Political Acumen: A Skill for School Counselor Effectiveness
Author(s): Carolyn Stone, Ed.D.
March 1, 2013
You are working with a group of students who clearly need additional supports. Unfortunately, no matter how much you ask administrators and teachers, the students do not receive the help you need. Your principal says he wants to help the students, but instead of providing additional resources, he asks you to keep him informed about every student you see and the presenting problem. He is a strong child advocate and a good administrator, but on this directive you disagree. You have explained your ethical confidentiality imperative. Although he listens intently, he does not relent except to say he will also respect the students’ confidences unless there is a compelling reason why he must involve their parents or teachers. You do not believe he means any ill will, but you do not believe he understands your ethical dilemma. Can you legally and ethically refuse to cooperate?
This scenario has become an all-too-familiar outcry. In a December 2012 survey, 1,251 respondents indicated that in the last three years they have been asked an average of 36.5 times by their administrators about the content of their counseling sessions.
School counselors fulfilling both ethical principles and negotiating political landmines pose challenges not easily solved, as demonstrated in the case of Woodlock vs. Orange Ulster B.O.C.E.S. (2006/2008). In this case, a school counselor found herself in conflict with her principal. N.W., a school counselor at a special education center, tried to advocate with her administrators for gym and certified art instructors for her students as indicated on their individualized educational program’s (IEP). Administration did not respond to her calls and faxes, so she started keeping a log of her attempts and eventually went over her principal’s head to the district’s pupil services administrator. The principal responded by sending N.W. a letter of reprimand for “going out of process.” In what appears to have morphed into a full-blown power struggle, the principal subsequently sent N.W. two disciplinary letters for performance problems, which she contended were unfounded. The principal recommended against N.W. receiving tenure, and N.W. filed a civil rights suit in federal court alleging adverse administration actions that violated her First Amendment freedom of expression.
In deciding if N.W. would get a jury trial, the court concluded that N.W.’s repeated requests for special education compliance was a matter of public concern, and the case moved forward to a jury trial. The school district appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of the school district and set aside N.W.’s hope for a jury trial (Woodlock vs. Orange Ulster B.O.C.E.S., 2008). The Supreme Court’s ruling in Garcetti vs. Ceballos (2006) a completely separate case, dealt the fatal blow to N.W.’s case. The Supreme Court held in Garcetti that First Amendment freedom of expression does not protect statements public employees make pursuant to their official duties, as compared with those they make as citizens on matter of public concern. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that N.W.’s repeated communications were made pursuant to her official duties as a school counselor at the special education satellite center and, therefore, did not fall under her First Amendment Rights.
The case shows how legal protection does not necessarily accompany ethical imperatives. The onus is on the politically astute school counselor to minimize the conflict between political compliance and ethical behavior as the option of legal recourse is not a promising one. Negotiating the politics with administrators can at times be complex or even fruitless work, but adhering to ethical standards requires school counselors to find alternate routes to compromise without going to battle with administrators.
N.W. was trying to be an advocate for her students, but she approached the administration in what resulted in a self-defeating way. School counselors use their best political and collaborative skills to demonstrate respect for the position of authority entrusted to school administrators, while carefully determining the most effective way to adhere to the school counseling profession’s obligation to protect and advocate for students.
So what is the answer to the question posed at the beginning of this article, “Can you legally and ethically refuse to cooperate?” The balance of power is in the principal’s favor, and courts tend to rule in the favor of school districts when administration and other educators collide in the legal arena. School counselors must engage in both political acumen and legal awareness to effectively advocate.
Carolyn Stone, Ed.D., is a professor, University of North Florida and ASCA’s ethics chair. She can be reached at cstone@unf.edu. Contact the author for references to this article. The author would like to thank Perry Zirkel, Ph.D., J.D., professor of education and law at Lehigh University, for his help with the court cases Woodlock vs. Orange Ulster B.O.C.E.S. (2006/2008) and Garcetti sv. Ceballos (2006).
This scenario has become an all-too-familiar outcry. In a December 2012 survey, 1,251 respondents indicated that in the last three years they have been asked an average of 36.5 times by their administrators about the content of their counseling sessions.
School counselors fulfilling both ethical principles and negotiating political landmines pose challenges not easily solved, as demonstrated in the case of Woodlock vs. Orange Ulster B.O.C.E.S. (2006/2008). In this case, a school counselor found herself in conflict with her principal. N.W., a school counselor at a special education center, tried to advocate with her administrators for gym and certified art instructors for her students as indicated on their individualized educational program’s (IEP). Administration did not respond to her calls and faxes, so she started keeping a log of her attempts and eventually went over her principal’s head to the district’s pupil services administrator. The principal responded by sending N.W. a letter of reprimand for “going out of process.” In what appears to have morphed into a full-blown power struggle, the principal subsequently sent N.W. two disciplinary letters for performance problems, which she contended were unfounded. The principal recommended against N.W. receiving tenure, and N.W. filed a civil rights suit in federal court alleging adverse administration actions that violated her First Amendment freedom of expression.
In deciding if N.W. would get a jury trial, the court concluded that N.W.’s repeated requests for special education compliance was a matter of public concern, and the case moved forward to a jury trial. The school district appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of the school district and set aside N.W.’s hope for a jury trial (Woodlock vs. Orange Ulster B.O.C.E.S., 2008). The Supreme Court’s ruling in Garcetti vs. Ceballos (2006) a completely separate case, dealt the fatal blow to N.W.’s case. The Supreme Court held in Garcetti that First Amendment freedom of expression does not protect statements public employees make pursuant to their official duties, as compared with those they make as citizens on matter of public concern. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that N.W.’s repeated communications were made pursuant to her official duties as a school counselor at the special education satellite center and, therefore, did not fall under her First Amendment Rights.
The case shows how legal protection does not necessarily accompany ethical imperatives. The onus is on the politically astute school counselor to minimize the conflict between political compliance and ethical behavior as the option of legal recourse is not a promising one. Negotiating the politics with administrators can at times be complex or even fruitless work, but adhering to ethical standards requires school counselors to find alternate routes to compromise without going to battle with administrators.
N.W. was trying to be an advocate for her students, but she approached the administration in what resulted in a self-defeating way. School counselors use their best political and collaborative skills to demonstrate respect for the position of authority entrusted to school administrators, while carefully determining the most effective way to adhere to the school counseling profession’s obligation to protect and advocate for students.
So what is the answer to the question posed at the beginning of this article, “Can you legally and ethically refuse to cooperate?” The balance of power is in the principal’s favor, and courts tend to rule in the favor of school districts when administration and other educators collide in the legal arena. School counselors must engage in both political acumen and legal awareness to effectively advocate.
Carolyn Stone, Ed.D., is a professor, University of North Florida and ASCA’s ethics chair. She can be reached at cstone@unf.edu. Contact the author for references to this article. The author would like to thank Perry Zirkel, Ph.D., J.D., professor of education and law at Lehigh University, for his help with the court cases Woodlock vs. Orange Ulster B.O.C.E.S. (2006/2008) and Garcetti sv. Ceballos (2006).