Educational Therapy Informed Consent: Who Has to Agree
A tenth grader asks you to email her English teacher about the extended time she is not actually getting. Two days later her mother tells you that nothing goes to the school without her approval first. Both of them believe the decision is theirs.
Both have a reasonable claim. Educational therapy informed consent was supposed to have settled this before session one, and in most practices it has not — because the documents practitioners are told to follow do not agree about who is being asked.
That scenario is not hypothetical and it is not mine. It is the first practice scenario on AET's own ethics exam for board certification, which hands candidates a tenth-grade student who wants advocacy with her English teacher and a parent who "insists that no communication should take place between you and the school without their prior approval."
Candidates are then told to identify the conflict and to cite the pertinent sections of the Code of Ethics in their answer.
The Code has a sentence for it. It has exactly one, and the sentence does not say whose wish wins.
What follows is an account of what five professional codes require about consent, assent and confidentiality: AET's, CEC's, ASHA's, APA's and the International Coaching Federation's. It is not an account of what any law requires.
Consent for a minor, access to a minor's records, custody questions and reporting duties are set by statute and vary, and every code read here hands those questions straight back to the law without answering them. Nothing here is legal advice. Where your obligations come from a statute rather than a code, the person to ask is an attorney in the state where you practise.
Permission, consent and assent are three different acts
Start with the vocabulary, because the whole problem is in it.
Consent is agreement given by someone who is legally able to give it. Permission is agreement given by somebody else on that person's behalf, because the person cannot give it themselves. Assent is the agreement of the person who cannot legally consent but can still understand, in words they can follow, what is about to happen to them — and can say no.
Those are three acts, by up to three different people, about one service. Only one of the five codes names all three.
APA's Ethics Code does it in a single standard. Standard 3.10(b) reads:
"For persons who are legally incapable of giving informed consent, psychologists nevertheless (1) provide an appropriate explanation, (2) seek the individual's assent, (3) consider such persons' preferences and best interests, and (4) obtain appropriate permission from a legally authorized person, if such substitute consent is permitted or required by law."
Four steps, in order, and the fourth is the one most practitioners think is the whole requirement; APA's own ethics column has made that point about its own code. Standard 3.10(d) then says: "Psychologists appropriately document written or oral consent, permission, and assent." Three nouns, deliberately distinguished, all three to be recorded.
Hold that sentence next to the others and the field's disagreement becomes visible immediately. Of the five codes read for this piece, the word "assent" appears in one of them. It is absent from AET's, from CEC's, from ASHA's and from ICF's.
That is not a scandal. These are different professions with different relationships to the people they serve, and a code is a floor rather than a description of good practice.
But it does mean something concrete for an educational therapist: if you believe you are required to ask the student, you are not getting that requirement from the Code you are certified against. You are getting it from somewhere else — your training, your supervisor, your own judgement, or a borrowed standard from psychology.
What AET's Code actually says about consent
The current document is the Code of Ethics and Standards for the Professional Practice of Educational Therapy, Revision #9 (2025), reissued September 2025. It is worth reading in full rather than from memory, because the consent material is narrower than its reputation.
The word turns up in three clauses, and taken together they are the whole of the Code's consent machinery.
The first is a contract clause. Under Section One, Responsibilities, educational therapists are to "clearly state, describe, present, and adhere to the conditions of a contract or terms of an agreement prior to the initiation of services, and give notice of fee and policy revisions in advance of their implementation."
The same subsection continues: "As part of this informed consent contractual process, Educational Therapists shall explain to clients whether and how they intend to use electronic devices or communication technologies to gather, manage, and store client information."
Read that twice. The phrase "informed consent" appears in AET's Code attached to a contractual process, and the thing it specifically requires you to explain is your use of devices and technology. Fees, policies, terms, and how you store data.
These are real obligations and most practices under-document them. They are also not the same obligation as explaining to a thirteen-year-old what you are going to do with her in a room for an hour a week.
The second is the confidentiality clause. Section Two requires practitioners to "maintain confidentiality of information except where information is released under specific conditions of written consent and/or statutory requirements." The next clause adds that you must "establish and maintain confidentiality policies and procedures consistent with relevant statutes, regulations, rules, and ethical standards."
The third is the clause that governs the tenth grader's email. In Section Three, among the obligations to other professionals, you are to "communicate, with client/guardian consent, with other agencies involved in serving clients in information exchanges related to planning, coordination, evaluation, and training, to achieve and maintain effective services."
"Client/guardian consent." One slash, carrying the entire question. The Code does not say "client and guardian," and it does not say "client or guardian." It does not say what happens when the two disagree, which is the only situation in which the clause is hard to apply — and it is the situation AET's own exam chose to put on the test.
The sentence that is missing
The Code of Ethics contains no definition of "client."
There is no definitions section. The word is used throughout — in the instruction and assessment standards, in the family engagement standards, in the standards governing other professionals — and it is never fixed.
"Student" appears twice, both times in the termination standards, once in the phrase "the student's best interests" and once in a provision that the final sessions allow "time for any final assessments and for closure between student/client and educational therapist."
That compound, student/client, is the Code's answer to the question, and it is the same slash as before. The document treats the two as interchangeable, which works perfectly until the moment somebody has to be asked something, and then it is the only thing you needed it to settle.
For a practitioner this is not an abstraction. It determines who your duty of confidentiality runs to, whose goals go in the plan, and who can authorise the call to the school. If you have never written down your own answer, the answer in force is whichever one the person in front of you assumes.
CEC: a code with no informed consent in it
The Council for Exceptional Children publishes twelve Ethical Principles and nine areas of Practice Standards, in What Every Special Educator Must Know: Professional Ethics and Standards (2015). Many educational therapists came through special education and were taught against this document.
Search it for "informed consent" and you will not find the phrase. Search it for "assent" and you will not find that either.
What it has instead is a records-and-confidentiality standard under Case Management, 8.4:
"Maintain confidentiality of information except when information is released under specific conditions of written consent that meet confidentiality requirements."
Put it beside AET's: "maintain confidentiality of information except where information is released under specific conditions of written consent and/or statutory requirements."
Those are nearly the same sentence. The first eleven words are identical. Two separate professional bodies, governing two differently-trained workforces, express the confidentiality duty in almost exactly the same words — and neither of them, in that sentence or anywhere near it, says who may give the written consent when the person the information is about is twelve.
CEC's remaining machinery runs through the family. Practitioners are to "actively seek and use the knowledge of parents and individuals with exceptionalities when planning, conducting, and evaluating special education services and empower them as partners in the educational process," to "inform parents of relevant educational rights and safeguards," and to "maintain communication among parents and professionals with appropriate respect for privacy, confidentiality, and cultural diversity."
The individual with an exceptionality is named as a partner in planning. They are not named as a person whose agreement is sought. Many practitioners working under this document call themselves learning specialists, a title whose certification landscape is its own tangle.
ASHA: a capacity test, not an age test
The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's Code of Ethics, effective 2023, is the nearest clinical neighbour an educational therapist has. Speech-language pathologists are on the same caseloads, in the same reports, and — as the published scope documents show when you read five professional bodies side by side — ASHA is the only one of them that puts its claims inside an actual scope of practice.
Its consent rule is Principle I, Rule H:
"Individuals shall obtain informed consent from the persons they serve about the nature and possible risks and effects of services provided, technology employed, and products dispensed."
From the persons they serve. Not from the persons who arranged or paid for the service. The same rule then provides the only route to an authorising adult that the Code contains: "If diminished decision-making ability of persons served is suspected, individuals should seek appropriate authorization for services, such as authorization from a legally authorized/appointed representative."
That is a capacity test. It is triggered by suspected diminished decision-making ability, not by a birthday. Read strictly, a competent sixteen-year-old is a person who can be asked, and her parent arrives in the picture only through law, not through this clause.
And the Code goes no further than that. Reading the 2023 document end to end, the words "assent," "minor," "child," "parent" and "guardian" do not appear anywhere in it. Neither does a definition of "persons served," a term ASHA kept through the 2023 revision.
The confidentiality rules that follow, Rules O and P — which ASHA expands on in its own Issues in Ethics statement on confidentiality — route every hard case to the same place: records access "shall be allowed only when doing so is legally authorized or required by law," and disclosure of confidential information "shall be allowed only when doing so is legally authorized or required by law."
APA: the only code that names all three acts
APA's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct was adopted 21 August 2002, took effect 1 June 2003, and carries amendments made in 2010 and in 2016, the latter effective 1 January 2017.
It is the code most likely to have produced the report sitting in your intake file, which is why it is worth knowing even though it does not bind you. If you have ever wondered what you may actually do with a psychoeducational evaluation, this is the document the evaluator was working under.
Four standards matter here, and they are unusually concrete.
3.10(a) requires informed consent for assessment, therapy, counselling and consulting, in person or by electronic transmission, "using language that is reasonably understandable to that person or persons." 3.10(b) is the four-step sequence quoted above. 3.10(c) covers mandated services. 3.10(d) requires documentation of all three acts.
4.02(a) is the one most often missed, and it is the most useful sentence in any of the five codes:
"Psychologists discuss with persons (including, to the extent feasible, persons who are legally incapable of giving informed consent and their legal representatives) and organizations with whom they establish a scientific or professional relationship (1) the relevant limits of confidentiality and (2) the foreseeable uses of the information generated through their psychological activities."
The parenthesis is the whole point. The conversation about the limits of confidentiality is to be had with the person who cannot legally consent, as well as with the adult who can. 4.02(b) adds that it happens "at the outset of the relationship and thereafter as new circumstances may warrant."
9.03(a) carries consent into assessment specifically, with three exceptions — testing mandated by law, testing that is a routine educational or institutional activity, and testing to evaluate decisional capacity.
That middle exception is the reason school-based screening does not generate a consent form and your private-practice testing does, a distinction worth keeping straight when you are deciding which instruments you are qualified to buy at all. And 10.01(a) requires that clients be informed early about "the nature and anticipated course of therapy, fees, involvement of third parties, and limits of confidentiality."
Involvement of third parties. Named, in the code's own words, as something to be disclosed at the start.
One limitation to state plainly. On 2 October 2026 the Ethics Code page at apa.org could not be retrieved by an automated client, which returned a security challenge rather than the document. The text above was read from a complete PDF reproduction of the 2017 edition hosted by a university department of psychiatry, and the adoption, effective and amendment dates quoted are the ones printed on that reproduction.
If a standard number is load-bearing for a decision you are making, open apa.org/ethics/code yourself in a browser and confirm it there. APA also has a draft revision of the Code in public comment, so the standard numbers above should be treated as current to the 2017 edition rather than permanent.
ICF: the parent is a sponsor, not a client
The International Coaching Federation's Code of Ethics, effective 1 April 2025, governs anybody holding an ICF credential — and ICF credentials are the ones most often held by the executive function coaches working alongside you, as the credential map for that role sets out.
ICF is the only one of the five that faces the payer problem squarely. It does it with a definition.
Client: "The individual, team, or group member being coached, the coach being coached, mentored, or supervised, or the coach in training."
Sponsor: "The entity (including its representatives) or individual paying for and/or arranging or defining the coaching services to be provided. This includes those having parental responsibility for minors."
Read the second definition slowly. A parent who engages an EF coach for their fifteen-year-old is, under this Code, not the client. They are the sponsor: the party paying for, arranging, or defining the service. The student is the client. And that sentence — "This includes those having parental responsibility for minors" — is the only place in the entire Code where minors are mentioned at all.
Having split the parties, ICF then does the thing none of the other four do. Standard 1.1 requires the coach to communicate, before coaching begins, with clients, sponsors "and/or other involved parties that the coach is in a direct relationship with to explain the nature of coaching and to co-create a coaching agreement regarding roles, responsibilities, confidentiality, financial arrangements, and other aspects of the coaching engagement."
Standard 2.1 requires "the strictest level of confidentiality with all parties involved, regardless of the role I am fulfilling." Then 2.2:
"Have a clear agreement about what information is exchanged and how it is exchanged among all parties involved during all coaching engagements."
And 2.3 requires a clear agreement with clients, sponsors "and other involved parties about what confidential information may need to be disclosed to the appropriate authorities, e.g., illegal activity, required by law, valid court order or subpoena; or imminent/likely risk of danger to self or to others."
Notice the grammar. ICF's standards are written as agreements between named parties, not as consent extracted from one of them. The word "assent" does not appear in the Code — ICF does not need it, because it has already decided that the young person is the client and the adult is the sponsor, and that the information flow between them is a thing to be negotiated in advance and in writing.
ICF publishes its own interpretive guidance on how those standards are meant to work in practice, in Ethical Insights and Considerations. That is a different solution to the same problem, and for a practitioner reading across the two fields it is the most portable idea in any of these documents.
You do not have to adopt ICF's vocabulary. You do have to decide, before session one, what information moves from the room to the parent, and say so out loud to both of them.
The pattern: five codes, one shared evasion
Line the five up on the single question — whose agreement do you need before you work with a minor, and whose before you tell the school something — and the answers are five different shapes.
AET requires a contract with terms stated in advance, confidentiality maintained except on written consent, and school communication with "client/guardian consent." It never defines the client and never uses the word assent. The credential ladder that document governs is mapped in how to become an educational therapist.
CEC never uses the phrase informed consent. It requires confidentiality except on written consent, and it names parents and the individual with an exceptionality as partners in planning.
ASHA requires informed consent from the persons served, and reaches an authorising adult only when diminished decision-making ability is suspected. It never mentions minors, parents or guardians.
APA requires explanation, assent, consideration of preferences, and permission from a legally authorized person — and requires all three of consent, permission and assent to be documented.
ICF defines the paying parent as a sponsor and the young person as the client, and requires an explicit advance agreement about what information moves between them.
This is the same shape that turns up every time several organisations in this field share a vocabulary. The word "supervised hours" means six different things to six different bodies. A continuing education hour is not a portable currency. "Orton-Gillingham based" is a claim no organisation adjudicates.
"Aligned to the Knowledge and Practice Standards" turns out to be four different claims. A qualification letter on a test publisher's page is a purchasing rule for one storefront, not an industry scale. And an evidence rating answers whichever question its own system asked.
Consent is the same finding again, with one addition that the others do not have: all five codes hand the hard part to statute, and not one of them tells you what the statute says.
AET: "written consent and/or statutory requirements," and policies "consistent with relevant statutes, regulations, rules, and ethical standards." ASHA: "legally authorized or required by law," twice. APA: "if such substitute consent is permitted or required by law." ICF: an obligation to fulfil "ethical and legal obligations" to clients. CEC: written consent "that meet confidentiality requirements," with the requirements unnamed.
That pattern of deferral is worth setting beside the one in the evidence literature, where the honest answer about educational therapy's evidence base is also that the record runs out before the question does. Five documents, five deferrals, in the same direction. The codes are telling you, in unison, that the answer to your actual question is not in them.
AET put the conflict on its own exam
The clearest evidence that this gap is known inside the profession is that AET tests on it.
The practice scenarios published for the BCET ethics examination include a case in which a tenth-grade student asks the therapist to advocate with her English teacher about instructional accommodations, and the parent subsequently "insists that no communication should take place between you and the school without their prior approval."
Candidates are asked to identify the conflict — the instructions frame it as "a conflict of boundaries, confidentiality, or business practices" — and to cite pertinent sections of the Code of Ethics in their answer.
The exam materials do not print the clause numbers. Candidates are expected to find them. Which means the profession's own certification process requires practitioners to resolve, from a Code that says "client/guardian consent" and nothing further, a conflict the Code does not resolve.
The published sample dilemma and response is instructive in a second way. Its scenario is a first grader with a language delay whose parents "insist that you speed up the therapy process and expect immediate results," and the model answer reasons from the professional-practice standards in Section One rather than from any consent clause.
It also, in passing, demonstrates how awkward this document is to cite: the sample response punctuates its references as "Section 1:II:I" where the Code itself nests the numbering differently. Even AET's own materials do not agree on how to write down a clause number.
That is a small thing, but it is the kind of small thing that tells you a document is not being cited often enough to have settled a convention.
What this means for a service agreement
A code that is silent is not permission to be silent yourself. The five documents between them name every component you need, and the gaps are in who must be asked rather than in what must be covered. Here is the decision sequence — not the decision, which is yours and your supervisor's.
1. Write down who your client is
Pick one answer and put it in your own paperwork. The student, with the parent as the party arranging and paying. The family as a unit. Or the parent, with the student as the beneficiary. Each is defensible; none is dictated by AET's Code; and a practice that has not chosen has chosen the third one by default, because that is who signs.
If you work with adolescents, ICF's split is worth borrowing on its merits: the young person is the client, the adult is the sponsor, and the information flow between them is negotiated rather than assumed.
2. State the terms before services begin, in writing
This is the one unambiguous AET requirement. Conditions of the contract, stated and adhered to, before the initiation of services, with advance notice of fee and policy revisions. If you are standing up a practice, this belongs in the same document set as everything else covered in starting an educational therapy private practice.
3. Say what you will and will not keep private, to both of them
Take this one from APA 4.02(a): discuss the limits of confidentiality and the foreseeable uses of the information with the person who cannot legally consent as well as with the adult who can, at the outset, and again when circumstances change. In practice that is two conversations, not one, and the second one happens in language a twelve-year-old can follow.
The sentence that does the work is small and specific: here is what I will tell your mother, here is what I will not, and here is what I would have to tell someone no matter what you asked. The third clause of that sentence is the one with legal content, and it is the one to get checked.
4. Settle school communication in advance, in both directions
AET's clause requires "client/guardian consent" for information exchanges with other agencies involved in serving clients. The Code elsewhere requires you to "facilitate the understanding among parents/guardians, school personnel, and other professionals regarding the realistic limitations of each one's function and role," which is a different and useful obligation: part of your job is making sure nobody at the table thinks you do something you do not.
AET's own Fact Sheet is the list most referrers have seen. The scope map for the role and the comparison with learning specialists and executive function coaches exist partly for that conversation.
Decide now, in writing, what you may send a school, who authorises it, and what happens when the student wants something sent that the parent does not. You will not get that last answer from the Code.
5. Note what you are asked and what you record
APA documents consent, permission and assent as three things. You can borrow the habit without borrowing the code: a line in the file recording what you explained, who agreed, and who assented, dated.
The same discipline applies to the data you collect afterwards, which is why progress monitoring systems and the age of the norms behind a score both belong in the same conversation about what you can defensibly say to a family.
It costs a sentence per intake and it is the only evidence that any of this happened. The intake and note templates discussed in running a first session and in writing a treatment plan are the natural home for it.
6. Revisit it when the student gets older
None of the five codes has a mechanism for the fact that a client ages. A nine-year-old and a seventeen-year-old are the same "client" in all five documents. The practitioner is the only party in the room who can notice that the person in front of them has become someone who should be asked directly, and the agreement that was signed at nine will not prompt you.
Where AET is explicit: technology, e-practice and AI
There is one place where AET's Code is more specific than any of the other four, and it is worth knowing because it is recent.
The informed consent clause names technology directly: you must explain to clients "whether and how they intend to use electronic devices or communication technologies to gather, manage, and store client information."
The Code then carries a full set of e-practice standards. Four of them bear directly on what a client has to be told.
E-practice is defined as services using telecommunication technologies covering "the preparation, transmission, communication, or related processing of information (writing, images, sounds, or other data)."
The technologies in scope are listed "but not limited to telephone, mobile devices, interactive videoconferencing, e-mail, chat, text, and Internet."
Practitioners must consider "the appropriateness, benefits, and limitations of e-practice and whether or not it is appropriate for the client before initiating e-services."
They must also weigh the client's "familiarity, comfort with technology, and access to the internet," and the remote environment itself, "including regular monitoring of said environment as it might change."
It also addresses artificial intelligence. Revision #9 requires practitioners to "adhere to and educate clients about copyright laws, attribution protocol, and citation style, and guidelines pertinent to the use of technology, including artificial intelligence (AI)," and to "work to educate clients to understand that AI sources are not always credible, equitable, or inclusive."
Two further obligations sit in the same family: notifying clients and other appropriate parties "as soon as possible in the event of a breach of unencrypted electronically communicated or maintained data," and following "relevant statutes and regulations related to record retention and disposal of records and electronics."
That second one is the Code deferring to statute again — it tells you to follow the rules on retention without stating a retention period, so do not take a number from anywhere but a lawyer in your state.
If you deliver sessions or testing remotely, these standards sit on top of a second and entirely separate compliance surface: what the test publishers themselves permit, which is set out test by test rather than as a blanket rule.
Where the published record runs out
The honest boundaries of everything above.
The AET clause counts are from one full-text read of the Revision #9 reissue of September 2025, performed on 2 October 2026. AET publishes the Code at more than one file path, and a second current-looking copy sits at a different URL on the same site. If a clause number matters to a decision, cite from the copy you have in front of you and give its revision number.
AET's clause numbering is nested three deep and is punctuated inconsistently across AET's own documents. The citations in this piece are given by section name and subsection rather than in a compressed form for that reason.
The APA text was not read from apa.org, which served a security challenge to an automated client on 2 October 2026. See the limitation stated above.
CEC's wording differs slightly between its web page and its PDF for at least one standard — the web version of 8.1 reads "assure" where the PDF reads "ensure." Quote from the PDF and say which you used.
ALTA's code of ethics could not be read at all. The association's site serves no readable document to an automated client, and its member policies sit behind a login. Academic language therapists should not assume the four codes above describe their obligations; read your own and, if the consent provisions are load-bearing, email the association.
Nothing here is a fifty-state finding and nothing here is a statement of law. Not one of the five codes states the age at which a young person may consent, who may see a minor's record, or what you are obliged to report. All five point at statute. Those are questions for an attorney in your state, and they are the questions most likely to be the ones you actually needed answered.
What is not in doubt is the gap itself. Five professional bodies, five differently shaped answers, one shared silence about the person sitting across the table — and one profession's certification exam that asks you to resolve it anyway.
Questions practitioners ask
Does AET require me to get a student's agreement before working with them?
No. The word "assent" does not appear in the Code of Ethics and Standards for the Professional Practice of Educational Therapy, Revision #9 (2025), and no clause requires the student's own agreement as distinct from the contract with the family.
The Code requires the conditions of the contract to be stated before services begin, confidentiality to be maintained except where information is released under written consent or statutory requirements, and communication with other agencies to occur with "client/guardian consent."
Asking the student is good practice that many supervisors require; it is not a clause you can cite, and what a supervisor may require of you is itself defined six different ways by six different bodies.
Who is the client in educational therapy, the student or the parent?
AET's Code does not say. It has no definitions section, never defines "client," and in its termination standards uses the compound "student/client" as though the two were the same. The practical consequence is that you have to decide and document your own answer.
ICF's Code, which binds many executive function coaches, takes the opposite approach and defines the young person as the client and the paying parent as a "sponsor" — "the entity or individual paying for and/or arranging or defining the coaching services to be provided," including "those having parental responsibility for minors."
Can I talk to a student's school without the parent's permission?
AET's Code requires you to communicate "with client/guardian consent" with other agencies involved in serving clients. It does not say what to do when the client and the guardian want different things, which is why that exact conflict appears as a practice scenario on AET's own ethics examination for board certification.
Settle it in your service agreement before it arises, and treat any question about who legally controls a minor's educational records as a question for an attorney in your state rather than one the Code answers.
What is the difference between consent and assent?
Consent is agreement given by a person legally able to give it. Assent is the agreement of a person who is not legally able to consent but can understand an age-appropriate explanation and can refuse. Permission is the agreement of a legally authorized adult on that person's behalf.
APA's Ethics Code is the only one of the five codes read here that names all three: Standard 3.10(b) requires an appropriate explanation, the individual's assent, consideration of their preferences and best interests, and permission from a legally authorized person, and 3.10(d) requires all three to be documented.
Do I have to tell a parent what their child told me in session?
No code read here answers that directly, and the legal answer varies and is not in any of them. What the codes do require is that the limits be set in advance.
APA 4.02(a) requires the limits of confidentiality and the foreseeable uses of information to be discussed with the person who cannot legally consent as well as with their legal representative, at the outset of the relationship. ICF requires "a clear agreement about what information is exchanged and how it is exchanged among all parties involved."
APA's own professional press has worked the problem over at length, in a discussion of confidentiality in the treatment of adolescents and in a case analysis of a parent's request for a minor's records. The practical move is the same under either code: decide what you will and will not pass on, say it to both parties before session one, and get the reporting exceptions checked by a lawyer.
Does my informed consent paperwork need to mention technology?
Under AET's Code, yes. The informed consent clause specifically requires educational therapists to explain to clients "whether and how they intend to use electronic devices or communication technologies to gather, manage, and store client information."
Revision #9 also carries e-practice standards covering suitability, the client's access to and comfort with technology, the remote environment, data security, breach notification, and the use of artificial intelligence. APA's 4.02(c) imposes a parallel obligation on psychologists to inform clients of the risks to privacy and limits of confidentiality in electronic transmission.
One more thing
If you build practice documents for a living, you have probably noticed that the forms available to copy are mental-health intake forms with the word "therapy" doing double duty. There is no published educational-therapy consent standard to copy, because the Code that governs the field left the question open and nobody has filled it in.
That is a gap worth closing properly, and it is the kind of thing this site exists to work on. Join the Illuminate educator list to get practitioner-facing work like this as it is published, and to be in the room when we build the documents the field is missing.
Comments