How should ethics be taught? As Franeta noted, “instruction merely in codes of ethics cannot substitute for professional ethics education” (2019, p. 127). In the field of school psychology, growing professional support exists for a planned, multilevel approach to training in ethics and law (Conoley & Sullivan, 2002; Dailor & Jacob, 2011; Welfel, 2012). Tryon (2000) and others (Dailor & Jacob, 2011) recommended that formal coursework in ethics and law be required at the beginning of graduate training to prepare students to participate in discussions of ethical and legal issues throughout their program. Because many aspects of school-based practice are regulated by law as well as ethics, we recommend integrated rather than separate instruction in ethics and law; furthermore, key concepts, such as privacy, informed consent, and confidentiality, have roots in both ethics and law. A foundational course can introduce students to broad ethical principles, codes of ethics, the major provisions of school law pertinent to practice, and an ethical-legal decision-making model. In addition, Handelsman et al. (2005) recommended that early coursework include activities to heighten self-awareness of personal values and beliefs. For example, they suggested asking students to write an ethics autobiography in which they reflect on their own values, as well as those of their families and cultures of origin, and consider what it means to be an ethical professional (p. 63; also Bashe et al., 2007). (For a discussion of methods in teaching ethical and legal issues in school psychology, see Jacob et al., 2021, and Welfel, 2012).
A foundational course in ethics and law can provide opportunities for students to apply what they are learning about the ethical-legal aspects of practice by role-playing difficult situations and analyzing case incidents (Dailor & Jacob, 2010). Empirical evidence from the field of medical ethics indicates that case analysis, particularly with discussion, results in improved moral reasoning (Eckles et al., 2005; S. Smith et al., 2004). However, while such foundational coursework provides a critically important underpinning for subsequent training, it is not sufficient to achieve desired practitioner competencies in ethics and law. If students have only one course in ethics and law, they may not be prepared to apply this knowledge across various domains of practice. In order for students to progress beyond the stage of advanced beginner, discussion of ethical-legal issues associated with diverse situations and professional roles must be a component of coursework in assessment, academic remediation, behavioral interventions, counseling, and consultation. For this reason, Tryon (2000) recommended that all graduate program course instructors discuss ethical issues related to their specialty areas.
Supervised field experiences provide a vitally important opportunity for students to apply their knowledge to multiple real-world situations (Harvey & Struzziero, 2008). With appropriate supervisory support, internship is “a prime time to develop ethical frameworks that will be useful throughout a professional career” (Conoley & Sullivan, 2002, p. 135). Field- and university-based supervisors consequently have a special obligation to model sound ethical-legal decision making and to monitor, assist, and support supervisees and early-career practitioners as they first encounter real-world challenges (Conoley & Sullivan, 2002; Harvey & Struzziero, 2008; K. Kelly et al., 2019).
Although growing professional support exists for a planned, multilevel approach to graduate preparation in ethics, Dailor and Jacob (2011) surveyed a nationally representative sample of public school psychology practitioners and found that only 24% of the 208 respondents reported receiving multilevel university ethics training that included coursework in ethics, discussion of ethical issues in multiple courses, and supervised discussion of ethical issues in practica and internships.
Based on a meta-analytic study of the effectiveness of ethics education instruction in the sciences, Watts et al. (2017) found that ethics instruction has sizable benefits to participants and that those benefits appear to hold up over time. However, few empirical investigations of the effectiveness of formal ethics training have appeared in the psychology literature (Franeta, 2019; Welfel, 2012). Baldick (1980) found that clinical and counseling interns who received formal ethics training were better able to identify ethical issues than interns without prior coursework in ethics. Tryon (2001) surveyed school psychology doctoral students from APA-accredited programs and found that students who had taken an ethics course and those who had completed more years of graduate study felt better prepared to deal with the ethical issues presented in the survey than those who had not taken an ethics course and who had completed fewer years of graduate education. Student ratings of their preparedness to deal with ethical issues were positively associated with the number of hours of supervised practicum experience completed. Dailor and Jacob (2011) found an association between the types of university training school psychology practitioners had received and their preparedness to handle ethical issues on the job, with those who had received multilevel university preparation in ethics reporting higher levels of preparedness to handle ethical issues. Preparedness was not associated with degree level (doctoral or nondoctoral) or years of experience on the job (five or fewer years versus more than five years).
Several studies, however, have reported a gap between knowledge of the appropriate course of action and willingness to carry out that action (Bernard & Jara, 1986; T. S. Smith et al., 1991; Tryon, 2000). Even when practitioners can identify what ought to be done, many would choose to do less than they believe they should (Bernard & Jara, 1986). Thus, at this time, additional research is needed to identify the types of ethics training that are most effective in developing the skills and necessary confidence for psychologists to take appropriate actions in ethically difficult situations (Tymchuk, 1985; Welfel, 2012).
CODES OF ETHICS
D. T. Brown (1979) suggested that school psychology emerged as an identifiable profession in the 1950s. Two professional associations, the APA and the NASP, have shaped the development of the profession. Each professional association has formulated its own code of ethics. Within the APA, Division 16 is the Division of School Psychology.3
APA and NASP Codes of Ethics
In joining the APA or the NASP, members agree to abide by that association’s ethical principles. Additionally, psychologists who are members of the National School Psychologist Certification System are obligated to abide by the NASP’s Code of Ethics. We believe school psychology practitioners should be thoroughly familiar with the NASP’s (2020) Principles for Professional Ethics and the APA’s (2017b) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, whether they are members of a professional association or not. A psychologist with a broad knowledge base of ethical principles will likely be better prepared to make sound choices when ethically challenging situations arise. Furthermore, regardless of association membership or level of training, trainees and practitioners may be expected to know and abide by both the APA and NASP ethics codes in their work setting (Flanagan et al., 2005).
The NASP’s Principles for Professional Ethics
The NASP’s Principles for Professional Ethics was first adopted in 1974 and revised in 1984, 1992, 1997, 2000, 2010, and 2020 (see Jacob et al., 2021, for a brief history of the early development of the code). The 2020 Principles for Professional Ethics is reprinted in Appendix A.4 The NASP’s code of ethics focuses on the special challenges of school-based practice. For the purposes of the code, school-based practice is defined as “the provision of school psychological services under the authority of a state, regional, or local educational agency” whether the school psychologist “is an employee of the schools or contracted by the schools on a per case or consultative basis” (NASP, 2020, Definition of Terms as Used in the Principles for Professional Ethics, p. 415 ).
The team of NASP members responsible for drafting the 2020 revision of the Principles for Professional Ethics shared a commitment to ensuring