Dilemmas faced when working with learning disabilities in post-secondary education

Annals of Dyslexia, 1998 by Keim, Jeanmarie, Ryan, Ann G, Nolan, Burton F

To explore principles that guide post-secondary professionals who work with students with learning disabilities, vignettes describing typical ethical dilemmas were presented to counselors and other educational professionals. The vignettes addressed issues such as consent, boundaries of competency, accommodation, and release of information. Respondents indicated whether they believed the behavior presented in the vignette was ethical or appropriate. Analyses of variance indicated overall significant differences of opinions between professionals trained in counseling and those trained in education. Chi-square analyses examining responses to individual dilemmas revealed much overlap in opinion, with significant differences of opinion on three of eight dilemmas. Those dilemmas distinguishing the two groups involved issues of confidentiality when providing references, dual relationships between provider and student and release of records.

INTRODUCTION

In this paper, we examine dilemmas faced by educators and counselors working with students who have learning disabilities. Although this topic has received little prior emphasis, professionals often are required to make complex choices. Within postsecondary settings, professionals from two types of educational training are likely to work with students with learning disabilities. The first group comprises professionals with educational training in the field of learning disabilities; the second includes professionals with training in counseling and/or psychology. Additionally, both students and educational specialists must interact with faculty members in various departments to arrange accommodation, testing, and so forth. Whereas the professional behavior of counselors is typically governed by the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice (ACA 1995), with potential sanctions by State Boards of Psychology and Counseling, no such entities currently yield similar authority for individuals with training in education. Finally, there may be no specific professional ethical code to assist university professors in making decisions concerning students with learning disabilities. Inconsistent ethical standards and varying professional behaviors across disciplines may impede the consistent provision of service to students with learning disabilities.

The following vignette presents one scenario where professionals may have different opinions regarding ethical or appropriate behavior: A learning disabilities specialist from the university asks her brother-in-law to hire some of the students in the support program to work part-time in the family business. If the specialist's credentials are in education, is this unethical? If the specialist's credentials are in counseling, is this unethical?

RELEVANT LITERATURE

An array of services has been identified as necessary in meeting the social, emotional, and academic needs of students with learning disabilities in postsecondary settings (Blalock and Dixon 1982; Gajar 1992; Keim, McWhirter, and Bernstein 1996; Nelson and Lignugaris/Kraft 1989; Ostertag, Pearson, and Baker 1986; Strichart and Mangrum 1986; and Wren, Williams, and Kovack 1987). These services include: tutoring, readers, reduced course loads, computer laboratories, study skills, academic advisement, counseling, and test accommodation. Because of the array of skills required to meet these demands, colleges and universities have sought the expertise of a variety of personnel from both counseling and education. These professionals have various kinds of training and requirements that influence their professional and ethical behavior.

Both counselors and educators may assess or counsel students in postsecondary settings, but depending on professional affiliations and licensure laws, ethical boundaries for the two groups differ. Additionally, there is no universal standard that guides the various professional groups in regard to students with learning disabilities.

For example, Cobb and Horn (1989) surveyed 1,000 members of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), the nation's largest organization for educators in special education. They found that only 51 of 381 respondents relied on CEC Standards. The remaining 330 either did not have a copy of the standards or did not actively use them. Most participants in Cobb and Horn's survey (71 percent) reported not using the standards because they were unaware of their existence. According to Heller (1983), these standards were developed by the CEC Professional Standards Committee for distribution in 1983.

In a recent survey of organizations participating in the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD), it was determined that standards for professional conduct were available on an irregular basis. Some organizations have documents specific to their profession (American Speech and Hearing Association and International Reading Association), but others currently have no documents (International Dyslexia Association) or have deferred to parent organizations such as the American Counseling Association (ACA), American Psychological Association (APA), and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). Two professional organizations in special education, however, have shown current interest in the development of ethical standards. The Association for Higher Education and Disabilities (AHEAD) has published "Standards of Professional Practice" (Shaw and Madaus 1997), and the Council for Learning Disabilities (CLD) recently adopted its own "Principles of Ethics" (1995).