Professional FAQ

Who can request access?

Access requests are intended for psychologists whose work in an AE/ENA fits the functional profile described in the Referential for the Intervention of Psychologists in School Context, regardless of the structure where they are formally placed.

Registration is individual, subject to administrative validation, and serves to confirm or update the AE/ENA profile and complete the minimum professional profile of the reporting person.

I work in more than one AE/ENA. Do I need more than one account?

No. The initial registration is linked to one AE/ENA. Once the account is active, you may request additional access inside the professional area for the other entities where you regularly work.

The professional profile is linked to each reporting context, so the same professional may have more than one valid characterization on the platform.

Who counts as a school psychologist for the purposes of the map?

For the purposes of the map, the relevant psychologists are those who regularly intervene in the AE/ENA in at least one of the three domains defined in the framework: psychological support and counselling, development of the educational community's system of relationships, and vocational development.

The criterion is functional. Formal placement inside the SPO may be relevant, but it is neither sufficient nor necessary on its own.

Do colleagues outside the SPO count toward the total number of psychologists?

They may count, provided they are psychologists and their work in the AE/ENA fits the functional profile described in the framework.

• The organisational structure alone does not determine inclusion.
• Psychologists count when they ensure regular psychology provision in the AE/ENA, even if they work in articulation with other structures or entities.
• Functions carried out by psychologists should not be included when they do not correspond to school-context intervention in that AE/ENA.

Why do I need to fill in professional data if the public data belong to the school?

Because the platform has two complementary layers: the institutional characterization of the AE/ENA and the minimum socio-professional characterization of those who ensure this psychology provision. Without this second component, the public reading of services remains incomplete.

Individual professional information is not published nominally in the public area. It is used for aggregated statistics, interpretive coherence and a better understanding of the real configuration of services.

The school data already appear prefilled. What should I do?

When public information or prefilled AE/ENA data already exist, the next person should verify whether those data are correct and up to date. If they are, they may focus only on their own professional profile.

If more recent or more accurate information exists, it should be updated. The most recent version becomes the visible reference for the AE/ENA, while the internal version history is preserved.

What should I do if I disagree with data already submitted by another colleague?

The first step is to determine whether the difference results from different reference moments, a real change in context or a simple reporting error. If you have more up-to-date or more reliable information, you should correct it on the platform.

When the situation is sensitive or difficult to interpret, the most useful step is to explain by email the composition of the team and the functions carried out, so that a consistent methodological reading can be made before consolidating the update.

Which data are public and which are not?

Only aggregated data at AE/ENA level are public, such as the existence of a service, number of students, number of psychologists, distribution between full-time and part-time, number of school sites, and some integrated institutional measures.

Names, emails, registration numbers and any other direct identifiers of professionals are not published in the open area.

How can I correct a wrong association, a missing AE/ENA or a special case?

If the account was linked to the wrong entity, if the entity does not appear in the access flow, or if there is a specific professional situation that the form does not make clear, the safest route is to report it by email for administrative correction.

The platform is designed to evolve from these concrete cases, so communicating inconsistencies is part of the improvement process itself.