kids in special education for reasons
other than what are right and appropriate, or for reasons that are not in the best
interest of the child but in someone else’s best interest. The interference of the

economic situation that we ﬁnd ourselves in as a school district or individual

150

buildings. . ..Maybe one of the great challenges I face and I think we all face is the
reality of resource management issues, particularly money and competition from
outside. Not that that should encourage unethical behavior, but I think in some
ways it changes your priorities about where you should be directing your energy

and your resources knowing that.

The critical role of administrative pressure was also apparent in the school
psychologists’ discussion about the importance of administrative support. Just as
administrative pressure created many ethical problems and dilemmas for school
psychologists, administrative support was viewed as central to the ability to make and
execute ethical decisions within the system. Mike, for instance, recalled one incident
where the special education support team reviewed a student case and decided that there
was not sufﬁcient concern to pursue a comprehensive evaluation: “It was my judgment
at the meeting that the information about the child functioning level was already known
and the problem was that they needed to just adjust their curriculum in the class a bit.”
As a result of this decision, the referring teachers in the system placed pressure on the
support staff to change their decision.

Mike cited administrative support as a key to resolving this conﬂict: “. . ..the
principal went in and talked to those teachers. . ..I didn’t even know and he never said
anything to me about it, but that’s what I mean. He was kind of protecting our turf.” In
this example, administrative support not only allowed them to resolve this potential
conﬂict, but it also enabled Mike and his colleagues to act in what they determined to be

an ethical manner. This example, then, illustrates the important role that the

151

administration can play in supporting a school psychologist’s ethical practice. A
supportive administrator can facilitate ethical practice, whereas an administrator focused
solely on ﬁnances and caseload numbers can make it very difﬁcult for school
psychologists to practice according to their ethical convictions and commitments.

Tom, too, when discussing how his roles and ﬁrnctions have changed over the

 

course of his career, referred to administrative support as being crucial to competent, 1"

ethical service delivery:

Here in [district’s name], it’s been the administration’s orientation that not only
school psychologists but teacher consultants and social workers, teachers of
speech and language impaired, all sort of adopt or embrace a model of

collaborative consultation.

Compared to many of the other school psychologists interviewed in this study,
Tom presented a substantively different conception of the position and responsibility of
the school psychologist within the larger system. He referred to this responsibility as the

“conscience” of the system:

I feel like one of the roles we serve as school psychologists is sort of a conscience
of the school district maybe and, not to sound lofty about that, but we don’t
necessarily have the same allegiances or political ties that other disciplines or
groups of people have here. We can afford to take one step back and hold the

mirror up a little bit. . ..our main concern is to maximize the potential of the school

152

district, and I don’t think the school district can be totally effective if they are
engaging in unethical or inappropriate or improper practices and certainly illegal
practices. We can help maximize potentials that way. . ...Our main concern is to
maximize the potential of the school district, and I don’t think the school district
can be totally effective if they are engaging in unethical or inappropriate or

improper practices.

Tom understood the school psychologist as having fewer obligations to the system than
other educational professionals. Asked why school psychologists, as opposed to other
support staff, are in the position to “hold the mirror to the system,” he referred to the

school psychologist’s lack of an ongoing caseload:

Most school psychologists don’t really have a vested interest one way or the other
in whether a kid qualiﬁes for services, so whether they do or not is not really a
concern. It’s the truth-seeking that’s the concern, the fact-ﬁnding, assessing all
the dynamics of the case and weighing the positive against the negative and
helping people see that. . .Not having to worry about a particular caseload other
than here where we are expected to complete so many assessments, it’s not really

an issue.

Several points must be made concerning Tom’s statement. First, the manner in which

Tom ﬁ'amed the determination of eligibility reﬂects a strong element of justice. He

suggested that when working with children and families to determine eligibility and make

153

 

recommendations, school psychologists can and should remain detached and “don’t

really have a vested interest” in whether the child qualiﬁes for services. Kohlberg
(1984), in describing moral voices, suggested that a voice of justice is founded upon
impartiality and justice apart from responsiveness to an individual’s unique needs and
circumstances. In suggesting that school psychologists are disengaged ﬁ‘om their work,
Tom clearly employed a voice of justice and described an assessment process that was
oriented toward objective means of meeting one’s professional tasks and obligations. His
ethical commitments seemed to be based on an objectiﬁed, detached approach rather than
on relationships, responsiveness, or the provision of care to students and families.
Second, Tom appeared to understand himself and other school psychologists as
the holders of the truth—the “truth seekers”——who serve as the “moral police” of the
school system. He thus viewed himself as facing a great deal of pressure not only to
monitor and be responsible for his own ethical behavior and decisions, but also to
monitor the ethical decisions of the system. Again, this view stemmed largely from his
perception of school psychologists as detached in some ways from the rest of the
educational system. This detachment, according to Tom, allows the school psychologist
to oversee the workings of the entire system and to serve as the “moral conscience” of the
entire system. In contrast, a person utilizing a voice of care might describe school
psychologists as more personally and integrally involved in the process, as situated in
many different relationships within the system, and as responsive to the individual needs
and circumstances of each child and of each player within the system. From a care
perspective, school psychologists would be less apt to make moral and ethical judgments

from the position of a detached observer or evaluator of moral action; rather, they would

154

be concerned about commitments to relationships and advocating for processes that
would preserve and develop relationships while promoting the care of both the school
psychologists and all others within the system. As he described his perceptions, Torn
provided a clear example of a strong voice of justice as he described his role as a school
psychologist, his position within the rest of the system, and his approach to identifying

and handling ethical conﬂict.

Lack of Empirical Support for Special Education Intervention. One unresolved
problem in school psychology practice relates to the lack of empirical evidence for
special education services for students with mild disabilities (Reschly & Ysseldyke,
1995). Outcome studies exploring the efﬁcacy of special education continue to yield
uncertain results, casting doubt upon the utility of current diagnostic procedures and
treatments (Dunn, 1968; Kavale, 1990; Reschly, 1987). For Joyce, the entire special
education system, more speciﬁcally the lack of empirical evidence to support it’s

efﬁcacy, created a major ethical issue:

An ethical issue is knowing that the researchers have generally shown that special
education is not necessarily a good thing but that is still the way it is, and so a lot
of times you wrestle with “If I test this child and say they are eligible and move
them into special education, is that a good thing or not?” That, to me, is a really

big issue.

155

Jennifer, who happened to work in the same intermediate school district as Joyce,
also saw the inconclusive evidence for the effectiveness of special education as an ethical
problem “that kind of overﬂows everything.” Ultimately, many school psychologists
described their oveniding goal as advocating for the educational and social-emotional
needs of children. Often, within the current system, the school psychologist’s role in this
process is tied inherently to special education (See previous sections of this chapter for
full discussion of this issue). Thus, with the lack of documentation of special education’s
effectiveness in promoting educational and social-emotional success for students, the
entire assessment and eligibility determination function of the school psychologist
becomes a major ethical concern. Jennifer, Joyce, and the rest of the other participants,
expressed a commitment to child advocacy that inﬁltrates all aspects of their practice.
However, making recommendations for special education services that are not
empirically supported introduced ethical concerns about whether one’s recommendations
are actually driven by concern for students’ welfare.

In situations where school psychologists are faced with political pressure to make
an eligibility decision that may not be empirically supported, Tom believed that his main
role was to serve as “truth-seeking” in the face of various political and monetary
pressures. To resist administrative pressure to act unethically, Tom thought it was critical

to:
.....consider the body of evidence independent of the pressure that other people

are putting on you to make the decision. I know that’s hard to do, but remember

what I said about us being truth seekers, maintaining that orientation throughout

156

the diagnostic process. Trying to insulate yourself, which is virtually impossible
to do, from that political pressure to meet somebody else’s needs and really get to

the bottom of what is going on with the child.

Clearly, the school psychologists in this study experienced administrative
pressures that challenged their ethical commitments and sometimes led them to question
whether unwavering commitment to ethical practice within the system was possible.
However, the school psychologists in this study provided hope that school psychologists
can and do work diligently to remain committed to child advocacy and their other ethical
convictions, despite these intense pressures. Existing research (J ann et al., 1992; Pope &
Vetter, 1992) has indicated that school psychologists resist administrative pressure to act
unethically, choosing instead to act in the best interest of students and families. The
psychologists in this present study discussed speciﬁc ethically difﬁcult situations in
which they chose to resist administrative pressures and deal with the consequences. Ken,
for example, discussed an ethical dilemma where he supported the ethical decisions and
actions of a colleague, even though he felt that both her job and his job could be on the
line. Nick advocated for an individual aide for a student with autism, despite
administrative resistance due to the high monetary costs, stating “I believe that an
individual is your client. . ..and they are responsibilities to that individual and not to the
system.” Finally, Jill also resisted administrative pressure to support a diagnosis that she
did not feel was accurate, risking her ongoing relationship to maintain her diagnostic
honesty. These three examples illustrate the very difﬁcult situations that school

psychologists face, but they also highlight the risks and consequences that many of them

157

 

are willing to take to maintain their ethical commitments and obligations. Even in the
face of strong administrative pressure, strain in professional interpersonal relationships,
and loss of one’s position, these school psychologists were willing to voice their ethical
convictions and maintain their commitments to advocating for children within the school
system. The school psychologists, in the three examples noted above, exercised a voice
of j ustice in maintaining their ethical commitments. In an observation that is critical to
this present investigation, school psychologists did not utilize care-based moral reasoning
to withstand administrative pressures. What sense can be made of this important
observation? The fact that a voice of justice was more clearly evident than a voice of
care illuminates the strength of contextual factors in school psychologists’ moral

thinking, an issue that will be completely examined in Chapters 8 and 9.

Summary. Consistent with recent quantitative survey data (J acob-Timm, 1999;
Pope & Vetter, 1992), the school psychologists participating in this study described
tension between their roles of system employee and child advocate. They frequently
found themselves confronted with conﬂicting interests and assumed a precarious position
of trying to balance these interests. On the one hand, school psychologists believed that
their main responsibility was to advocate for the welfare of children and families, as was
fully discussed in Chapter 3. Yet, they described real and intense pressure to place the
interests of the system ahead of the interests of individual children and their own personal
and professional ethical commitments. This tension can create very real and frustrating
barriers to exercising one’s moral convictions and to expressing freely one’s moral voice.

As will be explored fully in Chapters 8 and 9, administrative and systemic pressures can

158

 

 

cause school psychologists’ moral voices to be suppressed. The voice of justice was
more clearly evident than the voice of care as school psychologists strove to reconcile
their ethical commitments to children with the intense pressures of the system.

To assume, however, that the tension is one between a harsh, cold, bureaucratic
system and a warm personal relationship with the child is not accurate in light of the
present data. To equate the school system with a justice orientation and the care
orientation with the needs of individual students is inaccurate and simplistic. These data
indicated that the system is not without a face; rather, it is comprised of multiple
relationships to which the school psychologist may form both personal and professional
allegiances. In the next chapter, I will explore this idea by examining how school
psychologists construe ethical responsibility and conﬂict not only between system and
individual, but also within a complicated web of relationships that exist within the

system.

159

 

EXPLORING ETHICAL DIMENSIONS OF PRACTICE:
LISTENING TO VOICES OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS

VOLUME 11
By

Nicole Dana Stahl

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education (CEPSE)

1999

Chapter 6

Construing Ethical Practice in School Psychology
as a Complex Web of Relationships

Another way that school psychologists understand and communicate the ethical
complexity of practice is in terms of the multiplicity of relationships that exist. To
portray the ethical struggles of school psychologists as concenrs for individual children
versus the needs of the broader system is inaccurate. The system within which a school
psychologist is situated is not merely a bureaucratic entity without a face or human
dimension. The system, according to the present data, is a complex web of relationships
that are in many ways interdependent. As school psychologists discussed their
understandings of ethical commitments and their experiences with ethical problems, they
conceptualized these problems as situated within a speciﬁc context of relationships and
interpersonal interchanges. Hence, the precise nature of the interplay between
relationships and ethics in a school psychologist’s world is worthy of speciﬁc
examination because, as Piaget asserted, “Apart ﬁ‘om our relationships with people, there
can be no moral necessity” (1965, as cited in Gilligan, 1990).

Several existing empirical studies have demonstrated the centrality of this
complex web of relationships for the ethical practice of school. Jacob-Timm (1999), for
instance, found that major categories of ethically troubling incidents faced by school
psychologists included pressure from administrators to act unethically, struggles to
maintain ethical standards despite pressure from parents, general conﬂicting

relationships, and confronting unethical practices of colleagues. Each of these categories

160

 

involves a relationship between a school psychologist and another party within the school
system. Clearly, these data support the primacy of relationships in the ethical domain of
school psychological practice.

Many potential reasons could explain the increasing primacy of relationships in
school psychology practice. School psychologists are becoming increasingly involved
with a broader range of people that schools must serve because of new legislation,
emphasis on interagency collaboration in the education of children, and the increased
time that school psychologists spend in consultation (see complete discussion of these
factors in Chapter 1). With the expansion of the school psychologist’s role into more of a
consultative and problem-solving ﬁrnction (F agan & Wise, 1994; Jacob-Timm, 1988),
successful practice of school psychology “depends heavily upon the relationships among
individuals involved and the cultural expectations about those relationships” (F agan &
Wise, 1994, p. 88).

Untangling the Web:
Balancing the Needs of Multiple Players in the System

Consistent with existing research and discussions within the school psychology
literature, school psychologists must often work to balance the needs of many people
including students, families, teachers, administrators, and communities. This
responsibility is outlined as a school psychologist’s ethical responsibility in the NASP
ethical guidelines: “School psychologists shall attempt to resolve situations in which
there are divided or conﬂicting interests in a manner which is mutually beneﬁcial and
protects the rights of all parties involved. ” Although this ethical responsibility is clearly

outlined in standardized codes, the school psychologists in this study struggle with how

161

 

to balance the needs of multiple parties in a way that “protects the rights of all parties
involved.”

The participants in this study relayed several examples when they were placed in
the position of having to balancing multiple and potentially conﬂicting needs and
agendas. They described the difﬁculties, and even seeming impossibilities, of striving for
solutions that protected the rights of all involved parties. Mike thought that interpersonal
skills and the ability to relate successfully with multiple people in potentially conﬂicting
situations were critical for any school psychologist’s success. He conceptualized the
formation and maintenance of the web of relationships in which he exists as an “art”

which is critical to his effectiveness in the schools:

I think it’s an art. I think the biggest part of being a school psychologist that
makes you successful is your ability to relate instantly to people and develop trust
in people. If you don’t have that, I don’t think you’re ever going to be a good,
accepted school psychologist. I mean, that would be the downfall of a school
psychologist, and that’s, interpersonal relationships, are an art, not a science,

that’s how I see it.

Nick, a psychologist who is relatively new in his district, also spoke of the
importance of interpersonal skills and relationships in his practice. He described how the
formation of relationships is critical to gaining entry into the system and moving beyond

a strict testing role:

162

I think you certainly spend the ﬁrst year of two years just learning what the
parameters of the job are, so I think it changed in that I became more efﬁcient at
the required pieces of the job, which allowed me more energy to do the things that
were more interesting to me. . ..[like] doing the consultation piece, seeing kids
individually, more service-oriented in a face-to-face way as opposed to doing an
evaluation. 1 ﬁnd that as I work in districts and develop relationships, with my
abilities and training and the needs of a district, that often times, I can move away
from the evaluation piece, and do some other things that I do have training in, and

meet the needs of the district. . ..

The school psychologist’s challenge of gaining entry into the system has been discussed
by many researchers and theorists interested in the ﬁeld of school psychology (F agan &
Wise, 1994; Sarason, 1971). Often perceived by others within schools as the “guest in
the house of education” (F agan & Wise, 1994, p. 85), the school psychologist may have
the potential of being perceived as and treated as “outsiders.” To dispel these notions and
gain entry to the system, school psychologists must be aware of the nature of the system,
the process of change in the schools (or lack thereof, as described by Sarason, 1971), and
the power of interpersonal relationships in gaining access to the system.

Clearly, the development and maintenance of interpersonal relationships is critical
to the professional survival of school psychologists. Yet, to say that the school
psychologist is merely in a position of balancing the needs of multiple players is to fail to
capture the complexity of the social world in which school psychologists function.

Rather, one must look deeper to understand more fully the nature and dynamics of this

163

web of relationships. One way that school psychologists understand the relationship web
is in regard to their need to strive constantly to balance the needs and demands of various
people with whom they work. With experience, school psychologists appear to become
more able to see and address the needs of multiple consumers, reﬂecting the recognition
of their multiple clients. Ken’s discussion of his ethical development provides a good
example of this developed understanding. Over the course of his career, Kerr has
believed that he has become less idealistic and more practical, largely due to his growing
ability to consider the needs of everyone within the system and not just the needs of

individual children:

I’m still more of an idealistic kind of person and I get around that by not
apologizing for it. When I get into a meeting on a kid, I want to brainstorm and
think of every possible solution we can think of and don’t care how goofy it
sounds. I have other people who work with me who are much more practical and
they just want to know we only have enough teachers to do this and this. . ..It
doesn’t bother me any that we come up with these goofy ideas because I think
that many times you come up with a solution that way. I guess my answer is that
I used to be extremely idealistic and now I’m not quite as idealistic. I’m more
practical because now I’m working within the building and I see more

everybody’s needs.

Fagan and Wise (1994) suggested that Ken’s ability to “see everybody’s needs” as one

characteristic of a school psychologist who has developed a realistic understanding of the

164

 

nature of the role. Although novice school psychologists may remain so focused on the
needs of one party that they may alienate others or fail to see viable alternatives,
experienced school psychologists are aware of multiple needs and are better able to seek
solutions and recommendations that address the needs of multiple players.

Tom has also come to the point in his career where he views himself as
responsible for helping to meet the needs and goals of many individuals within the school
system. He sees his major priority as the service of children and families, but he saw this
goal as being accomplished in his attempts to “maximize the potential of the school
district.” Tom also acknowledged that “there is probably more potential for ethical
problems to occur because there are so many competing interests.” As discussed in
Chapter 3, Tom perceived his ethical responsibilities as extending beyond the speciﬁc
students and families to whom he is assigned. Instead, he felt responsible for monitoring
the ethics of the entire system, for “holding up the mirror” to the system and facilitating
its ethical functioning.

Jill described this delicate task of balancing and addressing the needs of multiple

individuals:

In school psychology, you have to balance between a lot of different “agencies.”
You have to balance the family as an interest group, and then you have to balance
the school system, then you have to balance the teachers, the system as a whole,
and then you look special education and ﬁnances. . ...like say a child needs a
paraprofessional, and you know that that local director does not want that child to

have a paraprofessional, but you have to say that you really feel that the child

165

 

needs a paraprofessional. Or, saying the converse to family that you have a
relationship with, and they want to do something, and you say, “You know, it’s

right to do it, but I don’t feel it’s in the child’s best interest.”

Evident in Jill’s discussion is her desire to evaluate all decisions in terms of “the child’s
best interest.” Her commitment to child advocacy remains primary, even as she strives to
balance the needs and desires of many different people within the system. At times, she
has supported the administrator when she thought that the administrator’s
recommendation would promote student welfare. At other times, she has opposed the
administrator and supported the desires of families, but her decisions are always driven
by her main ethical commitment: Child advocacy.

Joyce, conceptualizing herself as the “PR person” and the “liaison,” discussed the
role of balancing relationships and striving to meet the needs of multiple parties. Her role

has come to involve:

...being a liaison between the teacher and the parent, or the parent and the school,
so that if they’re coming in an adversarial role, somehow we can work it out so
that they can both feel like their needs are met. It’s a lot of interpersonal working

with people that has gotten much more important.

This role of “balancing” is one that many of the psychologists referred to

repeatedly in their discussions of roles and ethics. However, as will be further discussed

in Chapter 7, the process of learning to balance the interests of multiple people is not

166

automatic but was rather described as a skill that develops with time and experience.
Joyce recalls being heavily focused on testing in her early career and not focusing on the

interpersonal relationship side of practice:

When I ﬁrst started, the testing was basically your job and at this point, I think it p
is probably the easiest part ...... You did the testing, you made your
recommendations, and you were done and didn’t get involved in relationships and
the political stuff. The ethical issues as far as testing might be maybe I didn’t ask
that question the right way or maybe he [the student] was too tired. So it more

hinged on the testing part and why that wasn’t the best it could be.

Over the course of Joyce’s career, she has moved from a testing-focused
perspective toward a relationship-focused perspective. In this developmental process, she
has seen how critical her interpersonal skills have become as she acts as a liaison between

multiple parties within the school and community:

Now, it’s shifted into more relationships or service. . ...You really need to know
how to get your idea across to other people in a way that they will listen to you
and take it seriously. . ...being the liaison between the teacher and the parent or the
parent and the school, so that if they’re coming in in an adversarial role, somehow
we can work it out so they both feel like their needs are met. It’s a lot of

interpersonal working with people that has gotten much more important.

167

-u

Clearly, Joyce has seen her role demand more interpersonal skills and relationship
building than was true in her early professional experience when she was much more
focused on testing. Along with these role changes has come the evolution of ethical
responsibilities in her relationships with the multiple players that she described above.

Jill, who also frequently ﬁnds herself needing to serve as a liaison, senses
pressure as she attempts to balance these differing interests. For example, she sometimes
struggled with making recommendations when trying to consider the needs of the
teacher, the students, and the parent: “You might not be honest about what you might
think is the most appropriate, knowing the teacher and knowing the parents.” According
to Jill, when she is placed in the position where she must work to balance conﬂicting
interests, it ﬁ'equently became an ethical struggle because she had to facilitate an
agreement that would beneﬁt the child, while remaining sensitive to the unique
perspectives of all people involved in the decisions. Sometimes, she felt pressure to
support one party and had to decide whether to succumb to the pressure or stick to her
true opinion about what the particular child needs.

Joyce, viewing herself as a liaison between teacher, parent, and school, agreed
that servicing many different parties made it difﬁcult to be a school psychologist. To be
a successful school psychologist, Joyce believed that ‘you have to be somebody who can
deal with different groups of people.” For example, she often found that her relationships
with teachers were strained when she found that a child who the teacher referred did not
qualify for services. Likewise, her relationships with parents could be strained when her

opinion differed from the parents’. When her recommendations were costly to the

168

 

district, her relationships with administrators experienced temporary strain. This

“balancing act” created multiple ethical conﬂicts:

I think it’s hard to make everybody happy. Your recommendations might make
the teacher really unhappy because you say that they don’t qualify or the parents
might be really unhappy because you say ‘I can’t do this here, you need to look at
some outside counseling’. ....the administration. . .and I think we need to spend

more money to meet the needs of this child. . ..”

Joyce seems to imply that the presence of multiple conﬂicting interests created an
environment in which breaches of ethical standards could easily occur. To survive in this
sometimes hostile environment, Joyce strived to remain committed ﬁrst and foremost to
children. This unyielding commitment to children, however, did not come without
difﬁcult costs and challenges. As discussed in previous sections of this chapter, Joyce
agreed that although relationships are critical to the school psychologist’s effectiveness,
her commitment to always place children’s needs ﬁrst sometimes strained relationships

with others in the system:

It would be nice to always have a good relationship with everybody you work
with, but it’s just not always possible. . ..in my ideal, the needs of the child come
ﬁrst. I’m going to be asking the teachers or parents to do things that I think are

appropriate to that child, and that will impact their life and make their life harder.

169

 

Robert recalled a complex dilemma that serves to illustrate the web of
relationships in which a school psychologist is situated and the intense ethical struggles
that are created when the desires of differing parties conﬂict. He was asked to conduct an
evaluation with a ﬁrst grade child whom he described as “a cute little guy with blue eyes
and a big smile. . ..everybody loved him. . ..probably one of the most popular kids in the
whole school.” Evaluation results suggested that the child was functioning in the
Educable Mentally Impaired range; however, teachers and administrators resisted this
diagnosis, resulting in severely strained relationships. Robert recalled the ethical conﬂict
that resulted from this pressure to make a recommendation that conﬂicted with his
assessment: “They put pressure on me to change the diagnosis, to change the
certiﬁcation, to not have him EMI, to somehow sweep this whole thing under the
carpet. . ..I was a very unpopular person in that school for about two weeks, from
administrator to teacher.”

Robert indicated that the teachers and school administrators seemed angry with
him and his decision, resulting in strained relationships. The only people who seemed to
agree with him and accept the diagnosis were the student’s parents, who were almost
relieved that they ﬁnally had an answer to their child’s difﬁculties. He recalled, “The
only person who vaguely understood was the parent, who said ‘I knew there was
something wrong put I just couldn’t put my ﬁnger on it. I was wondering why he didn’t
walk until he was 20 months old, didn’t talk until he was 3. . ...now I know why.”

Robert’s ethical struggle and resulting decision in this case illustrates the desire to
understand the unique child and family needs yet remaining true to his personal ethical

convictions about the child’s disability and the child’s intervention needs. He strove to

170

 

 

understand the parent and child’s unique context, and, despite strong pressure and
relational conﬂict with school staff, thought that the parents needed to have an accurate
diagnostic picture of their son so that they could better understand him. As he discussed
his decision, he utilized a moral voice of care, as he tried to place himself in the position
of the family and the child in their unique contexts and circumstances. He was willing to
sacriﬁce temporarily his relationships with the school staff to promote the child’s
welfare, yet he sensed that his decision would promote relationships and child welfare in
the long run. Consistent with a voice of care, he was motivated to carry out his activities
of care to beneﬁt the child, although he also expressed concern about the potential
relationship strain that would result. He strove to work toward a solution that would
allow him to blend the interests and needs of all involved parties and, thus, to maintain
multiple professional relationships.

However, issues of justice were also clearly evident in Robert’s discussion. By
virtue of his position as a school psychologists, he also discussed “conﬂicting claims in
relationships between people” (Lyons, 1982, p. 43). However, he perceived his role not
as objective, detached, and impartial but rather as personal, involved, and child-focused.
This tension between care and justice, as it speciﬁcally applied to a school psychologist’s
role and work, will be discussed further in the ﬁnal chapter.

In Robert’s case, he experienced temporary interpersonal strain with the teachers
and administrators because he was willing to maintain his position of diagnostic integrity
and his commitment to child advocacy. This relational strain resulted from his
commitment to his willingness to maintain his ethical convictions in the face of

opposition. Discussing this type of conﬂict, Tom agreed that interpersonal conﬂict often

171

results from ethical conﬂict. Moreover, he believed that ethical violations often exist
when school psychologists strive to maintain relationships at the expense of student
welfare. Thus, the lack of interpersonal conﬂict may actually serve as an indicant of an

ethical problem:

There are certainly obviously conﬂicts of interest that come up now and again that
we’ve all faced and all will face. Having to make choices about allegiances or
being liked.. . .a much wiser man than me once said, ‘If everybody likes you all
the time, you are not doing your best job. . ..Sometimes that’s sort of a tip-off. If
you know that the decision you’ve made is going to upset somebody or disturb the

equilibrium, that might be a sign that there is some ethical conﬂict.

According to Tom, it is easy for a school psychologist to try to avoid conﬂict by focusing
on pleasing people and seeking solutions that makes everybody happy. Although this
approach may save relationships and prevent relational strain, this “equilibrium” may
come as a result of sacriﬁcing a child’s best interest. Tom is skeptical of school
psychologists who do not face interpersonal conﬂict, as he sees this as inherent in the job.
He perceives interpersonal conﬂict as an unavoidable fact of life for school psychologists
who are committed to child advocacy, even in the face of multiple pressures to cut
corners and focus on other factors within the system. Thus, interpersonal conﬂict “comes
with the territory” of being an ethical school psychologist.

As evident from the statements offered by the participants, relationships are an

essential facet of the school psychologists’ world. In this complex web of relationships

172

exists potential for multiple ethical conﬂicts and dilemmas. Thus, considering the school
psychologist’s need to consider multiple clients in their work within the school system
(discussed in Chapter 6), the speciﬁc nature of the various relationships existing with a
broad range of people both inside and outside the school environment must be examined.
When discussing their ethical obligations, the school psychologists in this study described
speciﬁcally their relationships with students, families, teachers, administrators,
professional colleagues/team members, and community professionals. Each of these will

be described in the ensuing sections of this chapter.

Relationships with Students. As discussed in Chapter 3, school psychologists
overwhelmingly conceptualized their main role as child advocacy. However, in
describing their relationships with children in their practice, they identiﬁed several
characteristics of the school psychologists’ role that limited their ability to form these
relationships. Dave, trained as a clinical psychologist and having spent much of his early
career working in agency settings, differentiated clinical psychologists from school
psychologists by the more intense, close personal relationships with children that
characterizes private practice. Relationships are an important part of the school
psychologist’s work; nevertheless, baniers exist, limiting the depth and intensity of the

relationship:

I would say the truth is that if you are working in a clinical setting doing therapy

with somebody, the relationship becomes more intense. That’s not to say that

school psychologists don’t care about their patient, but it’s a less personal type of

173

 

thing. So some ethical dilemmas in clinical psychology would be more in terms
of the relationships. In school psychology, it might be more in terms
of . . ..pushing the kid one way or the other or the number of tests or how much

they do in testing.

Asked to discuss why relationships that a school psychologist develops with students is

less personal and less intense, Dave referred to many of the baniers that were discussed

in Chapter 5, stating high testing caseloads and limited perceptions of the school

psychologist’s role as potential reasons:

Well, number one, you see quite a few kids, and number two, if you’re not doing
the consultative type of model, you’re actually giving the traditional testing type
of thing, it might involve an observation for about an hour or so, and the actual
contact with the kid might be two and one-half or three hours. And it’s in a very
structured, standardized setting. That’s not to say that you don’t do an interview
with them to learn a little bit about the family, school, and that type of thing, but I
don’t think you can have as much contact with them. It’s not that you care about

them any less, but. . ..

Dave believed that true therapeutic change in the lives of children and families

necessitates a more personal sustained relationship. However, he also did not think that

this is possible within the school setting. The systemic barriers such as ﬁnancial

limitations and role misperceptions create an environment where it is virtually impossible

174

to know a student individually and to understand the individual child’s unique
circumstances and contexts. Thus, Dave thought that these barriers prohibited the
deve10pment of true relationship with children. Interestingly, Dave did not describe his
thoughts with remorse but instead spoke of these issues in a matter-of-fact manner,
indicating that these limitations are “the nature of the beast” in school psychology.
Clearly, Dave did not believe that speaking with a moral voice of care is possible within
the conﬁnes of the school system. The nature of the role prevents focusing on care and
relationships and necessitates assuming an objective, impartial approach to students and
their problems. This issue and Dave’s perspective will be further explored in Chapters 8

and 9.

Relationships with Families. Within the ﬁeld of school psychology, there has
been a shift from focusing services solely on individual children to focusing on the entire
family as the unit of assessment and intervention (Christenson, 1995; Fagan & Wise,
1994). Rich (1995) has stated this relationship quite succinctly: “Families and teachers
might wish that the school could do the job alone. But today’s schools need families, and
today’s families needs schools. In many ways, the mutual need may be the greatest hope
for change” (Rich, 1995, as cited in Christenson, 1995, p. 253). Christenson concluded
that “positive family-school connections are not automatic; however, they are essential to
children’s optimal success in school and must become a major focus within educational
restructuring efforts” (p. 253).

Consistent with Christenson’s assertion, one of the major oveniding themes of

recent legislation, IDEA ’97, is a focus on servicing families and including families in all

175

aspects of educational assessment, intervention, and program evaluation. An assumption
underlying this shift is that to beneﬁt individual children, school psychologists must
recognize the child as embedded in the family context and see that any changes within
the family will necessarily affect all members of the family. In the interviews, when
asked to describe the initial impact of IDEA ’97 on their practice, every school
psychologist interviewed referred to the increasing involvement of parents and families,
as will be discussed later in this chapter.

The new focus on families and home-school communication and collaboration is
another factor that impacts how school psychologists construe ethical concerns. Joyce
described an issue that she has faced in practice that reﬂects a struggle between
maintaining family relationships in the short-term and making therapeutically sound

recommendations:

Sometimes, it’s kind of knowing that a farme would really beneﬁt from therapy
or counseling, knowing that if you say that, they may never talk to you again, and
where do you go in that situation because there really isn’t a good. . ...you can
muddle through and just keep working at it until they trust you enough, or do you
be honest and say “This is the way I think it should be” and let the chips fall

where they may.

Joyce’s comments illustrate the ethical conﬂict that can arise when a psychologist’s

recommendations may differ ﬁom the type or extent of intervention that the family

desires for their child. Joyce struggles with whether she should express her professional

176

option honestly and “be honest. . ...and let the chips fall where they may” in her
relationship with families, or whether she should temper her recommendations in an
attempt to be sensitive to the family’s needs and receptivity.

As Joyce suggested, relationships with families may be the most difﬁcult to
maintain when the parent’s opinion about what is best for their child differs with the
school psychologist’s recommendations. Kerr has addressed this ethical concern in his
own mind by emphasizing that the ultimate decision for eligibility services lies with the
parent. He regards respect for parental decisions as an important part of remaining

ethical in his practice:

....I think you have to be willing to accept the fact that parents can refuse
services. They have that right. It’s no different than when you go into a
physician and the physician recommends that you take certain pills for a disorder

and you decide not to take the pills. You have that right.

When asked how to handle an issue wherein the parents disagree with a school
psychologists’ diagnostic impression (e. g., selecting an E1 diagnosis over an LD
diagnosis), Joyce explained that she would take the time to listen to the parents, to try to
understand their point of view, and to consider their unique circumstances in making
recommendations. She utilized both a voice of care and elements of an impartial,
detached, justice-focused voice, when describing her manner of approaching this

situation.

177

I would ﬁrst talk to the parents myself and explain why or why not I think it’s
appropriate that they have an El (Emotionally Impaired) label as opposed to an
LD (Learning Disabled) label, and what my reasonings are and go through that.
Then, if they’re not going to budge, another option might be writing a report
saying we are classifying this child as LD; however, there are a lot of other factors
going on, and that always needs to be part of the approach when working with

him or her.

Several ethical issues are inherent in this excerpt. One major ethical issue is that of
diagnostic integrity. If a parent refuses the E1 label, Joyce sometimes felt pressure to
recommend an LD label in her report, even if she truly believed that the child had an
emotional impairment. However, the practitioners recognized that situations like this
become further complicated when the school psychologist felt strongly that the child
would be harmed by the decision for which parents were advocating. Focusing on care of
a student does not always mean succumbing to a parents’ desires or demands for their
child. When a psychologist thought that the child’s needs were being overlooked or
sacriﬁced, it sometimes meant explaining one’s rationale to the parent and standing by
one’s recommendations, even in the face of parental opposition. Ken addressed this

difﬁcult ethical struggle:

Now the real dilemma comes when you feel that the parents are not acting in the

best interest of the child and that’s a real toughy. It has to be quite a severe case

in order for you to make that justiﬁcation. If the parents simply decide they are

178

not going to use special ed, they are going to keep them in general ed and the kid
keeps having difﬁculties in school but he’s not dropping out of school, and he’s
not becoming depressed and so on and he’s still with his friends, then you’d have
to say you’ve made your decision. If they make a decision that causes the child to

have a lot of trauma, that’s different.

In her case, Joyce seemed to evaluate whether her decision was valid or not on the basis
of the ultimate outcomes for the child. Thus, she evaluated her decisions using a moral
voice of care (Lyons, 1982), focusing on ultimate outcomes for the child and whether or
not the child’s best interest over time will be promoted

Another family-related issue that created potential for ethical conﬂict is the
potential undue inﬂuence that school psychologists could have in a family’s education-
related decisions. Forming and maintaining relationships with families undoubtedly
gives the school psychologist a degree of power and inﬂuence with that family, a factor
that can come into play in cases where parents refused special education services.
Jennifer relayed a situation wherein she had to decide whether or not to exert this
inﬂuence to persuade the parents to agree to a psychoeducational evaluation. This
situation involved a second-grade student whom the evaluation team had wanted to
evaluate since ﬁrst grade; however, the mother was reluctant to allow the school to
evaluate, although she ﬁnally gave consent. Results of the evaluation suggested that the
student qualiﬁed as EMI, and the team recommended special education support. The

mother, however, refused to consent to services, despite the team’s efforts to explain the

179

beneﬁts to her daughter. The student’s parents were divorced, and Jennifer’s dilemma

consisted of whether she should call the father to try to gain his support for services:

I guess [the conﬂict] was just that I could have played it out so that I really
pushed the dad, because I think I could have maybe pushed him. . ..He had some
kind of custody where I could have pushed him to say ‘Let’s just have a meeting
and I’ll sign the papers. . ...My options would have been to maybe really scare the
dad and really play it up, and say she was ﬂunking out or not going to make it,
and you need to do this. The whole thing is that it would have been behind the

mom’s back, and that would be an issue.

Jennifer decided to express her concerns to the father while simultaneously trying to
preserve her relationship with the mother, a factor that she viewed as crucial in her efforts
ultimately to secure services for the student. Jennifer expressed a voice of care in her
desire to preserve this relationship while also seeking to promote what she believed to be

in the child’s best interest:

I talked with dad at length, and we talked. . .he talked about that it [agreement with
services] would probably happen some day and maybe even next year. So I
decided to just go that route. In that case, I was concerned about the student, but I
couldn’t see ruining that with mom. I just think it would have been a disaster

somehow, like she would have said no and we would never had another chance.

180

Itnnii

press

ill iii

10 Si

rcla

Jennifer opted to handle this ethical conﬂict by focusing on the decision that would
preserve her relationship with mother and would also likely result in services for the child
in the long run, though not immediately. She was willing to sacriﬁce immediate results
to secure the long-term care for the child and the maintenance of interpersonal
relationship, reﬂecting hallmarks of a moral voice of care (Lyons, 1982).

Robert has dealt with family situations where he had to make a decision to make
a Protective Services (PS) referral or take a different course of action when he was
concerned about possible parental abuse of a student. In the example cited, the student
told Robert that he was being disciplined severely. With only this limited knowledge,

Robert was placed in the position of how to act on the student’s claim:

We were just in the process of doing this evaluation, and I’ve been involved in
situations before where you make a PS referral and the mother comes in and
“Boom,” there goes any relationships you have with the parent. It absolutely goes
down the drain. So you lose whatever relationship you have with the parent and

whatever credibility you have...

Robert’s concern about maintaining his relationship with the parents provides an example
of setting the “universal” idea aside and elevating the relationship with the family as the
primary consideration when making a decision. Robert recognized that relationship with
the family is crucial to establishing trust and forming a working partnership with the
parents. In the end, the team decided not to make the PS referral. Robert reﬂected on the

positive consequences of this decision:

181

Looking back, it was the right thing to do because we were able to bring the
parents on board. The stepfather came across as sort of a meek sort of guy in
some ways. In other ways, he saw this as a way he could assert some discipline
with the child that he perceived had never existed before. . ...we found ways that
the dad could work with him [the student] and make it more palatable for the

child and a little more time speciﬁc in giving these punishments.

Similar to Jennifer’s situation described above, Robert’s success in “bringing the parents
on board” resulted in long-term outcomes that promoted the child’s interests. By
focusing on care and relationship as key components to maintaining ethically sound
practice, Robert was able to resolve his ethical conﬂict in a way that both he and the
parents viewed as satisfactory.

Over the course of her l6-year career, Joyce has come to view validation of
parents’ concerns and perspectives as a critical step toward maintaining good
relationships necessary to meet the needs of students and families. She described one
instance where two sets of parents, each of whom had children in the same classroom,
were very angry about the teacher’s behavior and reported it to her. The conﬂict for
Joyce was what to do with the information. She discussed the conﬂict in terms of
implications for the quality of the students’ educational experience, the teacher’s future,
as well as Joyce’s ongoing relationship with the teacher, the parents’ wishes to rectify the
problem, and the principal’s need to know about and deal with the parents’ concerns.

The ongoing relationship with the teacher was a major concern because “I had to work

182

with her still.” To resolve this conﬂict, Joyce decided to inform the principal about the
parental concerns. Asked to sum what she learned from this situation, Joyce emphasized

the need to maintain the trust and relationship of parents:

Put more stock in what parents say. . ...In the beginning of my career, being the
ideal person that I am, you always want to think that the system that you are
working in is good and the teachers are there because they like kids and so when
parents come in and tell you things, you just kind of poo-poo it. But the longer I
work, the more I think parents really know what they’re talking about sometimes.
They may be coming from a totally different angle, but they still know. Most of
the time, they really know their kids, so if they’re telling you something, you need

to listen to them.

Clearly reﬂected in this explanation is a voice of care, as Joyce strives to come to a
complete knowledge of a child’s and parent’s unique perspectives, skills and abilities.
She recognized that parents know their children better than anyone in the school system,
and she strove to understand children’s and parent’s circumstances in all aspects of her
work.

Emily also reported that she places strong emphasis on parental reports and
perceptions of their child’s strengths and weaknesses, an emphasis that has become even
stronger as she has experienced raising her own four children. Her parental experiences
have caused her to be more sensitive to parents and has increased her ability to place

herself in the shoes of parents and understand their perspectives:

183

I think it’s much more easy to be judgmental about how a parent is parenting a
child or what kind of home this child comes from, or “the parent is the problem’
kind of thing. But I guess the more I’m a parent and the more I live, not that we
don’t judge, but “Until you’ve walked in a man’s shoes...” that kind of thing.
Much more sensitive, and what it would be like to parent that child 24 hours a day
when they have multiple siblings and working. Yeah, I think I’ve become

probably more sensitive.

She further explained that her own experience of going through testing with one of her

children helped her to modify her own practice:

Being a parent, and thinking ‘What would I want for my child?” How would I
want to be treated, or how would I hear that. . ...Yeah, and just really does make a
difference when you have teachers or you hear them say something to you about
your child. . ...Or when I thought something was wrong with mine, we had to go
through a bunch of tests. I was pregnant, and how I was treated when we were
going through all that testing and assessment phase. It was very, very powerful in

how it inﬂuenced me.
Clearly, legislation and educational reformed movements have increased school

psychologists’ ongoing contact and communication with families. Several of the school

psychologists in this study indicated that part of their ethical comrrritrnents pertained to

184

involving parents in decisions, striving to understand the parents’ perspectives, and, when
possible, making recommendations that would beneﬁt both child and family.
Psychologists’ discussions of their relationships with families reﬂected a moral voice of
care, as they strove to understand the families’ circumstances and contexts, maintain
relationships with the family, and work together with the family to promote the care of

the child and of the entire family unit.

Relationships with Teachers. School psychologists spend a major portion of
their time consulting with teachers about student concerns, working with teachers to
design and implement classroom interventions, and gauging student progress within the
curriculum. Thus, the development of working relationships with teachers is central to
the school psychologist’s work. Dave agreed that his ethical practice was supported by
forming relationships with teachers and school staff. These relationships, according to
Dave, were founded on his willingness to demonstrate respect for teachers and on his
expertise in areas relevant to teacher concerns. Asked to describe a factor that supported
his ability to practice ethically, Dave replied, “Relationships with the staff. . .if they
respect you in terms of your comments and they respect you in terms of your knowledge,
I don’t think it’s much of a challenge.”

Robert, also referring to the importance of developing and maintaining positive
relationships with teachers, discussed his efforts to accomplish this goal. Like many of
the other participants (as discussed in Chapters 3 and 5, and in earlier sections of this
chapter), Robert described his role as one of “balancing” the needs and desires of

teachers with other interested parties. Like Dave, he believed that respect, consistency

185

and knowledge are key factor in his ability to develop solid working relationships with
teachers. However, he recognized that this process can be difﬁcult because of his need to

consider the needs of many parties:

That’s a difﬁcult balancing act. One of the things I found is just being a good
consultant, going in and really listening to what the teacher has to say. Even
though the teacher may not agree with what you are saying as far as making sure
the teacher feels like he or she is part of the team and really using that
information. You may or may not come to the same conclusion that the teacher’s
coming to but you are using the information and when you go back to the teacher,
you are giving the teacher some positive feedback, giving the teacher something
he or she can use. That you’re not saying you don’t believe in what they are
saying and brush the teacher aside and saying they are really not part of the team
after all. That you are really truly, not just on paper, having reciprocal interaction
with that teacher. Some of that comes with the credibility of just being in the
building long enough and having people, again, observe you as far as coming
across both personally in terms of who you are and what you bring there as far as

ethics and morals of who you are as a person. Also the expertise that you bring.

For Robert, establishing credibility with teachers is, in part, possible because of his

unwavering commitment to professional ethics. If he treats teachers with respect and is

consistent in his ethical commitments, then he can maintain a good working relationship

186

with teachers, even if he sometimes disagrees with their assessment and
recommendations.

School psychologists did not view relationships with teachers as something that
developed automatically. Rather, the participants described a process that required time,
attention, and trust. Tom, for example, spoke of the time, respect, and consistency
necessary to establish a relationship of trust with colleagues, particularly with teachers.
If Tom took time with teachers and showed them due respect, and if he was consistent in
his commitments, then he found that he was able to maintain good relationships with

teachers, even if their opinions about a particular student might differ:

In order to maintain a level of trust and personal working relationship, sometimes
you are forced into situations where you have to make decisions that are not going
to come out so you are smelling like a rose. . ..but I still think there is a level of
integrity that maintains when you do what you know is the right thing in your
heart, and it’s in the best interest of the students. I’ve found that people might not
always agree with you but they’ll respect you for your decisions if you are

consistent in your decision-making. That’s really important.

Yet, despite Tom’s focus on relationships, he made a clear distinction between
have a relationship with someone he likes personally and personally invests in, and
having a relationship that is deﬁned solely in professional terms. For Tom, he

demonstrated respect to all teachers by virtue of their position, regardless of whether he

187

likes them personally or not. Tom was ethically committed to demonstrating respect and

honor for all people:

There are two kinds of relationships: There’s a personal relationship and a
professional relationship. I try to communicate respect to teachers always. That
doesn’t mean I like them, but every person is due respect, and what goes around
comes around. If I approach people with contempt, I can pretty well expect that’s
how they are gonna see me, as contemptible. I try to show respect and honor the
job that people do, and be aware of the stress that they are under, but again, I
don’t like everybody that I come into contact with at school, and that includes
parents, kids, teachers, administrators, and everybody else. That’s not what the
world is all about. I’m not Pollyanna, and I don’t necessarily expect them to like
me, but again, I hope that they will respect me for my behavior, the kind of

integrity I attempt to project in my decision-making.

When addressing the issue of ethical consultation with teachers, Dave also made a
distinction between a professional working relationship with teachers, and what he terms

a “buddy-buddy” relationship:

It’s more of a process. It’s sitting down with them, having them identify the
problem, talking with them about it, and I think they start to feel that you’re
listening to them and doing an active listening kind of thing. Then getting them to

give some information about the child. . ..they ﬁnd out that they lmow more about

188

the kid than they thought they did. Then I think they really get
involved. . ..but. . ...only trying to make a good relationship and being buddy-

buddy with the teacher. . ..I don’t think that’s going to help them or help the child.

In terms of his perceptions of professional ethics, Dave draws an important
distinction here between a superﬁcial “buddy-buddy” relationship and a professional
relationship that is child-centered. According to Dave, if a school psychologist develops
a “buddy-buddy” relationship with teachers, it might skew their perspective and introduce
the danger of losing sight of the child. Thus, both Tom and Dave’s ethical standards
involved maintaining relationships with teachers while simultaneously staying focused on
student needs. Teacher relationships that are overly personal may actually lead to
detrimental effects for students, if school psychologists gave primacy to sustaining the
teacher relationship while losing sight of the students’ welfare.

Jill provided an example that served as an illustration of Tom and Dave’s point.
She described a situation wherein her ongoing personal relationship with a teacher
created a strong ethical conﬂict. Jill believed that the teacher’s practices were not
beneﬁcial to the children in her classroom, but, due largely to an ongoing relationship
with the teacher, she struggled with whether to bring this situation to the attention of the

building principal:
It was a classroom program where the teacher really wasn’t doing a lot of direct

instruction in the program, and the kids were just kind of wandering in the

program. And I had a relationship with the teacher, so I tried to give ...... I really

189

liked the teacher, but I felt that she wasn’t, that the kids were kind of being short-

changed.

A major reason behind this ethical conﬂict was Jill’s personal relationship with
the teacher and her desire to promote sound educational practices without damaging her
personal relationship with the teacher. Jill’s discussion of her attempt to put herself in the
teacher’s shoes reﬂected a voice of care, as she considered her position of relationship
with this teacher: “. . ..and she [the teacher] was really being short-changed, too, because
she is a better teacher than that, actually.” The voice of care was also evident in Jill’s
resolution of the problem. While Jill did inform the principal of her concerns, she also
took action to try to support the development of the teacher and to provide both personal
and professional support. She explained, “I was supportive throughout, you know, and
she would talk about the things that people were asking her to do, and I would try to be
supportive and telling her that they were positive changes that were occurring.”

Joyce believed that good relationships with teachers were important; however,
she described the same type of cautions that Dave and Tom described about becoming
overly involved with teachers on a personal level. She explained that too much energy
invested in personal relationships with staff can actually be detrimental to students,
stating “I think it wouldn’t necessarily always be good for the child if you were always
really worried about maintaining a good relationship with the teacher.” Just as Dave
indicated, Joyce stayed focused on the student in her work with teachers to avoid ethical
problems that could arise when a school psychologist forms a personal ﬁiendship with

teachers.

190

Joyce spoke of another ongoing ethical problem that she has faced with teachers
in the secondary school she serves. This problematic issue pertains to her
recommendations for classroom accommodations for students with disabilities. The
general education teachers were unwilling to change their grading practices to
accommodate students with disabilities who qualify for special education services. Joyce
identiﬁed the ethical conﬂict: “The core conﬂict is how can I maintain their respect and
keep them seeing me as somebody to work with but keep trying to change that system.”
Joyce attributed part of the difﬁculty of this situation to her relative lack of ongoing
relationship with the secondary teachers and students. She explained, “A big factor is
that I don’t have any ongoing relationship with them in the secondary schools. I see the
kids every three years. I’ll see them and I’ll do the evaluation. I make the
recommendations and who knows what happens after that.”

Joyce’s lack of relationship with the secondary teachers contributed to their
resistance to implementing her recommendations. Given her high caseload and the
system’s limited ﬁnancial resources, Joyce did not have the time to develop the type of
relationship with teachers that is necessary to work collaboratively as a team. Thus, an
ethical conﬂict existed because she believed that solid working relationships with
teachers are necessary for promoting students’ best interests; however, systemic barriers
prevented her from developing these relationships.

Tom also described a situation where teachers were resistant to special education
services in their school building. He referred to a situation in one of his buildings which
housed a self-contained EMI program. This situation occurred early in his career at a

time when he had been servicing the building for only a short time. He explained that

191

many of the general education teachers and some administrators in that building had
made it clear that they did not agree with the existence of the classroom in their building,
nor did they want any of the students mainstreamed into their classrooms. This elicited
concerns from parents who complained that their children were being discriminated
against and were being treated unfairly. In reﬂecting on his decision of how to handle
this problem, Tom articulated his conﬂict: “The conﬂict for me, right off the hat, was
putting my relationship with staff in that building at risk in terms of what my role was
and what I stood for and what I was going to tolerate.” In the end, Tom decided to
elevate students’ well-being above his relationship with the teachers and brought the

concern to the school’s administrators:

It ended up in a meeting with the principal, my boss, the director of special
education, to talk about what my allegiances were and to shed light on the issue.
We got some action and closely examined what was happening with the kids’
IEPs and how they were mainstreamed. We focused on the solution of the

problem, not on an individual person’s behaviors or motives.

Tom clearly recognized that he was threatening his relationships with the general

education teachers but purposely chose to remain committed to child advocacy,

explaining,

I recognized it as a wrong, as a violation of the kids’ rights, and I just didn’t feel I

have much to lose. . ..If they were going to hate me, they’re gonna hate me. My

192

job is not to be liked by teachers. My job is to do what’s right for kids. That’s

who I am in ﬁrst service to, those kids and their parents.

In this situation, Tom experienced ethical conﬂict when he was faced with whether to
support the teachers’ perspectives, and thereby prevent strain in his relationship with
them, or to support what he thought was the best course of action for the students. In
deciding to maintain his ethical commitments to child advocacy and “to do what’s right
for kids,” he was willing to experience some strain in his relationship with teachers.

This situation illustrates the intense difﬁcult that school psychologists can face
within the web of relationships when different people have differing and conﬂicting
opinions. Tom desired to establish positive relationships with the teachers, because he
thought that these relationships would set the stage for collaborative work for students,
but he did not want to sacriﬁce his ethical commitment to child advocacy. In this case,
he was willing to temporarily experience strain in his relationships with teachers to

support the maintenance of the services that the students needed.

Relationships with Administrators. In Chapter 3, the importance of
administrative support to the successful and ethical functioning of school psychologists
was described, along with the tremendous ethical conﬂict that can exist when
administrators pressure school psychologists to act unethically. The participants in this
study did not speak of the administrators with whom they work as a faceless, detached

facet of the system; rather, administrators were referred to in relationship terms. Nick

193

stated that professional relationships with administrators comprise a key factor in his

ability to practice ethically:

If I have a good relationship with the special education director, and they
understand how I think and operate, then generally I have found them to be
supportive of what I’m trying to do. . ...and not just the special ed. director, but
administrators as well. If there is a relationship there, an understanding there,

then generally they are supportive.

The situation discussed by Tom (explained above) also involved a relationship
with the building administrators. Tom’s decision involved conﬁ'onting the building
principal, a person with whom he was just beginning to establish a working relationship,

in his efforts to ensure the children’s right to an appropriate education:

I attacked it as a problem. I went to the people who I knew were the only ones
who could really effect a change realistically. It was probably going to be
through some coercion, but that’s their job. Administrators need to administrate,
and sometimes that is going to piss people off, but too bad. It it’s trampling on
the rights of kids, then they need to be pissed off a little bit. . ..They’re basically
defenseless, these kids, and I thought there was a little bit of bullying going on,
sort of a lack of administrative gumption on the part of the principal, who was
well aware of it by now. She was just kind of not doing her job to remedy the

situation, so I put myself at risk in my relationship with this principal.

194

Although Tom no longer serves that building, he believed that he was able to establish
and maintain a solid relationship with the principal, largely because of his consistent
efforts to advocate for students and to maintain his ethical standards for advocacy.
Maintaining the student at the center of his decision-making process has allowed him to
establish positive relationships and to stand by decisions that may not originally be

supported by administrators:

I felt I left on very good terms with that principal and had a very good working
relationship with her because 1 demonstrated consistency in my behavior with her.
I right away established who I was and what I was about, and she was the kind of

person who appreciated that sort of approach.

For Tom, his dedication to practicing consistently according to his ethical principles was
key to establishing a good working relationship with administrators. This solid
relationship, in turn, formed a basis that allowed him to continue practicing according to
his ethical convictions, even when he did not agree with the administrator’s perspective.

Jill, as an employee of an intermediate school district, has been placed in many
different districts and has thus worked with many different administrators. She drew on
her oft-changing placement and roles to emphasize the importance of developing

relationships to establish credibility:

I have had a lot of changing from district to district. So every district you go into,

you have to kind of reestablish relationships, and I think your ethics is part of that

195

reestablishing credibility. Like when I ﬁrst came to [district’s name], they didn’t
want me to attend stafﬁng meetings. . ..but I felt I needed to be there, ethically, to
do a good job, I needed to be at those staff meetings. And now, it’s pretty much

an expectation that I attend these staff meetings.

Gradually, as she developed a relationship with the principal, she became what
Jill described as “very, very, very supportive of [my] role.” As was true in Tom’s case,
Jill found that establishing a relationship with her building administrator was key to
creating an environment that was supportive of her ethical decision making.

Jill’s relationships with the building principal and special education director were
also a central consideration in a situation where she made a recommendation that a
student’s eligibility be changed, despite the fact that she was the only one that supported
this decision. She cited “existing relationships with the administrators” and “wanting to
please people that you have a long-standing relationship with, like the building principle”
as factors that made this decision very difﬁcult for her. She desired to remain true to her
ethical conviction about a students’ needs, but she did not want to threaten her
relationship with the administrator. However, she was willing to place these relationships
in the background, at least temporarily, to support what she viewed as a decision that was
“in the child’s best interest.” Jill believed that the family needed to understand the
child’s accurate level of functioning to meet the child’s needs, so she was considering the
unique family context in making her decision. Likewise, she thought that the teachers
needed to know the child’s functioning to best meet the students’ educational needs.

Thus, she maintained the child, as his needs and unique circumstances, at the forefront of

196

her ethical reasoning process. Stressing the needs of the family in this situation, she
stated, “That family constellation needed to come to more of a resolution than it had
come to. I needed to be honest, and teachers needed to know accurately where the child
was, not pretend he was something else.” Jill recalled that although her relationship was
strained temporarily due to her decision, the quality and depth of the relationship
increased in the long run due to Jill’s willingness to stand by her ethical convictions,
facilitating later decision-making. Jill was honest, which, in her case, is a universally
applied standard, thereby exercising a voice of justice. However, her main motivation in
this case was the child’s needs and the long-term welfare of the child, evidencing a voice

of care.

Relationships with Other Team Members and School Professionals. Many
researchers and theorists interested in educational reform have identiﬁed collaborative
team problem-solving as the key to successful schools (Wiggens, 1989). Although the
history of team approaches in education is relatively short-lived, recent changes,
especially the Regular Education Initiative supporting inclusive education of students
with disabilities, have led to increasing focus on collaborative problem-solving teams
(Schattman & Benay, 1992; Shaw & Swerdik, 1995). Increasingly, collaborative teams
are viewed as the most effective means of meeting the needs of an ever diverse student
body, and also empowering teachers to make signiﬁcant changes in their teaching
approaches (Shaw & Swerdik, 1995). Multi-disciplinary teams involve professionals
from a variety of disciplines, backgrounds, and areas of expertise (Maher & Pﬁeffer,

1983), and the school psychologist is often relied upon as a team facilitator (Shaw &

197

Swerdik, 1995; Ysseldyke, Algozzine & Mitchell, 1982). Thus, school psychologists
frequently play an integral role in team functioning, factors which have many
implications for ethical practice. The school psychologists in this study described two
major issues related to team functioning and ethical practice: The role of colleague
support in practicing ethically, and the conﬂicts that can arise when colleagues make
unethical decisions.

First, several of participants in this study noted that team collaboration was
critical to their ability to practice ethically and to establish credibility as an ethical school
psychologist. When Emily entered her present district as a novice school psychologist,
she recalled that the development of trust with teacher consultants was a challenge but

something that was critical to her establishment of credibility. Emily explained:

Our TC [teacher consultant] model is different than a lot of places, their main job
is to do the achievement testing, and I would do all the achievement testing and
all the ability testing. The resource teacher would always provide some, but we
always did it. But in [district], their feeling is that they really do that, that’s role.
So I came in doing everything, and I’m sure that was perceived as not trusting
them or not being part of their team. And so now I’ve modiﬁed it, I probably do
less achievement testing, and I’ve also established a trust factor that I know their
work. Certainly, on a lot of kids I question, I still run through a brief battery.
That is, because there’s a trust, there has to be a stronger relationship when you’re

using their data, too.

198

Emily believed that her ability to trust the teacher consultants on her team resulted in a
smoother, more efﬁcient process, resulting in better services for children. Thus, the solid
working relationships, founded on trust and mutual credibility, allowed her to maintain
her ethical commitment to child advocacy.

Just as team members may create ethical concerns for the school psychologists,
the ethical decisions of other team members could also empower school psychologists
and challenge them to remain committed to ethical practice. Emily, for instance, believed
that her fellow team members were a critical factor in holding her accountable to ethical

practice:

I think my peers really have the best interest of children in mind and are very
ethical people. In general, most of the people that I work with on the core team,
we have very similar principles. . ...And we share and hold each other accountable

for that standard of practice.

Jennifer also thought that the collaborative team model in her district, based on
the multidisciplinary model mandated by federal and state law, supported her ethical

practice ‘yvhen you’re deciding who to test and who not to:”

We have the stafﬁng team set up that involves. . .the special ed. teacher, and the
reading teacher, and the at-risk person, and the principal, and the social worker
and the counselor, and we’re all there, and the teacher. I think we do a good job

at looking at all of the issues and making good decisions in that way, so I don’t

199

feel like they’re one side, or we’re just looking at kids that are behavior problems,

or we’re just looking at kids whose parents don’t work. . ..

The team, according to Jennifer, served the function of helping to ensure that her
decisions were as free from bias and undue inﬂuence as possible, an important facet of
what Jennifer deﬁned as ethical practice.

Ken described a particular example where a team member’s ethical decision
empowered him in his own ethical thinking and action. He discussed an ethical dilemma
where an administrator made a unilateral decision to place a student in a program that
was not appropriate for the student’s needs. This action prompted the social worker on
the multidisciplinary team to make a report to the district’s protection and advocacy
committee. When the administrator called a meeting in an attempt to identify the person
who ﬁled the report, Ken was placed in a position of having either to disagree with an
educationally unsound student placement or to support the social worker’s stance. When
the social worker stated that she had made the referral and would do it again, Ken
developed a great admiration for her but questioned how he would handle the same

situation:

I guess it was a dilemma that we were both experiencing of how to handle these
questions that were conring at us and, of course, the threat was that you were
going to lose your job because you were trying to protect the kid’s interests. She

[the social worker] stuck right with it. It was great.

200

The social worker’s courage and unwavering commitment to her ethical position
empowered Ken, who recalled the tremendous amount of respect that the social worker
gained ﬁom both himself and other staff members as a result of her action: “At the time,
I was surprised that she spoke up, and it made me feel braver and the next time something
happened to me, I could feel more brave and able to react in the same way.” In this
situation, Ken did not come forward to support his colleague overtly; nevertheless, he
was empowered in his own ethical convictions by viewing his colleague’s willingness to
risk her own job to make a decision that she deemed as ethical and child-focused.

Despite these positive connnents, team ﬁmctioning can provide a supportive
environment for ethical decisions, working as a team can also create problems. As
professionals working in conjunction with a team of professionals from multiple
disciplines, school psychologists exist in a setting where there is inherent potential for
ethical conﬂict. One could experience ethical conﬂict in relationship to the decisions of
other school psychologists or in relationship to the decisions of professionals from other
disciplines. The school psychologists in this study described many situations where they
experienced ethical conﬂict due to a decision made by a team member.

Jill, for example, described how the decisions of team members sometimes
created ethical conﬂict for her. She recalled, “Sometimes I question what other people
are doing that I work with,” citing two situations where she felt concern about a team
members’ ethical behavior. One situation involved a social worker who allowed a social
work intern to handle a highly sensitive case with minimal supervision. This created an
ethical conﬂict for Jill, who viewed the intern as underprepared and underqualiﬁed for

this case. From Jill’s perspective, the school social worker made an erroneous and

201

unethical decision in assigning the intern to handle independently. She described the

case:

I had a child who has just been diagnosed outside of the school as a child with
Aspberger’s syndrome, and when I met with the mom today, she said that the
social worker had been out to observe the child at preschool, and she named the
social worker, it was an intern. And it’s a child who’s ﬁve. . .I guess I feel
strongly that there is a place for interns and interns to have good experiences, but
I think as a parent, I would want to be dealing with more than just an intern on
some of these cases. . ..I wouldn’t be doing that. I would not be conducting
business that way. But my standards are different sometimes than other people’s
standards, and that sometimes is a dilemma, because I feel that there is a way to

do business that is the right way, and that doesn’t always occur.

For Jill, the decisions of her teammates sometimes caused ethical conﬂict,
particularly when she believed that the decision might have brought harm to students.
When this conﬂict occurred, she felt in many ways stuck because the decisions were
sometimes beyond her control. However, she viewed it as her ethical responsibility to
confront this unethical behavior by discussing her concerns with the person making the
decision. This is not an easy decision, because it could cause strain in the relationship
with the team member.

The second situation that Jill described involved the family of a child with a three-

year-old daughter who exhibited some signs of autism. According to Jill, the teacher

202

consultant on the team persisted in vacillating on the diagnosis, resulting in what Jill
termed a “gutwrenching experience” for the family. Experiencing ethical conﬂict about
how to deal with this problem, Jill opted to confront the teacher consultant, supporting
her decision as one that was in the best interest of the family. This example illustrates the
conﬂict that exists when one must place one relationship in jeopardy to maintain another
within the web. To promote care for the child, Jill was willing to place her relationship
with her team member in jeopardy.

Jennifer agreed that working within a multi-disciplinary team model, although
providing important means of collaborative decision-making, can raise questions about

decisions of a fellow teammate:

You could have an issue, like you feel someone on the team, maybe the speech
therapist, where you feel like they are dropping the ball on this kid. You feel like
they are doing articulation testing, because that’s all they like to do, but doesn’t

the kid need some language?

Jennifer, as described above, believed that her own professional ethical
development has been in large part characterized by her increasing ability and willingness
to trust the input of her teammates rather than to make a unilateral decision herself.
However, she also recognized the special challenges that exist when one works as a
member of a team, describing a speciﬁc ethical problem that she faced in her own
practice. The situation involved an student with Asperger’s Syndrome who was included

in general education and who, according to Jennifer, was highly successful due, in large

203

part, to the general education teacher’s skill in working with the student. However,
earlier in the year, the general education teacher had requested that the student be moved
from her classroom into a self-contained program due to behavior problems. When the
behavior problems seemed to come under better control, several members of the team
thought that the student was doing well in the classroom under this general education
teacher’s instruction; however, because they were unsure of the skill of the teacher with
whom the student would be placed during the next school year, they were recommending
a self-contained Autistic Impaired (AI) program for next year. This decision was made
by limited members of the Multi-disciplinary Education Team (MET), without the input

of the current general education teacher:

The core problem was that part of the MET team was extremely pleased with
where that student was at and was afraid that if they gave another part of the MET
team too much information, that might change. . ..We thought that if we offered it
[the self-contained program] right now, the general education teacher was going
to jump for it and really push for it and try to get him out [of her classroom]
because she had done that earlier in the year when he wasn’t being so good. She
had worked so well with him and the AI consultant had helped out and now he
was getting these services and we were aﬁ'aid that she was going to go back into

that mode of ‘Get him out of the classroom.

As Jennifer reﬂected on the situation, she recalls feeling conﬂicted between her

own commitment to being completely honest coupled with pressure from other team

204

members to act with less candidness. At one point in a meeting that did involve the entire
MET team, including the general education teacher, Jennifer did recall that she almost
brought up the issue, but she opted not to at that point. She recalled that at that point,
withholding the information from the teacher became a decision that was not an issue of

“we forgot to say it” but rather a deliberate “we weren’t going to say it:”

After that was said, I thought it didn’t feel right because I’m not, my thing is that I
like to totally tell people everything and weigh out all of that stuff, so it didn’t feel
right. I was kind of going by the other two MET members and thinking this is
also their thinking that is wouldn’t be smart and maybe we need to put the student
ﬁrst and you know. . ..but it was a dilemma. It was a funny feeling that doesn’t

quite sit right and you knew that something wasn’t right.

Jennifer went on to explain why she made the decision to go along with keeping the

information from the teacher, despite her judgment about what was right:

I think it was just the fact that there were the two other MET members and one of
them is more experienced and it was kind of the idea that it was okay and we
don’t have to go into that right now and it’s not going to matter. At that point, I
think we had actually found out that it [the self-contained AI program] was full
anyway. . ..so why bring all that stuff up right now. So then what could I have

done? I could have said. . ...I don’t know, Ijust didn’t feel so strongly about it at

205

the time, and I probably wouldn’t have to this day, unless it had come out the way

it did and the teacher had been so upset.

Jennifer handled her conﬂict by approaching the teacher and telling her that she was
wrong in withholding the information and that she would have handled it differently if

she encountered a similar situation:

I’m sure I would do it differently and I even told that to the teacher. I said, ‘You
know, this was a huge case. I’ve never had a kid with Asberger’s before. We
involved this big team, and it was a big process. We tried to make the student the

center, but you are right. We left you out on this piece.’

In this situation, Jennifer’s and the team’s commitment to child advocacy was
elevated above that of the relationship with the teacher. Although the team members
realized that they were withholding information from the teacher, they thought that this
withholding was necessary to avoid threat to the student’s future progress. As Jennifer
discussed her conﬂict, she supported her agreement with the decision, although it went
against her commitment to complete honesty, in the name of student advocacy: “I think
we were trying to protect the student. We were seeing ourselves as putting the student
ﬁrst. . ..”.

In addition to problematic ethical situations that can arise when working with
professionals from other disciplines, school psychologists might also be faced with

having to confront the unethical behavior of fellow school psychologists. Dave has dealt

206

with situations where he had a relationship with a school psychologist who completed a
previous evaluation on a student Dave was re-evaluating. As he reviewed prior testing,

Dave discovered that the previous psychologist had completed several cases

...didn’t use appropriate measures, didn’t complete the measures, and classiﬁed a
student into a category that would really be damaging to that student: EMI.

When I came into the district to do a re-evaluation, I found that it was incorrect. I
did testing and didn’t say anything to the administrator or teachers there, but I
reclassiﬁed him into the appropriate category, which is LD. The ethical issue is
‘What does one do with the psychologist?’ Do I talk to the supervisor? Do I talk

to them?

Dave’s discussion of his decision and resulting actions illustrates the multiple levels that

can be involved when remedying an ethical violation:

When I looked through the ﬁles, there were some tests that weren’t even given,
and some things that were guessed on, and I started thinking, ‘Oh, boy, am I
missing something here?’ I was trying to decide what was the right thing to do,
but then when I went back through other students’ ﬁles for re-evaluations, I saw
there were actually two and it turned out to be three later. This led me into
deciding that I ﬁrst had to sit down and talk with him [the psychologist]. And

then I had to make the changes and deal with the other special ed. staff when, all

207

of the sudden, these kids are coming out of EM] and going into something

different. Those were some of the difﬁculties.

Dave recognized that the other school psychologist’s evaluation process was
harming multiple students, so he chose to take the time and effort necessary to approach
the psychologist with his concerns, as well as to take efforts to remedy the errors. In this
situation, Dave seemed to struggle with several issues. First, he had an obligation to
protect fellow school psychologists and the profession. By calling the other school
psychologist’s diagnosis into question, he struggled with whether he was being disloyal
to the profession. Second, despite his feelings of loyalty, he concluded that he was
ultimately responsible for taking action to promote students’ welfare and was willing to
bring the concern to the other school psychologists’ attention. Dave, along with the other
school psychologists, recognized that their position within teams had the potential to
create opportunities for ethical practice, as well as to create challenges. They knew that
they must sometimes risk their interpersonal relationships to promote students’ welfare.
This approach to managing the web of relationships differs from Gilligan’s idea of an
ethic of care. The school psychologists in this study believed that relationships must
sometimes be breached to maintain ethical practice. Relationships, in general, appear to

be secondary to the child’s welfare.

Relationships with Community Professionals. Given the increased emphasis on
inter-agency collaboration, school psychologists also commonly ﬁnd themselves forming

and working with relationships with community therapists, medical professionals, and

208

 

other professionals outside the school system. Given the present trend in education,
school psychologists will probably ﬁnd inter-agency collaboration increasingly more
important in their work with children and families (Ascher, 1990; Knitzer, 1993; Munger,
1991; Reed et al., 1997). This collaborative interaction also creates the potential for
ethical conﬂict.

Mike described a situation where his relationships with other professionals
outside the school environment was a central factor in his decision. He was evaluating a
student who had previously received a diagnosis of Aspberger’s syndrome and believed
that the diagnosis was inaccurate. Thus, he was faced with the situation of “how do I tell
a parent that the diagnosis and problem of the child that they’ve been believing for ﬁve
years is not what I think the problem is.” One of the primary considerations for Mike as
he worked through this case was the reputation of the professionals who had made the
original diagnosis, “. . ..protecting my relationship with and the reputation of the other two
people that did the [original] evaluation.” Just as Dave expressed, Mike believed a
certain sense of obligation to protect the credibility of colleagues and the profession;
however, his main concern was making a decision that would beneﬁt the child and

family.

Existing in a Web of Relationships: The Need for Conﬁdentiality

Clearly, school psychologists discussed their ethical commitments and

responsibilities as embedded within many different relationships. They recognized that

209

these relationships held the potential for either supporting or hindering ethical practice.
Often, they were willing to raise student concerns above concerns about relationships to
maintain their ethical commitments to student advocacy.

Given this complicated web of relationships in which the school psychologist
resides, conﬁdentiality becomes a critical ethical consideration. According to the NASP
ethical guidelines, school psychologists are responsible for working to maintain student

conﬁdentiality:

School psychologists respect the conﬁdentiality of information obtained during
their professional work. Information is revealed only with the informed consent
of the client, or the client’s parent or legal guardian, except in those situations in
which failure to release information would result in clear danger to the client or
others. . ...School psychologists discuss conﬁdential information only for

professional purposes and only with persons who have a legitimate need to know.

As these school psychologists discussed the particular ethical challenges that arise
from this web of relationships, they overwhelming referred to student conﬁdentiality as
one of their major concerns. Although they were aware of their professional ethical
responsibility outlined in the NASP guidelines, they expressed the difﬁculty of
translating this into practice and differentiating when information should be shared, for
example, when it “would result in clear danger to the client or others” and when a person
other than the client “has a legitimate need to know.” Robert believed that the complex

web of relationships in which a school psychologist exists necessitates closer attention to

210

the ethical responsibility of conﬁdentiality, a principle that can be very difﬁcult to uphold

with this web:

In some ways, I think school psychologists have to be even more diligent when
you talk about conﬁdentiality, mainly because of all the people you are interacting
with. Clinical psychologists see kids in their ofﬁce and may relate to or call
someone about this child, or may call the physician or something like that, but
school psychologists, just walking down the hall, run into teachers, into students,
secretaries. . ...people are always wanting information. We have a very unique set
of information that we carry around with us and people—I don’t care who it is,
secretaries, administrators, even custodians—seem to want the information that

you have.

Jennifer agreed, suggesting that this is one way that the ethical concems of a
school psychologist may differ from those faced by other psychologists: “I guess. . .there
might be more issues of conﬁdentiality among staff. There’s just more staff to talk with,
there are more kids around, so you might hear something from one kid about another
kid. . ..[and] what do you do with that.” Jennifer has frequently found herself in situations
where she was asked to disclose information in a way that made her uncomfortable. Her
efforts to maintain client conﬁdentiality was evident in many components of her practice,
ranging from everyday interactions with school staff to what she has chosen to document

in her written reports:

211

I think about that often when I’m talking with people or just making sure I’m
talking to that one person, or if it’s a stafﬁng, then it’s OK. Having the door shut,
asking parents if they want certain pieces in the reports, putting the reports where

they are supposed to be, not ﬂoating them around everywhere.

Dave also described pressure that he sometimes feels from school staff who seek
information about a child. To deal with this ethical conﬂict of disseminating information,
he sought to make a judgment about whether the desired information was relevant to the

child’s education:

I sometimes get pressure in the school for information, events, some of the family
background. If I don’t think it’s pertinent, I don’t talk about it. It may be
pertinent but may not be pertinent in the school setting, so I don’t talk about it in
my report. Sometimes, I get pressure, like ‘What do you know about this
background?’, ‘15 it a dysﬁrnctional family?’ and that type of thing, and it may
very well be, but if it doesn’t relate to school, say it only relates to a therapist

working with him, I won’t put it in there.

In his practice, Mike viewed conﬁdentiality as the biggest ethical challenge that he faces:

I think that may be the greatest dissonance that I have. If a kid gives me a piece

of information, whether to share it with the parents or whether to share it with the

school people, and how I respect the conﬁdentiality of what the kid told you. . ..I

212

think the major issue in my ethical conﬂict would be if a kid told me that he was
going to hurt himself, how do I protect the conﬁdentiality of the kid, and yet tell
the parent or tell the school to monitor the kid. And I think you always err on the
conservative side, you always give up conﬁdentiality for the sake of the kid, but
with trust that the other people handle it with their conﬁdentiality and where they

got the information.

Reﬂecting on their experiences, these school psychologists described one of their major
ethical challenges as the difﬁculty of respecting and maintaining child conﬁdentiality
while existing in multiple relationships with parents, school staff, and community
professionals. The appropriate, ethical sharing of information is an area that is very
difﬁcult as school psychologists balance the desire to respect students’ rights while also
sharing information that school staff should know to promote student learning and
development. This issue provides a prime illustration that even though professional
organizations such as NASP outline ethical standards, there are many difﬁculties and
challenges as each individual psychologist translates these guidelines into their everyday

practice.

IDEA ’97 and Relationships

As referred to several times in the discussion of school psychologists’

relationships with families, one factor that will inﬂuence the future practice of school

psychology is IDEA ’97. Although most districts are still in the process of examining the

213

new laws and modifying their practices to meet the law, the participants expressed
deﬁnite ideas about the effects of this legislation on their ethical practice.

The school psychologists in this study thought that the most signiﬁcant impact
would be apparent in the more comprehensive inclusion of parents in the evaluation
process and programming decisions. Joyce saw the increased involvement of parents as
positive because she has come to value more and more the input and evaluation of
parents. Nevertheless, she thought that family involvement would increase the potential
for ethical conﬂict within the complex web of participants, making ethical practice even

more challenging for the school psychologist:

Whenever you have more involvement of parents, you have more chances of
having ethical issues because they are coming in with their own side of things,
and the teachers are coming in and the administrators are coming in. . ..I think you

are more torn in different ways in ﬁnding the best ways for that student.

Emily evaluated IDEA’s greater emphasis on parental involvement throughout
the referral and evaluation process as a factor that has vastly improved the assessment
process and the ongoing collaboration between home and school; however, she also
believed that the elimination of the MET meeting may decrease the general education

teachers’ sense of involvement.

I really like the evaluation review meetings that really call the group together. . .I

think it’s increased the, it’s given us a better assessment, it’s certainly provided a

214

vehicle for better communication right off the start, with the parent and the
teachers. What I haven’t liked is they’ve taken away the MET meeting, because it
really allowed the teachers to really share data and hear more about the student
and it allowed you to, I guess more time to discuss and explore, where I think
there’s a real pressure if you do the MET and IEPC together just to get it all done,
it doesn’t allow some of the brainstorming and communication that occurred

before.

Emily had concerns that the elimination of meetings would result in less collaboration
and in lower quality recommendations, changes that might ultimately harm children.
Jennifer believed that the greater involvement of parents could create ethical
tensions related to the complete sharing of information. School psychologists have an
ethical responsibility to maintain communication with parents regarding all aspects of
their contact with the child. This responsibility is outlined in the NASP ethical
guidelines, which state that “parents and students are to be fully informed about all
relevant aspects of school psychological services in advance.” Jennifer indicated that
teachers, psychologists, administrators and other school staff may be less inclined to
share their true impressions of the child if the parent is present, illuminating ethical

concerns about keeping the parents fully informed.

The main issue is probably the idea of having the parents involved at the stafﬁng

or any time you are talking about possibly doing an evaluation or a referral, and

so we have already come across the issue that teachers want there to be a time

215

where they can just talk about the kid without the parent there because there are
things that they want to tell about the parent that they can’t say in front of the
parents. Or about the kid maybe even that they don’t want to have to sort of dress

up to not hurt the parents’ feelings, so I think that is a dilemma.

Dave does not see IDEA as changing his own practice currently, but he reported

some concerns that he has heard expressed by his colleagues:

In talking to some peOple, they were concerned that if the parents are right there,
that other people might hold back on saying some things. . ..it might be more
unethical not to talk about the things they are concerned about because of the fear

of hurting the parents or liability issues or that kind of thing.

While the full impact of IDEA ’97 on the practice of school psychology has yet to
be fully understood, several potential implications for ethical practice were discussed by
these school psychologists. They believed that greater parental involvement will both
increase home-school communication and collaboration, as well as illuminate ethical
issues related to keeping parents informed. They also thought that while the legislation is
purported to increase the collaborative nature of evaluation and programming, the
elimination of certain meetings may actually make it more difﬁcult to keep teachers

involved as integral members of evaluation and program planning teams.

216

Summary. Clearly, school psychologists did not view the system as mechanistic
and impersonal, nor did they see themselves as practicing within a vacuum. On the
contrary, they understood themselves as embedded within a web of relationships that
creates a complicated tangle of obligations and potential ethical conﬂicts. As described
by these participants, the school psychologist faces a very difﬁcult task in seeking
solutions to ethical problems that are satisfactory to all of these relationship participants,
while dealing with rifts in relationships that can occur when a school psychologists’
decision differs from the position of others within the relationship web. Although school
psychologists were cognizant of the need to recognize possible damage to relationships,
they acknowledged that it was difﬁcult, if not impossible, to make decisions that satisfy
all involved. They described numerous situations where they sacriﬁced relationships,
although in many cases only temporarily, to maintain student welfare as the motivation
behind their decisions and actions.

The ability to deal with conﬂicting interests and agendas was not a skill or an
ability that school psychologists bring with them upon entry into the profession. Rather,
when describing their ability to “navigate” their way around this complex web of
relationships and to balance the needs of multiple parties, many of the school
psychologists described a developmental process. With time, experience, knowledge of
the system, and personal reﬂection, they became increasingly able to understand people’s
needs, identify potential conﬂicts of interests, and balance the varied needs of multiple
clients by consistently maintaining the child at the center of their practice. Thus,
consistent with classic theorists (i.e., Kohlberg, Gilligan) who conceptualized moral

thinking and action as developmental, these school psychologists reported their own

217

professional ethical commitments as developmental rather than ﬁxed, suggesting the need
to further examine the process whereby school psychologists come to navigate the ethical
facets of their role.

Additionally, these school psychologists described intense systemic pressure to
compromise ethical standards to promote the system above student welfare.
Nevertheless, they expressed hope that their moral voices could emerge from these
systems. In discussing the context within which they worked, then, they described
factors that allowed their moral voices to emerge from a system that presents many
baniers to ethical commitments. The exploration of the developmental and emergent

nature of school psychologists’ moral voices is the goal of the next chapter.

218

Chapter 7

Development and Emergence of Moral Voice

One possible way of construing ethical thinking and action is to view it as a static
trait that a person either does or does not possess. However, theorists, most notably
Gilligan (1982) and Kohlberg (1969), have agreed that moral voice is more accurately
conceptualized as developmental in nature, and each have articulated stage theories
where they outline various stages of moral development. While each of these theorists
have distinct and different conceptions of the nature of moral development, they make the
common assertion that any individual’s functioning in the moral domain can be assessed
and categorized into one of their stages. These theories have been discussed mainly in
relation to moral development in one’s personal life; however, the question remains
whether moral development can also be conceptualized within the framework of one’s
professional career.

These data in the present study suggest that moral development in the professional
domain must be understood as continuous with, yet in many ways distinct from, moral
development in the personal domain. As discussed in Chapter 4, many of the school
psychologists understood the core of their professional ethical commitments as stemming
from their personal ethical commitments and the essence of their personhood;
nevertheless, a developmental theme was clearly evident as school psychologists
reﬂected upon their professional experience. Many of the school psychologists did not
conceptualize their ethical commitments and perspective as something that was gained in

their training or that they “possessed” in ﬁrll immediately upon entering practice, rather,

219

they described their ethical commitments as either 1) a dynamic phenomenon that
developed with experience, or 2) as inherent in their personhood but developing within
the context of their professional activities.

Close examination of these data indicated that the moral voices of school
psychologists must be understood as both developmental and emergent. Deﬁnitions of
these two words must be clariﬁed, as they will be used as distinct but complementary
terms in this present discussion. First, development is a word commonly used in the ﬁeld
of psychology to communicate growth and change. To say that something is
developmental in nature is to characterize it as evolving, maturing, growing and opening.
Developmental psychologists deﬁne the concept of development in distinctive ways that
reﬂect speciﬁc philosophical, social and political beliefs. However, each deﬁnition
typically involves similar ideas about the focus of developmental theory and analysis.
For example, Miller (1993) argues that the critical component of a developmental theory
is “change over time” (p. 4). Cobb (1998) argued that all deﬁnitions of development
have in common their “attempt to explain the constancies and changes in function that
occur throughout the life course” (p. 43). Lerner (1986) asserted that development is
concerned with differences that occur with age and attempts to explain their sources or
causes. Thus, while different theorists focus on different ideas and phenomenon, ranging
from neurological change to environmental inﬂuence, the core idea in development
relates to growth and change across one’s lifespan.

Related to this ideal, though subtly different, is the term emergent, which refers to
the coming forth, the coming into view, or the coming into being that occurs as a result of

inquiry. Qualitative researchers, for instance, when discussing emerging themes, refer to

220

those themes that they may not have anticipated prior to the study but that “came forth”
from the data. As used in this present study, the concept of emergence differs from
development in that it relates more directly to the speciﬁc context. In this chapter, the
word emergent will be used to describe a process of coming forth from the system, or
emerging from beyond systemic barriers. School psychologists described contextual
barriers to their ethical practice; nevertheless, they also identiﬁed contextual factors that
allowed them to exercise and develop their ethical commitments. Certainly, the concepts
of development and emergence are not mutually exclusive but are in many ways
interrelated. Emergence can be understood as a facet of development, while
developmental phenomenon can be understood as emergent in nature. For the purposes
of this study, the concept of development was used to describe a process of growth and
unfolding that school psychologists characterized when describing their ethical thinking.
The concept of emergence, on the other hand, was used to describe factors that school
psychologists described as instrumental in allowing their moral voice to come forth from
the system and be heard more fully. Emergence was used to describe school
psychologists’ increasing ability to exercise their ethical commitment in relation to, and
many times in spite of, the systemic context. Together, these two concepts were
employed to frame the ensuing discussion of the evolution of school psychologists’

ethical thinking over the course of their professional experience.

221

Moral Voice as a Developmental Phenomenon

While these school psychologists understood ethical thinking and behavior as a
characteristic that develops and becomes reﬁned over the course of one’s professional
career, the process was not uniform across psychologists. Some of the school
psychologists believed that the ethical dimensions of their practice, e.g., their
understandings of their ethical responsibilities and their ability to act in an ethically
consistent manner, became much clearer and simpler with experience. Others reported
that as their roles moved beyond testing into other domains, their ethical responsibilities

increased along with the difﬁculties accompanying ethical decision-making.

The Early Years: The Ethical Facets of Testing. One theme reﬂected in these
data was the strong orientation toward testing that characterized several of the
participants’ early careers. In these early years, testing was the oveniding concern both
in their role constructions as well as in their understanding of professional ethical
commitments. Jennifer is the participant with the fewest years of experience, with
nearly four complete years of experience in practice. At this early point in her career, she
continued to report ethical struggles that are largely related to testing. For Jennifer, being
an ethical school psychologist was closely tied to assessment and involved three major
components. First, Jennifer viewed ethics as largely related to “when you’re deciding
who to test and who not to” and “just a real basic thing of doing assessments and being
accurate with the assessments and not fudging scores.” Second, becoming a more ethical

practitioner has involved being more willing to trust others’ input and to rely on team

222

members in coming to a team decision rather than relying solely on her own judgement.
While her ethical position continued to be largely test-based, then, she has become
increasingly willing and able to collaborate around assessment data and eligibility
decisions, thereby sharing ownership of the decision-making process. She explained, “I
think when I ﬁrst started, I felt like I had to make the decision because I couldn’t trust
what the teacher thought, and now I feel like I’m much more open with talking about all
of the results and all that stuf .”

Thirdly, Jennifer’s broadening perspective on ethical practice has encompassed a
greater ability to make recommendations that are less dependent to test data and more
based on a child’s individual needs. During her internship and ﬁrst year in the ﬁeld, she
stuck closely to the idea that if a child meets eligibility criteria, then she should
automatically recommend special education. With experience, however, Jennifer’s
emphasis shifted along with the transformation of her self-perceived role. Whereas the
earlier years of her practice were characterized by strict adherence to policy and rules,
she viewed herself as becoming increasingly focused on children’s needs. Apparent in
Jennifer’s description of her ethical development was a clear shift ﬁom a justice-
orientation (“They all have a right to it”) to a care orientation (“What’s the best for that

child)”:

I think from when I ﬁrst started with my internship, the idea was that if the kid
looks like they are eligible, you deﬁnitely want them in [special
education]. . ..Now, it just seems more and more difﬁcult, the more you look at

programs and other options and trying to be with the new law and trying to be

223

more and more keeping them in the regular program. The idea that these kids
have a right to special education, I don’t feel quite like I used to feel. Now, it’s
more like not that I think they have a right to it, but that I’m looking more at

what’s the best for that child.

To summarize Jennifer’s understanding of her own development, she continued to think
about her ethical obligations and commitments as assessment-focused; however, she
described a transformation in her ethical thinking that was characterized as a gradual
move away from strict, rule-driven reliance on test data to greater reliance on multi-
disciplinary tearn collaboration and on her own professional judgment about what was
best for an individual child. This provided a clear example of how Jennifer’s developing
role deﬁnition inﬂuenced the ethical issues that she saw in practice. She clearly
conceptualized her ethical commitments as developmental and dynamic. Thus, while she
continued to see her role as largely tied to assessment, she was aware that her role
deﬁnition, along with her ethical comrrritrnents and her thinking about ethical issues,

were evolving with experience.

Moving Beyond the Testing Role: Grasping the “Bigger Picture” Consistent
with Jennifer’s assessment of her ethical development, reﬂections of the more
experienced school psychologists also indicated that ethical practice in their early
experience was largely related to testing and assessment. With the progression of one’s
career, however, comes a shift away from strict reliance on test data. Robert, reﬂecting

on 32 years of experience that existed prior to any formal legislation moderating special

224

education services, recalled this “process” through which a strict adherence to tests and

numbers which was gradually replaced by greater conﬁdence in “clinical judgment.”

It’s ahnost like a process. When you’re ﬁrst in the ﬁeld, I know when I was ﬁrst
in the ﬁeld, you’re really sort of driven by the numbers game, like you are really
numbers-oriented and sticking by the facts and nothing but the facts. As you get a

little more experience, I think you start using more clinical judgment.

Likewise, Joyce reﬂected on her early career, recalling her focus on testing and
her resistance to become involved in less prescribed, less mandated domains of school

psychology practice:

..at that point, testing was the thing. You did the testing, you made your
recommendations, and you were done and didn’t get as involved in relationships
and political stuff and other things. The ethical issues as far as testing might be
‘Maybe I didn’t ask that question the right way’ or ‘he was too tired.’ So it more
hinged on the testing part and why that wasn’t the best it could be. Now, it’s

shifted more into relationships or service.

Hence, one hallmark of a seasoned school psychologist seemed to be a perception
of professional ethics that was less closely tied to an assessment function. Joyce
described a developmental process whereby her perspective on ethics shifted from focus

on testing and more prescribed functions to focus on interpersonal relationships and what

225

it means to service children and families in a way that promotes their welfare. Similar to
Jennifer, Joyce’s description involved a developmental process that is characterized by
the increasing presence of a relational, care-based orientation.

Jill believed that her ethics have always centered on her efforts to “do what I feel
is best for children and families;” however, she thought that her idea of “ethical” became
much less constrained over the course of her career, allowing her to focus more on “what
is best for children and families.” She explained, “. . .at ﬁrst, you are probably all
concerned with the testing and just doing it right. And I think after a while, you’re more
comfortable with that role, the testing role, and you are able to look at a bigger picture.”
For Jill, then, the ethical dimension of her practice has in many ways become more
complicated and multi-faceted as her career has progressed. Her expanding role and
experience have also played a role in shaping her current perceptions of the ethical
commitments that she holds as an experienced school psychologist. As she has become
less conﬁned to a single, test-driven manner of looking at children and has gained
experience in the school culture, she has been able to focus more on what is right for the
child in the long run or “in the bigger picture.”

Jill’s ability to look at the “bigger picture” was important in her conceptualization
of what is means to maintain ethically sound practice. Two meanings of “seeing the
bigger picture” were reﬂected in Jill’s responses to interview questions. First, as
described above, she has become increasingly able, with experience, to look beyond test
data to other factors that inﬂuence a child’s life and functioning. Second, Jill’s
professional experience working with people ranging from infancy to adulthood has

allowed her to see that any one program in any given year does not have to solve all of

226

the child’s problems; rather, she viewed intervention as more of a long-term process,
allowing her to see small improvements in functioning as success. Jill has come to
understand that she may not see the beneﬁts of a decision immediately when it is made
but must focus on long-term beneﬁts for students.

One situation reported by Jill involved the re-evaluation of a severely impaired
student who had previously been qualiﬁed as EMI and who was being educated in his
local high school with the support of a resource teacher. Upon conducting the re-
evaluation, it was Jill’s recommendation that TMI was a more appropriate diagnostic
label and that more restrictive services were necessary to meet the student’s needs;.
However, the family strongly opposed this change of label and programming. Some of
the administrators also pressured Jill to retain the original diagnosis due to greater
potential costs to the district from programming and outside evaluations. Despite this
pressure, Jill maintained her position that TMI was the diagnostic label that most
appropriately characterized the child’s functioning and needs. Reﬂecting on this
incident, she thought that she probably would have made the same decision at the

beginning of her career, although the decision may have actually been easier at that point:

It probably would have been easier at the beginning, because I would have just
looked at the test data, and not looked at the other pieces of it. When you start
out, you just tend to look at the data and you may not be necessarily politically
savvy. . ..I would have made the same decision, but maybe it was a bit more gut-
wrenching with time that it would have been because as a new psychologist, I

would have said, ‘Well, here’s the ﬁgures and here’s the data and this is it.

227

Jill described a shift from a one-source view of assessment to a multi-source approach to
assessment that takes into account such factors as interpersonal relationships within the
system. While Jill believed that this process allowed her to make decisions in a way that
is more beneﬁcial for children and families, she acknowledged that this perspective
resulted in a more complex perspective on ethics than she held when she focused strictly
on test data.

Jill’s perception of the “importance of seeing the big picture” was also evident as
she discussed a researcher-generated dilemma where a school psychologist recommended
that a child receive a diagnosis of an emotional impairment. However, the parents
opposed this diagnosis and reﬁrsed services unless the child was labeled as learning
disabled instead of emotionally impaired. Addressing this situation, Jill believed that it
was important to respect the views of the parents, while also being diagnostically honest

and maintaining sight of “the bigger picture:”

I think we always have to remember that it’s parents; the parents have the right to
determine services, or to agree to services or not to agree to services. And
sometimes because a parent makes a decision at one point. . .I have had cases
where they’ve come back and said, “OK, we’ll go with it.” So sometimes, I think
you have to look long-term. I think you have to be honest. I guess some
psychologists don’t care about the accuracy of their labels. I happen to be one
that cares about the accuracy of the label, because I think later on, things may

become more problematic.

228

Mistakes in Decision-Making and Ethical Development. In the example above,
Jill depicted how making the decision that one views as professionally and ethically
correct, despite pressure to make a different decision, can serve the ﬁrnction Of
reinforcing one’s professional ethical commitments. For some practitioners, ethical
development rests on a process of making wrong decisions, facing the consequences of
those decisions, and learning from these mistakes. For example, Nick noted that over the
course of his career, his deﬁnition Of what is ethical has been clariﬁed and simpliﬁed: “I
don’t think it’s changed so much as become more deﬁned. What used to be dilemmas for
me are no longer dilemmas. . ..making the wrong choices, and taking the knowledge and
having it Operate on future choices.” Whereas Jill reported more complicated ethical-
decision making later in her career, Nick reported that early experiences simpliﬁed his
ethical decision-making. This increasing clarity, according to Nick, has resulted in fewer

ethical dilemmas:

I don’t feel that I face as many dilemmas any more. So, my ethics have been
deﬁned by the dilemmas that I have experienced in the past. SO now, I behave
according to those lessons and those ethics that were developed through
experience. So, I am operating in accordance with those ethics now, but not in a

dilemma sort of way.

Early mistakes in decision-making were also highly inﬂuential in Tom’s professional

ethical deve10pment:

229

I think I’ve gotten a little bit wise about how to employ ethics to good advantage
in terms of people that we serve, but I’ve made a few mistakes with regards to
how I’ve handled situations that I thought were egregious, and I wasn’t exactly
politically savvy about some things and I’ve learned through some of those
painful experiences how to get things done in a manner that is positive and helps

everybody come out ahead.

Tom recalled a speciﬁc situation early in his career where he made a mistake that

formed how he now looks at his ethical responsibility:

This was an elementary school teacher who had a long history of difﬁculty
emotionally, particularly interacting with students that challenged her authority
and competence as a classroom manager, and at one point, I was involved in the
assessment of one of her students. . ...in the course of this evaluation, the parent of
the student had come to me and intimated that this teacher had more or less
abused this student verbally and perhaps even physically, which I didn’t feel was
out of character for this teacher, knowing what I knew, and I felt like this person
was a pretty reliable source and there was good reason to believe, knowing the
child also, that this had occurred. 80 my dilemma there was what to do about

it. . ..who do I talk to? How do I communicate this? How much of what the

parent said do I bring into evidence, considering it was a third party report?

230

In this situation, Tom decided to document the suspected abuse in his report, a decision
that he would make differently at his present stage Of development. He went on to
discuss further his struggle in making this decision and in dealing with the consequences

of what he now considers to be a faulty decision:

I felt an obligation to the parent and to the child to more or less use the report as
an intervention, which was the wrong thing to do. Part of my decision to not talk
to the teacher was mitigated by my concern over this teacher taking even more
retributionOn the kid who she already had some major issues with. This was kind
of a no-win situation. I knew that there was a historical pattern of difﬁculty with
this teacher’s behavior. There had been corrective action, or attempted corrective
action, taken with administration involved and really resolved nothing. The union
helped this teacher prevail in her position and I don’t know. At the time, it
seemed like the right thing to do, but it blew up in my face. I didn’t think clearly
about the possible consequences of that action, not only for me, but for my
employer and every other school psychologist who’s going to talk into that
building. What kind of allegiances there were in terms of peer group in that

building and the teaching staff. That was a very unintelligent decision.

The salience of this decision and its consequences in Tom’s ethical development was
clear as he expressed the lasting effects on his practice: “That haunts me to this very
day. . ..it’s really helped to determine my behavior to this point in relation to those kinds

of issues because I learned a lot from that and I will never make that mistake again.”

231

Robert also believed that decisions resulting in undesirable outcomes have
shaped how he handles cases he encountered in his present practice. One example is in
his decision-making related to PS referrals. Robert recalled one case wherein he opted not

to make a PS referral when a student claimed that he was being abused:

I think of the experience of making those referrals and then losing the. . ...negative
experiences where we have lost the family. Sometimes you don’t have any
choice. If the child comes in with bruises and things like that. . .this child had no

bruises or marks that I knew Of and I think he also tended to, he was full of

emotional stress, but I think also that there was a certain amount of exaggeration.

The outcome of this situation was positive, because Robert was able to maintain a
relationship with the family while also assisting them in implementing appropriate

discipline in their home.

Accumulated Experience. Professional experience shapes attitudes, supports
conﬁdence, and assists school psychologists in gaining the credibility necessary that seem
to be essential in making ethical decisions within the schools. The school psychologists
in this study cited various facets of their experience, construing these factors as crucial to
their ability to practice according to their moral and ethical convictions and standards.
Ken reported that his early experience working with severely mentally impaired students
led him to recognize the uniqueness and inherent value of each individual student,

regardless of his or her disability. Inﬁltration of this attitude into every facet of his work

232

has occurred gradually over the course of Ken’s career. For Ken, then, recognition of this

inherent value of every student was what it meant to be an ethical practitioner:

Ethics is not only a practice, it’s an attitude. . ..it has to do with the current societal
practice of attaching the worth of a person to their abilities, and I have a huge
problem with that. All the kids we test are varied in abilities and in my Opinion
they’re all equally valuable. I’m not just saying that in an idealistic way. I’m
saying that I really believe that. I’ve worked with kids who were at one or two
month’s mental age. I did that for many years at the Hill Center. I’ve worked
with kids now with IQ’s of 140. . ...each of these kids are equally valuable, they
just occupy a different place in society. That’s the only difference. I often try to
convey this to parents. Here’s this handicapped, visually impaired child. That

child is OK.

Clearly, Ken deﬁned ethical practice as his success in recognizing this inherent

value of every person with whom he comes into contact:

All we’re trying to do is to help the child live a full life. That’s all we’re doing so
that they can use all their abilities and feel conﬁdent and feel loved and valued. If
we can do that, then that’s our beneﬁt Of the child being here. . ..When I test a
child and a child has problems, I don’t necessarily get emotionally involved in it.

I don’t necessarily think that it’s really a shame. . ..I mostly think that this is how

this child is unique so what are we going to do about that problem, if you want to

233

call it a problem. The child can’t read, so what are we going to do about the

reading issue to help her become more ﬁrnctional? That’s how I look at things. .

Often, practitioners viewed diagnostic work as the identiﬁcation of problem areas that
children need to change. However, as stemming from his ethical comnritrnent to
recognizing and valuing the inherent worth of individual children, Ken felt differently

about this issue:

.....And remember the child does not have to change. Sometimes parents will
have a handicapped child and they will keep waiting for that child to become
better and the point is that that child does not have to change. The child is okay
just the way they are. If they are autistic, that’s okay. There’s a place for

everybody.

Interesting contrasts existed between the core Of Ken’s ethical obligations and
Nick’s ethical obligations. For Nick, the main motivation stemmed from fulﬁlling his
professional responsibilities and Obligations that are his by virtue of the professional role
that he has chosen to assume. For Ken, on the other hand, ethical decisions seemed to
stem more from an understanding of students’ individual needs within speciﬁc situations,
entering into their worlds and thereby reﬂecting more obviously a moral voice of care.
The care perspective is characterized in part by the valuing of distinctive qualities of

individuals, by having:

234

....respect for individual worth, merit, need or idiosyncracy. . ..a form of respect
which involves admiration and cherishing, when the distinctive qualities are
valued intrinsically, and which, at the least, involves toleration when the
distinctive qualities are not valued intrinsically. . ...for so-called ‘care’ reasoners,
recognition of, and commitment to, persons in their peculiarity is an overriding

moral concern (Friedman, 1993, p. 270).

Nevertheless, in conjunction with this focus on caring for the individual, Ken’s
discussion of his ethical commitments also reﬂected an Obvious justice orientation. Ken
made statements that were characterized by universal applicability to all students with
whom he came into contact. For instance, he believed that the students he worked with
were “all equally valuable” and that “everything has to be fair.” Additionally, when he
made a decision about a child, he stated, “ I don’t necessarily get emotionally involved in
it.” Coupled with his understanding of children as inherently unique and valuable was a
apparent emotional detachment that is more characteristic of a justice orientation rather
than a care orientation (Gilligan, 1982). Ken recalled situations wherein he dealt with
teachers and parents who misunderstood a student’s level Of functioning. Ken’s role in
this situation was to “make them understand that was okay, the kid was still Okay,”

whether or not the child has a disability:

I would test a child a ﬁnd out they weren’t functioning as high as the staff thought

and that was because they had invested so much time into the child and gotten all

emotionally invested in the child, and they think they are functioning way up here

235

and, as it turns out, they aren’t functioning that high. You would have to go in

and basically tell them the truth and then put them back together again.

Mike thought that his longevity in his district was a critical factor in supporting
his decision-making. He believed that there was a “difference in the longevity of a
person in a district, the trust of a person in a district, the competence of a person as
perceived in the district. . ...” He believed that this longevity resulted in stronger trust

between him and others in the district, as well as greater self-conﬁdence in his decisions:

I think if you don’t have a conviction about what you’re about to say and you
can’t stand behind it, noone’s every going to believe you. And I think if you do
have conviction and you believe what you’ve decided. . .I mean it’s much different
than when you have to prove yourself and try to get tenure in your ﬁrst year on

the job,

Thus, Mike agreed that the development of relationship was a key factor that
supported his ethical practice and enabled him to remain committed to his ethical
convictions: “They don’t question my ethics, in part because of the history of trust that
has developed over the years, for both the client as the family and the client as the
school.” Mike described an incident wherein his longevity in the district would have
played a key role in his decision. He was conducting a re-evaluation of a student who
had previously been diagnosed as having Aspberger’s syndrome. Upon completing his

assessment, however, Mike disagreed with the diagnosis. After considering the family’s

236

right to know the appropriate diagnosis, protection of the credibility of the psychologist
rendering the original diagnosis, and possible consequences for programming, Mike
opted to be honest about his impression about the erroneous nature of the ﬁrst diagnosis.

Asked if he would have made the same decision earlier in his career, Mike stated:

I probably would have gone with the syndrome that was diagnosed earlier because
of not enough experience, not enough conﬁdence, not enough perhaps, stability——
meaning professional stability in that milieu in which people might have less
respect for you because they don’t know you so well. And probably would have

just gone along with the group decision.

Comparison of psychologists’ discussions Of the role of experience suggested a
common strand between Jennifer’s and Emily’s understanding of their ethical
development. For these two women, becoming more ethical involved a greater reliance
on teammates’ opinions when making eligibility and placement decisions. In contrast,
Mike discussed his ethical development as characterized by a greater reliance and
conﬁdence in himself and his clinical impression. These data parallel data reported by
Gilligan and colleagues where women are more likely to construe ethical issues in terms
Of connections with other people, while men are more likely to construe ethical issues as
separate and individual (1982). This was apparent as Mike went on to summarize his

stance on ethical decision-making:

237

You can never underestimate the impact you have on a child or family with the
words you say to them, and I think that that gets scary is you spend too much time
cogitating about it. I think it’s better to believe that what you’re doing is good,
just and morally right, and that your decision is based on everything that you
could possibly know at that time. But that statement that I just made is really a

lifelong development of position, it’s not something that you start outwith.

It appears that although Mike recognized his position of inﬂuence and power in the lives
of families, he tried to distance himself from this connection, instead focusing on his
decision to be somewhat detached and rational. This detached, rational manner of ethical

practice is consistent with a voice of justice.

Personal Growth and Parenthood. The main theme in Emily’s discussion of the
ethical facet of her practice was the intimate relationship between her professional
practice and her role as a parent. Parenthood, for Emily, has been key in the development
of her moral voice. Discussing the factors that have inﬂuenced her ethical practice, she

replied:

Having children and living longer. . ..I think it’s much more easy to be judgmental
about how a parent is parenting a child or what kind of home this child comes
from, or “the parent is the problem’ kind of thing. But I guess the more I’m a
parent and the more I live, not that we don’t judge, but “Until you’ve walked in a

man’s shoes...” that kind Of thing. Much more sensitive, and what it would be

238

like to parent that child 24 hours a day when they have multiple siblings and

working. Yeah, I think I’ve become probably more sensitive.

When she dealt with children and families, she made an effort to place herself in their
shoes and hear what she was saying as they would hear it. This increased sensitivity was
especially fostered by her own experience with a child who potentially had some medical

problems. When she interacted with families, she drew upon this experience:

Being a parent, and thinking ‘What would I want for my child?” How would I
want to be treated, or how would I hear that. . ...and [it] just really does make a
difference when you have teachers or you hear them say something to you about
your child. Or when I thought something was wrong with mine, we had to go
through a bunch of tests. I was pregnant, and how I was treated when we were
going through all that testing and assessment phase. It was very, a very powerful

in how it inﬂuenced me.

In addition to citing the role of professional experience in ethical development,
Mike believed that his deﬁnition of what is ethical has been an outgrowth of personal
growth and development. More speciﬁcally, he stated the increasing self-knowledge that
comes with age also affected professional ethical development. Asked to describe the

nature of these changes in his thinking about ethics, he explained:

239

I think it’s less rigid and it’s more global than it used to be. I think when you’re
trained in your early years, you are more rigid because you don’t have the
experiences by which to make more free judgments, more free decisions, and I
think as I got Older, I think I became less rule-oriented and more kind of self-
oriented, and again. . ..I think that it really has to do with liking who you are and
how you’ve developed, and you make your decisions based on who you are more
as you get older than when you are ﬁrst trained. It’s hard to know where you’re at
in terms of an ethical position when you’re 25, and by 50, you should have a

much better sense Of that.

In summary, while many of the participants understood professional ethical
commitments as stemming from the core Of their personhood (discussed thoroughly in
Chapter 4), they did not describe these commitments as a static, uni-dimensional trait.
Rather, they described a complex developmental phenomenon that is shaped through
cumulative professional experience, the establishment of trust and credibility in the
system, personal roles such as parenthood, and personal life experiences. In addition to
understanding the ethical practice of school psychology as a developmental phenomenon,

participants also characterized their ethical position as emergent.

Moral Voice as an Emergent Phenomenon

The word emergent, as addressed in the introductory paragraph of this chapter,

suggests a “coming forth from” or a “rising out of.” Implied is a freeing from

240

boundaries or restriction. As outlined thoroughly in Chapter 3, school psychologists face
many systemic barriers that may hinder the exercise and expression of moral convictions
that are closely held to oneself. Extending the metaphor of voice, then, it is clear that
school psychologists’ voice can sometimes become suppressed when faced with
administrative pressures such as limited ﬁnancial resources, high caseloads, political
pressures, and role perceptions (See Chapter 5 for a complete discussion of these
systemic baniers). Even if school psychologists strive to remain committed to their
ethical convictions, their moral voice can be twisted, distorted and even drowned out by
the complex barriers that can characterize the system. The next section of this chapter
will discuss the factors that have allowed participants’ moral voices to break through and
emerge from some of the strong systemic barriers that they described. As school
psychologists described instances contributing to their expression of moral voice, they
clearly discussed three factors that supported this expression: The ethical behavioral of

colleagues, administrative support, and the role of professional judgment.

Ethical Behavior of Team Colleagues. One factor that allowed school
psychologists’ moral voices to be expressed more ﬁrlly is the willingness of their
colleagues to remain committed to their ethical convictions, even in the face of
tremendous risk (i.e., loss of job and professional prestige). Several Of the participants
described situations where their commitments to their own ethical convictions were
strengthened when they witnessed other professionals take a public stand for their own
moral convictions. Ken, for instance, recalled being faced with a situation where a

principal unilaterally placed a child with an emotional impairment into an

241

“inappropriately classiﬁed classroom.” Believing that this placement was detrimental to
the child, a social worker on Ken’s team reported the case to a protection and advocacy
representative. This referral prompted the principal to call a meeting Of all special
education staff with the purpose of identifying the person who had made the report. Ken
reported that while he supported the social worker’s report and Opposed the
administrator’s unilateral action, he did not voice his opinion for fear of losing his job.
Reﬂecting on this situation, he stated, “It’s an interesting thing when you are sitting there
and you’ve got a job on the line and you’re paying a mortgage, and you’ve got a family
and all these sorts Of things. You’re feeling like ‘Well, how much am I going to say
here?”’. Ken proceeded to describe how his observation of the social worker’s
willingness to place her job on the line supported his own desire to maintain ethical

‘6

practice: ...... seeing her take the stand made me want to do the same next time.”
Emily also reported that because her colleagues are ethical people who are
devoted to maintaining ethical practice, she is supported and held accountable in her own

ethical behavior:

I think my peers are really have the best interest of children in mind and are very
ethical people. In general, most of the people that I work with on the core team,
we have very similar principles. . ...And we share and hold each other accountable

for that standard of practice.

Rather than feeling isolated in her effort to maintain personal ethical commitment and

the standards Of the profession, Emily felt supported in her efforts to maintain her

242

dedication to child welfare. This type of colleague support created an environment that
facilitated the expression of a school psychologists’ moral voice in a way that would not

be possible in isolation.

Administrative Support. As described in Chapter 5, administrative support is
essential to a school psychologist’s ability to maintain their ethical commitments in their
professional work. A prime example of this was described by Mike as he recalled an
incident where the special education support team reviewed a student case and decided
that there was not sufﬁcient concern to pursue a comprehensive evaluation: “It was my
judgment at the meeting that the information about the child functioning level was
already known and the problem was that they needed to just adjust their curriculum in the
class a bit.” As a result of this decision, the referring teachers in the system placed
pressure on the support staff to change their decision. According to Mike, the key to
resolving this conﬂict was the unsolicited support he received from his administrator:

“. . ..the principal went in and talked to those teachers. . ..I didn’t even know and he never
said anything to me about it, but that is what I mean. He was kind of protecting our turf.”
In this example, administrative support enabled Mike and his colleagues to act in what
they determined to be an ethical manner. This example, then, illustrated the important
role that the administration can play in a school psychologist’s ethical practice. As
suggested in Chapter 5, a supportive administrator can facilitate the expression Of moral
voice, while an administrator focused solely on ﬁnances and caseload numbers can make

it very difﬁcult for school psychologists to practice according to their ethical convictions

and commitments.

243

Clinical Judgment. The factor that school psychologists discussed as most
salient in their ability to break through the barriers and express their moral voice, referred
to by each of the participants, was the central role of “clinical judgment or “professional
judgment.” In relation to eligibility decisions, for example, commitment to making
ethical decisions surpassed inﬂexible adherence to laws and eligibility standards and
Often involved a professional Opinion regarding the child’s unique strengths, weaknesses,
and needs. This issue was mainly addressed within the context of two situations: 1)
cases involving differential diagnosis, and 2) cases where a child does not meet strict
eligibility criteria, despite the psychologist’s impression that the child has an educational
disability and needs services.

When presented with a scenario wherein a child may not technically qualify for
services but who, in the psychologist’s clinical judgment, needs the services, each of the
psychologist’s referred to the central role of professional judgment. Tom, for example,

contrasted the strict role of “tester” with that Of “clinicians and decision-makers:”

Diagnostic criteria are suggestions and guidelines, they are not gospel, and I think
that you can be overly dogmatic in adherence to those and really deny that kids
are truly handicapped, despite what the numbers say. That’s where we come in as
clinicians and decision-makers. We are the people who diagnose, not the
individual tests, not a set of numbers. Those are descriptive, but don’t tell the

whole story. I sort of approach things that way.

244

Dave thought that it was important to be honest about whether a speciﬁc child meets
eligibility criteria but added that actual eligibility and programming decision can be based
more on professional judgment and less on the eligibility requirements. Asked how he
handles a situation like this, he explained that clinical judgment sometimes superimposes

the guidelines:

Actually, when I do this, I will say, ‘This doesn’t meet the number criteria, but
clinically speaking, the child meets the guidelines. . ..I talk about standard errors
of measurement, I talk about scores, I’ll give a range of scores. I’ll say that if we
look at this range of scores, we can see. . .this also explains what I mean in terms
of how I can do that clinical judgment. I’ll try to explain my reasoning to the staff

and to the parents.

Asked to address a situation involving a differential diagnosis between a learning
disability and an emotional impairment, Torn stressed the need for clinical judgment

when making this diagnostic decision:

I had a colleague of mine give me some very valuable advice once. She said you
have the right as a clinician to make your own judgement. These numbers are
there as guidelines. You don’t have to place them on the altar. You can look at
the whole picture of the kid and decide what you think the whole problem [is]. If
you think the kid is LD or you think the kid is EMI, or whatever, you can say that

and you can go ahead and report in your report what you concluded and why and

245

that’s the end Of it. If somebody wants to disagree with you, let them disagree. I

thought it was great advice.

Jennifer, faced with the need to differentiate between and emotional impairment
and a leaming disability when the problems appear to be mainly emotional, stated that
she would be willing to go against her primary diagnostic impression of an emotional
impairment, as long as the student did meet LD guidelines and would be getting

appropriate services:

I guess as long as the student is getting the services that I want them to get, I can
concede to a different label, if they indeed have a discrepancy. There is a huge
stigma attached to an El label. There really is, and it can affect them even

sometimes after school, going in the army, maybe even getting a job.

Jennifer supported her decision because she believed that the ultimate concern was the

goals and the programming; the eligibility decision was just a means to that end:

You’re going to have an IEP with goals. See, that’s the piece again with the
social worker or whoever is going to be working with him. You would have an
IEP that would describe the kid’s strengths, weaknesses, concerns, the affective
needs, the goal areas, and that’s what you would look at for that kid. That’s what

is supposed to describe the kid to me. SO there is that label and obviously. . ..I

246

would want some kind of services or goals to address the affective part, and that

needs to be part of the IEP.

Mike also stressed that special education rules were not meant to be inﬂexible but

were meant as references and guides for decisions:

The laws about special education and the right to special education are guidelines.
They are guidelines. And they are guidelines because school psychology is
hardly a science. At best, it’s an art with a little bit of science added, so your
position when you evaluate a kid is not what the scores are and do they meet the
guidelines. Your position is a clinical judgment of what is wrong with this child,
and is that disability severe enough to warrant calling them a diagnostic

label ....... and I think that fudging the numbers is a term that we’ve come up with
to explain kind of the what I prefer to call ‘clinical judgment.’ I don’t think you
have to fudge numbers, because I think that you recognize that the numbers
themselves are not absolutes and there is great variance among them and there’s
reliability issues and probably gender issues in who’s testing the kid. . ..your
judgment about those numbers and everything you know about the kid is what

makes your decision, not the numbers.

Unlike his colleagues, Mike did not view eligibility decisions or “fudging Of numbers” as

an ethical concern; rather, he drew a distinction between ethical concerns and

“professional opinionsz”

247

There should be not issue of “Gee, should I do X or Y.” It should always be,
‘Well, the professional response to this situation is X.” The ethical decision
would be not so much. . ..’Does the kid have the numbers to go on caseload?”
That’s not an ethical decision, and fudging the numbers, that’s not an ethical
decision for me. The decision is, “What’s your professional Opinion about what’s

wrong with this kid, period.” You know, it’s not like a moral conﬂict.

Mike regarded this situation as more clear-cut than the other school psychologists,

a view which he saw as making the issue less complicated for him:

I don’t think it hinders my ethical practice as much as it hinders the practice of a
lot of other school psychologists. You know, there are rules that have numbers
and there are guidelines that districts and states set up, or the federal government
sets up, and I think that people are very rigid about that, so I think that their
rigidity to the rules would create ethical issues for them. But it doesn’t really

impact me. .

Mike cited a speciﬁc example of another school psychologist in his county who he

perceived as “living by the letter of the law,” resulting in delayed services for a child:

I can think of a speciﬁc case right now where the difﬁculty of the person trying to

live by the letter of the law has delayed services and appropriate treatment, both

248

medically and educationally, for this kid since September. And you know, we’re
halfway through the year, and the kid still isn’t medicated, and still has no

program because the person has to live by the letter Of the law.

When faced with a researcher-generated dilemmas where a school psychologist had to
make a differential diagnosis between an emotional impairment and a learning disability
in the face Of distinct pressure from parents and teachers, Mike did not conceptualize this

situation as problematic:

My immediate reaction is that there is no problem presented here. The only
problem that this psychologist is going to face is if they’re not a very strong
person as a professional individual that they are going to feel pressure to make a

diagnosis that may be different than what they think is a primary diagnosis.”

Jill placed high value on honesty and diagnostic integrity, stating, “Some
psychologists don’t care about the accuracy of their labels. I happen to be one that cares
about the accuracy of the label. . ..” However, she strove to balance this diagnostic

integrity with clinical judgment about the child’s present and future programming needs:

I feel real strongly about the determination of eligibility, I think it needs to be
honest, but I think you need to balance that with the programming and looking
down in the future. So I don’t think it’s as black and white as it sounds. I try to

pick the eligibility that is that best descriptor and that will meet the child’s needs.

249

Whereas Jill regarded diagnostic “honesty” as an ethical responsibility, Mike clearly sees
it not as an ethical responsibility but a professional one. When describing a situation
where he disagreed with a previous diagnosis, he reported that he had to tell the parents

his impression:

I think I’ve always taken that position. I don’t think there’s a case where I didn’t
give that information pretty straightforward, with the parents. And I’m not sure if
that was an early training tool that I learned, to be very up-front with the
information you have. I guess I consider that to be a professional responsibility
more than a professional ethic. It’s a responsibility to tell the parent what you

866.

Robert clearly expressed that his clinical judgment is bound by current special education

deﬁnitions and criteria and gets “lost in the numbers:”

I think unfortunately the current deﬁnitions, there are so many deﬁnitions now,
there is not enough leeway for professional judgment, for how we see the child
based on our judgment, on our clinical Opinion. Clinical opinions are important

but unfortunately, we don’t get to use them enough. They get lost in the numbers.

250

Joyce echoed the need to consider eligibility criteria as ﬂexible rather than set in
stone, though she recognized that school psychologists vary in their philosophy and

adherence to eligibility criteria:

Basically, I give myself a little leeway. I know that there are other school
psychologists who if, “By golly, it says 20 points in our little book here, it’s 20
points,” but mine is not like that. Looking at where they are and how they are
functioning in the classroom... Part of it, too, is I’m not really a “rules
person”. . ..My thing is do what you think is right, and if they ask you questions

about it later, then you explain it.

The collaborative team model was another manner in which professional
judgment can enter the evaluation and eligibility determination process. Jennifer
thought that her skills in working within a team and refraining ﬁ'om making unilateral
decisions was an important component of ethical practice. If faced with a student who
did not qualify by his test scores but who showed clinical evidence of a learning

disability, Jennifer would handle it by considering individual factors of each case:

Because we’re supposed to have a certain amount of points, or whatever, but I’ll
have this proﬁle that looks so LD to me, and I’ll be like one or two points Off, and
I’ll say, “Look, we’re this close.” It just depends on all of the issues. There
might be a kid like that that I’d say, no way. But then there’ll be this other kid,

and I’ll say to that teacher, “We don’t really quite have the points here that we

251

need, but as a team, we can look at this together” instead of coming in and saying

“There is or is not a leaming disability here.”

One Of the dilemmas that Nick shared involved a severely impaired student who did not
clearly meet the guidelines for autism; thus, when the student reached the age when he
was to be exited from the public education system, Nick was faced with the dilemma of
whether to exit him without a AI diagnosis, leaving him without services, or support an
AI diagnosis in order to gain access to continuing services for the student. Nick

explained the situation:

We were getting ready to exit a student, and they, he had a genetic, certiﬁed POHI
and had a very severe genetic disorders. Lots of dysmorphia, had like a dozen
Operations, both cranial deformities, webbed toes, missing ﬁngers. A mess,
looked like Frankenstein. Also had bipolar disorders, ADI-ID, probably, if you
could get to it, average cognitive functioning, but just socially clueless. Parents
had gone to hell and back. And we were doing an exit evaluation ...... Well, they,
the parents were very reluctant to let this kid go, he was 19, and through the
evaluation and during the IEP, it was determined that there would be virtually no
services for this individual upon exiting. UNLESS he had an AI diagnosis, in
which case, he would qualify as developmentally disabled and get CSDD and the
whole panoply of services that are associated with that diagnosis. Was this
individual as messed up as an AI kid would be? At least. And going through the

record, and in his behavior, he had some perseverative kinds of things....same

252

difﬁculties socially. In going through the record there were just so many issues
early on, life or death issues that the AI diagnosis was way down on the level of
priorities. And he may or may not have been. But it would have been very much
a judgment call in terms Of going A1 at that point in time. SO, we did an
evaluation. . .. and talked the rest of the team into going Al on him. He exited and

got CSDD services and it worked out.

Nick articulated this conﬂict as “behaving with diagnostic integrity versus this
individual having a life." This decision was very difﬁcult for Nick, who believed that he
was advocating for the student foremost but in a “sub-terranian” sort of way. He
explained what made this decision particularly difﬁcult: “I think it pulled me out of the
system to a degree that was a little ﬁightening. That I was behaving in a way that was, at
least I perceived it to be, very much at variance with what my role, or what the
expectations of my role, were.” In talking about his thinking process, Nick drew the
distinction between “what I perceived my role to be” and “what I believed to be ethical.”
This conﬂict, particularly highlighted by the emotion with which Nick spoke of this
situation, provided a powerful illustration of the role expectations that threaten to conﬁne
school psychologists in their work and the clash that can occur between systemic
expectations of the school psychologist and the school psychologist’s ethical

commitments.

Summary. The school psychologists in this study clearly characterized their

ethical commitments and obligations as evolutionary and developmental. They described

253

personal factors, such as parenthood, religious upbringing and increased sense of civic
responsibility, as inﬂuential in their moral development and in the ethical commitments
to children and child advocacy that they expressed as the driving force behind their
practice. Even those who described their ethical commitments as existing prior to their
entry into the ﬁeld of school psychology acknowledged that their ethical commitments
had changed and become more reﬁned with time and experience in the profession.
Rather than existing as status phenomena, the ethical commitments of school
psychologists developed and became clearer with personal and professional experience.
The school psychologists also described contextual factors that allowed them to
exercise their ethical commitments and moral voices. Consistent with literature
describing the historical and present limitations and misperceptions of the school
psychologists’ role, these participants reported facing tremendous barriers that made it
difﬁcult, if not impossible, to advocate for children and maintain ethical practice. Yet,
while factors such as administrative pressure to act unethically, misperceptions of the
role, and limited resources threatened to squelch the moral voices of school
psychologists, these school psychologists also identiﬁed various factors within the system
that facilitated their ability to express their moral voice. Thus, although they expressed
frustration and feelings of conﬁnement when facing constricting factors, the school
psychologists in this study nonetheless reported that their moral voices were sometimes
able to emerge from these baniers and be heard. The expression of professional
judgment, as opposed to strict, mindless adherence to legislation and guidelines,

represented one important way that school psychologists have found to break away from

254

prescribed practice and feel free to express recommendations that are most likely to
promote children’s welfare.

Finally, as was fully described in Chapter 6, a supportive network of interpersonal
relationships within the system created an environment that facilitated and encouraged
the emergence of moral voice. The support of ethical colleagues and the support of
administrators allowed school psychologists to exhibit the conﬁdence necessary to stand
ﬁrm in one’s ethical convictions in the face Of the most intense pressure to compromise.
In many cases, the presence of others within the system who are willing to remain
committed to unyielding ethical standards also creates a system of accountability among
professionals.

Before summarizing and discussing the implications of these present data, I would
like to review this analysis to this point. In the ﬁrst section, Understanding the Silence, I
reviewed historical and present reasons for the suppression of school psychologists’
moral voices. Also included in this section were the methods and design for the present
study, proposing how I set out to allow school psychologists to break the silence and let
their moral voices be expressed. In the second section, Breaking the Silence, my main
goal was to represent the moral voices of school psychologists as they discussed their
roles and practice. This goal was accomplished through a theme-based analysis of school
psychologists’ perceptions and understandings of the ethical dimensions of their role.

The ﬁnal task, based on these intriguing data, was to draw some ﬁnal conclusions
and discuss the implications of these data for school psychology as a practice and an
academic discipline. The next and ﬁnal section of this paper, entitled Amplifying the

Voices, was devoted to exploring these crucial ideas related to the ways that certain

255

moral voices are ampliﬁed while others are suppressed in school psychology practice.
The participants in this study represented ethical practice within the schools as highly
complex and challenging. The nature of the system in which they practiced had serious
implications for school psychologists as they strove to maintain their ethical
responsibilities and commitments. In these ﬁnal two chapters, I discuss the nature and
pattern of the voices that I detected as these participants discussed their ethical practice,
focusing on understanding their construals within the multi-leveled contexts in which
they lived and practiced. While justice and care were both evident in the discussions of
these school psychologists, listening to their voices made it clear to me that these
concepts must be understood as intimately embedded within the unique and dynamic
contexts of the educational and socio-historical contexts. Thus, was is necessary to
reconceptualize these concepts rather than to rely on those presented by Gilligan and
Kohlberg, a factor that will be explored fully in the following pages. In this ﬁnal secion,
my goal was that by giving school psychologists the opportunity to express their moral
voices and allowing them to surpass, if only temporarily, the barriers that they often face
in their practice, the ethical dimension Of school psychology, and the individual ethical
commitments and challenges of school psychologists working on the “ﬁ'ont lines” for the
welfare of children, families and schools, would be more fully understood and

appreciated.

256

Chapter 8

Understanding Justice and Care Within the Schools

The overriding purpose Of this study was to understand how school psychologists
think about and construe the ethical dimension of their professional lives. School
psychologists are not passive consumers Of the professional standards and ethical
principles governing the ﬁeld, nor do they mindlessly and automatically apply these
standards to their individual circumstances and contexts; rather, ethical practice is a
complex, constructive phenomenon involving cognitive, development, spiritual, and
emotional components.

One of the questions driving the present research related to how school
psychologists construe the ethical dimension of their practice. The ten school
psychologists who participated in this study did not represent their thinking about ethical
issues in terms of discrete categories or prescribed, codiﬁed ethical guidelines. On the
contrary, school psychologists described their ethical Obligations and commitments in
unique and multi-faceted ways, indicating that an interpretive approach to studying this
topic is necessary to develop a more complete understanding of the core ideas from their
lives and experiences. This study represents an account Of these individuals as they
describe their journey through the complex terrain of the schools. They discussed the
satisfaction and the trials they have encountered as they attempt to remain committed to
their ethical convictions and responsibilities.

What does the ethical dimension of school psychology practice look like, and how

can we best understand it? Quantitative answers to these questions only scratch the

257

surface of the complexity of individual construals of this aspect of one’s professional
role. Henning-Stout (1994) suggested that psychology and education have traditionally
downplayed understanding the contextualized nature of experience—in her words, the
“connected ways of knowing”—-and have thereby gained only limited understandings of
the developmental processes and phenomena associated with human learning and
functioning. Certainly, this emphasis on objective, positivist, quantitative approaches to
inquiry is reﬂected in the school psychology literature generally and, more speciﬁcally, in
the studies that have focused on ethics in school psychology. The school psychologists in
this study actively made sense of their professional ethical commitments and
responsibilities within their speciﬁc contexts, acknowledging that contextual factors can
both support and hinder ethical practice. They understood their commitments to ethical
standards as embedded in a complex web of relationships, suggesting that professional
ethics cannot be understood apart from the social realm. Consistent with present views
that reject Kantian notions of the moral self as a pure, rational agent that is removed from
moral decision-making and action, they did not describe their ethical commitments as
isolated from their personal lives and developmental experiences, instead discussing an
intimate integration between the personal and professional. In many ways, their
professional experiences, roles and contexts, and personal experiences and commitments,
formed a complex lens through which they view and construct ethical issues. Hence,
these present data suggest that views of ethics that characterize ethical concerns as a facet
of practice that can be understood and analyzed apart from the practitioner and apart from
the context are inaccurate and run the risk of perpetuating simpliﬁed and uni-dimensional

understandings of a highly complex profession.

258

A second question driving the present inquiry related to the ways that theoretical
constructs Of the moral voices of justice and care could be useful in understanding ways
that school psychologists construe their ethical commitments and responsibilities. This
question has a complex and multi-faceted answer. Through the process of reading,
processing, and reviewing the data gathered in the present study, the ideas of care and
justice emerged as the school psychologists discussed their ethical challenges and
commitments. However, the manner in which they discussed and conceptualized justice
and care did not reﬂect exactly the same understandings of these concepts as they were
discussed by Kohlberg and Gilligan. Instead, these concepts seemed to take on a
different life and form within the context of schools and school psychology practice.

In these ﬁnal two chapters, the remaining task is to amplify, to project and make
more apparent, the moral voices of school psychologist. To accomplish this goal, I ﬁrst
explore the school psychologists’ understandings of care and justice in practice, framing
the present data within existing research addressing justice and care in schools. Second,
in the ﬁnal chapter, I strive to promote a more comprehensive understanding of these
school psychologists’ thinking about ethical issues by discussing the implications of this
research and suggesting a new way of refrarning their moral concerns within the school
context. We must adopt a new way of thinking about moral voice and the concepts of
justice and care to understand school psychologists’ unique experiences in their unique

professional contexts.

259

Concepts of Care within the Schools

To this point, this research has drawn on Gilligan’s notion of care in attempting to
interpret and communicate school psychologists’ moral voices. As articulated fully in
Chapter 1, Gilligan and her colleagues have conceptualized morality in the form of
relationship responsibilities and connection. Morality, according to Gilligan’s ethic of
care, rests on “an understanding of relationships that entails response to another in that
person’s terms and contexts” and that seeks to promote the welfare and care of both
others and self (Lyons, 1982, p. 42). She contrasts this notion of morality with an ethic
of justice, which conceptualizes morality as a rational, logical objectivity based on
universal principles and rights (Kohlberg, 1982). One of the major goals of this study
was to evaluate the utility of these conceptions of justice and care in making sense of a
school psychologists’ experience with ethical issues in practice.

Before I evaluate the utility of Gilligan’s and Kohlberg’s models for the present
discussion (as will be discussed ﬁrlly in Chapter 9), I will describe alternate
considerations of care that may also prove useful in understanding school psychologists’
thinking and experiences within their school context. Of particular utility are those
discussions of care that relate speciﬁcally to education and school contexts. A review of
literature suggests that speciﬁc discussion of care in relation to education and schools is a
relatively recent trend. The individual most commonly associated with these discussions
is Nel Noddings (1984; 1988; 1992), who has advocated for a relational approach to
schooling, based on caring relationships between students and educational professionals.

Exploration of this literature provides an important context for beginning to understand

260

the school environment and how speciﬁc contextual factors can support or hinder the
ethical practice Of its members. In her work, Noddings (1992) indicated that schools
employing on an ethic of care have four characteristics: They model caring relationships
among individuals within the schools; they engage students in dialogue and discussion
around values and ethics; they encourage children to demonstrate the ethic of care by
serving others; and they reinforce care at all levels of the school (as cited in Baker et al.,
1997). Thus, she supported a view of relational ethics based on caring and argues that
schools and educational professionals should employ an approach that rests on teaching
care and virtue to students within a caring community, the school.

Founding their work upon Nodding’s ideas of care within the schools, school
psychology researchers have also discussed the concept of care as it speciﬁcally applies
within the school. Baker and colleagues (1997 ) cite research conducted by the Institute
for Education and Transformation (1992) indicating that many of the problems within the
schools — declining test scores, drop out rates, substance abuse, teenage pregnancy,
violence, suicide rates, and a host of other behavioral and psychological problems—are
actually consequences of deep-seated problems of relationships (or lack thereof) within
the schools. Other researchers (e.g., Etzioni, 1993) have also pointed to interpersonal
disconnection and lack of personal relationships as problematic in education. Drawing
on the work of Noddings, Baker and colleagues argue that relationally oriented, care-
based approaches to education are critical because they “foster the development of caring
relationships among children and teachers at school as the means Of affecting children’s
intellectual, social and emotional growth. . ...[and thereby] allow children to appraise

school as a meaningful social context in which to function” (p. 586). Thus, the goal of

261

education is not solely academic but instead also involves fostering the development of
interpersonal connectedness, social and civic responsibility, and dedication to service
toward self and others. Within this environment, educators seek to “purposively nurture
caring relationships with students. . ...express greater warmth and supportiveness toward
students and spend more time listening to and talking to students about personal and
social issues. . ...facilitate rather than direct learning. . ...and purposively mentor students
in areas other than academics” (Baker et al., 1997, p. 593). From this relationship
approach to educational reform, the major goal is “to improve schooling by attending to
the broader social context in which academic learning transpires. . ...so that caring
connections to others and to meaningful academic work is fostered” (p. 587). Baker and
colleagues conclude that “school psychologists, in their central roles as child advocates,
can be instrumental in developing schooling practices that extend caring and community
to children” (p. 599). The emphasis is for school psychologists and other educational
practitioners to employ care concerns as central to their work with and decisions about
children and families. Many of the facets Of Gilligan’s conception of care—emphasis on
knowledge of the individual, consideration of individual circumstances, and the
preservation of relationships—are reﬂected in Noddings’ and Baker’s discussions of care

in the schools.

Barriers to Care in the Schools. In addressing the characteristics of a care-based
school and care-motivated educational practitioners, I will examine the school
environment for potential barriers to care that exist in the schools as they are currently

structured and managed. Assuming an ecological perspective, one cannot consider

262

professional ethics as isolated from the context but must instead consider the multiple
levels of the context to understand fully one’s ethical thinking and decisions. These
contextual barriers to an ethic of care in the schools have been discussed by researchers
interested in educational reform. Baker and colleagues (1997) have identiﬁed several
factors that can hinder the exercise of care in schools: Societal resistance to values
education; everyday conventions (e. g., competitive grading practices, centralized
lunchrooms) that reﬂect the formal organizational structure of today’s schools; lack of
appropriate assessment strategies and tools to measure concepts like care, connectedness,
and community-mindedness; and questions regarding the appropriateness of using school
reform to effect social change. These problems are deeply rooted in the educational
institution and in American society, and they demand serious investigation and
consideration in assessing the feasibility of care-based relational approaches to education.
Consistent with Baker’s discussion of these potential barriers to care within the
schools, the school psychologists in the present study discussed systemic factors that
limit their ability to care for and develop intimate relationships with students and
teachers. These barriers, discussed speciﬁcally in Chapter 5—high caseloads, testing
emphasis, limited resources, and administrative pressure to promote the system’s
interests—create conditions which make sustained contact with students, parents, and
educators within the school system very difﬁcult, if not impossible altogether. In Baker’s
words, the organizational structure of schools creates many barriers to relational care
(1997). Therefore, in understanding morality within the schools, I must avoid dissecting
ethics apart from context and consider centrally those speciﬁc contextual factors that

impact one’s decisions and thinking about ethical comrrritrnents and responsibilities.

263

In the present study, the need to consider the speciﬁc context of schools and
school psychology was clearly evident in many areas. Mike referred to these baniers as
he discussed his ethical commitments, stating, “You don’t have time to even know who
these kids really are. You’ve got just ten hours to deal with this kid and family, and then
you have to move on.” He described changes that he has seen in his ability to really
know kids as the system has changed in his career. As the educational system has
become more structured, formalized, and driven by ﬁnancial concerns, his ability to build

and maintain relationships with students and families has diminished:

I think earlier [in my career], you used to be able to get to know the people better
and know the kid better and see the kid more regularly. It used to be that I used to
go into an E1 room every week, I knew every kid in there, I could sit down and
talk with every kid in there, they all knew my name. Now, the only reason you go

in there is to pick up a kid and test them, and they don’t even know who you are.

Dave, refening to his previous experience working in private practice, also
described the characteristics of school psychology practice that hinder the development

of an intimate relationship with clients:

I would say the truth is that if you are working in a clinical setting doing therapy
with somebody, the relationship becomes more intense. That’s not to say that
school psychologists don’t care (emphasis added) about their patient, but it’s a

less personal type of thing. . ...you see quite a few kids ....... you’re giving the

264

tradition testing type of thing that might involve an Observation for about an hour
or so, and the actual contact with the kid might be two and one-half or three
hours, and it’s in a very structured, standardized setting. . ..I don’t think you can
have as much contact with them. It’s not that you care about them any less,

but ......

Along with several other participants, Dave and Mike described conditions that
create very strong barriers to the type of care that Gilligan, Noddings and Baker have
suggested. Yet, they still feel strongly that they “care” just as much for the child as they
would if they were able to form a more sustained relationship, and they view “care for
children and families” as central to their ethical commitments. Hence, to suggest that the
school psychologist is not embedded in a complex web Of relationships and commitments
motivated by some form of care is inaccurate. Although the school psychologist’s role
and context may constrain the types and depths of relationships experienced, the school
psychologists in this study nevertheless deﬁned their role and their ethical commitments
as situated within a complex web Of relationships with people for whom they genuinely

care.

The Nature of Care and Relationship in School Psychology. Given this
understanding of the context of the schools, how can we best understand the concept and
practice Of “caring” in the school psychologist’s world? Implied in ‘caring’ is the
existence of some type of relationship between people, although the details of the nature

of caring has been described differently by different theorists. As the school

265

psychologists in this study discussed their moral and ethical commitments and
responsibilities, they described their ethical commitments as inextricably embedded
within a complex web of relationships with multiple parties both inside and outside of the
school system. However, descriptions of relationship do not automatically translate into
what Gilligan conceptualized as an ethic of care. Gilligan and Attanucci (1988)
described the ethic Of care and the ethic of justice as two different ways of organizing

social and moral reality.

The distinction between justice and care orientations pertains to the ways in which
moral problems are conceived and reﬂects different dimensions of human
relationships that give rise to moral concern. The justice perspective draws
attention to problems of inequality and oppression and holds up an ideal Of
reciprocity and equal respect. The care perspective draws attention to problems
of detachment and abandonment and holds up an ideal of attention and response

to need (as cited in Gilligan et al., 1990, p. 102).

For Gilligan, an ethic of care involved intimate knowledge of, care for, and response to
speciﬁc individuals in speciﬁc circumstances, similar to that which a mother experiences
for her child. In light of our present emphasis, the question remains: Is the ethic of care
that Gilligan conceptualized possible within the professional world of the school
psychologist?

To make sense of the nature of care and relationship in practice, and thus to

understand the role of these relationships in ethical commitments, I will consider the

266

distinction that Nel Noddings has drawn between “personal” and “formal” relationships.
First, consistent with Gilligan, Noddings noted that caring is not a general, universal
principle but must be understood as situated in a specific context with a speciﬁc person.

Tong (1993) explained this view:

Caring is not simply a matter of feeling favorably disposed toward humankind in
general, of being concerned about people with whom we have no concrete
connections. There is a fundamental difference between the kind of care a mother
has for her child and the kind of ‘care’ that a well-fed American adult has for a
starving Somali child s/he has never met. Real care requires actual encounters
with speciﬁc individuals; it cannot be accomplished through good intentions

alone” (p. 110).

However, Noddings recognized and emphasized that the circle of people for
whom we care as a mother would her child is highly limited. When addressing issues of
care, Noddings (1984) described relationship connections—what she terms “chains”—
that are apparent in our relationship circles. She drew an important distinction between
the “personal” interpretation and the “formal” interpretation Of chains. The “personal
interpretation” is when we form and reveal connections between ourselves and those
people with whom we are intimately linked on a personal level (e.g., spouse to spouse,
mother to child). On the other hand, in the “formal interpretation,” we “widen our circles
by virtue of some role we play” (Tong, 1993, p. 110). For example, Noddings suggested

that teachers are linked not only to their present students but also to their future students.

267

Interpreting Noddings’ point, Tong ( 1993) suggested that “right now there exist (or will
exist) students in the world to whom teachers will eventually be related. We build caring
through the strength of anticipated hypothetical relationships (emphasis added) ” (p.
110). Noddings argued that in addition to caring for speciﬁc individuals with whom we
have an intimate relationship (e. g., spouse, mother, child), we should also be ready to
care for people who are “potential” future members Of our circles.

Thus, although the nature of the school psychologist’s role may render care, in
Gilligan’s sense of the word, impossible to fully achieve, to say that school psychologists
do not employ a moral voice of care is over-simpliﬁed. By virtue of the professional role
that they have chosen to pursue, school psychologists describe relationships with
“students” in abstract general terms rather than grounding their discussions with
particular students. Joyce explained how “caring for children” led her to pursue a career
as a school psychologist. Dave recognized that the nature of school psychology limited
the depth Of relationships that can be formed with students; nevertheless, he still thinks
that care is a major motivation in his practice. Although none of the school psychologists
mentioned speciﬁc names when describing their ethical commitments, they nonetheless
described a strong sense of “care” and “responsibility” for students with whom they had
worked and those with whom they anticipate working in the future. By virtue of the
nature of school psychology practice, children move in and out Of the lives Of school
psychologists. Although there is an occasional opportunity to form a deep and ongoing
relationship with individual students, teachers and families, school psychologists more
commonly form what Noddings would call “formal” associations with “students” or

“teachers” as a broad category, recognizing that the particular student or teacher will

268

change frequently across the course of one’s career. For many of the school
psychologists, this was a ﬁ'ustrating part of their jobs but one that they viewed as
characteristic of their chosen role.

Many of the school psychologists also ﬁ'arned their ethical commitments in terms
of meeting the “individual needs” of students and families. This reﬂects an element of
response based on need that is consistent with Gilligan’s ethic of care. The practitioners
described their efforts to get to know the child in his or her individual circumstances as
much as possible, given the many demands and limitations of the job. Emily feels it is
important “to make the best possible decisions for the child that can be made within the
community and the environment that that child is in.” Likewise, Ken also emphasized the
need to get to know a child, his or her unique attributes, within his individual
circumstances to make reconunendations that will promote that child’s well-being. He
clearly deﬁnes his ethical practice as his success in knowing a child individually and

recognizing the child’s inherent value:

All we’re trying to do is help the child live a full life. . ..so they can use all of their
abilities and feel conﬁdent and feel loved and feel valued. . ...I think ‘How is this
child unique?’ . . ..and remember the child does not have to change. Sometimes
parents will have a handicapped child and they will keep waiting for that child to
become better and the point is that that child does not have to change. Their child

is OKjust the way they are.

269

Several of the participants also referred to their need to constantly consider and
balance the needs of many people. In her study of the moral thinking and development of
adolescent girls, Lyons noted that the girls, when discussing real-life dilemmas, struggled
to ﬁnd a solution “that would integrate the needs of all involved. . ..[while they are] aware
of the painful consequences that someone might have to experience as a result of their
choice” (1990, p. 103). When discussing their thoughts in relation to real-life dilemmas
in their practice, the school psychologists likewise demonstrated awareness Of the
multiple parties and the desire to ﬁnd a solution that would beneﬁt everyone involved.
Although they expressed concerns about the personal effects Of their decisions (e.g.,
damaged relationships, job threats), they expressed primary concern for the beneﬁt of
children and families.

Finally, an element of care was evident in school psychologists’ conceptions Of
their professional role. Overwhelmingly, school psychologists discussed their roles in
terms of child advocacy. Advocacy involves a strong justice component (as will be
described later in this chapter), but it may be conceptualized as one way of seeking to
advance the welfare of students and to be responsive to their individual needs.

In her description of care, Noddings has made another important distinction that
may be useful to the present discussion of care within the schools. In one’s ethical
development, according to Noddings, the spontaneous inclination toward “natural caring”
is replaced by deliberateness of “ethical caring.” Thus, although a person can “care”
about others in a distant and abstract way, that is different ﬁom a deliberate commitment
to forming relationships with individuals and coming to know and care about that person

in a unique, individual way:

270

The relation of natural caring will be identiﬁed as the human condition that we,
consciously or unconsciously, perceive as “good.” It is that condition toward
which we long and strive, and it is our longing for caring—to be in that special
relation—that provides the motivation for us to be moral (Noddings, 1984, p. 5, as

cited in Tong, 1993, p. 111).

Natural caring, for Noddings, is a universal principle by nature and can exist apart
from speciﬁc individuals and speciﬁc circumstances. Noddings, in contrast with Gilligan,
does not reject outright the idea of a universal nature of ethics, instead acknowledging
that there is something ‘properly universal’ about a ‘caring attitude’ (as cited in Tong,
1993, p. 111). Conscious caring, on the other hand, is tied to speciﬁc relationships with
speciﬁc people with whom we have had concrete, speciﬁc contact.

One way of making sense of this distinction in light of the school setting and
school psychology is to suggest that the school environment allows natural caring;
however, inherent in the current structuring of schools are barriers to “ethical caring” and
to “personal interpretations” of relationship chains. Residing in this context, school
psychologists and their historically deﬁned role and practice may be hindered in the
development and exercise of ethical caring and may not have the time or the conditions
necessary to exercise a true ethic of care in professional relationships. School
psychologists exist in a complex web Of relationships with multiple people, and many of
them express commitment to balancing needs and ﬁndings solutions that promote the

beneﬁt of all involved parties. They are motivated by care for the welfare of people with

271

whom they have professional relationships. However, due to the many barriers described
in earlier sections, the nature of these relationships is not similar to the care of a mother
for her child. In many cases, these relationships are most appropriately characterized not
as relationships with speciﬁc people, but rather as relationships with “positions” of
student, parent, teacher, administrator, or community professional that individuals ﬁll at a
certain point in time. School psychologists describe their relationships less in terms of
personal ties with speciﬁc individuals and more in terms of commitments to the welfare
Of people—any people—with whom they come into contact in their professional work.
Thus, in Noddings’ words, they develop and build caring through “anticipated
hypothetical relationships” to which they are committed, rather than through ongoing

relationships with speciﬁc people across time.

Concepts of Justice in the Schools

Just as the concept of care was evident in school psychologists’ discussions of the
ethical dimensions of practice, the concept of justice was also represented. In this
section, several of these factors will be discussed, including the role of fairness and
equity in the historical development of education; legislation mandating the fair and just
education of students with disabilities; the full inclusion movement; eligibility
determination for special education; the school psychologist’s role as child advocate; and
the emphasis on non-discriminatory practices that exists in the ﬁeld Of school

psychology.

272

The concept of justice can be traced back into education’s early stages of
development. Within education’s history lies an evolutionary process whereby schools
moved from an institution for wealthy, privileged families to an institution emphasizing
equal access to all people. With the adoption of compulsory education laws in the late
19th century, schools were faced with and forced to adapt to the task of educating students
from diverse background experiences and socioeconomic situations (Fagan & Wise,
1994). The early attempts of school administrators to respond to this diversity involved
discriminatory classiﬁcation practices for sorting students for instruction based on factors
such as socioeconomic status and ability level (Milofsky, 1989; Miller, 1985). Hence,
compulsory schooling was a major force that contributed to the creation of special
education services.

With the passage of Public Law 94-142 in 1975, there arose within the
educational institution a new emphasis on equality and justice for all students. First, this
law outlined and protected the rights of students with handicaps to a free, appropriate
public education. Also outlined in this law were assessment and programming
approaches that do not discriminate on the basis Of language, cultural background, race,
ethnicity, or gender. Henning-Stout (1994) described the emphasis on justice and

equality that exists within schools and educational philosophies:
Across the history of educational practice in the United States, there is recurrent

evidence of efforts made in the spirit of equality and the belief in education as a

powerful tool for providing equal opportunity to the children of our country.

273

Whatever our activity in educating, sooner or later, we must account for how well

we provide effective education to all children (p. 14).

Thus, in education, and particularly in special education, the concept of fairness exists at
the very roots of policy and practice.

Certainly, present practices in special education also reﬂect a strong justice
orientation. The Regular Education Initiative (REI), the movement toward the full
inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education environment, is also
founded upon the supposition that children with disabilities are entitled to educational
experiences that are fair and as equal as possible when compared to students without
disabilities (Will, 1986). This fairness-based practice contrasts with early approaches to
special education which were characterized by the segregation of students with both mild
and severe disabilities into “special classes.”

The practice Of deeming certain students as eligible for special education services
based on pre-speciﬁed criteria, while deeming other students ineligible, is another
example of how justice and fairness are inherent in special education. Fagan & Wise
(1994) noted that assessment to determine special education eligibility is one Of the major
functions that school psychologists serve. The eligibility determination process is in
place to make reasoned, Obj ective judgments about who should and should not receive
resources. Thus, the present system is one that is driven by Obj ective judgments about
which students have a right to special education support.

Justice was also evident in school psychologist’s role deﬁnitions.

Overwhelmingly, as discussed at length in Chapter 3, each of the school psychologists in

274

this study described their major role and their main ethical obligations as that of child
advocacy. Inherent in the child advocacy role is a commitment to promoting rights, in
Webster’s words, “to support or defend a cause; one who pleads on another’s behalf”
(1994, p. 81). One of the participants, Nick, indicated that these advocacy
responsibilities are a professional’s by virtue of the position that he or she holds. This
perspective is not rooted in attachment and care but rather communicates a commitment
to justice that is based on position, Obligation, and mutual rights. The justice and rights-

based nature of advocacy is reﬂected in the NASP ethical guidelines:

School psychologists consider the students or clients to be their primary
responsibility, active as advocates of their rights and welfare. When choosing a
course Of action, school psychologists take into account the rights of each
individual involved and the duties Of the school personnel. School psychologists’
concern for protecting the rights and welfare of students is communicated to the

school administration and staff and is the top priority in determining services.

Reviewing the history of the ﬁeld, child advocacy also held a central position in the
conception of school psychology as a profession. In what Fagan & Wise term the “hybrid
years of school psychology (1890-1969)”, children were viewed as a vulnerable group
who needed protection by public policy (Cravens, 1987, as cited in Fagan & Wise, 1994).
The school psychologist was looked to as one person who could advocate for the needs of

this traditionally underrepresented and disadvantaged population. Recently, within

275

education, there has been an increasing emphasis on individual needs and child rights,
making the role of child advocate even more pronounced.

The school psychologists in the present study also emphasized their need to
balance the rights of multiple parties and to serve as a liaison between schools, families,
and community agencies. The terms that the school psychologists used to describe this
function varied. Robert saw himself as a “negotiator,” Joyce saw herself as “the PR.
person, the liaison,” but the focal point was consistent: These school psychologists
viewed themselves as responsible not only for advocating for students’ rights, but also for
advancing solutions in a way that will preserve the rights of all individuals with whom
they work. This balancing and negotiating role is based on the idea that all individuals
have a right to be treated with respect and to have a problem addressed in a manner that
promotes their rights.

Of special signiﬁcance to this discussion Of justice is the manner in which one
participant, Jill, described her ethical commitment to complete honesty. Both Jennifer
and Jill emphasized being completely honest in their practice, and they viewed honesty as
important to advancing the welfare of children. Jill, especially, emphasized that a large
facet of her ethical commitment involves devotion to honesty. She described situations
where she was honest with her recommendations for diagnosis and intervention, even
when she knew that her decision would cause rifts, at least temporarily, in her
relationships with students, families, or school professionals. Noddings (1984) made a
distinction between honesty “in connection to principles” and honesty “in connection to

persons and relationships.” Jill’s construal of honesty seems to be universal and thus

276

seems to stem from a justice orientation that all students have the right to honesty and
should be given that honesty to demonstrate respect and mutual responsibility.

Clearly, ideas of justice were described by the school psychologists participating
in this study. Additionally, on a broader scale, the principle of justice is clearly evident
in the work and ethical commitments of school psychologists as an organization.
Educating all children, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or disability is a commitment
that is apparent in school psychology, as well as in psychology generally and many other
helping professions. In the NASP ethical guidelines, school psychologists have an ethical
responsibility to “respect all persons and [be] sensitive to physical, mental, emotional,
political, economic, social, cultural, ethnic, racial, gender, sexual preference and religious
characteristics.” The motto ofNASP—“All children can learn”—clearly communicates
this dedication to fairness, justice, and rights of all children.

In conclusion, the principle of justice is reﬂected in many of the past
developments and current practices within education and school psychology. Within the
helping professions especially, it may be tempting to elevate the principle Of care as
superior to the principle of justice. Tong (1993), in addressing criticisms of Gilligan’s
dichotomy between justice and care, addressed the tendency to elevate care above justice,
suggesting that the picture is much more complex: “Justice may not be dismissed simply
as the abstract, alien tool. . ..for it is correctly blind to particulars in order to prevent
details or sex, race, and creed from determining whether we care for someone or not” (p.
127). Within school psychology speciﬁcally, one may conclude that school
psychologists, as helping professionals concerned with the welfare of children and

families, may be more devoted to care than to justice. However, this present discussion

277

indicates that the relationship between care, justice, and school psychologists’ ethical
commitments is not that simple. Dedication to non-discriminatory practice that will
beneﬁt all students is inherent in the profession of school psychology; thus, to elevate
care as more admirable or more ethical than justice for a school psychologist is

inaccurate.

Summary. Examination of the present data, coupled with an exploration of
existing educational and psychological literature, suggests that both care and justice are
relevant to education and school psychology practice. The school psychologists in the
present study expressed ideas of both care and justice as they described their perceptions
of their work with children and families within the school context. On one level, the
ideas of moral voices—a morality of justice and a morality of care—have proven useful
in exploring the ways that practicing school psychologists conceptualize and construe the
ethical dimensions of practice. These theoretical constructs have illuminated and
provided words for beginning to describe and conceptualize the often precarious position
of school psychologists as they identify an ethical problem, seek to resolve the problem,
and evaluate the resolution of the problem.

Nevertheless, Gilligan’s conception of the dichotomy between justice and care is
not adequate to represent school psychologists’ constructions and experiences. Rather,
given the present data, I have found it necessary to reinterpret these ideas within the
speciﬁc contexts of schools and school psychology practice. The exact nature Of this
complexity is the focus of the next chapter. The goal of this ﬁnal chapter is to evaluate

the utility of moral voices, Gilligan’s ethic Of care and Kohlberg’s ethic of justice, in

278

understanding school psychologists’ ethical commitments and to suggest a way of
reinterpreting ideas of j ustice and care within the school psychologist’s world of

experience.

279

Chapter 9

Reframing Moral Voice in School Psychology

Discussion of the present data reveals a complicated tension that exists when
discussing an ethic of care and an ethic of justice in relation to schools and school
psychology. To say the least, the data gathered in the current study support a main
conclusion of Gilligan’s critics: To draw a clear justice/care dichotomy is a highly
oversimpliﬁed and inaccurate representation of moral thinking and ethical commitment.
As described in Chapter 8, concepts Of both justice and care were reﬂected in school
psychologists’ discussions of the ethical issues they face in practice, the manner in which
they construe those ethical issues, the way they approach these situations, and the way
they actively reﬂect on their decisions and actions.

Upon launching this investigation, I was intending to discover that Gilligan’s
theory would in itself be adequate to understand the ethical concerns and commitments of
school psychologists. Because this theory has not been employed previously within the
school psychology literature in this way, I envisioned that this would be my major
contribution to the furthered understanding of ethical issues in practice. However,
through this dynamic inquiry process, I have recognized that the nature Of these concepts
of j ustice and care in relation to school psychology is much more complex and multi-
faceted, and that the utility of Gilligan’s theory for understanding school psychology
practice in its present form and context is limited. I began to see that the process of
separating the moral voices and compartrnentalizing them into a pre-constructed

dichotomy is, at best, artiﬁcial and, at worst, a process that perpetuates oversimpliﬁed

280

understandings of school psychologists’ ethical comnritrnents in a way that is exempliﬁed
in much of the present literature. Thus, I sensed an inherent tension as I attempted to
frame the voices of the participants within Gilligan’s frame Of care and justice. This
tension led me to ask several questions which have become the crux of this analysis:
What is the nature of this tension, and why does it exist? The desire to explore and
reconcile this tension drives the intellectual work in this ﬁnal chapter.

Given this trend in these data and the tension that exists when attempting tO limit
school psychologists’ ethical thinking and commitments to Gilligan’s framework, the
remaining task is to describe the nature of care and justice as they have been reﬂected in
the way that school psychologists chose to construe their ethical responsibilities and
commitments. If Gilligan’s conception Of dichotomous voices of justice and care is not
adequate to represent school psychologists’ understandings of ethical facets of practice,
how can we best understand this complex phenomenon? The major goal of this chapter
is to propose an alternate view of moral voice that is useful in representing and

understanding school psychologists’ professional ethical experiences and perceptions.

Understanding Moral VOiee as a Contextualized Phenomenon

Ecological theorists argue that to understand any social or psychological
phenomenon, one must examine it in the context in which it is embedded, acknowledging
the dynamic interaction that occurs between any phenomenon and its social context
(Lerner, 1996; Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1994). From this perspective, the context within
which one lives and practices must be conceptualized as multiple levels of inﬂuence that

simultaneously exist and interact. Gilligan, in her studies of the moral development of

281

 

 

rome
suppr
occur
unde

wﬁhi

psyc
rda
SClll
1101:
ass:
is
pro
COI
psr

Can

of r
COHI
discr
Ihur‘
Telalic

00mm.

women and adolescent girls, suggested that the cultural context has historically
suppressed the true moral voices of women. She proposed societal changes that must
occur before women’s moral voices will be heard. Hence, Gilligan would agree that to
understand the moral voices that are heard, one must understand them as embedded
within speciﬁc cultural and contextual demands.

Likewise, to understand fully the ethical thinking and commitments of school
psychologists, one must study them as embedded within real life contexts of
relationships, schools, communities, and social history. The importance of the context to
school psychology practice is even reﬂected in the discipline’s name. Farley (1996)
noted that the school psychologist is the only type of psychologist that is overtly
associated with a building and an institution. Whereas specialties like experimental
psychology, counseling psychology, and personality psychology are all deﬁned by a
process or psychological phenomenon, the deﬁning quality of school psychologists is the
context in which they practice. This further supports the argument that school
psychology, as a discipline and practice, is deﬁned in relation to the school context and
cannot be understood apart from its characteristics and ﬁrnctioning.

The discussions with school psychologists in this study conﬁrmed the importance
of viewing school psychologists’ ethical thinking and commitments as deeply
contextualized within a distinct setting and culture that have many different spheres. As
discussed in earlier chapters, school psychologists did not construe the ethical facets of
their practice as isolated from the rest of their practice, their personal lives, their
relationships, or the school context. The psychologists understood their ethical

commitments as inherent in their personhood and as deeply rooted in deve10pment,

282

upbringing, and accumulated life experience. However, when discussing ethical
concerns and ethical dilemmas, they embedded their thinking and development in real
life situations and contexts with which they dealt on a daily basis. They staged their
ethical concerns, commitments, and responsibilities in a complex moral terrain comprised
of multiple levels of contextual inﬂuence: Relationships, school culture, the profession
of school psychology, and the socio-historical context of education. Each of these factors
has been described at other points in this paper but be will summarized and synthesized

below.

Interpersonal Context of Relationships. School psychologists in this study made
it clear that they conceptualize their ethical obligations as embedded in a complex web of
relationships (as discussed in Chapter 6). They considered their primary relationships
within the schools to be with children, but they also described ethical commitments to the
welfare of families, other educators, and people outside the school context. School
psychologists described this network of relationships as highly complex, creating strong
potential for conﬂicts of interest and ethical dilemmas. A particularly salient and
common example arising from the relationship web was the pressure from administrators
to make decisions that violated ethical convictions regarding the welfare of children. The
existence of multiple relationships and allegiances also made it difﬁcult for the school
psychologists to clearly and consistently identify the client to whom they are primarily
responsible, a problem that has faced school psychologists since the inception of the ﬁeld
(Fagan & Wise, 1994). Participants described one of their major functions as that of

“balancing” needs and “negotiating” concerns of multiple individuals in an attempt to

283

seek recommendations and solutions that promoted the interest of all involved parties.
Their ethical responsibilities and commitments, though ultimately motivated by student

welfare, also involved consideration of the entire web of relationships.

Institutional Context of Schools. In this study, the school context and its web of
multiple relationships comprised the terrain where school psychologists carried out their
work and sought to preserve their professional ethical commitments. When discussing
their perspectives on professional ethics in school psychology practice, the school
psychologists referred to two types of characteristics of the school context: Those that
supported their ethical practice, and those that hindered their ethical practice. The school
psychologists identiﬁed sustained, trusting relationships with teachers and administrators
as the main facet of the school context that allowed them to remain committed to their
ethical standards in practice. These relationships were construed as the key to the school
psychologists’ ability to navigate practice in a way that did not violate their ethical
convictions.

The importance of construing school psychologists’ ethical concerns as
contextualized within the school environment was especially evident when school
psychologists discussed constraints to their ability to practice ethically. As discussed
fully in Chapter 5, the participants believed that systemic factors sometimes created
ethical dilemmas where the welfare of the student was pitted directly against ﬁnancial or
resource limitations, administrative resistance, or some other systemic factor. School
psychologists’ efforts to develop personal relationships, thereby exercising care Of the

type Gilligan described, were thwarted by time limits coupled with high caseloads, “test

284

and place” models of school psychology services, decreasing ﬁnancial resources
available to public schools, and restrictive institutional policies and regulations related to
student eligibility for support services. Hyman and Kaplinski (1994) argued that these
school contextual factors have “kept school psychologists locked in the crushingly futile
role of classiﬁcation,” thereby preventing them ﬁ‘om remaining committed to their ethical
convictions about what is right for students. To understand school psychologists’
experiences with negotiating ethical conﬂict within the web of relationships, the
organizational structure and political hierarchy that exists within the school system must

be examined.

Soda-Historical Context of the Profession. A signiﬁcant portion of Chapter 8
was devoted to exploring the importance of understanding the sociO-historical context of
school psychology and education. This historical perspective was emphasized as a key
to understanding school psychologists’ present experiences in the schools. School
psychologists do not only reside within a single-level web of relationships in the school
system; this web is embedded within the broader contexts of traditions, developments,
and transitions that have occurred within school psychology as a profession and within
society as a whole.

When discussing barriers to their ethical practice, the participants described many
factors related to the historical development of school psychology and present conditions
and emphases within the profession. For example, school psychologists continue to face
narrow perceptions of their role and express the frustration of being locked into a “test

and place” role that is deeply rooted in the development of the ﬁeld. This barrier creates

285

 

inrnsc
ther'a
the ell
psych

cduca

dEC'
01a
and
tou'
[€81
unc
autl
Poll

hisr

Pare
donu
a”d 11

Tole h

intense ethical conﬂict for school psychologists who believe that this limited role restricts
their ability to work in maximizing the learning and development of children, as well as
the effective and efﬁcient functioning Of the entire school environment. The school
psychologists in this study also pointed to the present organization of the special
education system as one that creates intense ethical conﬂict when determining a child’s
eligibility for services. Legislation that restricts accessibility to special education only to
those students who ﬁt certain prescribed diagnostic categories was cited as a major
source of ethical tension in their daily work.

One recent socio-historical change that is worthy Of examination in the present
discussion is the IDEA Amendments Of 1997. The school psychologists expressed a state
of ambiguity and even conﬁrsion about the implications of this legislation for their roles
and functions. In one sense, school psychologists embrace this legislation as a small step
toward allowing role transformation that is necessary to meet students’ needs beyond the
testing role. Yet, the overall attitude Of the participants was one of skepticism and
uncertainty. In fact, several of the school psychologists did not think that the re-
authorized legislation would affect them. This may reﬂect the idea that despite social and
political changes, the role of the school psychologist as a “tester” is ﬁrmly grounded in
history and will continue to be resistant to change.

In contrast, several participants emphasized that the increased involvement of
parents, although positive in many ways, is likely to complicate signiﬁcantly the ethical
domain of practice by increasing the likelihood for conﬂicts of interests between families
and the school. Although the precise nature of the effects on the school psychologists’

role has yet to be determined, the participants in this study were certain that the ethical

286

issues i

riders

praci
sent
that
schc
com
tlhlr

noti

151'

 

 

 

A

fl.

issues in practice will only become more complicated as the circle of relationships
widens and the potential for conﬂicts Of interest among parties grows.

To summarize this section on contextual inﬂuence, the ethical dimension of
practice needs to be understood as embedded within a context that has multiple and
sometimes conﬂicting spheres of inﬂuence. Before progressing, I will articulate not only
what these data suggest, but also what these data do not suggest. First, my argument that
school psychologists’ ethical thinking and commitments must be understood in the
context of schools and school psychology practice does not mean that morality and
ethical commitment is relative, depending on the context. I do not support a post-modem
notion of morality as completely relative and subjective. On the contrary, school
psychologists emphasized that many of their professional ethical commitments stem
ultimately from personal values and morals that transcend the boundaries of any
particular context. Although contextual factors may inﬂuence how moral voice is
expressed or heard, school psychologists certainly described an intimate, consistent
connection between personal and professional moral convictions and commitments.

Second, this emphasis on the contextualized nature Of ethical commitments does
not mean that school psychologists are “pawns” moved about by social and institutional
forces. Rather, school psychologists interpret these contextual factors, forces, and
demands in unique ways. The moral voices of school psychologists are ultimately
“ﬁltered through” these contextual spheres, so the contexts must be understood to
comprehend and adequately represent their moral voices.

The question remains: Why is it so important to understand school psychologists’

ethical practice as contextualized? The purpose of this next section is to investigate more

287

fully the manner in which school psychologists voices are “ﬁltered” through the
contextual levels of inﬂuence within which they practice. The concept of “ﬁltering” was
chosen deliberately and suggests that certain voices or aspects of a voice are ampliﬁed
and allowed to resonate, whereas others are suppressed, removed, or prevented from
being fully heard. The present data indicate that the moral voices of school psychologists
working in school environments are heard through contextual devices that amplify certain
voices while suppressing others. School psychology as a discipline provides a unique
environment for examining Gilligan’s voices of justice and care, because each of these
provide equally valid and justiﬁable ways Of construing practice. School psychologists,
as professionals devoted to health, care, and welfare of children, are poised in a position
within a system based on justice, fairness, rights, and entitlements. What is the nature of
the voice that school psychologists use to represent and describe their ethical
commitments and professional work? Providing an answer to this question is the focus of

the next section.

Justice as the Ampliﬁed Voice and Care as the Suppressed Voice
in School Psychology Practice
Through participation in the current study, the school psychologists were afforded
the opportunity to articulate their perceptions of ethical responsibilities and
commitments. As the participants discussed their perspectives and experiences when
facing, dealing with, and reﬂecting on ethical issues in their practice, the moral voice that
was ampliﬁed in their discussions was that of justice. Although care was cited as one of

the principles that drew participants to the profession and motivated their daily work with

288

children and families, the voice of j ustice was heard most loudly as they attempted to
navigate a terrain Of practice characterized by multiple legal and political constraints,
many levels of system barriers, and multiple parties and commitments that sometimes
conﬂict.

Evidence for the ampliﬁed nature of justice in school psychology practice was
prevalent in these present data. Nick emphasized that his ethical responsibilities are
rooted in his choice of position as a school psychologist. Though he cited “caring for
kids” as his major motivation for practice, he construed this “care” within the conﬁnes of
children’s rights, justice, and responsibilities that are his because of the role he has
chosen to assume.

Jill’s unyielding devotion to “honesty” was not rooted in intimate relationships
with individuals but was instead positioned within her ethical thinking and practice as a
universally applied principle driven by fairness and rights. Ken, emphasizing his desire
to know children and their circumstances intimately on an individual level, nevertheless
construed these concenrs as universal principles without a particular face and without
being grounded in particular relationships. Each of the ten school psychologists
described legislative and policy guidelines, prescribed policies and procedures for
allocating ﬁnancial and program resources, and administrative pressures that inﬁltrated
their practice and inﬂuenced the way they made sense of their ethical commitments and
responsibilities.

Both Ken and Mike, reﬂecting on over 20 year of experience, provide vivid
illustrations of how the changing institutional forces have impacted practice and, as a

result, how they construed their ethical commitments. Mike’s reﬂection on the changes

289

that he has experienced over his 27-year career in school psychology make apparent the
role of the changing school and societal context in how he is able to conduct his practice.
Early in his career, Mike was heavily involved in implementing and monitoring programs
for students, and he developed some close, intimate, sustained relationships with students
and families. As the educational system has evolved, however, he has seen these
relational efforts become virtually impossible to establish and sustain within the system.
He was adamant that although he does not care for students any less, he feels too many
systemic pressures, especially of time and ﬁnances, to relate on a deeper, ongoing level
with students.

Ken’s discussion of his professional development provides another notable
example of the way that care has been suppressed. During the early years of his 29-year
career, Ken worked with severely impaired students and was able to know them
personally and form sustained ongoing relationships with the student and their families.
However, similar to Mike, the changes within the school system and special education
have prevented him from attaining this level of relationship with students and families
and have placed barriers to the types of recommendations he makes because he knows
that resources are strictly limited and monitored.

Dave, too, described the ways that the organization of the school context and the
special education system have thwarted him from developing the close, sustained
relationships with students and families that he was able to establish earlier in his career
when he was working in a clinical setting. In private practice, he was able to focus his
concentration on one child and family for a sustained time period on a regular basis,

conditions which facilitated the development of deep and more satisfying relationships.

290

He does not believe that personal relationships with students are possible within the
present educational system. Considering collectively the perspectives of Mike, Ken and
Dave, the voice of care that was clearer in their early careers has become silenced as their
careers have progressed and as the educational system has changed.

Why is the moral voice of justice ampliﬁed, whereas the moral voice of care is
suppressed in school psychology practice? There are at least three potential answers to

this important question: Contextual ﬁlters, adaptive value, and training.

Contextual Filters. First, the power of contextual forces—historical devotion to
equity in education, the rights-based and mandate-driven nature of special education
programs, the web of relationships comprised of multiple parties and interests—may
force the school psychologists to reﬂect the broader system in their approach to practice.
Certain aspects of the system, whether it be others’ perceptions of the role, ﬁnancial and
time constraints, or socio-historical barriers, may ﬁlter the voices, allowing only certain
aspects Of moral voice to be expressed. The concept of amplification was chosen
purposefully within the present analysis. This word does not merely suggest a voice that
becomes louder by its own volition; rather, ampliﬁcation suggests that there is a medium,
device, or system through which the voice is ampliﬁed. Extending this metaphor, the
voice of justice is not necessarily that of the psychologists, but rather the voice of the
system. The system serves as the “medium” or “device” that ampliﬁes and pronounces a
voice of justice. Thus, the context has a strong inﬂuence on the approach that a school
psychologist chooses to take when thinking about and dealing with ethical concerns in

practice.

291

Professional Survival Strategy. Second, the voice of justice in the school context
has adaptive value for the school psychologist enmeshed in a barrage of potentially
complex ethical problems. Given the justice-and-rights-based nature of the school
system as it presently exists, the easier choice is to exercise a voice of justice to navigate
through the complex moral domain of practice. The professional context within which
the school psychologists works encompasses multiple prescriptions for how to support
student learning and development. Thus, the nature of the contexts affords a legalistic,
entitlement-based approach that has the appearance of being clearer, straightforward and
more objective, rather than a relational, care-based approach, to navigating practice.

The educational system is replete with legal markers and signposts that school
psychologists can rely on to guide them through their daily practice. When a school
psychologist is faced with intense conﬂicts of interest among parties, attempts to
maintain a care perspective by considering all parties and seeking a solution that will
maintain relationships is the more difﬁcult route. In Gilligan’s study of the moral
thinking of adolescent girls, she noted that the girls in her study, when discussing real-life
moral dilemmas, struggled to ﬁnd a solution “that would integrate the needs of all
involved. . ..[while they were] aware of the painful consequences that someone might
have to experience as a result of their choice” (1990, p. 103). One way to avoid this
intense dissonance and pain is to revert to the broader system to deal with ethical
situations, thus allowing one’s moral voice to be suppressed and ﬁltered by the system.
One example of this in the present study was found in school psychologists’ description
of the inevitability of interpersonal conﬂict in the ﬁeld. On one hand, this may represent

the true nature Of practice; on the other hand, this insistence on “balancing the needs of

292

everyone” to prevent interpersonal conﬂict may represent a strategy for professional
survival, 3 way of helping oneself and shielding one’s ego to survive the complex ethical
challenges that arise in practice. Thus, assuming a predominant voice of justice
simpliﬁes the work of the school psychologist and provides one important adaptive

strategy for trekking through the sometime treacherous ethical terrain of practice.

Training. Third, the training experiences of school psychologists and other
helping professionals often encourage the suppression of the voice of care. This
suppression is often considered to be an adaptive strategy for professional survival.
Because the helping professions often attract individuals who are naturally care- and
people-oriented, Ken referred to this fact when he talked about refraining from being a
“rescuer” because it can be too painful and stressful when one becomes personally
involved with children. Others, like Robert and Jennifer, emphasized the importance Of
“maintaining obj ectivity” to ensure that recommendations are not biased or do not
inﬁinge upon the rights of others within the system.

Explanation of these three reasons demonstrates how certain aspects of moral
voice can be ampliﬁed in school psychology, whereas at other times, there is the threat Of
subverting the voice altogether. Interestingly, as was discussed in Chapter 3, at least three
of the school psychologists, when discussing the extent that ethical and moral concerns
inﬁltrate practice, suggested that ethical dilemmas in school psychology are rare. Mike
believed that few Of the situations that he faced in practice had ethical implications,
although he thought that his ethical commitments stemmed from his personhood. Dave

thought that school psychology practice is so heavily legislated and prescribed that he

293

encounters few difﬁcult ethical dilemmas. Jill, contrasting her work in schools to work in
hospitals, thought that school psychologists are not really making many ethical decisions
because “we’re not making life and death decisions here.” One possibility is that these
school psychologists really do not consider their work as ethically laden in nature.
However, their simultaneous insistence of the integration of their personhood and their
professional moral commitments serves as evidence that this is not likely the case.

A second and more plausible explanation is that these school psychologists, in
one sense, may be similar to the adolescent girls of Gilligan’s study in the difﬁculty that
they have in calling. a moral problem a “moral problem.” Some (i.e., Tronto, 1993) have
argued that the difference that Gilligan has identiﬁed in the moral reasoning of males and
females is not an inherent gender difference but rather “a function of their subordinate or
tentative social position” (p. 243). Extending this line of reasoning, one might likewise
argue that one’s position within an organization or system may also inﬂuence the moral
voice one employs. When discussing this phenomenon in relationship to adolescent girls,
Gilligan refers to Blasi’s understanding (1990) of the moral identity and self as intimately

interrelated. In Blasi’s words,

....the concepts of responsibility. . .and integrity. . .are closely related and derive
their meaning from a view of moral action as an extension of the essential self
into the domain of the possible, of what is not but needs to be, if the agent has to
remain true to himself or herself” (1984, p. 132, as cited in Gillligan, 1990, p.

106)

294

Gilligan has contended that if the culture and context within which people exist do not
value their moral perspective or consider it truly “moral,” then people may be expected to
lose trust in their own perspective and to doubt their ability to act according to their own
moral convictions. She described the adolescent girl as holding a position within society

that suppresses her moral voice.

The loss may be of a sense of self as a moral, caring self and of trust in a logic of
interdependence and responsiveness derived from personal experience. These
cases suggest that evidence of this loss may be found in females during
adolescence, a time when young women come face to face with cultural traditions
and social conventions that may not legitimize their understanding of themselves

or their perspectives on the world (Gilligan, 1990, p. 108).

This quote reﬂects how institutional and cultural contextual factors can suppress
expression of moral voice. How can this important idea be useful in making sense Of
school psychology practice?

Interesting parallels can be drawn between the adolescent girls of Gilligan’s study
and the school psychologists participating in this study. School psychologists who come
into the professional environment with a care-orientation may “lose a sense of moral self”
when faced with the intense contextual demands and pressures of the school. Mike, Dave
and, to some extent, Robert, described this type of process across their careers and the
practice of school psychology became more prescribed and legislated and as the school

faced increasing ﬁnancial and programming limitations. Thus, the moral voice expressed

295

by school psychologists and ampliﬁed within the schools may be less a function of
gender or personhood and more a function Of their professional role and context.

Worthy of special examination, in light of this present discussion, is Tom’s
representation of his position within the system as it relates to his ethical commitments
and responsibilities. Tom understood himself and other school psychologists as the
“moral conscience of the system” who, because they did not have an interest in whether
or not a student qualiﬁes for services, were the “holders of the truth” and served as the
monitor Of the ethical functioning of the entire system. Tom’s conception was replete
with justice, as he objectiﬁed and detached school psychologists ﬁom the “rnessiness” of
making ethical decisions. This is a very clear example of how school psychologists can
employ a voice of justice to simplify the ethical terrain of practice and make an otherwise
seemingly insurmountable task more manageable. As was evident with the three school
psychologists who denied the ethical nature of practice, Tom may have been employing a

self-protective strategy that has professional survival value.

Reframing Care in School Psychology:
The Multiple Faces of Care

Analysis of the present data suggests that justice is a voice that has been ampliﬁed
both historically and presently in school psychology practice, but that care is not
altogether absent. The school psychologists referred to “care” as a principle motivating
their professional decisions and actions. In the psychologists’ discussions, there
remained the clear presence of a professional commitment to caring for and promoting

the welfare of children and families. In light of these present data, what does “care” look

296

like in the practice of school psychology? Rather than restricting care to any one
deﬁnition, these data reﬂected multiple types of care that may be possible within the
school context. In this section, I propose an alternate view of care—care as a range of
meanings and understandings—that is more helpful when attempting to make sense of
school psychologists’ professional ethical commitments.

First, on one end of the spectrum lies care, as conceptualized by Gilligan and
colleagues. This type of care, outlined fully in Chapter 1, is characterized by
responsiveness to and interconnection with others, and efforts to preserve interpersonal
commitments and relationships. Care is not borne out of obligations, entitlements, or
fairness, but is rather rooted in knowledge of people on an individual basis and
commitments to sustaining those interactions and relationships. Evidence of this type of
care was scarce in the present data. For many of the reasons described earlier in this
chapter—contextual restraints, strategic coping efforts, and training—this type of care
does not appear to be normative in school psychology practice. By nature of the
professional and socio-historical context, school psychologists are faced with tremendous
ﬁnancial limitations, time constraints, and attitudes that thrust them into a highly
prescribed role and prevent them ﬁom developing close, sustained relationships with
children and families over time. They express strong commitments to “children” and
“families” as abstract categories. School psychologists rarely speak of these
commitments as tied to speciﬁc people and speciﬁc relationships. Many of the school
psychologists desired to be able to develop close, ongoing relationships with children and
families, but describe these conditions almost as a “luxury” that is rarely if ever afforded

by the present role and context. Several of the school psychologists noted that this type

297

of care was more possible early in their careers, prior to the heightened legislation and
prescription of school psychological services. Although most of them do not believe that
this is possible presently, they did not altogether reject the idea that this type Of care
would ever be possible. Gilligan’s care may be possible within schools, but many
contextual changes are needed before this idea is translated into reality for school
psychologists.

At the other extreme lies a type of “care” that is entirely Objective and abstract,
assigned by the profession, and removed from strong and sustained emotional
commitment. By choosing to enter into a ﬁeld that involves working on behalf of
children and families, school psychologists assume the responsibility to “care” for their
clients. Thus, this type of care can be completely reduced to mandates, professional
responsibilities, and entitlements. Undoubtedly, Gilligan and her colleagues would not
call this a type of care at all, as it is fundamentally different than the type of care that
Gilligan has described. Although it may look like Gilligan’s care on the surface, a closer
examination reveals that it is a legally motivated, universally applied, abstract type of
care that is born completely out of justice, rights, and assigned responsibilities. As was
true of Gilligan’s conception of care, this second type of care was rarely evident in the
data. School psychologists did not describe their ethical commitments to children and
families as completely mandated, legislated, Objectiﬁed, emotionally void, and rights-
based.

If neither of these extreme types of care was evident in the present data, what did
“care” look like to these participants? Because the school psychologist’s role and context

presently place constraints on moral voice, justice and care may assume unique forms

298

within the boundaries of the settings within which school psychologists practice. The
type of care that was most represented in the present data lies somewhere in between the
two extremes and reﬂected care and justice as enmeshed. It is clear that “care,” in some
form, is central to how school psychologist describe and construct their work and
practice. The school psychologists discussed being motivated by genuine care and
concern for children and families. Joyce, among others, expressed “care for children and
families” as one of the main factors that drew her to the profession. Both Ken and Emily
emphasized knowing students and their unique abilities in their unique contexts and
cultures, an important facet of Gilligan’s ethic of care. Nick stated that he would not be
in the ﬁeld if he did not “care” about children and families. Care occupied a central role
in these school psychologists’ understandings of their professional ethical commitments.

The care-orientation of the ﬁeld is also reﬂected in the school psychology
literature. For instance, Farley (1996) has suggested that those practitioners who have
historically been called “school psychologists” should instead be called “edu-care
psychologists” because of what he perceives as the “centrality of care” in the speciality”
(p. 32). He views this care-focused practice as a key to making psychologists in the
schools indispensable and instrumental to student success.

To comprehend fully the nature of care and its relationship to justice in school
psychology, however, I will attempt to delve beneath these surface-level representations.
The school psychologists in this study talked about care in the abstract, emphasizing the
impact of contextual barriers on their ability to practice ethically. They described strong

commitments not to particular children but to “children” and “families” broadly,

reﬂecting the type of care embodied in Noddings’ “formal interpretation” of relationships

299

(discussed in Chapter 8). This abstract, universal construction Of “care” is evident at
many levels of the profession from the individual meanings expressed by the participants
in this study, to the national motto for the NASP which asserts that “All children can
learn.” Notions of care, then, were de-contextualized and spoken as truth apart from any
individual relationship with any individual person. In many ways, these representations
of care do not reﬂect care of the type that Gilligan has described.

Yet, to suggest the total absence of “care” without understanding the broader
context is to simplify the highly complex work of school psychologists. The prevalence
of justice concerns does not translate automatically into the absence of care concerns.
Shogan (1988) argued that “someone can both care that others are treated well and care
that others are treated fairly. . . justice does not preclude connection to those in conﬂict”
0). 54). In some sense, the care of school psychologists is a “prescribed care” that is, in
the words of Nick, their’s “by virtue of their chosen role and profession.” Yet, Nick also
emphasized his devotion to the welfare of children, describing this as his reason for
pursuing the profession. As previously mentioned, Dave and Mike expressed concern
that the ﬁeld no longer affords the development of close sustained relationships with
children and families. This concern about barriers to deep interpersonal relationships
with students and families was reﬂected in individual ways by each of the participants in
this study.

Data of this type suggest that care and justice go hand-in-hand in school
psychology practice. In the words of Shogan, “It may be possible to see those who are
concerned with interpersonal connections as people who directly respond to others both

in moral situations in which others’ welfare is at stake and in situations in which fair

300

treatment is at stake” (198 8, p. 59). For school psychologists, justice and care are
intimately connected within the constraints of the professional context, and clear
dichotomous lines cannot be drawn between them.

Shogan (1998) described two types of care—“direct care” and “duty care.” While
“duty care” may stem partially ﬁom the roles or positions one holds, it does not reduce
the purity of care concerns. This understanding of care is important to the present study
because it combines the ideas of fairness and care. In another distinction that is useful to
our present discussion, Prilleltensky (1994) has differentiated “social ethics” and
“individual ethics.” Social ethics differs from individual ethics “in that while the latter
seeks to care for and enhance the well-being of a particular person, the former endeavors
to promote the welfare of a society as a whole” (p. 202). Thus, to be concemed about
justice and rights universally does not eliminate ideas of care and concern. Prilleltensky
has argued that school psychologists, by virtue of their position, are and should be more
concerned with social ethics.

On one level, I argue that school psychologists, by the very nature of their
position, cannot fulﬁll all of their responsibilities and maintain a pure ethic of care
orientation, as described by Gilligan. Due to the complex system and web of
relationships within which school psychologists are engaged by virtue of their roles
within the school context, intimate, sustained relationships are difﬁcult to develop.
Likewise, it is equally difﬁcult to restore all relationships within the system.

The nature of school psychology practice therefore illuminates the need to address
the contextual factors as they inﬂuence moral reasoning and to understand moral voice as

contextualized in nature. Tronto (1993) has argued that theoretical positions must

301

recognize that “morality must be situated concretely, that is, for particular actors in a
particular society” (Tronto, 1993, p. 248). Tronto went on to explain her evaluation Of

the relationships between an ethic of care and an ethic of justice:

The perspective of care requires that conﬂict be worked out without damage to
the continuing relationships. Moral problems can be expressed in terms of
accommodating the needs of the self and of others, of balancing competition and
cooperation, and of maintaining the social web of relations in which one ﬁnds
oneself. Quite obviously, if such caretaking is the quintessential moral task, the
context within which conﬂicting demands occur will be an important factor in
determining the morally correct act (emphasis added). To resort to abstract,
universal principles is to go outside of the web of relationships. Thus, despite
Kohlberg’s dismissal of care as secondary to and dependent on justice reasoning,
from a different metaethical perspective, care may set the boundaries of when

justice concerns are appropriate (emphasis added) (1993, p. 248).

A widespread belief is that caring people are naturally drawn into the helping professions.
Thus, if we assume that people enter the profession of school psychology with a moral
voice of care, we have seen in the present study how the voice of care can be suppressed
in the system. Thus, the voice of care may actually look like or be “translated into”
justice concerns because “care sets the boundaries of when justice concerns are
appropriate.” A school psychologist may have to assume a voice of justice to navigate

the system and exercise care concerns. On a deeper level, then, justice concerns about

302

fairness, equity, and universal rights, though looking like justice concerns on the surface,
can actually be motivated by a morality Of care. To interpret school psychologists’
abstract and universal concerns about fairness and justice as a pure justice orientation
does not tell the whole story; rather, the most accurate view of their understandings
appears to be that of an intimate melding of the voice of justice and care. Thus, although
one voice may be ampliﬁed over the other depending on contextual circumstances, both
are present.

Which moral voice gets ampliﬁed in the ethical practice of school psychology?
In this study, it was the voice of justice that resounded most loudly. Where is the voice of
care in schools and in school psychology? Because of the commanding presence of
justice in educational systems and in school psychology practice, I could easily conclude
that care is absent in school psychology. On the contrary, rather than forcing school
psychologists’ perceptions into prescribed categories, we must reframe our notion of
care, recognizing that care may look different in school psychology practice. One must
look very closely to understand that care, for many school psychologists working in the
school context, is a principle that is in many ways deﬁned and molded by the context in
which they practice. Care may take on different forms, but each is equally valid. Given
the position Of school psychologists within the system, the ability to adopt a moral voice
that involves facets of both justice and care, and that Often looks like justice concerns,
may be necessary to meet the needs Of others and to meet the needs of self, thereby
ensuring professional survival.

Where is a place in school psychology practice where the voices of justice and

care, as intimately interconnected, are the most evident? Reﬂecting on the present data,

303

 

there was one facet of school psychologist’s roles wherein the voices of justice and care
were most loudly heard: The role of child and family advocate. The next section will
describe how advocacy may be one place in practice where school psychologists are
afforded the opportunity to express both moral voices of justice and care.

Advocacy as a Navigation Strategy:
Melding Justice and Care in the Ethical Terrain of Practice

One of the questions driving the present study related to the resources and
strategies that school psychologists use to navigate the ethical terrain of practice.
Common understandings of resources and strategies might include ethical codes, research
literature, consultation with colleagues, or other sources of information to guide ethical
decision-making. The participants in this study cited colleagues, rather than formal codes
and literature, as one of the main resources that they consulted when facing ethical
dilemmas. Overall, however, the data in this study reﬂect an alternate way of
understanding the resources and strategies that school psychologists use to understand
and ﬁnd their way through the complicated ethical terrain of practice.

First, as described earlier in this chapter, moral voice can be conceptualized as a
strategy employed in navigating the ethical terrain of practice. Considering the unique
professional role and context, when school psychologists are enmeshed in ethical
conﬂict, it can be easy to listen to the voice that is most clear and most loudly expressed.
In present-day schools, that is the voice of justice. Thus, assuming the voice Of justice
can be one strategy that school psychologists use as they try to survive the ethical

demands of practice. Even if school psychologists are motivated by an ethic of care, they

304

may exercise a voice of justice to guide themselves through the system and to try to
access services for children.

A second strategy that school psychologists may employ in ﬁnding their way
through the ethical situations that arise in practice is that of assuming the role of child
advocate. How, one may ask, can this role serve as a strategy? Based on the present
data, there appears to be one place, one function, in school psychology practice where
care and justice intersect and meld: The role of child advocate. Advocacy, as one
possible facet of the school psychologists’ role, can be conceptualized as a “smaller
scale” replica of practice, a microcosm for examining the interrelationship of justice and
care in school psychology practice.

School psychologists’ conceptions of their roles as advocates are not uni-
dimensional or uniform ; rather, the present conversations suggest that school
psychologists vary in how they construct their roles as advocates. Thus, as discussed
fully in Chapter 3, child advocacy can assume many different faces: Liaison, tester,
gatekeeper, consultant, problem-solver, and facilitator. Although these psychologists
varied in how they deﬁned and constructed their roles as child advocates, they had in
common their use of both justice and care when describing their commitments to working
on behalf of children and families.

Regardless of how they constructed their roles as child advocates, evidence for
both justice and care emerged from their descriptions. For example, school psychologists
like Jennifer, who deﬁned their role largely in relation to assessment, discussed their
concerns both about justice (meeting eligibility criteria, remaining Objective and

refraining from bias) and about care (making recommendations to support the students’

305

welfare). She relied heavily on testing and assessment functions, but she did not
construct her role in a uni-dimensional way but viewed assessment as a means of seeking
care for children. Those participants, like Ken, Tom, Joyce, and Robert, who viewed
their role more broadly as that Of problem-solver, facilitator, and consultant, also
constructed these roles using the moral voices Of both justice and care. To view oneself
as a child advocate does not necessarily preclude the view of oneself as a liaison between
the family and the school system. Joyce, viewing herself as motivated by care and
concern for individual children (care), simultaneously views herself as a liaison between
the family and the school system who seeks to balance interests (justice). Yet her
ultimate motivation is the welfare of individual children and families, a commitment that
she shares with each of the school psychologists in this study.

Nick provided one example where the voices of both justice and care were clearly
reﬂected and where the advocacy role allowed him to exercise a voice of care, despite the
demands and pressures of the broader system. The case, described fully in Chapter 5,
involves a student with autism, and the students’ parents wanted their son to have a full-
time aide paid for by the district. When describing his efforts to advocate for the services
for this student, Nick stated that his everyday moral sense was that the amount of money
needed for this student to have an individual aid was excessive. In one way, he thought
that this high expense was depriving other children of certain beneﬁts that they might
otherwise have been able to access. Thus, he had concerns about justice and rights.
Nevertheless, he supported obtaining the aide for the student because he regarded it to be
his professional responsibility to advocate for the student’s educational welfare. He both

cared about the student’s welfare (care), and he believed that it was the student’s right to

306

obtain the support (justice). In this situation, his role as a child advocate allowed him to
meld the voices of justice and care—though justice continued to be the louder voice—in
making an ethical decision.

The role of child advocate, more so than a strict uni-dimensional, mandate-driven
role of assessor or tester, seems to afford the opportunity to express both justice and care
within one’s work. Advocacy provides school psychologists with a language for
expressing both justice and care coincems and navigating through a sometimes hostile
system in efforts to help children have access to needed supports. Advocacy has a strong
justice-orientation, however, it involves not only rights and responsibilities but also care,
commitment, and involvement in the lives of children and families. Child advocacy can
remain the focus of a school psychologist’s practice, regardless of who the client is and
regardless of what the psychologist’s prescribed role is. This role therefore provides
direction in a difﬁcult, complex ethical world of practice. This desire and responsibility
of putting the child’s needs at the center of one’s practice involves implications for
school psychologists, because one runs the risk of alienating everyone in the system.
Thus, one can appear to be uncaring or callused, when one’s motives are actually care-
based.

This discussion of advocacy provides an answer to one question driving the
present study: How do the ways that school psychologists construe ethical problems
reﬂect their role deﬁnitions? The present discussion of advocacy indicates that school
psychologists, viewing their main role as that of child advocate, use both voices of justice
and care to construe ethical problems. Although the present role, with its context and

constraints, may not allow the voice of care to emerge fully in such a way that Gilligan

307

conceptualized it, advocacy is one place where both voices are allowed to be expressed
and melded. This may provide one reason why school psychologists overwhelmingly
deﬁne their work in terms Of advocacy for children and families. This role allows them,
while focusing ultimately on children, to also recognize the needs of others and the needs
of the system when making recommendations on behalf of children. Just as the school
context can be conceptualized as a device that ampliﬁed a voice of justice, the role Of
advocate can be conceptualized as a device that allows the voice of care to be heard more

fully.

Hearing the Future Moral Voice of School Psychologists:
Conclusions and Implications

Conclusions

School psychology, as a role and a discipline, is on the verge of rapid shifts and
dynamic evolutions. This study was intended to examine the ethical implications of these
changes, focusing on the voices and strategies that school psychologists use in making
sense of their ethical commitments and responsibilities in practice. My purpose was to
build upon existing school psychology research casting ethical issues as discrete
categories and frequencies. School psychologists did not construe their professional
ethical concerns as uni-dimensional and isolated from other aspects of their personal and
professional lives. Central to the school psychologists’ professional ethical commitments
were personal ethical convictions and values. They described inextricable connections
between personal development and experiences and the evolution Of professional ethical

commitments.

308

In their active constructions Of their roles and ethical dimensions of their roles, the
ten school psychologists in this study painted a picture of a complex ethical domain that
involves many moral twists and turns, many road signs and markers that provide
conﬂicting direction, and many bumps that threaten to throw them off Of their course.
Consistent with previous research (e.g., J acob-Timm, 1999), the school psychologists
recognized that the system within which they work presents some difﬁcult challenges to
their commitment to practice ethically in a consistent manner. They construed
themselves as poised in a sometimes precarious position between a system with many
rules, demands, resource limitations, and conﬂicting interests, and a child who is in need
of care, advocacy, and support. Within this system, they see themselves as embedded in
a complex web of relationships that often involves conﬂicts of interest and necessitates
balancing and reconciling the principles Of fairness and care. Just as Gilligan found in
her study of adolescent girls (1990), I discovered that the school psychologists in this
study discussed dilemmas that “pits the principle of fairness directly against
responsibility for the weal and woe of others” (p. 41). One of their main jobs is tO
balance these relationships and principles to seek solutions that are mutually beneﬁcial, a
grueling if not impossible task with many ethical implications.

Drawing on Gilligan’s distinction between a voice of justice and a voice of care, it
was the voice of j ustice was most readily apparent as the school psychologists described
their efforts to navigate through a system that presented challenges and barriers in the
from of strict policies and prescriptions, legal mandates, time limitations, ﬁnancial
constraints, and limited role perceptions. Thus, the voice of care is often suppressed

within the system, raising the possibility that children and families will, in the words of

309

Ken, “get lost in the rules and numbers.” Why is the voice of justice ampliﬁed, whereas
the voice of care is suppressed in school psychologists’ discussions of ethical concerns?
In addition to contextual demands, the justice orientation may provide some semblance of
predictability and order within the system, and may provide a strategy for exercising care
and helping children gain access to services and resources that will support their learning
and development. Within the school context, care may take on a different face in
practice, necessitating an understanding of care that embraces a range of meanings that
are contextualized in real situations with real people.

The baniers of the role and context were described as a very real source of
frustration for the participants striving to maintain ethical practice. In response to these
present conditions, some of the participants expressed a degree Of resignation and
hopelessness in the face of these pressures. They dealt with the difﬁculty and ambiguity
of ethical commitments by trying to cling to the prescriptions and Objective roles that
make the ethical domain appear less ambiguous and more manageable. Most
participants, however, remain committed to make their moral voices heard within the
system and were willing to stand by their convictions of working for the beneﬁt of
children and families. They employed their professional judgment to ﬁnd ways to move
beyond the prescriptions of the system.

The practitioners in this study reﬂected the limitations of the system to varying
degrees. Yet, each of the participants construed their major role as one of child
advocacy, recognizing this as an area in practice that allowed them to balance justice
concems—policies, entitlements, objectivity, and balancing rights and perspectives—and

care concems—relationships, knowledge of individual children and families, and

310

contextualized understandings of circumstances. Advocacy became a strategy, or a
device, that allowed them to exercise both moral voices of justice and care within the
conﬁnes of the role and context. Looking to the future of educational and special
education reform, participants realized that the changing context will affect their roles
and create new ethical issues and challenges for school psychologists. They are unsure of
what the future of practice will look like, but they are not without hope and optimism.

Overall, the results of this study paint a somewhat dismal picture, but they also
contain examples of how school psychologists have begun to work against barriers to
ethical practice to maintain care for children at the center of their professional decision-
making and behavior. What position should care occupy in the practice of school
psychology? It is my contention, based on these data and review of existing data, that to
contribute to positive changes in the lives of children, school psychologists must ﬁnd
ways to reintegrate more strongly the voice of care within the educational context. The
voice of care must be ampliﬁed, and one way to achieve this goal is to implement a
renewed focus on relationship in schools. This idea will be discussed further in the
implications section below.

What is clear, as a result of this study, is that the ethical commitments of school
psychologists and their thinking about ethical issues are highly complex and cannot be
reduced to numbers and lists, nor can they be pi geon-holed cleanly into prescribed
theoretical categories. Although Gilligan’s discussions of the moral voices of justice and
care have been extremely useful as the starting point for thinking about moral voice, the
moral concerns of school psychologists must be understood as complex, dynamic

Phenomena that are deeply contextualized within a system that involves highly complex

311

challenges and pressures. Only then can we begin to understand and appreciate fully how
school psychologists think about their very important work and their commitments to the
learning and development of children and families. Only then can we begin to identify
and implement reform efforts that will allow the voice of care and relationship to be
ampliﬁed in the school environment.

The results of this study have contributed to the understanding of school
psychology practice and has several important implications for training, practice, and
research. This ﬁnal section will outline these implications and suggested future

directions.

Implications for Training and Practice:
A Call for Relationship and Care
Based on the present data, school psychologists, if desiring to remain committed
to being ethical practitioners, must be equipped with crucial knowledge and skills for
navigating this complex domain of practice. Several changes in present models of

graduate training and ongoing professional development are required.

Understanding and Assessing Broader Contexts. First, the results of this study
emphasize the need for school psychologists to master a more thorough understanding of
the multi-level contexts in which they practice. The school psychologists in this study,
when discussing their roles and practice, clearly referred to contextual factors as major
factors and recognized the unique environments of their individual relationships, schools,

and districts. As they redeﬁne and reframe their individual professional roles across their

312

careers, school psychologists must also constantly reﬂect on and critically analyze the
impact of broader political, legal and social changes on their professional ethical
commitment and responsibilities. More attention must be given to the social context of
schools and the broader societal context (F agan & Wise, 1994; Henning-Stout, 1994) and
to understanding professional ethical decisions as embedded in a broader multi-level
context of inﬂuence.

Relatedly, given the strong contextual inﬂuence on ethical commitments and
decisions, it is necessary for school psychologists to gain more knowledge and tools that
will allow them to conduct broader, system-wide assessments. Not only are there factors
that are unique to the educational context and the school psychology profession in
general, but there are also unique characteristics of each school system that must be
assessed and understood. According to Curtis and Stollar (1996), “Organizational change
should be built upon careful analysis of a specific school (emphasis added) and a change
plan should be developed that is designed to address the unique needs and characteristics
of that school (emphasis added)” (p. 412). Much of the school psychology literature
(Nagle, 1995; Ysseldyke & Geenen, 1996) has recognized the need for school
psychologists to expand their assessment skills to include assessment Of broader
educational systems if they hope to be change agents. How, speciﬁcally, will a

heightened awareness of the context support school psychologists’ ethical practice?
Understanding the Contextualized Nature of Ethical Commitments. To

navigate successfully the complex ethical domain of practice and remain committed to

their ethical convictions, school psychologists must conceptualize their ethical

313

commitments as embedded within a complex and dynamic context. The school
psychologists in this study reported multiple and highly complicated environmental
forces—administrative support, budget constraints, role misperceptions from others in the
school environment, for example—that either support or threaten their ability to practice
ethically. Awareness of these factors is an essential ﬁrst step in preparing school
psychologists to deal effectively with them and thereby to remain committed to providing
ethical service.

How can school psychologists be educated on the importance of a contextualized
understanding of ethical concerns in practice? This awareness must be addressed both at
the level of training programs, as well as in ongoing professional development initiatives.
They must learn to recognize system pressures and organizational structures, practices,
and assumptions that impact their ethical practice and threaten to suppress care concerns
in practice. Despite the intuitive appeal of care, these ideas are difﬁcult to translate into
practice. This heightened awareness will also assist them in making more meaningful
contributions to educational reform efforts, because effective reform efforts must account
for all levels of the context. This task is not easy, given the quickly shifting nature of the
profession. Joyce, for instance, expressed that she wasn’t even sure “what ethical
practice in school psychology really is,” and this statement may be an expression of the
dramatic shifts that are occurring within the ﬁeld, affecting the clarity of one’s ethical
commitments that may be in ﬂux. Rather than viewing their ethical commitments and the
surrounding context as static, school psychologists must constantly re-evaluate the
relationship between ethical commitments and the professional context. Clearly, this

understanding must be implemented both at the level of training programs, as well as to

314

individual practitioners currently practicing in the ﬁeld. Conferences, professional
development seminars, and written literature focusing on the impact of systerrric changes
for ethical practice will be crucial in this effort. In short, these data support a new

conceptualization of and approach to the ethical training of school psychologists.

Recon ceptualizing and Reforming Training Practices. Present training practices
in the area of ethics tend to focus on familiarizing students with the ethical codes of
NASP and APA, reviewing common ethical dilemmas and providing students with
prescribed models. for resolving the dilemmas (Bersoff, 1995; Eberlein, 1987; Kitchener,
1986; Meara, Schmidt & Day, 1996). This training approach does not challenge students
to explore critical questions about their own moral convictions and the relationship
between their personal values and their professional ethical commitments. The school
psychologists in this study, on the contrary, reported their own personal developmental
experiences, family backgrounds, and personal value sets as major inﬂuences on their
ethical commitments in practice. Considering the person as separate ﬁom moral
concems is detrimental to understanding and supporting ethical practice. These present
data, coupled with many studies that have reported a gap between moral thinking and
moral action (e.g., Bernard & Jana, 1986; Smith, McGuire, Abbott & Blau, 1991),
suggest that ethical training must move beyond prescriptive approaches to address the
interpretive, constructive nature of ethical practice. Within the ﬁeld of school
psychology speciﬁcally, what can be done to move beyond traditional, prescriptive

training approaches? The answer, I ﬁrmly assert, is to employ relationship as both a

315

training tool in preparation programs and as a tool to be used to facilitate therapeutic
change in schools, families and individuals’ lives.

First, school psychology students preparing to enter the ﬁeld must be given safe
Opportunities to explore their own moral beliefs, values, and developmental experiences
that shape their perceptions of practice. As reﬂected in present data and in existing
discussions (Damon & Hart, 1992; Punzo, 1996), morality and moral concerns are
integrated within personhood but nonetheless hold different positions within the lives Of
individuals. For participants in the present student, the process of articulating the nature
and substance of their ethical commitments was difﬁcult as they struggled to locate and
express their moral voices. The expression Of one’s moral and ethical values and
commitments, as well as how personal values intersect with professional work, must
become an everyday topic of discussion in graduate-level training courses. Recognizing
this need, many clinical and counseling psychology programs require graduate students to
participate in psychological counseling as an integral part of their graduate-level
preparation for the helping professions. Because the present data indicate that ethical
commitments are actively constructed based on individual perceptions, values, and
experiences, this experience may be helpful for school psychologists as they think
through the ethical commitments that will drive and inﬁltrate their practice.

Second, given the participants’ descriptions of an intimate connection between
personhood, personal values and professional ethical practice, selection committees for
school psychology training programs must recognize the vast importance of the initial
selection of students for entry into the profession. Considering the well-documented

discrepancy that exists between ethical codes and ethics training, on one hand, and actual

316

decisions in practice, it appears that most professional ethical decisions stem more from a
person’s individual values and commitments than from codiﬁed, prescribed processes
that can be taught in university courses or internship settings. Many of the participants in
the present study conceptualized their ethical commitments as stemming primarily from
the essence of their personhood rather from a prescribed set of ethical standards. Thus,
graduate program admissions committees must recognize the challenge that they have in
identifying and allowing entry to students whose personal values and morals are
consistent with ethical practice. This raises major questions regarding the identiﬁcation
and application of valid, reliable and ethical ways to assess students’ personal ethical
convictions and commitments; nevertheless, while this undoubtedly introduces complex
and controversial factors into the already complicated graduate admissions process, the
present data suggest the need to reconsider present admissions decision processes.

Third, the present data indicate that the internship experience, more so than
formal university courses, plays a critical role in the development of school
psychologists’ ethical commitments. The participants in this study, in addition to citing
their own internships as inﬂuential, stressed their role as internship supervisors in helping
students to think more seriously about ethical issues. They viewed ethical training as an
important part of their responsibility as internship supervisors. Yet, the participants did
not describe a detached working relationship with their interns; rather, many of them
described a “mentorship” that allowed them the Opportunity to invest themselves as
people into their intem’s personal and professional development. This relationship
model of intern supervision holds tremendous potential to support the moral development

of school psychologists as they enter the profession. To implement this relational model

317

of ﬁeld-based training successfully, however, the current university practices for
selecting, monitoring and evaluating supervising school psychologists would need to be
re-evaluated.

Fourth, given that school psychology practice and ethical commitments are all
situated within a complex social context, increasing attention should be given in ethics
training to developing and honing interpersonal skills. The most difﬁcult ethical
challenges described by the school psychologists in this study involved working
simultaneously with multiple parties with conﬂicting needs and agendas. To be prepared
to work successfully within this complex web, school psychologists must have the
communication and relational skills necessary to negotiate these sometimes heated
interchanges. This will become even more crucial with the increasingly integrated
involvement of parents and community agency representatives.

Fifth, in light of the present data, training practices should also be reevaluated to
ascertain ways that they may unknowingly encourage novice practitioners to suppress
their voice of care. Many times, people preparing to enter the helping professions are
encouraged to remain objective and detached to prevent bias when investing in the lives
of clients. On the contrary, I believe that this sterile approach is more detrimental than
beneﬁcial to the effectiveness of a helping professional. Because one’s ethical
commitments and therapeutic approaches are so closely tied to one’s personhood and
personal experiences, one’s effectiveness as a therapist is heightened through the sharing
of personal beliefs, constructions, assumptions, and experiences. The emphasis should be
placed on articulating clearly one’s moral and ethical commitments and ensuring that

clients are aware of the values, morals, and ethical assumptions from which one Operates

318

in their professional work. As will be discussed next, I believe that a school
psychologist’s most effective and life-changing work will come through care-based
relationships with students and families.

Finally, the present study supports the need for ongoing professional development
in the area of ethics in school psychology practice. Rather than relying upon codes,
training, or written resources to guide their ethical decisions, the school psychologists in
this study expressed the importance of collaborating and consulting with colleagues
around issues of ethical signiﬁcance. Additionally, given the emergent and development
nature of ethical commitments and thinking about ethical issues, school psychologists
must be given ongoing Opportunities to reﬂect upon and discuss the ethical challenges
that they face in their daily work. School districts, intermediate school districts, and
professional organizations at both the state and national levels should include training and
discussions about ethical issues in their seminars and conventions. The value of informal
ethics discussions among school psychologists should also be emphasized to both
graduate students and practitioners. One way that this might be accomplished is through
the formation of informal consultation networks among school psychologists. Further,
mentoring relationships between practicing school psychologists will be valuable in
facilitating development of relationship and discussion of moral concerns. Several of the
school psychologists felt that their relationship with mentors in the ﬁeld was one of the
most inﬂuential factors in their ethical development both as people and professionals.

In sum, I believe that training programs must be committed to the development of
reﬂective practitioners who are aware of their ethical commitments and who are willing

to remain committed to high ethical standards. This goal will most likely be

319

accomplished by creating training environments based on relationships—relationships
between faculty and students, relationships between interns and ﬁeld supervisors,
relationships among students, and mentoring relationships among practitioners. This
relational approach to training, emphasizing care for the self and others, may create a safe
environment for exploring, articulating, and challenging issues of ethical and moral
development and commitment. By creating this type of care-based context, training
programs can provide novice practitioners with a solid foundations for entering the
profession and building a care-based practice in their individual schools and

communities.

Revisiting Ethical Codes. In addition to implications for training and practice,
these ﬁndings have several implications for the development and revision of formal
ethical codes. The present procedure for developing and revising professional ethical
guidelines is complex, time-consuming and expensive. It involves multiple experts
working together for a considerable period of time, gathering data from the ﬁeld
regarding necessary revisions, debating proposed changes, and working to create a
dynamic document that will provide guidance to practitioners in a variety of settings and
specialty areas. Nevertheless, despite the tremendous resources that are devoted to this
process, the present data indicate that the codiﬁed ethical guidelines are not a major
source of information in the midst of ethical problems. When asked to discuss the ethical
resources that they utilize in practice, the participants in this study did not mention formal
codiﬁed resources; only when I directly inquired about the utility of ethical codes in

practice did they address this resource. To many of the school psychologists, the code

320

existed at more of a detached conceptual, theoretical level than at a level that inﬂuenced
their daily practice directly. Given the tremendous expense and expertise, this present
process of code development and revision must be evaluated. A ﬁrst step in this
evaluation process might be a survey of a representative sample of practicing school
psychologists regarding the utility Of the code, suggestions for making the code more
applicable to practice, and possible alternative approaches to disseminating guidelines for

ethical practice.

Returning to Relationship: A Challenge to Reform for School Psychologists.
The most important implication of this study, I believe, is its support of a return to
emphasis on the “human factor” of the practice of school psychology. Overwhelmingly,
the school psychologists in this study agreed that their main work is to aﬂect people. In
this study, school psychologists’ ethical commitments were not isolated to assessment
and intervention procedures but were focused on their interactions with people.
However, the school psychologists struggled to maintain this focus within the conﬁnes of
historical role prescriptions, budget limitations, and legislative mandates. With the
present call for expanded roles, the actual role and functions of the school psychologist
are, in many ways, ambiguous, undeﬁned, and “in ﬂux.” More than ever, school
psychologists are in a position to have a voice in the shaping, deﬁnition and identiﬁcation
of the profession within the broader educational and societal contexts.

Within this present climate, I believe that school psychology, as a profession,
must clarify its mission and make clear where its energy will be channeled in future

educational reform efforts. I do not believe that positive change in the lives of children

321

 

and families will come about through testing or even through special education programs
for students with disabilities. Although these functions are and will continue to be an
important part of school psychologists’ work, I strongly believe that relationships and
genuine care are the tool through which therapeutic change will occur. School
psychologists must relocate their voice of care and take a stand within a system that
currently validates mainly concerns for justice, rights, and objective detachment.
Research has indicated that many of the problems that school psychologists deal with—
dropping out of school, teenage pregnancy, juvenile delinquency, crime—have at their
roots problems of relationship. One key to at—risk children and adolescents who
successfully break the risk cycle is relationships between caring adults and at-risk youths
(McWhirter, McWhirter, McWhirter & McWhirter, 1998). Extending this reasoning,
school psychologists’ most powerful tool in effecting change resides in their voice of care
expressed through developing and maintaining meaningful relationships with students
and families.

How will reform of this magnitude be translated into reality? Grimes and Tilly
(1996) assert that “Meaningﬁrl change in the fabric of schools comes about from within
schools rather than from without” (p. 470). The school psychologist holds the potential
for being a powerful determinant in these change efforts. According to a recent
feasibility study examining the barriers and sources of support that school psychologists
encounter in contributing to reform efforts (Geenen, 1995), the school psychologist, with
their training and expertise, is prepared to be an agent of systems change. Baker and
colleagues (1997) agreed, asserting that in reform movements emphasizing an ethic of

care in schools, “School psychologists, in their central role as child advocates, can be

322

instrumental in developing school practices that extend caring and community to
children” (p. 599).

I agree with Baker (1996) and Noddings (1984), who argued that education is, at
its core, a moral endeavor which should be guided by care and relationship. However,
schools, in their present state, are a long way away from achieving this noble standard.
Educators and educational reformers know that this task is monumental in nature.
Schools and educational communities are resistant to change. Sarason (1982) asserted
that “the more sensitive you become to the complicated embeddedness, the more you
realize how many different ‘systems’ have to change if the change you seek in the
schools can be successfully introduced and maintained” (p. 11). As identiﬁed in the
present study, school psychologists face many barriers, namely that “they are often too
busy providing eligibility-related services to actively participate in reform and they may
be overlooked as potential agents of change because Of their strong ties to special
education” (Geenen, 1996, p. ).

Although this task may seem daunting the ability Of any one professional group to
elicit change may be diminished, one must recognize the tenet of systemic theory which
emphasizes that one change anywhere in the system, no matter how small or seemingly
insigniﬁcant, necessarily impacts the system in its entirety. Thus, small changes that
school psychologists make in their practice can contribute to larger systemic changes that
will be necessary before the voice Of care can be heard within the schools.

The immediate challenge to school psychologists is to begin with one child and
one small step toward relationship. Grimes & Tilly (1996) argue that school

psychologists can most effectively contribute to large reform efforts by “beginning

323

innovation on a small scale with one’s own caseload and then generalizing successes as
further commitments and resources become available” (p. 472). Each practitioner can
seek to devote 30 minutes out of each week to build a relationship with that student and
that student’s family. Soon, a relationship may develop and, hence, a tool for lasting
therapeutic change with that student and family. Through these small efforts, school
psychologists may become sensitive to other Opportunities to develop and sustain
ongoing relationships. Documenting data and disseminating the effectiveness of this
relational approach to school psychology may be the way of overcoming systemic

baniers to care that were painfully apparent in the present study.

Implications for Research

The present data involve at least four substantive implications for research. First,
the profession of school psychology is undoubtedly in a critical stage marked by many
calls for change, expansion, and reform. These attempts to broaden the roles and
functions of school psychologists, reﬂected in recent legislation and policy initiatives,
actually may be conceptualized as efforts to push the barriers to allow more care to be
realized within schools. These changes and shifts represent fertile ground for researchers
interested in the role of school psychologists in educational reform. For example, as the
call for role expansion with families and communities becomes translated into the reality
of practice, empirical research will be needed to identify the inﬂuence of these expanded
roles on school psychologists’ ability to practice ethically and the strategies that they use

to maintain their ethical commitments. Additionally, researchers will play a critical role

324

in documenting the effectiveness Of care-based relational approaches to education and to
school psychology practice. They must tackle the incredible challenge of how to
operationalize and empirically investigate the impact of relationship in the learning and
development Of students and families.

Second, several questions that are worthy of empirical investigation have emerged

from the present study. The precise nature of the interplay between personal morality l..

'rh “D II"

and professional ethical commitments is particularly intriguing. For example, a growing
number of researchers (e.g., Lownsdale, 1997) have become interested in how religion
and faith development play out in psychological therapy and practice. In the present
study, Jill clearly believed that her religious upbringing played a signiﬁcant role in her
professional commitment to complete honesty in her work with families. While in-depth
examination of this speciﬁc issue was not the focus of the present study, a more thorough
investigation of the relationships of personal faith and values and professional ethical
commitments is warranted. Given that many school psychologists practice within public
school settings, the examination of how issues of faith and religion impact psychologists
working with children and families in schools must be further explored.

Third, given the tremendous time and resources that are devoted to developing
and revising formal codes of ethics, the report “irrelevance” Of formal ethics codes
warrants serious empirical investigation. The school psychologists in this study
characterized the code as being minimally applicable to their everyday practice. At best,
the code seems to serve as a background document that exists in concept but evades
practical daily application. A survey of practicing school psychologists, coupled with in-

depth qualitative data, may be useful in determining how to improve the practical utility

325

of ethical codes. On the contrary, alternate approaches to articulating and distributing
agreed upon ethical standards for the profession of school psychology should be
explored.

Finally, this present study provides further validation for the interpretive
investigation of school psychology and school psychologists. At present, the ﬁeld is
dominated by quantitative approaches to inquiry. To my knowledge, the only other study
that has employed this research to study school psychologists and their concerns is
Gomaa’s (1999) dissertation study exploring the active nature of school psychologists’
professional role construction. Both studies have suggested that school psychologists
actively understand and construct various aspects of their practice, based on their unique
perspectives, experiences and contexts. Yet, while these studies have provided an
important starting point, we know relatively little about who school psychologists are as
people and how they actively think about their work with children, and what they use to
construct their professional roles and responsibilities. To represent school psychologists
in their full complexity and multiplicity of dimensions, future researchers should consider
this approach to inquiry to be a valid alternative and complement to quantitative,
obj ectiﬁed means Of inquiry that continue to dominate the school psychology literature.
Only when we recognize the active meaning-making that school psychologists engage in
when working with children and families can we begin to delve underneath the surface to
understand highly complex phenomenon such as the ethical commitments that drive their
professional work.

In closing, it is my hope that this study has contributed to knowledge about the

complex and dynamic nature of the people, practices, processes, and ethical commitments

326

that comprise the profession of school psychology. School psychologists, as
professionals and as people, are entrusted with a precious resource in children and
families, and they possess the tremendous Opportunity of entering into and inﬂuencing
many lives in lasting ways. This work represents my passionate challenge to school
psychologists to strive toward the next level of service by reﬂecting upon the nature and
substance of their ethical practice and committing to uncompromised, care-based ethical

standards in their relationships with children, families, schools, and communities. The

rr—s

voices Of school psychologists, though once silenced, have begun to be heard: To meet
the increasingly complex demands of a diverse population with unique needs and
circumstances, care and relationship must become the unwavering foundation of the

ethical work of school psychologists.

327

APPENDIX A

328

Participant

"Joyce"
"Mike"
"Jennifer"
"Robert"
"Ken"
"Jill"
"Nick"
"Emily"
"Dave"

"Tom"

APPENDIX A

Participant Characteristics

Employer

ISD
ISD
ISD
Contract (ISD/Retired)

Local District
ISD
ISD

Local Dictrict
ISD

Local District

Yrs. Of Experience

16
27

32
29
15

12
18
14

Education Level

Ed.S.
Ph.D.
Ed.S.
Ed.S.
Ed.S.
Ed.S.
Ph.D.
Ed.S.
Ph.D.
Ed.S.

 

329

APPENDIX B

330

APPENDIX B

INITIAL INVITATION LETTER

Dear School Psychology Colleague:

I am writing to invite you to participate in a study for my doctoral dissertation entitled
Exploring Ethical Dimensions of Practice: Listening to Voices of School
Psychologists. In this study, I would like to explore how we, as school psychologists,
make sense Of and deal with the multiplicity of ethical concerns that we face in our
practices as we work with children and families. In reviewing the literature, I suggest
that we have much to learn about the ethical aspects of practice. I believe that
understanding these issues is important, as school psychologists are being asked to ﬁll an
increasingly large spectrum of roles in today’s schools. With your help, I am hoping my
study will contribute to the profession of school psychology by expanding our knowledge
of these critical issues and by suggesting ways that the future ethical practice of school

psychologists can be supported.

To learn more about the experiences of school psychologists in the ethical domain of
practice, I will ask each participant in my study to engage in individual interviews. I
anticipate meeting with each person once, for approximately 90 minutes. During the
meeting, we will discuss various topics including one’s current professional role and

responsibilities, one’s perceptions of the nature Of ethics in the ﬁeld of school

331

 

psychology, how one thinks about ethics in one’s own practice, the nature of ethical
dilemmas that one has encountered, and one’s strategies for dealing with ethical concerns
that arise in day-to-day responsibilities. I want you to know that I recognize that these
issues are complex and may initially be difﬁcult to talk about; hence, I would be happy to
send you a copy of the interview questions prior to our meeting. This will allow you a
chance to preview the questions and to think about your responses in preparation for the
interview. It is my goal that this will increase your comfort in dealing with these
sensitive matters. School psychologists are unique individuals, and the interview
questions are intended to solicit your unique perspectives and understandings. Because I
am interested in the various ways that school psychologists may think about ethics in
practice, I want to emphasize that there are no right or wrong answers. I am in no way
interested in evaluating your responses against a standard of practice or making
judgments about what is right or wrong; rather, my goal is to be able to depict how
individual school psychologists navigate and make sense of the ethical concerns that they

encounter as they work with children, teachers, administrators and families.

Having practiced as a school psychologist, I recognize that you are very busy. To make
participation in this study easier for you, I would be happy to meet with you at a time and
location that is most convenient and comfortable for you. At this point, I am hoping to

conduct the interviews during February and early March.

If you would like to participate in this study, please complete the attached Informed

Consent From and return it to me in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope at

332

your earliest convenience. Upon receipt of your form, I will contact you to schedule our
meeting. If you do not wish to participate, you do not need to complete the form but can
simply return it in the enclosed envelope. This will assist me in keeping participation

records. Finally, if you are unsure and would like further information, please mark that

option of the consent form, and I will contact you to answer any questions that you have.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary, and you are under no obligation
to participate. Additionally, you are free to discontinue the study at any time without
penalty. The data gathered during this study will be treated with strict security and
conﬁdentiality. Pseudonyms will be used to keep your identity conﬁdential. All possible
measures will be taken to ensure the conﬁdentiality of your responses. However, given
the limited number of participants, there remains a risk that if your colleagues would
happen to read my dissertation or attend a presentation of this project, they might suspect
that you were a participant in my study. For this reason, you will have the Option to
answer some responses “off the recor ” or to turn the tape recorder off at any time. Such
responses will not be included in written reports or oral presentations. When this
dissertation is completed, I would be happy to provided you with the results in written
form, at your request. All interviews and discussions will be tape-recorded, unless you
choose to omit portions of the meeting from the tape. The ﬁnal report will be published
as a dissertation research project that will be accessible through the Michigan State
University College of Education. Additionally, parts of the study may be published in

journals or presented at state or national conferences.

333

If you would like further information or have questions, please feel free to contact me at
(616) 949-5300, Ext. 1909, or via e-mail at stahlnic@pilot.msu.edu. The Chairperson of
my dissertation committee is Dr. Evelyn Oka, who can be reached at (517) 355-6683, or
via e-mail at evoka@msu.edu. Additionally, if you have further questions relating
speciﬁcally to your rights as a participant in this research, you may contact Dr. David

Wright at (517) 355-2180.

Your participation in this study would contribute to our practice as school psychologists.
Also, you would have the opportunity to talk about and think through some complex
issues in a way that could directly beneﬁt you in your own professional practice. Thank

you for your consideration.
Sincerely,

Nicole D. Stahl

Doctoral Candidate

School Psychology Program
Michigan State University

334

APPENDIX C

335

_._ r -:. Lip-z!

APPENDIX C

FOLLOW-UP INVITATION LETTER

Dear School Psychology Colleague:

I .4
L.

You may remember my earlier letter about a study for my doctoral dissertation entitled
Exploring Ethical Dimensions of Practice: Listening to Voices of School
Psychologists. I am writing to thank those of you who have accepted my invitation. For

those who have not yet responded, I would also like to renew my invitation to participate.

I would like to take the opportunity to review brieﬂy my goals for this study. I am
hoping to learn how we, as school psychologists, think about and actively make sense of
the ethical issues and concerns that are encountered in practice. The role of school
psychologists is sometimes perceived as uni-dimensional and limited to testing only;
however, I believe that the role is highly complex and involves a challenging ethical
dimension that has not been accurately portrayed within the school psychology literature.
Individual school psychologists make sense of ethical issues and concerns in unique
ways, and, with your help, I am hoping to demonstrate the complexity of this ethical
dimension of practice. I believe that this information can be invaluable in helping people
understand the complexity of school psychology practice, informing ethical training and
professional development practices, and supporting school psychologists as they seek to

maintain the highest quality services. I also feel that the opportunity to participate in this

336

interview can beneﬁt you professionally by helping you to think about these complex

issues as they relate to your own practice.

To learn more about the experiences of school psychologists in the ethical domain of
practice, I will ask each participant in my study to engage in individual interviews. I
anticipate meeting with each person once, for approximately 90 minutes. During the
meeting, we will discuss various topics including one’s current professional role and
responsibilities, one’s perceptions of the nature of ethics in the ﬁeld of school
psychology, how one thinks about ethics in one’s own practice, the nature of ethical
dilemmas that one has encountered, and one’s strategies for dealing with ethical concerns
that arise in day-to-day responsibilities. I want you to know that I recognize that these
issues are complex and may initially be difﬁcult to talk about; hence, I would be happy to
send you a copy of the interview questions prior to our meeting. This will allow you a
chance to preview the questions and to think about your responses in preparation for the
interview. It is my goal that this will increase your comfort in dealing with these
sensitive matters. School psychologists are unique individuals, and the interview
questions are intended to solicit your unique perspectives and understandings. Because I
am interested in the various ways that school psychologists may think about ethics in
practice, I want to emphasize that there are no right or wrong answers. I am in no way
interested in evaluating your responses against a standard of practice or making
judgments about what is right or wrong; rather, my goal is to be able to depict how
individual school psychologists navigate and make sense of the ethical concerns that they

encounter as they work with children, teachers, administrators and families.

337

If you would like to participate in this study, please complete the attached Informed
Consent From and return it to me in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope at
your earliest convenience. Upon receipt of your form, I will contact you to schedule our
meeting. If you do not wish to participate, you do not need to complete the form but can
simply return it in the enclosed envelope. This will assist me in keeping participation

records. Finally, if you are unsure and would like further information, please mark that

option of the consent form, and I will contact you to answer any questions that you have.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary, and you are under no obligation
to participate. Additionally, you are free to discontinue the study at any time without
penalty. The data gathered during this study will be treated with strict security and
conﬁdentiality. Pseudonyms will be used to keep your identity conﬁdential. All possible
measures will be taken to ensure the conﬁdentiality of your responses. However, given
the limited number of participants, there remains a risk that if your colleagues would
happen to read my dissertation or attend a presentation of this project, they might suspect
that you were a participant in my study. For this reason, you will have the option to
answer some responses “off the recor ” or to turn the tape recorder off at any time. Such
responses will not be included in written reports or oral presentations. When this
dissertation is completed, I would be happy to provided you with the results in written

form, at your request.

All interviews and discussions will be tape-recorded, unless you choose to omit portions

of the meetings from the tape. The ﬁnal report will be published as a dissertation

338

research project that will be accessible through the Michigan State University College of
Education. Additionally, parts of the study may be published in journals or presented at

state or national conferences.

If you would like further information or have questions, please feel free to contact me at
(616) 949-5300, Ext. 1909, or via e-mail at stahlnic@pilot.msu.edu. The Chairperson of
my dissertation committee is Dr. Evelyn Oka, who can be reached at (517) 355-6683, or
via e-mail at evoka@msu.edu. Additionally, if you have further questions relating
speciﬁcally to your rights as a participant in this research, you may contact Dr. David

Wright at (517) 355-2180.

Thank you for once again considering participation in my project.
Sincerely,

Nicole D. Stahl

Doctoral Candidate

School Psychology Program
Michigan State University

339

APPENDIX D

340

 

APPENDIX D

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Current Role:

 

I would like to begin our time together by discussing some questions that will help me to
learn about your experience and your role as a school psychologist.

I How long have you been in the ﬁeld of school psychology?

I Please describe your graduate level training experience.

I Please describe for me the different positions that you have held prior to
. your present position.

I Would you describe for me your present school psychology position?

0 Describe your caseload? (Probes: Number? Type of cases?)
0 How would you characterize the nature of your district (size;
urban/suburban/rural; political/economic inﬂuence)?

0 Would you describe for me a typical week in your work?

Time Spent in Assessment

Time Spent in Intervention (types of interventions)
Time Spent in Consultation

Time Spent in other functions

- What are the multiple functions that you serve in your job?

What attracted you to the ﬁeld of school psychology?
What do you most like about your role?

What do you dislike most about your role?

How have your roles and functions changed over time?

Within the literature, school psychologists have been described as having
many different roles and functions. How would you describe your role in
one or two words (Tester, advocate, consultant, gate-keeper of special
education)?

I Why did you choose this particular description?

341

I In what ways has this view changed over the course of your career?

I In what ways has this view stayed the same over the course of your
career?
I If you were able to design your perfect role as a school psychologist, what

would that look like (what would it involve?)?
I What might prevent this role from being possible?

I How do you see IDEA ‘97 inﬂuencing the role of school psychologists in
email?

I How do you see IDEA ‘97 inﬂuencing ypur role, in particular?
Professional Ethics:

The main focus of my study is gaining a better understanding of ethics in school
psychology. While a lot has been written about ethical concerns in psychology generally,
there is not a lot that speciﬁcally addresses the unique ethical concerns of school
psychologists. I would now like to spend some time talking about ethics in school

psychology.

I In general, what do ethics mean to you?

I What kinds of ethical issues do you encounter in your practice?

I Please give me a speciﬁc example of a way that ethics enters into your
practice.

I How might these differ from those faced by other school psychologists?

I From your perspective, what ethical concerns are unique to sghool
psychologists, as opposed to clinical psychologists?

I How does the school setting in which you work support your ethical
practice? Please explain.

I How does the school setting in which you work hinder your ethical
practice? Please explain.

I What does it mean to you to be an “ethical school psychologist?”

I In what ways has your deﬁnition of what is ethical changes over the
course of your career?

342

What makes it difﬁcult to be an ethical school psychologist?

When you encounter an ethical problem or issue in practice, how do you
know it is an ethical problem?

What do you do when you recognize that you are facing an ethical
problem?

What new ethical concerns and challenges have, or are, arising because of
the recent enactment of IDEA ‘97?

What would help you deal with these new ethical concerns? Please
explain your answer.

Ethical Dilemmas:

1.

Generation of Two Real-Life Dilemmas

Every school psychologist has had the experience of being in a situation
where they had to make a professional decision but weren’t sure what was
the best course of action. This is called a dilemma. (Give the card that
deﬁnes an ethical dilemma, and read it aloud: Arr ethical dilemma is “a
problem for which no course of action seems satisfactory. The dilemma
exists because there are good, but contradictory, ethical reasons to take
conﬂicting and incompatible courses of action” (Kitchener, 1984)).

Would you please describe for me a situation in your job where you
weren’t sure what was the best course of action.

- If you were not a school psychologist, how would you have

responded to the situation? In other words, what was your

personal moral sense about this situation?

What were the conﬂicts for you in your situation?

What were your options?

In thinking about what to do, what factors did you consider?

What resources did you utilize in making your decision?

What did you do?

What made the decision difﬁcult?

Looking back at it now, do you think it was the best thing to do?

Would you make the same decision if faced with a similar

situation?

Why or why not?

- Do you think you would have made this same decision at the
beginning of your career? Please explain.

0 Thinking back over the whole situation, what did you learn from

343

it?

Probe (used throughout section, as appropriate): How did you make sense
of this?

I would now like you to describe a second ethical dilemma that you have
faced in your work. (Repeat above questions)

Are there other ways that you think about ethics in your practice that are
not adequately captured by dilemmas or problems? Please explain.

344

H’

II. Researcher-Generated Dilemmas

I will now describe to you some ethical dilenunas that other school psychologists
have faced. After we have read the scenario, I will ask you some questions about
it.

Dilemma #1

A school psychologist in a rural district has received a request to provide
individual counseling services to a middle school student who appears
depressed. The request was initiated by both the parent and the student=s
teachers. After a brief assessment of the student=s ﬁrnctioning, the school
psychologist agrees that counseling is appropriate. The school
psychologist has minimal formal training or supervised experience in
individual counseling and is uncertain how to proceed with the referral.

What are your immediate reactions to this situation?

What is the dilemma that this school psychologist is facing?
What do you think the school psychologist should do?

Why? What factors might this psychologist have considered?
What resources might this school psychologist consult in making
his or her decision?

Let me come at this a different way. The dilemma is this situation is that
the school psychologist could make at least two decisions: 1) give the
student counseling services, even though he or she has not had the training
to attain competency in this area, or 2) do not give the student counseling
services and take the risk that the students= needs will not be met

Dilemma #2

A school psychologist has just completed an evaluation of an elementary
school student who was referred for both academic and emotional
problems. Assessment data suggest that the student has ongoing
behavioral problems, including aggression toward other students, that have
interfered with academic and social progress. A history of depression is
also present. Along with these signiﬁcant emotional concerns, the school
psychologist has documented a severe discrepancy between intelligence
and basic reading skills. Based on the assessment, the school psychologist
feels that the child needs special education services. The general
education and school principle feel that the child should be qualiﬁed for
services under the Emotionally Impaired category. However, the parents
are highly concerned about social stigma associated with this label and
desire that their child be certiﬁed as a student with a speciﬁc learning
disability. Further, the parents have stated that if the evaluation team
recommends an E1 label, they will refuse services.

345

III.

0 What is the problem that this school psychologist is facing?
- What do you think the school psychologist should do?
0 Why? What factors rrright this psychologist have considered?

0 What resources might this school psychologist consult in making
his or her decision?

Let me come at this a different way. The dilemma is this situation is that
the school psychologist could make at least two decisions: 1) the school
psychologist can support the LD label in order to ensure that the student
gets the services that are needed, or 2) the school psychologist can insist
on the BI label because the school staff support this label and because it
may be a more accurate picture of this child=s difﬁculties.

Discussion of Researcher-Generated Statements (modeled after Belenky’s work in
“Women’s Ways of Knowing”)

I am now going to show you some sets of statements. After you have read both
statements, I will ask you some questions about what you have read.

1. A. In my work as a school psychologist, it is important that I identify
those children who have the right to special education because they
meet the criteria and guidelines. The guidelines for eligibility must
be met in order to ensure that all children have an equal chance at
getting services, if they need them.

B. In my work as a school psychologist, it is important that I identify
those children who need special education services because they
need the extra support in order to reach their full potential and to
beneﬁt maximally from the education process. This might mean
sometimes “fudging” the numbers to ensure that the child’s needs
are met.

0 Which of these statements is most like you?
Please explain your answer.

0 How does the other statement fail to characterize your
work?

I What other reactions do you have as you read these statements and
think about your own practice?

2. A. In doing an evaluation, I believe that it is ﬁrst important to
determine whether a child qualiﬁes to receive the services.
Then, based on the determination of eligibility, I believe
that the services should be planned. The actual

346

determination of eligibility is often driven by the district
guidelines and legal mandates in special education.

B. In doing an evaluation, I believe that it is ﬁrst important to
make decisions about the needs of child for certain
services. The actual determination of eligibility is often, in
reality, driven by my professional impression of the needs

of the individual child.

0 Which of these statements is most like you?
Please explain your answer.

0 How does the other statement fail to characterize your
work?

0 What other reactions do you have as you read these

statements and think about your own practice?

A. When I am consulting with a teacher regarding a student
with behavior problems, I believe that it is important that
the responsibilities of the problem be shared equally by
myself, the teacher, and others who work with the child. It
is important to me that the decisions made are fair to the
problemed student and to all other students in the
classroom. By promoting fairness and equity, I will have
the best change of intervening in an effective way to beneﬁt
the child and all others involved.

B. When I am consulting with a teacher regarding a student
with behavior problems, I believe that my main
responsibility is to develop a relationship with the teacher
and to do all that I can to maintain a good relationship with
him or her. It is important that everyone is comfortable
with the decisions that are made. By promoting the
relationships and sharing the teacher=s burdens, I will have
the best chance of intervening in an effective way to beneﬁt
the child and all others involved.

0 Which of these statements is most like you?
Please explain your answer.

0 How does the other statement fail to characterize your
work?

What other reactions do you have as you read these statements and
think about your own practice?

347

Ethical Resources

In what ways are the ethical codes useful to you in your practice?
In what ways could the ethical codes be improved?

In what ways is your graduate-level training in ethics useful to you
in your present career?

In what ways could graduate-level training in ethics be improved
so as to be more useful to you in your present career?

What other factors or resources inﬂuence how you think about
ethics in school psychology?

Concluding Questions:

What do you think will be the greatest ethical challenges that
school psychologists will face in the future?

What can school psychologists do to prepare themselves for these
challenges?

What can be done to support your ethical practice in school
psychology?

In closing, is there anything else that you would like to tell me that

would help me to further understand the ethical dimensions of your
practice as a school psychologist?

348

REFERENCES

349

REFERENCES

Abeles, N. (1992). An ethical dilemma: Disclosure of test items to parents.
Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 10(4), 23-26.

American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists
and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.

American Psychological Association. (1990). Ethical principles of psychologists.
American Psychologist, 45, 390-395.

American Psychological Association. (1989). Ethical principles of psychologists.
Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (1987). Casebook on ethical principles for
psychologists. Washington, DC: Author.

Americans with Disabilities Act of1990 or ADA (PL. 101-336), 42 U.S.C. 12010.
Regulations regarding nondiscrimination in state and local government services appear at
28 CPR. Part 35 (1996).

Ascher, C. (1990). Linking schools with human services agencies. ERIC Digest,
62, (February).

Baker, J .A., Terry, T., Bridger, R and Winsor, A. (1997). Schools as caring
communities: A relational approach to school reform. School Psychology Review, 26(4),
586-602.

Baker, S.K & Good, R. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement of English
reading with bilingual Hispanic students: A validation study with second grade students.

School Psychology Review, 24(4), 561-578.

350

Bardon, 1.1. (1994). Will the real school psychologist please stand up: Is the past
a prologue for the future of school psychology? The identity of school psychology
revisited. School Psychology Review, 23(4), 564-583.

Barnett, B. (1987). School psychology and children’s rights. School Psychology
International, 8, l-lO.

Behar, R. (1993). Translated Woman: Crossing the border with Esperanza ’s
story. Boston: Beacon Press.

Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldgerger, NR, and Tarule, J .M (1987).

Women ’5 Ways of Knowing. New York: Basic Books.

Bernard, J .L., Murphy, M. & Little, M. (1987). The failure of clinical
psychologists to apply understood ethical principles. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 18, 489-491.

Bernard, J.L. & Jara, C. (1986). The failure of clinical psychology graduate
students to apply understood ethical principles. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 1 7, 313-315.

Berninger, V.W. (1997). Introduction to interventions for students with learning
problems: Myths and realities. School Psychology Review, 26(3), 326-332.

Bersoff, D.N. (1995). Ethical conﬂicts in psychology. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

Bersoff, D.N. & Keoppl, PM. (1993). The relation between ethical codes and

moral principles. Ethics and Behavior, 2, 345-357.

351

Blasi, A. (1993). The development of identity: Some implications for moral
functioning. In G. Noam & T. Wren (Eds), The moral self (pp. 99-122). Cambridge:
MIT Press.

Blasi, A. (1983). Moral cognition and moral action: A theoretical perspective.
Developmental Review, 3, 178-210.

Blasi, A. (1984). Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. In W. Kurtines &
J. Gewitz (Eds), The Emergence of Morality in Young Children. New York: John
Wiley.

Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of
the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88. 1-41.

Blasi, A. & Oresick, R. (1986). Emotions and cognitions in self-inconsistency.
In D. Bearison 8L H. Zimiles (Eds.), Thought and emotion: Developmentalperspectives.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaurn Associates.

Blum, LA. (1993). Gilligan and Kohlberg: Implications for moral theory. In
M.J. Larrabee (Ed.), An Ethic of Care, (pp. 49-68). New York, NY: Routledge.

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District vs. Rowley,
458 US. 176, 102 S.Ct. 3034 (1982).

Board of Education, Sacramento City Uniﬁed School District v. Holland, 786
F .Supp. 874 (ED. Cal. 1992),aﬂ’d sub. Nom. Sacramento City Uniﬁed School District,
Board of Education v. Rachel H., 14 F. 3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. Denied sub nom.
Sacramento City Uniﬁed School District Board of Education v. Holland, 114 S.Ct. 2697

(1994)

352

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development.
International Encyclopedia ofEducation (Vol. 3, 2"d ed, pp. 1643-1647).

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 UV. 483 (1954).

Brown, L.M., Argyris, D., Attanucci, J., Bardige, B., Gilligan, C., Johnston, K,
Miller, B., Osborne, R., Ward, J ., Wiggins, G. & Wilcox, D. (1987). A guide to reading
narratives of moral conﬂict and choice for self and moral orientation. Cambridge:
Harvard University, The Center for the Study of Gender, Education and Human
Development.

Carey, W.B. (1998). Temperament and behavior problems in the classroom.
School Psychology Review, 27(4), 522-533.

Caspi, A., Bem, D. & Elder, G. (1989). Continuities and consequences of
interactional styles across the life course. Journal of Personality, 5 7(2), 376-406.

Christenson, S.L. (1995). Best practices in supporting home-school collaboration.
In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-III (pp. 253-267).
Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Clifford, J. & Marcus, G. (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of
ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cobb, N. (1998). Adolescence: Continuity, change and diversity. Mountain
View, CA: Mayﬁeld.

Colby, A. & Damon, W. (1992a). Pathways to commitment: Moral leaders in

our time. New York: The Free Press.

353

Colby, A. & Damon, W. (1992b). Some do care: Contemporary lives moral
commitment. New York: The Free Press.

Collin, A. & Young, R. (1992). Constructing career through narrative and
context: An interpretive perspective. In R. Young & A. Colling (Eds.), Interpreting
career: Hermeneutical studies of lives in context (pp. 1-11). Wetport, CT: Praeger.

Conoley, J .C. & Conoley, CW. (1992). School consultation: Practice and
Training. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cravens, H. (1987). Applied science and public policy: The Ohio Bureau of
Juvenile Research and the problem of juvenile delinquency. 1913-1930. In M.M. Sokal
(Ed), Psychological testing and American society 1890-1930 (pp. 15 8-194). New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Cummings, J.A. (1996). Responding to school needs: The role of the
psychologist. In R.C. Talley, T. Kubiszyn, M. Brassard and R.J. Short (Eds), Making
psychologists in the schools indispensable: Critical questions and emerging perspectives.
(pp. 77-81). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

Curtis, M.J. & Stollar, SA. (1996). Applying principles and practices of
organizational change to school reform. School Psychology Review, 25(4), 409-417.

Curtis, M., Graden, J., & Reschly, D. (1992). School psychology as a profession:
Demographics, professional practices and job satisfaction. Symposium presented at the
annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Nashville, TN.

Damon, W. & Hart, D. (1992). Self-understanding and its role in social and

moral development. In M.H. Bomstein and ME. Lamb (Eds). Developmental

354

psychology: An advanced textbook (3rd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.

Damon, W. & Hart, D. (1988). Self-understanding in childhood and adolescence.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

DeMers, ST. (1994). Legal and ethical issues in school psychologists’
participation in psychopharrnacological interventions with children. School Psychology
Quarterly, 9(1), 41 -52.

Deno, S.L. (1995). School psychologist as problem solver. In A. Thomas and J.
Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology-III (pp. 471-484). Washington, DC:
National Association of School Psychologists

Denzin, N. (1989). Interpretive biography. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Doll (1996). Becoming essential: Rethinking the practice of school psychology.
In R.C. Talley, T. Kubiszyn, M. Brassard and R.J. Short (Eds), Making psychologists in
the schools indispensable: Critical questions and emerging perspectives. (pp. 23-29).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

Dunn, L. (1968). Special education for mildly retarded: Is much of it justiﬁable?
Exceptional Children, 25, 5-22.

Eberlein, L. (1987). Introducing ethics to beginning psychologists: a problem-
solving approach. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 353-359.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of1975 (PL. 94-142), renamed the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990, 20 U.S.C. Chapter 33.

355

Eidle, K.A., Truscott, S.D., Meyers, J. & Boyd, T. (1998). The role of prereferral
intervention teams in early intervention and prevention of mental health problems.
School Psychology Review, 27(2), 204-216.

Erchul, W.P., Covington, C.G., Hughes, J .N & Meyers, J. (1995). Further
exploration of request-centered relationship communication within school consultation.
School Psychology Review, 24(4), 621-632.

Erickson F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M.C.
Wittrock (Ed), Handbook of Research on Teaching, (pp. 119-161). New York:
McMillan.

Erikson, E. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York: Norton.

Etzioni, A. (1993). The spirit of community. New York: Crown.

Fagan, T.K. and Wise, PS. (1994). School psychology: Past, present and future.
New York: Longman.

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (a part of PL. 93-380) is
commonly called “FERPA” or "The Buckley Amendment,” 20 U.S.C. 1232g.
Regulations implementing FERPA appear at 34 CPR. Part 99 (1996).

Farley, F. (1996). The educare psychologist: Re-inventing school psychology
and schools for the 21St century. Making psychologists in the schools indispensable:
Critical questions and emerging perspectives. (pp. 31-39). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association

Fine, M.A. & Ulrich, LP. (1988). Integrating psychology and philosophy in
teaching a graduate course in ethics. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,

19, 542-546.

356

Flanagan, O. & Jackson, K. (1992). Justice, care and gender: The Kohlberg-
Gilligan debate revisited. In M.J. Larrabee (Ed.), An Ethic of Care (pp. 69-86). New
York: Routledge.

F leischner, J .E. & Manheimer, M.A. (1997). Math interventions for students with
learning disabilities: Myths and realities. School Psychology Review, 26(3), 397-413.

Forrest, L. (1999). Information from personal interaction.

Fowler, J .W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and
the quest for meaning. New York: Harper & Row.

French, J L (1996). Recycling the basics of evolving schools: Psychologists as
fulcrums for leveraging improved schooling. In R.C. Talley, T. Kubiszyn, M. Brassard
and R.J. Short (Eds), Making psychologists in the schools indispensable: Critical
questions and emerging perspectives. (pp. 15-20). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

Friedman, M. (1993). Beyond caring: The de-moralization of gender. In M.J.
Larrabee (Ed.), An Ethic of Care (pp. 258-271). New York: Routledge.

Gawthrop, J.C. & Uhlemann, MR. (1992). Effects of the problem-solving
approach in ethics training. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38-42.

Geenen, K. (1995). Barriers, sources of support and relevant skills for school
psychologists’ active participation in Goals 2000. Unpublished master’s thesis,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Geenen, K. (1996, May). School psychology and education reform.
Communique, 24(7), 1, 4, 5. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School

Psychologists.

357

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of the self and
morality. Harvard Educational Review, 4 7, 481-518.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a diﬁ‘erent voice: Men, women and moral development.
Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gilligan, C. & Attanucci, J. (1988). Two moral orientations: Implications for
developmental theory and assessment. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34, 223-244.

Gomaa, H. (1999). The Enchanted Loom: School psychologists construct their
professional roles and identities. Unpublished Dissertation Manuscript. Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.

Green, SK. (1995). Implementing a staff development program. In A. Thomas
& J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-III (pp. 123-134). Washington,

DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Greeno, C. & Maccoby, E. (1986). How different is the ‘different voice’? Signs,

1 1, 3 10-316.

Greenspan, S. & Negron, E. (1994). Ethical obligations of special services
personnel. Special Services in the Schools, 8, 185-209.

Grimes, J. & Tilly, W.D. (1996). Policy and process: Means to lasting
educational change. School Psychology Review, 25(4), 454—476.

Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

358

 

Gutkin, TE. (1993). Conducting consultation research. In J.E. Zins, T.R.
Kratochwill, & S.N. Elliott (Eds). Handbook of consultation services for children:
Applications in educational and clinical settings (pp. 227-248). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Haas, L.J. & Malouf, J .L. (1989). Keeping up the good work: A practitioner 's
guide to mental health ethics. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.

Haas, L.J., Malouf, J .L. & Mayerson, NH. (1988). Personal and professional
characteristics as factors in psychologists’ ethical decision making. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 35-42.

Haas, L.J., Malouf, J .L. & Mayerson, NH. (1986). Ethical dilemmas in
psychological practice: Results of a national survey. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 17, 316-321.

Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography principles in practice.
New York: Routledge.

Hansen, J .C., Green, S. & Kutner, KB. (1989). Ethical issues facing school
psychologists working with families. Professional School Psychology, 4, 245-255.

Harrison, PL. (1996). Enduring expertise of school psychologists and the
changing demands of schools in the United States. In R.C. Talley, T. Kubiszyn, M.
Brassard and R.J. Short (Eds), Making psychologists in the schools indispensable:
Critical questions and emerging perspectives. (pp. 61-70). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

Henning-Stout, M. (1994a). Responsive assessment: A new way of thinking about

learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

359

Henning-Stout, M. (1994b). Consultation and connected knowing: What we
know is determined by the questions we ask. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 5 (1), 5-21.

Hughes, J.N. (1979). Consistency of administrators’ and psychologists’ actual
and ideal perceptions of school psychologists’ actvities. Psychology in the Schools, 16,
234-23 9.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Action (P.L. 101-476), 20 U.S.C. Chapter
33. Amended by the P.L. 105-17 in June, 1997. Regulations appear at 34 C.R.F. Part
300.

Institute for Education and Transformation. (1992). Voices from the inside: A
report on schooling from inside the classroom-Part I: Naming the problem. Claremont,
CA: Claremont Graduate School.

J acob-Timm, S. (1996). Ethical and legal issues associated with the use of
aversives in the public schools: The SIBIS controversy. School Psychology Review, 2,
184-198.

Jacob-Timm, S. & Hartshome, T. (1998). Ethics and law for school
psychologists. Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing.

Jacob, S. & Brantley, J.C. (1989). Ethics and computer-assisted assessment:
Three case studies. Psychology in the Schools, 26, 163-167.

Jacob, S. & Brantley, J .C. (1987). Ethical-legal problems with computer use and
suggestions for best practices: A national survey. School Psychology Review, 2, 1984-

198.

360

 

Jann, R.J. & Hyman, LA. (1991, March). School psychologists’ perceptions of
administrative pressure to act unethically: A national survey. Paper presented at the
National Association of School Psychologists’ Convention, Dallas, TX.

Jann, R.J., Hyman, I.A. & Reinhardt, J.A. (1992, March). The consequences of
supervisory pressure to act unethically: A national survey. Paper presented at the
National Association of School Psychologists’ Convention, Nashville, TN.

Jordan, A.E. & Meara, NM. (1990). Ethics and the professional practice of
psychologists: The role of virtues and principles. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 21(2), 107-114.

Josselson, R. (1996). Revising herself New York: Oxford University Press.

Kavale, K.A. (1990). The effectiveness of special education. In T.B. Gutkin &
C .R. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (2nd ed.; pp. 868-898). New
York: Wiley.

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Keith-Spiegel, P., & Koocher, GP. (1985). Ethics in psychology. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kitchener, KS. (1986). Teaching applied ethics in counselor education: An
integration of psychological processes and philosophical analysis. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 64(5), 306-310.

Kitchener, KS (1984). Intuition, critical evaluations, and ethical principles: The
foundation for ethical decisions in counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist,

12(3), 43-55.

361

Knitzer, J. (1993). Children’s mental health policy: Challenging the future.
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1, 8-16.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: Essays on moral
development. San Francisco: Harper and Row.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development. New York: Harper

& Row.

3

Kohlberg, L. (1982). A reply to Owen Flanagan and some comments on the

!

Puka-Goodpaster exchange. Ethics, 92, 513-28.

Kohlberg (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to
socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), The Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research.
Chicago: Rand McNally.

Kratochwill, T.R., Elliott, S.N. & Rotto, PC. (1995). School-based behavioral
consultation. . In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-III
(pp. 519-538). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Larry P. v. Riles, 343 F .Supp. 1306 (DC. N.D. Cal., 1972), aﬁ”d., 502 F.2d 963
(9‘h Cir. 1974), further proceedings, 495 F.Supp. 926 (DC. N.D. Cal., 1979), aﬂ’d, 502
F.2d. 693 (8th Cir. 1984).

Lerner, R. (1996). America 's youth in crisis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lerner, R. (1986). Concepts and theories of human development (2mI ed.). New
York: Random House.

Levinson, D. (1978). Seasons of a man ’s life. New York: Knopf.

Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

362

 

Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development: Conceptions and theories. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lownsdale, S. (1997). Faith development across the lifespan: Fowler’s
integrative work. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 25(1), 49-63.

Lyons, N. (1990). Listening to voices we have not hears: Emma Willard Girls’
Ideas about self, relationships and morality. In C. Gilligan, N. Lyons and T. Hamner
(Eds.), Marking Connections: The Relational Worlds of Adolescent Girls at Emma
Willard School (pp. 30-72). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Lyons, NP. (1983). Two perspectives: On self, relationships and morality.
Harvard Educational Review, 53(2), 125-145.

Lyons, NP. (1982). Conceptions of self and morality and modes of moral choice.
Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University.

Maher, C.A. & Pfeiffer, SJ. (1983). Multidisciplinary teams in the schools:
Perspectives, practices and possibilities. S chool Psychology Review, 12, 2.

Marcus, G. & Fischer, M. (1986). Anthropologi as Cultural Critique. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Martin, M.W. (1995). Everyday Morality: An Introduction to applied ethics.
Belmont: Wadsworth.

Meara, N.M., Schmidt, L.D. & Day, J .D. (1996). Principles and virtues: A
foundation for ethical decisions, policies and character. Counseling Psychology, 24, 4-
77.

McCullough, C5. (1995). Using computer technology to monitor student

progress and remediate reading problems. School Psychology Review, 24(3), 426-439.

363

McMahon, T.J. (1993). On the concept of child advocacy: A review of theory
and methodology. School Psychology Review, 22, 744-755.

McWhirter, J .J ., McWhirter, B.T., McWhirter, A.M. & McWhirter, EH. (1998).
At-Risk youth: Comprehensive Response. Paciﬁc Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Miller, PH. (1993). Theories of developmental psychology (3"! ed. ). New York:
W.H. Freeman.

Miller, SM. (1985). Research on exemplary schools: An historical perspective.
In G.R. Austin and H. Garber (Eds.), Research on Exemplary Schools. New York, NY:
Academic Press. I

Milofsky, C. (1989). Testers and Testing: The Sociology of School Psychology.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Montague, P. (1992). Virtue ethics: A qualiﬁed success story. American
Philosophical Quarterly, 29, 53-61.

Munger, R.L. (1991). Child mental health practices ﬁ'om an ecological
perspective. New York: University Press of America.

Nagle, R.J. (1995). Best practices in conducting needs assessments. . In A.
Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-III (pp. 421-430).
Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Nagle, R.J. (1987). Ethics training in school psychology. Professional School
Psychology, 2, 163-171.

National Association of School Psychologists (1997). Professional conduct

manual (3rd ed.). Bethesda, MD: Author.

364

National Association of School Psychologists (1992). Professional conduct
manual. Stratford, CT: Author.

National Association of School Psychologists (1986). Standards for the
Provision of school psychological services. Silver Spring, MD: Author.

Neukrug, Love, & Parker (1996). Employing ethical codes and decision-making
models: A developmental process. Counseling and Values, 40, 98-106.

Newman, J .L. (1993). Ethical issues in consultation. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 72, 148-156.

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach
to education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Noddings, N. (1988). An ethic of caring and its implications for instructional
arrangements. American Journal of Education, 96, 215-230.

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral
education. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Oakland, Goldman & Bischoff (1997). Code of ethics of the International
School Psychology Association. School Psychology International, 18(4), 291-298.

Pagliocca, P.M & Sandoval, SR. (1995). Counseling programs for secondary
students. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-III (pp.
917-930). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Perry, W.B. (1968). F arms of intellectual and ethical development in the college
years. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.

Peshkin, A. (1993). The goodness of qualitative research. Educational

Researcher, 22(2), 23-30.

365

Phillips, B. (1990). School psychology at a turning point. San Francisco, CA:
J ossey-Boss.

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. Glencoe, IL: Free Press
(Originally published 1932).

Poland, S., Pitcher, G. and Lazarus, P. (1995). Best practices in crisis
intervention. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-III
(pp. 445-458). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Pope, K.S. & Vetter, VA. (1992). Ethical dilemmas encountered by members of
the American Psychological Association. American Psychologists, 4 7, 397-411.

Prilleltensky, I. (1991). The social ethics of school psychology: A priority for the
1990’s. School Psychology Quarterly, 6, 200-222.

Public Law (P.L.) 94-142. Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975.
(20 U.S.C. and 34 CPR.)

Public Law (P.L.) 99-457. Education of the Handicapped Amendments of 1986.
(20 U.S.C. 1470).

Public Law (P.L.) 101-476. Individuals with Disabilities Education Acti, 1990.
(104 Stat. 1103).

Puka, B. (1991). Interpretive experiments. Human deve10pment, 34, 61-80.

Punzo, VA. (1996). After Kohlberg: Virtue ethics and the recovery of the moral
self. Philosophical Psychology, 9(1), 7-23.

Rachels, J. (1993). The elements of moral philosophy (2” ed). New York:

McGraw Hill.

366

Reeder, G.D., Maccow, G.C., Shaw, S.R., Swerdlik, M.E., Horton, C.B. & Foster,
P. (1997). School psychologists and full-service schools: Partnerships with medical,
mental health, and social services. School Psychology Review, 26(4), 603-621.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-112), 29 U.S.C. 794. Regulations
implementing Section 504 appear at 34 C.F.R. Part 104 (1996).

Reid, R. (1995). Assessment of ADHD with culturally different groups: The use
of behavioral rating scales. School Psychology Review, 24(4), 537-560.

Reschly, D.K. (1998). Special education reform: School psychology revolution.
School Psychology Review, I 7, 465-481.

Reschly, DJ (1988). Special education reform: School psychology revolution.
School Psychology Review, I 7, 459-475.

Reschly, DJ. (1987). Learning characteristics of mildly handicapped students:
Implications for classiﬁcation, placement and programming. In M.C. Wang, M.C.
Reynolds & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), The handbook of special education: Research and
practice (Vol. I; pp. 35-58). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

Reschly, D.J. & Ysseldyke, J .E. (1995). School psychology paradigm shift. In A.
Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-111 (pp. 17-32).
Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Reschly D.J. & Wilson, MS. (1995). School psychology faculty and
practitioners: 1986 to 1991 trends in demographic characteristics, roles, satisfaction and

system reform. School Psychology Review, 24.

367

Reynolds, W.M. & Mazza, J.J. (1999). Assessment of suicidal ideation in inner-
city children and young adolescents: Reliability and validity of the suicide ideation
questionnaire-JR. School Psychology Review, 28(1), 17-30.

Rich, D. (1987). Schools and families: Issues and actions. Washington, DC:
National Education Association.

Rothbart, M.K., & Jones, LB. (1998). Temperament, self-regulation and
Education. School Psychology Review, 2 7(4), 479-491.

Rothstein, LP. (1995). Special education law. New York, NY: Longman.

Sandoval, J. (1996). Becoming indispensable through mental health promotion.
In R.C. Talley, T. Kubiszyn, M. Brassard and R.J. Short (Eds), Making psychologists in
the schools indispensable: Critical questions and emerging perspectives. (pp. 3-8).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

Sarason, SB. (1982). The culture of the school and the problem of change (2"d
ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Sarason, SB. (1972). The creation of settings and the fitture societies.
Cambridge, MA: Brookline.

Schattman, R., & Benay, J. (February, 1992). Inclusive practices transform
special education in the 1990’s. The School Administrator, 8-12.

Schensul, J.J. (1998). Community-based risk prevention with urban youth.
School Psychology Review, 27(2), 233-245.

Scholten, T. (1993). Ethical issues in school psychological consultation: Can

every expert consult? Canadian Journal of School Psychologi, 9(1), 100-109.

368

 

 

Schwandt, T.A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shaw, S.R. & Swerdik, ME. (1995). Facilitating team functioning. In A.
Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-III (pp. 15 3-160).
Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Sher, G. (1987). Other voices, other rooms? In Kittay & Meyers (Eds.), Women
(pp. 178-89).

Sheridan, S.M. & Steck, MC. (1995). Acceptability of conjoint behavioral
consultation: A national survey of school psychologists. School Psychology Review,
24(4), 633-647.

Shogan, D. (1988). Care and Moral Motivation. Toronto: OISE Press.

Skinner, C.H. & Berninger, V.W. (1997). Interventions for students with learning
and behavior problems: Myths and realities: A dedication. School Psychology Review,
324-326.

Skinner, C.H., Logan, P., Robinson, S.L & Robinson, DH. (1997).
Demonstration as a reading intervention for exceptional learners: Beyond acquisition.
School Psychology Review, 26(3), 437-447.

Skoe, BE. and Marcia, J.E. (1991). A measure of care-based morality and its
relation to ego identity. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 37(2), 289-304.

Skoe, E.E., Pratt, M.W., Matthews, M and Curror, SE. (1996). The ethic of care:
Stability over time, gender differences, and correlates in mid- to late adulthood.

Psychology and Aging, 11(2), 280-292.

369

 

r-n

 

Smith, D.K. (1984). Practicing school psychologists: Their characteristics,
activities, and populations served. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15,
798-810.

Smith, D.K., Clifford, E.S., Hesley, J. & Leifgren, M. (1992). The school
psychologist of1991: A survey of practitioners. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the National Association of School Psychologists, Nashville, TN.

Smith, T.S., McGuire, J .M., Abbott, D.W. & Blau, BL (1991). Clinical ethical
decision-making: An investigation of the rationale used to justify doing less than one
believes one should. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22, 235-239.

Solomon, RS. (1984). Ethics: A brief introduction. New York: McGraw Hill.

Stage, S.A. & Quiroz, DR. (1997). A meta-analysis of interventions to decrease
disruptive behavior in pubic education settings. School Psychology Review, 26(3), 333-
368.

Stiller, NJ and Forrest, L. (1990). An extension of Gilligan and Lyons’s
investigation of morality: Gender differences in college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 31, 54-63.

Stoiber, K.C. & Kalafat, J. (1998). Risk and resilience factors linked to problem
behavior among urban, culturally diverse adolescents. School Psychology Review, 27(3),
380-397.

Teglasi, H. (1998). Temperament Constructs and measures. School Psychology

Review, 27(4), 564-585.

370

Tharinger, D. & Stafford, M. (1995). Individual counseling of elementary-age
students. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-III (pp.
893-909). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Tong, R. (1993). Feminine and feminist ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing.

Tronto, J.C. (1993). Beyond gender difference to a theory of care. In M.J.
Larrabee (Ed), An Ethic of Care (pp. 240-257). New York: Routledge.

Vaillant, G. (1977). Adaptation to life. Boston: Little, Brown.

Vaughn, S. & Schumm, 1.8. (1995). Responsible inclusion for students with
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(5), 264-270.

Vidich, A.J. & Bensman, J. (1968). Small town in mass society: Class, power
and religion in a rural community (rev. ed). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Walker, L.J. (1993). Sex differences in the development of moral reasoning: A
critical review. In M.J. Larrabee.(Ed.), An Ethic of Care (pp. 157-176). New York:
Routledge.

Wallin, J .E.W. (1914). The mental health of the school child. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.

Webster ’s 11: New Riverside University Dictionary. New York: Riverside.

Welfel, ER. (1992). Psychologist as ethics educator: Successes, failures and
unanswered questions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 182-189.

Wiggens, G. (1989). The futility of trying to teach everything of importance.

Educational Leadership, 4 7, 44-59.

371