School psychologists must “balance the authority of parents to make decisions about their children with the needs and rights of those children, and the purposes and authority of schools.” Within this framework, school psychologists consider “the interests and rights of children and youth to be their highest priority in decision making, and act as advocates for children” (NASP, 2020, p. 39, Standard III.2.3; also Russo, 2018).
The mission of schools is to educate children, maintain order, and ensure pupil safety (Burnside v. Byars, 1966, p. 748). As school employees, “school psychologists have a legal as well as an ethical obligation to take steps to protect all students from reasonably foreseeable risk of harm” (NASP, 2020, p. 39; also Russo, 2018).
As school employees, school psychology practitioners are state actors, that is, their actions are seen to be an extension of the state’s authority to educate children (Russo, 2018). This creates a special obligation for school psychologists to know and respect the rights of schoolchildren under federal and state law (NASP, 2020, p. 39).
Like other mental health practitioners, school psychologists often provide assessment and intervention services within the framework of an established psychologist–client relationship. However, at other times, as members of a school’s instructional support team, school psychologists may provide consultative services to student assistance teams, classrooms, schools, or other recipients of service that do not fall within the scope of an established psychologist–client relationship (NASP, 2020, p. 41).
Recent years have witnessed growing interest in better protection of sensitive student information. Partly as a result of changes that have occurred in health care settings, many parents now expect greater control regarding disclosure or nondisclosure of sensitive health and mental health information about their child, even when information is to be shared internally in the school setting (Gelfman & Schwab, 2005a).
“School-based practitioners work in a context that emphasizes multidisciplinary problem solving and intervention” (NASP, 2020, p. 39).
The NASP’s 2020 code of ethics is organized around four broad ethical themes: Respecting the Dignity and Rights of All Persons; Professional Competence and Responsibility; Honesty and Integrity in Professional Relationships; and Responsibility to Schools, Families, Communities, the Profession, and Society. These themes were derived from the literature on ethical principles (e.g., Bersoff & Koeppl, 1993; Prilleltensky, 1997; Ross, 1930) and other ethical codes, especially that of the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA, 2017 ). The four broad themes “are aspirational and identify fundamental principles that underlie the ethical practice of school psychology” (NASP, 2020, pp. 40–41). Each of the four ethical themes subsumes guiding principles. The guiding principles help explain ways in which broad ethical principles apply to professional practice. Guiding principles are to be considered in ethical decision making but, because their purpose is to identify ethical considerations associated with practice situations, the guiding principles are not enforceable (pp. 40–41). The guiding principles are further articulated by multiple specific enforceable standards of conduct. As much as feasible, these standards identify actions (or failures to act) that the profession considers ethical or unethical conduct. The NASP will seek to enforce the standards in accordance with their Ethical and Professional Practices Board Procedures ([EPPB], 2018) (NASP, 2020, p. 41). The broad ethical themes, guiding principles, and associated enforceable standards of conduct in NASP’s ethics code will be discussed in more detail in this and subsequent chapters.
APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
The Ethical Standards of Psychologists was first adopted by the APA in 1953. Eight revisions of the APA’s code of ethics were published between 1959 and 1992. The current version, Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA, 2017b), was adopted in 2002 and amended in 2010 and 2016 (see Appendix B). The APA’s Ethical Principles differs from the NASP’s Principles for Professional Ethics in that it was developed for psychologists with training in diverse specialty areas (clinical, industrial-organizational, school psychology) and who work in a number of different settings (private practice, industry, hospitals and clinics, public schools, university teaching, research).
The Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct consists of these sections: Introduction and Applicability, Preamble, General Principles, and Ethical Standards. The General Principles section includes five broadly worded aspirational goals to be considered by psychologists in ethical decision making, and the Ethical Standards section sets forth enforceable rules for conduct. General Principle A, Beneficence and Nonmaleficence, means that psychologists engage in professional actions that are likely to benefit others, or at least do no harm (Behnke & Jones, 2012).
Principle B is Fidelity and Responsibility. Consistent with this principle, psychologists build and maintain trust by being aware of and honoring their professional responsibilities to clients and the community. Principle C, Integrity, obligates psychologists to be open and honest in their professional interactions and faithful to the truth and to guard against unclear or unwise commitments. In accordance with Principle D, Justice, psychologists seek to ensure that all persons have access to and can benefit from what psychology has to offer. They strive for fairness and nondiscrimination in the provision of services. Principle E, Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity, encourages psychologists to respect the worth of all people and their rights to privacy, confidentiality, autonomy, and self-determination (Flanagan et al., 2005).
The APA’s Ethical Standards (enforceable rules for conduct) are organized into six general sections: Resolving Ethical Issues, Competence, Human Relations, Privacy and Confidentiality, Advertising and Other Public Statements, and Record Keeping and Fees. These are followed by four sections: Education and Training, Research and Publication, Assessment, and Therapy (APA, 2017b). (For additional information on the APA’s ethics code, see C. B. Fisher, 2017; Knapp, VandeCreek et al., 2017.)
Professional versus Private Behavior
Professional codes of ethics apply “only to psychologists’ activities that are part of their scientific, educational, or professional roles as psychologists …. These activities shall be distinguished from the purely private conduct of psychologists, which is not within the purview of the Ethics Code” (APA, 2017b, Introduction and Applicability). Similarly, the NASP’s code states: “School psychologists, in their private lives, are free to pursue their personal interests, except to the degree that those interests compromise professional effectiveness” (NASP, 2020, p. 40; Standard III.5.1). Ethics code thus obligate school psychologists to avoid actions that would diminish their professional credibility and effectiveness. In addition, it is important for school-employed practitioners to understand that school boards, parents, other community members, and the courts may hold elementary and secondary school (K–12) educators to a higher standard of moral character and conduct than others because K–12 educators serve as role models for schoolchildren (Ambach v. Norwick, 1979).
As Pipes et al. (2005, p. 332) observed, the boundaries between professional and personal behaviors are often “fuzzy.” School psychologists are encouraged to aspire to high standards of ethical conduct in their personal, as well as professional, lives and to think critically about the boundaries between the two (Pipes et al., 2005). For example, if a psychologist engages in socially undesirable behavior in a public setting (e.g., a school psychologist is verbally abusive of the referee at a high school football game), the behavior may negatively impact their credibility, diminish trust in school psychologists, and confuse students and others who hear about or witness the event. School psychology practitioners