School Counseling Ethics Has Been

School Counseling

Ethics has been very much on the public mind for the past few years, beginning with stunning revelations of corporate ethical lapses, some of them consuming pensions (Enron), and others consuming lives (Bhopal, India). These are devastating lapses, but it might be argued that even more devastating are ethical lapses in counseling, and, more particularly, school counseling. Children and adolescents who seek or are forced into school counseling are arguably among the students most at risk for unethical -- not to say illegal -- behavior themselves. Therefore, it would seem essential on that basis alone to solve ethical dilemma issues for school counselors working with that population.

School counselors obtain their own training in dealing with ethical dilemmas during their education; therefore, it would seem essential to investigate not only what sorts of ethical dilemmas are currently being faced by school counselors, but also what sort of approaches to solving them they have been trained to use. Fortunately, there is abundant information on the latter, and some on the former; the current study will provide more concrete information concerning what ethical dilemmas school counselors currently face.

Work by Downs (2003) made the connection between the school counselors' own training, and their reactions to attraction to students, a major ethical dilemma in many cases. Downs' research revealed abundant documentation regarding the importance of guidelines for relationships between faculty and students. Downs' own literature review found widespread recognition that "there had been a lack of ethics education for counselors and counselor educators (Stadler & Paul, 1986), [although] substantial contributions have been made toward the development of ethical standards and standards for teaching ethics (CACREP, 2001; Kitchener, 1986)...." (Downs, 2003, p. 2+). The pitfall, he also noted, was that the standards are not universally endorsed or accepted by either professional counselors or counselor educators. Moreover, regions of the nation fall short in terms of ethics education. Perhaps most interesting was a finding of Bransteter & Handelsman (2000) that noted that one study of counselor education graduate assistants stated high ethical ideas, but when it came to making real-time, real-life decisions in ethical dilemma situations, their decision-making was based on significantly lower ideals.

Although sexual activity is by no means the only opportunity for ethical dilemmas to creep into counseling relationships, it is not surprising that they do. Downs notes that "Three studies (Butler, 1975; Fitzgerald et al., 1988; Pope et al., 1979) found that instructors and supervisors were frequently sexually involved with students" (2003, p. 2+). Indeed, the Pope et al. study had revealed that 17% of female psychologist reported having had sexual contact with faculty during the pursuit of their degree; just thirteen male educators claimed sexual contact with students. A disturbingly high as the numbers are by themselves, the fact that Pope et al. fund that women who had had sexual contact with faculty during their training also demonstrated significantly higher sexual contact with clients after graduation and entering the profession. Proving, at least to a small degree, that ethical lapses are a 'top down' activity, "Glaser and Thorpe (1986) also reported finding that 17% of psychologist trainees had experienced sexual contact with psychology educators. Most students reported later feeling that they had been coerced and that the contact had hindered their professional development" (Downs, 2003, p. 2+). The American Counseling Association, Downs reported, had recognized the need for ethical practice for counselor educators and faculty to prevent this cascading problem of ethical lapse.

Of course, sexual contact is not the only point at which an ethical dilemma can arise. Another significant area of concern is confidentiality. Especially when minors are involved, the ramifications of telling or not telling parents and government agencies material and information gleaned from those being counseled is of prime importance. Just as with adults, the issue of the person in counseling doing harm to himself/herself or others arises. But with minors, other issues -- health issues short of public health concerns, academic honesty and so on -- might also arise.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of the current study is twofold: to determine the most prevalent ethical dilemmas faced by school counselors, and to ascertain what approach they use to deal with those dilemmas.

Research questions

The research questions were basic to ethical dilemmas in school settings and involve the degree to which sexuality is at the base of ethical dilemmas, and the degree to which other issues pose problems for school counselors. What is the 'snapshot' of the ethical dilemma environment for school counselors now? Has it changed in the past few years? And what is the preferred method of reaching a workable method of dealing with it vis-a-vis ethical practice of the profession, needs of the person in counseling, and legal requirements if they apply.

Hypotheses

Hypothesis One: Current ethical dilemmas in school counseling are approximately equally divided between sexuality issues and other issues.

Hypothesis Two: The major issue, besides sexuality, being seen as an ethical dilemma by school counselors concerns confidentiality.

Hypothesis Three: School counselors rely more heavily on the 'standard of care' approach to dealing with ethical dilemmas than on any other single paradigm or any combination of paradigms.

Rationale of study

The rationale of the study is that there is currently no single, reliable approach to dealing with the ethical dilemmas presented to school counselors. By conducting a study of the current most frequent ethical dilemmas and by ascertaining what other approaches have been attempted, a blueprint for further research into ways to surmount ethical dilemmas will be constructed.

Limitations of study

The current study might be considered a preliminary investigation of the current environment surrounding ethical dilemmas faced by school counselors. IT should not be taken as an investigation of ethical dilemmas in the total counseling environment. Nor should it be taken as a definitive definition of the current school counseling environment. Rather, it should be regarded as providing insight into current issues in school counseling, and current approaches to them a practiced in the field; it does not provide information about every possibly approach to dealing with ethical dilemmas and is therefore very much an empirical and not a theoretical work.

Definitions

School counselor shall mean any individual possessing at least a B.A. degree and employed by the school district for the virtually exclusive work of providing counseling services as needed to a school's student population; it does not refer to independent professionals who may be consulted outside the school setting by private appointment even when those professionals are recommended by school personnel.

Ethical dilemma refers to any situation that contains significant ambiguity or, in other words, in which the counselor can proceed along various courses of action. One might attempt to exclude sexual contact from this definition because it is generally conceived of as wrong by society. However, because sexually-based ethical dilemmas may involve considerable subtlety (such as pre-teens accusing a counselor of wrongdoing because he rejected their advances), it will be included in the definition.

Chapter Two -- Literature review

Definitions of ethics and morals

One of the fundamental problems that arises when ethical dilemmas are being discussed is that of the definition of ethics as opposed to morals. Hill 2004 (2000) note that the term carried so many different meanings, it is difficult to see how the problem would not be confusing to students, teachers and counselors/practitioners alike.

Often, these authors note, it is unclear whether someone speaking of ethic is referring to a code of ethics per se, or to moral values, legal strictures or community expectations, or to a sort of umbrella term meant to embrace all these possibilities.

Even the American Counseling Association (ACA) doe note provide an explicit definition, write Evans and Foster (2000), although that body does possess a Code of Ethics and tackles the definition dilemma in its preamble, noting that "the specification of a code of ethics enables the association to clarify... The nature of the ethical responsibilities held in common by its members" (ACA Code of Ethics, quoted by Hill, 2004). That suggests a very practical approach, but one that is consistent with other definitions such as that developed by Levy (1972). Levy described ethics as "standards of behavior or action in relation to others" (p. 96).

Practicality is also the basis for Welfel's definition; Welfel (1998) believed that ethical behavior (without defining ethics itself) must meet four criteria, which Welfel gave as:

The counselor having sufficient knowledge, skill and judgment to use interventions efficaciously

The counselor respecting human dignity and the client's freedom of choice and action

The counselor respecting and responsibly using the power Welfel says is inherent in the counselor's role

The counselor having the ability to work in ways that promote public confidence in the counselor (Welfel, 1998).

In order to behave in these ways, several other researchers defined the psychological criteria that must be met by the counselor. These criteria included, according to Hill 2004 (2000):

Moral sensitivity, that is, ability to interpret a situation correctly

Moral judgment, that is, determining the difference between right and wrong actions

Moral motivation, that is, prioritizing moral values vs. other values

Moral character, that is, having courage, being persistent, dismissing distractions and so on in pursuit of the goal.

These are attempts to define ethics by describing actions, and fairly specific constellations of actions at that. Frederich Paulson, a 19th century philosopher of ethics, defined ethics as a science of moral duty (1899).

Almost 100 years later, Swenson also used the concept of study in defining ethics, saying that it included the systematic study of concepts such as right and wrong. Other researchers note that the idea of systematic study is common in dictionary definitions of ethics, with the American Heritage Dictionary focusing on three elements: " the study of moral philosophy, the rules of a profession (or more broadly the character of a community), and moral self-examination (Soukhanov, 1992).

Hill (2004) offers a 'definition' that is mainly practical but also incorporates some theoretical content. They believe that ethical analysis is both an art and a skill and is concerned with engaging ethically troubling situations in ways that support the welfare of the client or student, as the case may be; empower counselors to practice according to professional standards; allow counselors to practice in ways consistent with their own moral/ethical beliefs, and; allow counselors to practice in ways consistent with professional ideals.

On a more troubling note, Hill notes that for the past 30 years, the development of professional ethics has been concerned with attempting to curb abuses, or, in other words, it has grown from a negative rather than a positive point-of-view. However, Remley & Herlihy (2001) indicated that it can be useful, in instructing counselors, to include the misdeeds of prior practitioners as a guide to avoiding similar pitfalls in future. Hill noted that since the ACA published its code of ethics, the relatively young profession has concentrated on standardizing basic behavior guidelines, educating practitioners and students, and enforcing adherence to standards.

The ACA was formerly known as the American Personnel and Guidance Association; the name change seems also to signify a sea change in the group's attitude toward professionalism and developing workable professional standards. Indeed, Hill (2004) note that for several decades, counseling professionals have engaged more seriously in advocating for licensure as well as for developing professional codes; in fact, since the 1970s, state licensure has become more common, and in various states ethics committees and codes have also become more prevalent. Because of this, many states requires 3,000 hours of supervised experience for licensure.

In addition, Hill (2004) note that state licensure laws often include details concerning what constitutes unprofessional conduct, making it essential for counserlor education programs to provide students with study concerning both the legal ramifications of unprofessional conduct and their ethical responsibilities thereto. However, they note, this requirement is not universal. In fact, only 43.8% of community counseling programs, 47.3% of school counseling programs, and 55% of mental health counseling programs include such a requirement; oddly, 69.2% of marriage and family counseling programs include the requirement. Hill did not mention school counseling specifically, leading to the conclusion that, at least as of 2001, school counselors might very well have slipped through such licensure requirements as there are even in states that generally require licensure of counseling professionals of other types.

Perhaps the most revealing information Hill provides concerns the difficulty of "competent counselors" in maintaining their won awareness that ethics is more than performing according to state mandatory standards. They believe, along with Remley (2001) and Welfel (2002) that counselors having strong ethical standards of their own, beyond those prescribed by state law or professional organization, is the best protection against legal action and licensing board inquiries and they strongly suggest that counselors not rely on licensing board requirements but go beyond those in tier practice of ethical behavior.

While that might be the ideal, Hill noted that in one study of models preferred by counselors for learning ethics, following legal cases and precedents was favored by 90% of respondents in one study, making it the second most popular of six approaches to ethics studies. The first most popular model was the ethical decision-making model, at 96%. The other four, and level of acceptance as the best model for learning, were:

Principle ethics models at 77.5%

Ethics of care models at 73%

Using history and philosophy of ethics at 45% (Hill 2004).

This would seem to contradict the material that proposes experiential material is most useful in helping counselors learn how to deal with ethical dilemmas. Evans and Foster noted that the three most-preferred models, decision-making models, following legal cases and precedents (i.e., the standard of care), and models of principle ethics, seemed to be the most prevalent method of ethical analysis instruction in counselor education. Still, they believed it to be reasonable to posit that well-prepared students of counseling should be able to use one of the three models of ethical analysis in any dilemma with which they were presented. Hill also noted that each of these methods is given a great deal of exposure in a Web page sponsored by the ACA and dedicated to providing methods professionals can use as they encounter ethical dilemmas.

Hill (2004) also noted that the Web page was accessed at least 7,000 times each year, despite the fact that the ACA standards are considered to be minimal and, further, do not deal with the internal processes a counselor would need to conduct to achieve the ethical standards advocated, much less provide detail concerning ethical approaches to specific sorts of dilemmas. Nonetheless, Hill described the page as a "road map" a counselor could use to obtain the information he or she needed concerning ethics and conduct in many specific instances.

While the ACA material is apparently not as useful as Hill would like it to be, there is abundant literature elsewhere concerning specific types of ethical dilemmas that might be faced by school counselors. Most rely on work by Van Hoose & Paradise (1979), a paradigm that followed the earlier work of Bentham in utilitarian analysis. Although there are variations, most such analysis followed this basic model:

Identification of the problem

Consulting various sources including codes of ethics and colleagues in order to define the goals in the situation

Considering the possible consequences of actions under consideration

Generating the chosen action

Evaluating the situation as a whole, i.e., as it evolves based on implementation of the chosen actions (Hill 2004).

Several researchers have noted drawbacks to this logical paradigm and process. Corey et al. (1998) suggested that collaborating with those being counseled as these steps were accomplished would tend to make any decision more culturally appropriate. Remley and Herlihy (2001) had, in fact, been less than enthusiastic about the approach described by Hill because it was too dispassionate, logical, linear and abstract, and also tended to be paternalistic. Also, Van Hoose and Paradise themselves had noted that the rubric they described can be too time consuming to implement, and could ignore the nuances in the counselor/student relationship. Research also noted that it was common for a counselor to sent two to four yours addressing any ethically troubling material (Anderson, Nelson & Forester-Miller, 1999).

By definition, a dilemma is a situation that permits of mutually exclusive approaches to a solution. Such situations are not always inherently negative. In fact, Beauchamp and Childress (2001) note that even an ethical principle such as beneficence, which connotes mercy and kindness, can be at the root of an ethical dilemma. Counselors acting out of beneficence use listening skills and caring and use compassion to communicate with the client concerning what they have heard. Included within the general description of beneficence are also, in a counseling situation, respect of the client's autonomy, non-malfeasance, justice and fidelity (Meara et al., 1996). The counselor must determine how much emphasis might best be placed on any of these attributes depending on the nature of the dilemma at hand. What it does not do is help a counselor to identify an ethically challenging situation in the first place. In addition, Meara notes that while such concepts as beneficence and justice are often grouped together, in fact, there are counseling situations in which it would be wise to ask where beneficence ends and justice should begin.

Other researchers have noted that using models such as those described above can lead to relying too much on linear thought and ignoring other approaches that may even be more appropriate. It also ignores the intuitive aspect of counseling. Hill (2004) note: The intuitive level reflects a felt sense a counselor might have about the ethical propriety of a given situation. The critical evaluative level refers to a conscious attempt to identify and compare competing principles in the context of an ethical dilemma. It seems important for a person using principle ethics models to be aware that the intuitive level is not addressed by these models and, thus, should be attended to using a different approach (p. 131+).

The rubric of the standard of care is also not universally useful, because such standards are based on legal determinations made after a counselor is accused of misbehaving (Hill 2004). This also suggests the limitations of usefulness noted earlier regarding licensure standards and so on.

The standard of care also tends to make counselors think defensively about possible actions they might engage in, possibly so defensively that they may fail to act in the best interests of their client; this could cause a sort of cascading problem regarding the care, which could, in fact, lead to further ethical dilemmas. Pope and Vasquez (1998) referred to this method of counseling as "ethics as adherence to legal and administrative standards" (p. 5) and proposed that in such situations, the clients best interests were very likely not being taken sufficiently into account.

Hill (2004) note that standard of care approaches to ethical dilemmas do map the pitfalls encountered by others, but ignore completely the ideals of the counselor, and, as noted above, often skirt the best interests of the client as well. The decision-making model, described earlier, is useful as long as there is time to conduct the logical process described in the bullet points, but is lacking at the outset because it fails to help counselors even identify a potential ethical dilemma.

Hill (2004) seems to favor the model of principles, which gives counselors who act on principle a method of distancing themselves from the situation. They have the opportunity to balance principles against each other (i.e., mercy against justice, etc.). Hill 2004 noted that each approach to ethical dilemmas in flawed; even used together, these three approaches cannot cover every situation a counselor may encounter. Hill preferred "to look for ways to help counselors see the socially negotiated aspects of ethics as a consistently active framework from which to make and carry out decisions, evaluate emotions, and interact with systems" (p. 131+).

Hill argued against the juridical approaches, perhaps especially the standard of care approach, and for a more holistic approach that specifically includes the counselor asking the question, in any ethical dilemma, "What dos his say about me as a person and a counselor?" Or "Who in my life might have a perspective on what I have chosen to do today?" (Hill, 2004, p. 131+). This might help address what Hill sees as one of the major failures in the education of counselors; how to do what they are told to do, that, is, how to develop awareness of ethical dilemmas in the first place, and how to manage one's response in the second place. He laments the fact that moral and ethical sensitivity is ignored in the training of counselors. He seems to equivocate slightly on the subject of experiential learning, writing:

Experiential courses such as prepracticum, practicum, and internship are designed to expose trainees to the complex issues that confront counselors. Instructors who guide these experiences have the task of helping trainees tolerate the ambiguity of entering into the worlds of their clients while at the same time maintaining responsibility for their professional role. It seems that professional ethics has sometimes been seen as a barrier to this learning process. Reporting requirements, duty to warn guidelines, and warnings about dual relationships are only some of the legal and standard of care factors that add an extra layer of complexity to the counseling relationship. It has been my experience that when presented with these issues, some trainees adopt rigid strategies for dealing with them. Sometimes they ignore the problem, and sometimes they attend solely to the problem while failing to meet other crucial needs of the person who is receiving counseling (hill, 2004, p. 131+).

Rather than haranguing student counselors concerning a list of dos and don'ts, Hill believes instructors should help students understand their own emerging awareness of "ethically challenging and often morally ambiguous material" (2004, p 131+). Having an awareness of how our actions affect other people was the way Rest (1984) defines moral sensitivity, and it is, for Rest, the first step in moral decision-making, an attribute necessary for any approach to ethical dilemmas by school counselors.

Some researchers, Rest included, seemed to believe that moral sensitivity enhancement is the key to dealing with ethical dilemmas; Kitchener (1991) was among these. Hill makes the case for developing moral sensitivity when he notes that:

Although making sense of an ambiguous situation by defining it as a dilemma and then applying established rules to it may be an effective strategy in certain circumstances, it may underestimate the potential for these experiences to serve as learning moments that can enhance counselor development (2004, p. 131+).

Hill promotes a reconceptualization of the approach to ethical dilemmas by counselors by incorporating two additional elements to the top three models -- decision-making, principle ethics and standard of care. These two new elements are sensitivity to ethically charged situations and "awareness of counselors as actors in ethical dramas" (Hill, 2004, p. 131+). This would help overcome what he sees as an impoverished method of working in which counselors are encouraged to separate their emotional and intuitive responses to gain what he sees as more objective results, an outcome he thinks is often less than idea. Rather, he notes that narrative theory, as explained by Freedman & Combs (1996) and McNamee & Gergen (1992) would be useful as well. Hill argues that when counselors, fearing the ethically challenging situation, withhold their "primary method of intervention, their selves, their stories, their background, their hopes for the future, healing and change may be truncated" (2004, p. 131+).

Hill also outlines the arguments of modernists and postmodernists who claim that because there is no such thing as objective reality, it is not possible to separate self from problem in the first place; critics of postmodernists describe them as relativists who end up having no way to distinguish between good or less good decisions.

These approaches to ethical dilemmas in counseling seem to be trumped by the work of Christopher (1996) who reduced the argument to one of moral vision based on only two questions: "What is a person?" And "What should a person become?" (pp., 17-25). He then argued that ethically sound counseling would depend on:

recognizing the moral visions that are already operating both in clients and at a societal level, helping clients to clarify the roles they want to own in relation to various moral visions facing them, and helping clients to become aware of and take responsibility for acting on the results of these clarifications (Christopher, 1996, pp. 17-25).

All this seems to work well with the concept of narrative frameworks, in which al the other models might be understood to contribute to an approach to any ethical dilemma, whether that dilemma involves sexuality or other forms of 'unprincipled' behavior.

In fact, while the specific ethical dilemma being faced is certainly important to the counselor, virtue ethics, derived from Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, which explored character, is applicable to virtually all dilemmas faced by counselors (Hill, 2004).

In addition, Cohen & Cohen (1999) note that while the three models discussed above emphasize tackling each particular dilemma facing a counselor and determining what should be done about it, virtue ethics puts the emphasis on developing the counselor's character when the counselor is faced with any new ethically challenging situation. In fact, then -- because the counselor is, in effect, counseling himself or herself to greater 'humanity' -- the behavioral outcome in the situation is not the only measure of whether the counselor acted ethically; intent also counts. Further, Cohen & Cohen (1999) suggest that under the principle of utility, the moral rightness of actions can be determined by assessing the tendency of those actions to produce pleasure or prevent pain. In addition, they note that by 'owning' their own moral criterion, counselors can get beyond the impoverished 'standard of care' model as a central guide to dealing with any ethically charged situation.

The state of the research on counseling ethics

Downs (2003) begins an investigation of ethical dilemmas among school counselors at the beginning: He examines the role of training and, later, examines the ethical practice of counseling. In fact, he links ethical dilemmas during training influenced the practice of the counselor later. What Downs wanted to discover was whether standard pedagogical practice during training had an effect on later handling of ethical dilemmas; his research indicated that it did.

In some respects, Downs' research question is sophomoric, especially in light of the extensive material developed as early as 1975 regarding major portions of his question. Butler (1975) had researched ethical dilemmas during counseling-related education. Moreover, Downs notes that most areas involving any sort of education had been well-researched vis-a-vis counseling and ethics. Literature reviewed by Downs addressed counseling ethics in instruction, supervision and counseling practice itself. Other research he quotes addressed additional specific topics under the broad heading of counselor ethics. These included:

The effect of power differentials on ethics in counseling

Ethics in counselor education

Gender-based differences in counselor education and supervision

Ethical instruction of counselor/educators

Ethical dilemmas during the education of counselors (Downs, 2003).

Downs even uncovered research concerning specific ethical violations by Bowman et al., 1995; Dickey et al., 1993, and Schwab & Neukrug, 1994. HE also noted that substantial contributions had been made concerning ethical standards themselves and teaching ethical standards in the academic counseling/teaching setting. The problem with that and arguably an excuse of Downs' research, is that there are no standards universally endorsed by professional counselor/educators or counselors. Downs also note that there had been models developed to teach moral sensitivity within the rubric of ethics courses, and also added the role of morals to his investigative mix, that some researchers had sought ways to introduce "a social role perspective for moral development within the confines of ethics education (Morris, 1981, cited by Downs). He also concluded that educators and counselors were above learning: Chase (1999) supported the notions that learning does take place "when an ethics exists in a counselor education program.

Most common ethical dilemmas and failures

Downs also found that, at least in dated empirical data (for example, Butler, 1975 and Pope et al., 1979), ethical dilemmas that were most frequently noted involved instructors and supervisors being sexually involved with students. In fact, Pope et al. had revealed that 17% of female psychologist had reported sexual contact with faculty members when those psychologists were students. In addition, 13% of male educators reported contact with students. All of this, according to Pope, constituted a sort of generational transference of behavior, with women who had had sexual encounters with mal supervisors having a significant increase over other psychologists with supervisors and clients after they had begun working in the field.

It is possible that Downs' study is flawed, however, because the sample was small and as many as 425 of respondents failed to answer the very personal questions they were asked. Even Downs admits that modest conclusions, only, can be drawn, although his work did point the way for other research, conceivably, especially as so much of the existing research was, apparently, dated.

One of Down's more interesting suggestions was that teaching student teacher/counselors how to handle ethical dilemmas should not be relegated to a single course, or even several courses, but should be liberally sprinkled throughout the entire training period and should apply to all sorts of dilemmas, form the sort mentioned earlier -- illicit sexual activity -- to other sorts of ethics problems, such as confidentiality and so on.

It would appear that the ethical dilemma easiest to access was, surprisingly, the sexual practices dilemma. There, Downs noted, it was not the coursework that made the difference to a counselor working in an educational setting, but rather feedback about relationships wit students. Two researchers, Ellis and Douce (1994) suggested that because sexuality is a normal human activity, it need to be dealt with openly. Moreover, Kadushin had, much earlier (1968) proposed that because there was an innate power differential between counseling faculty and students, an inherent need for extensive ethical counselor/educators was essential.

Silverman addressed specific counseling dilemmas in the field of physical education.

He was extremely negative concerning the support for teachers confronted with confidential issues by students. He lamented that there "are no ethical standards and few laws that tell a teacher when to disclose the information they have been given. Second, there is limited or nonexistent training for teachers in the area of confidentiality" (1997, p. 8). This puts the physical education teacher at risk not only for their handling of such traditional student behaviors as class cutting and back talk, but also concerning "child abuse, drug use, gangs and violence, pregnancy, and AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases" in which situations they may become de facto counselors. Silverman notes that "Students who may turn to a teacher for help with issues generally find the physical education teacher to be approachable in an environment which invites student-teacher interaction" (1997, p. 8).