Refusing Unethical Requests

A three-round, approximately 35-minute protocol that builds the full skill arc for refusing unethical requests — recognizing the violation, delivering a clear and constructive refusal, and mapping the escalation channel when the pressure comes from above rather than a peer. Round 1 (10–12 min): Violation Identification. Participants receive two written vignettes: the quiz scenario (a stressed coworker asks you to sign off on student data they forgot to collect) and a harder variant (a supervising teacher asks you to record an IEP goal score from a session you were not present for). For each vignette, participants complete a structured analysis card naming the specific conduct that would violate the CEC Code of Ethics record-integrity obligation (pro5-r1, CEC Code of Ethics: Ethical Practice in Special Education) and IDEA's prohibition on falsifying student records (pro5-r2, CPIR IDEA and Ethical Practice overview), then identify which failure mode the most tempting wrong response represents: enabling the falsification under social pressure, issuing a soft exit that leaves the door open, or saying no without steering toward the honest path. Round 1 is analysis only — no scripting yet; identifying the mechanism of each failure mode before drafting is what separates this from a reaction exercise. Round 2 (11–13 min): Response Scripting. Drawing on the MA DESE Professional and Ethical Conduct module's framing that a para's obligation is to decline requests that would falsify records (pro5-r5) and the MA DESE Role Clarity module's guidance on using proper channels when a directive conflicts with legal obligations (pro5-r4), each participant writes the exact 2–3 sentences they would say in Vignette A. The script must pass three tests derived from the value-4 quiz anchor: the refusal is clear and not hedged ('not comfortable' language is the soft-exit failure mode to eliminate), it names why the refusal matters in terms of what record integrity protects for the student, and it steers the coworker toward the honest path rather than leaving them to decide alone. Pairs read each other's scripts aloud and flag any that still function as soft exits; the revision cycle is the learning event. Round 3 (11–12 min): Escalation Mapping. Participants apply the CPIR IDEA obligations resource (pro5-r2) and the WA OSPI code's explicit 'basis to say no and escalate through proper channels' frame (pro5-r6) to Vignette B — the supervisor-as-requester scenario. Each participant produces a three-step written escalation plan: the in-the-moment response to the supervisor using the criteria from Round 2; who to report to next and what to document, drawn from IDEA's proper-channels guidance (principal, special-education director, or district compliance office depending on the situation); and what not to do (agree then report later, confront with an accusation, or involve the student). The session closes with each participant naming the one escalation contact in their own building they would use in step 2, converting the plan from a hypothetical into an actionable commitment. No round is discussion-only — each produces a written artifact (analysis card, response script, escalation plan) that participants can keep.