Legal Rules Establish Basic Dutiesakin To The Floor Force

Legal Rules Establish Basic Duties Akin To The Floor Foracceptable Be

Legal rules establish basic duties akin to the floor for acceptable behavior, whereas ethical codes represent aspirational standards for best practice. For school counselors, fulfilling both legal requirements and ethical principles may pose challenges that warrant careful consideration. This article outlines a legal/ethical conflict in the case of Woodlock v. Orange Ulster B.O.C.E.S. (2006/2008), in which the school counselor followed the ethical precept of advocacy but did so in a way that collided with legal protections. In their efforts to meet ethical norms for child advocacy, school counselors may find themselves embroiled in legal disputes.

Law and ethical codes can offer differing messages, with legal protection not necessarily accompanying ethical norms. However, the politically astute and professionally diligent school counselor will seek to minimize the conflict between legal compliance and ethical behavior. The American School Counselor Association’s (2004) ethical code recognizes the need for school counselors to be vigilant in respecting ethical norms and adhering to law and “when these are in conflict work responsibly for change” (F.1.d.). The intent of this article is to present a court case in which the school counselor was meeting the letter of the law in advocating for her students yet her approach was questionable with regard to school counselor ethics and resulted in her dismissal.

School counselors’ ethical norm of advocacy has as its centerpiece systemic change, specifically the identification of school system practices and procedures that impact student success. As systemic change agents, school counselors work to replicate or eradicate systems that enhance or inhibit student opportunities (American School Counselor Association, 2005). Effective systemic change requires political acumen, an important skill for school counselors to master. In Woodlock v. Orange Ulster B.O.C.E.S. (2006/2008), law and ethics collided when N.W., the school counselor in this case, advocated for systemic change on behalf of her special education students but did so in such a way that she suffered adverse employment consequences without legal protection. (Statement of accuracy: This case study accurately reflects the facts of the court case Woodlock v. Orange Ulster B.O.C.E.S., 2006/2008.)

We filter the facts of the case through the lenses of legal protections and ethical standards, seeking an alternate route to that of N.W. that uses political astuteness to minimize conflict between these two perspectives. THE CASE N.W. was a school counselor in New York with 14 years of prior experience working with adults with disabilities. For her first two of three probationary years, she received favorable evaluations for her successive assignments with specialized groups of students, including those returning from drug and alcohol rehabilitation and those in special education. For her third year, which was, the superintendent selected her for the counseling position at a new satellite center designed to provide mainstreaming opportunities for special education students.

The superintendent explained that N.W.’s internship experience with staff at the host school, including the principal, made for a “win-win” arrangement. However, the principal only exercised off-site authority for the satellite center. Instead, A.I., an administrative intern who lacked supervisory experience and administrative certification, was nominally in charge. During the fall and early winter, N.W. repeatedly expressed her view first to A.I. and then to the principal that the lack of certified gym and art instructors at the center violated state special education mandates and the children’s Individualized Educational Program. During the same period, she also raised repeated concerns about escalating safety incidents involving a violent, traumatic brain-injured student; for example, she reported that he had smeared feces in the bathroom and that other students had attempted to light his hair on fire on the school bus. Based on the number of her communications and the lack of administrative responsiveness, she began keeping a log of her calls and faxes to A.I. and the principal. On January 7, 2004, after a crisis incident in which this student threatened to harm others and commit suicide, N.W. successively called A.I. and the principal, leaving messages for each one in their absence.

Next, she called the pupil services administrator, who arranged for immediate consultative support upon receiving N.W.’s concern about A.I.’s and the principal’s lack of availability and responsiveness. On January 14, the principal issued a written reprimand to N.W. for “taking it upon yourself to go out of process.” In response, N.W. sent the principal and his copied administrators a detailed rebuttal, but she received no reply. In early February, she received another written reprimand after telling the pupil services administrator, upon her visit and question, that the administrative situation had not improved. Later that month, N.W. received two additional disciplinary memoranda for separate performance problems that she contended were spurious.

On March 5, the principal informed the union representative that he was going to recommend against N.W. receiving tenure. When her union representative advised her that she would not be able to rely on the two favorable evaluations for employment as a counselor elsewhere, N.W. resigned. However, after consulting with a lawyer, she filed a civil rights suit in federal court, alleging that the adverse administrative actions, starting with the written reprimands and culminating in her “constructive” discharge (i.e., forced resignation), violated her First Amendment freedom of expression.

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Woodlock v. Orange Ulster B.O.C.E.S. (2006/2008) highlights the complex relationship between legal protections and ethical standards, particularly within the context of school counseling. This case exemplifies the challenges school counselors face when advocating for systemic change while navigating the legal environment which may not always align with ethical ideals. This analysis will explore the legal framework surrounding the case, the ethical considerations involved, and the importance of political astuteness for school counselors to minimize conflicts and defend their advocacy efforts effectively.

In the case, N.W., a school counselor, engaged in advocacy aimed at improving services for special education students. Her actions involved raising concerns about violations of state mandates and safety issues, which she communicated to administrators and higher officials. Her actions reflected her adherence to the American School Counselor Association’s (ASCA) ethical standards, emphasizing advocacy for student success and systemic change (ASCA, 2004; 2005). These standards necessitate that counselors push for systemic improvements and challenge practices that hinder student opportunities, especially at specialized centers designed for mainstreaming students with disabilities.

However, her efforts clashed with legal considerations, particularly regarding her expression under the First Amendment. The courts, especially after the Supreme Court ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006), have clarified that speech made pursuant to official duties is not protected under the First Amendment. In N.W.’s case, her communications with top administrators, intended as part of her role as a counselor advocating for her students, were deemed to be made within her official capacity. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals applied the Garcetti standard, concluding that her speech did not enjoy First Amendment protection because it was made as part of her official role, not as a private citizen. This legal interpretation significantly restricted her ability to argue that her expression was protected.

From an ethical perspective, N.W. was fulfilling her professional obligation to advocate for her students’ needs, aligning with the ASCA standards that emphasize systemic change and student advocacy. Nonetheless, her approach to this advocacy—raising concerns directly with the administration and higher officials without sufficient political navigation—led to a legal situation where her expression was not protected. Ethical standards advocate for assertive advocacy, but also emphasize the importance of collaboration, respect for authority, and strategic communication, especially when confronting systemic issues within institutions (Lehr & Sumarah, 2002; Logsdon, 2008).

The case exemplifies the importance of political acumen for school counselors. While they must adhere to ethical standards advocating for student benefits, they must also be strategic in how they communicate and advocate within the legal boundaries. Listening to the legal landscape, such as the implications of Garcetti, can help counselors craft strategies that uphold ethical commitments while minimizing risk of adverse employment consequences (Gavin & Zirkel, 2008).

The judicial trend favoring school districts in employment disputes suggests that counselors should carefully evaluate the channels and manner of advocacy. Moving forward, school counselors should develop skills in political navigation, collaboration, and contextual communication to effectively pursue systemic change without infringing on legal protections. This may include seeking higher-level approvals, documenting communications carefully, and framing advocacy within the language of policy and procedure rather than individual grievance.

In conclusion, the Woodlock case demonstrates that ethical advocacy must be balanced with legal awareness. School counselors are called to serve as systemic change agents, but their effectiveness depends on their ability to operate within legal boundaries while maintaining their ethical commitments. Developing political acuity is essential to sustain advocacy efforts that benefit students and safeguard professional integrity.

References

• American School Counselor Association. (2004). Ethical standards for school counselors. Alexandria, VA: Author.
• American School Counselor Association. (2005). The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.
• Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).
• Gavin, I., & Zirkel, P. (2008). An outcome analysis of school employee-initiated litigation: A comparison of decisions. West’s Education Law Reporter, 232, 19–36.
• Lehr, R., & Sumarah, J. (2002). Exploring the vision: The comprehensive guidance and counseling program. The School Counselor, 5, 292–297.
• Logsdon, A. (2008). About one-fourth of special education children may be underserved. Retrieved from about-one-fourth-of-special-education-children-may-be- underserved.htm
• Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977).
• Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968).
• Porter, G., Epp, L., & Bryant, S. (2000). Collaborating among school mental health professions: A necessity, not a luxury. Professional School Counseling, 3, 315–322.
• Woodlock v. Orange Ulster B.O.C.E.S., 281 F. App’x 66 (2d Cir. 2008).