School Psychologist Asked to Do Private Due-Process Evaluation

No, not as described. An Ohio school psychologist license authorizes school psychology practice in educational settings; a private, fee-for-service evaluation for a due-process dispute is independent practice, which requires an Ohio psychologist license or proper supervision by one. Her doctoral degree does not itself create independent practice authority. She may use "Dr." if the degree was earned, but she must accurately identify herself as a school psychologist and must not imply she is a licensed psychologist. Using district test materials for private pay after hours raises test-security, district-policy, and conflict-of-interest problems; the testing coordinator's informal permission does not create licensure authority. The fact that the child is a student in her own district compounds the problem because she would be evaluating a child in a dispute against her employer. Appropriate options include declining the private evaluation and referring to a licensed psychologist, or providing only school-based services as a district employee if authorized.

If she proceeds, the Board could treat it as unlicensed practice and misrepresentation, even if the parent consents and pays. The parent may not understand the difference between a school psychologist and a psychologist, so informed consent would be defective. Test security and district policies could be violated, and the district could face a conflict because its own employee is preparing an adverse expert report. Her objectivity is also compromised by her employment relationship with the district. Alternatives: she can decline and give the parent referrals to licensed psychologists who do independent evaluations; she can participate only as a district employee in the IEP process; or she can pursue the required Ohio psychologist licensure and supervised experience before doing private forensic work. If she were supervised by a licensed psychologist, the supervisor would need to accept responsibility, ensure she does not hold herself out independently, and comply with Board supervision rules. She should document the referral and avoid giving an informal opinion about the private dispute.

As a district employee conducting an IEP evaluation, Elena is likely within the scope of her school psychologist license because the service is delivered in an educational setting for educational planning. The district, not the parent, is the client for that evaluation, and the parent's participation is governed by special-education consent and procedural safeguards. She still must not call herself a licensed psychologist, must follow test-security rules, and must avoid becoming the parent's private expert. If the parents disagree with the district evaluation, they may request an independent educational evaluation, but Elena should not be the independent evaluator because of her employment conflict. The key distinction is role and setting: a district IEP evaluation is school psychology practice; a private paid evaluation for litigation is independent psychological practice requiring the appropriate Ohio license.