Practitioners also use appropriate safeguards to protect the confidentiality of client disclosures. Except for urgent situations, they inform clients of the boundaries of confidentiality at the outset of establishing a school psychologist–client relationship. They seek a shared understanding with clients regarding the types of information that will and will not be shared with third parties and recognize that it may be necessary to discuss how confidential information will be managed at multiple points in an ongoing professional relationship (NASP Standard I.2.2). Read and consider Case 1.1.
Samantha’s first- and second-grade teachers observed that she experienced difficulties with concentration and memory. She frequently failed to remember letter sounds and math facts she had previously mastered. Now, in third grade, Samantha continues to perform well below grade level even after multiple individualized interventions were attempted in the classroom. Samantha’s mother, Joanne, agrees with the third-grade teacher that Samantha should be evaluated to determine whether she is eligible for special education services. Carrie Johnson, the school psychologist, meets with Joanne to ensure she is informed about the nature and scope of the psychoeducational evaluation and to gather information about Samantha’s developmental history. Joanne is employed as a classroom teacher aide at the same small, rural school her daughter attends. In the meeting with Carrie, Joanne discloses that she was involved “with the wrong boyfriend” during her first semester away at college. She “partied a lot, used all kinds of drugs, and got pregnant.” Because she was “too messed up” to realize she was pregnant, she continued to use drugs during the early months of her pregnancy but then moved back home with her parents and “got straightened out.” Joanne went on to tell the psychologist: “Please don’t tell anyone about this. I’ve never even told any of my doctors because my mom said it would be difficult for me to get a good job if drug abuse showed up in my medical records. And if my drug use history gets out at this school—you know how this community is and how people talk—it could hurt Samantha and I might even lose my job.”
Carrie Johnson (Case 1.1) will assure Joanne that her disclosure of drug use during pregnancy will be held in strict confidence and not shared with anyone else, and not included in Samantha’s school psychology records (NASP Standard I.2.2; also APA Standard 4.04). Carrie recognizes that she has a special ethical obligation to safeguard the confidentiality of sensitive and private medical information (NASP Standard I.2.6). Furthermore, the information that Joanne disclosed about her pregnancy is not needed for the purpose of determining Samantha’s eligibility for special education services or for planning appropriate educational interventions for her (NASP Standard I.2.1, I.2.4), and could have negative repercussions for Joanne and Samantha if made available to others.
In situations in which confidentiality is promised or implied, school psychologists do not reveal information to third parties “without the agreement of a minor child’s parent, legal guardian, or of an adult student, except in those situations in which failure to release information would result in danger to the student or others, or where otherwise required by law” (NASP Standard I.2.3). Furthermore, when practitioners share information with third parties, they “discuss and/or release confidential information only for professional purposes and only with persons who have a legitimate need to know” (NASP Standard I.2.4).
The ethical and legal issues of privacy, confidentiality, and privilege will create challenges for practitioners. For example, what information do teachers and other instructional staff need to know about a child’s physical health, mental health, and family background to provide effective individualized instruction? Do parents have a right to know what their child tells a school psychologist? What if a young teenager discloses that he or she is planning to hurt someone or has committed a crime? Again, issues will be explored further in the chapters ahead.
Fairness, Equity, and Justice
Respect for the dignity of all persons also encompasses the ethical obligation to promote fairness and social justice. School psychologists “use their expertise to cultivate school climates that are safe, welcoming, and equitable to all persons regardless of actual or perceived characteristics, including race, ethnicity, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, immigration status, socioeconomic status, primary language, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, or any other distinguishing characteristics” (NASP Guiding Principle I.3; also APA Principle E).
The school psychologist’s obligation to students from diverse cultural, linguistic, and experiential backgrounds goes beyond striving to be impartial and unprejudiced in the delivery of services. Practitioners have an ethical responsibility to actively pursue awareness and knowledge of how diversity factors may influence child development, behavior, and school learning (NASP Standard II.3.8; Flanagan et al., 2005) and to pursue the skills needed to promote the mental health and education of diverse students. Ignoring or minimizing the importance of characteristics such as ethnicity, disabilities, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic background may result in approaches that are ineffective and a disservice to children, parents, teachers, and other recipients of services (APA, 2017a).
Consistent with the broad ethical principle of justice, school psychologists also “strive to ensure that all children and youth have equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from school programs and that all students and families have access to and can benefit from school psychological services. They work to correct school practices that are unjustly discriminatory or that deny students or others their legal rights” (NASP Standard I.3.2; also APA Principle D).
Efforts by school psychologists to advance social justice in the nation’s schools and society align with NASP’s code Broad Theme I, Respecting the Dignity and Rights of All Persons, and Broad Theme IV, Responsibility to Schools, Families, Communities, the Profession, and Society. The construct social justice can be viewed as a contemporary articulation of the long-recognized ethical principle of justice. NASP leadership defined social justice as:
both a process and a goal that requires action. School psychologists work to ensure the protection of the educational rights, opportunities, and well-being of all children, especially those whose voices have been muted, identities obscured, or needs ignored. Social justice requires promoting non-discriminatory practices and the empowerment of families and communities. School psychologists enact social justice through culturally-responsive professional practice and advocacy to create schools, communities, and systems that ensure equity and fairness for all children and youth. (Adopted by the NASP Board of Directors, April 2017)
Responsible Caring (Professional Competence and Responsibility)
A shared theme in ethical codes of the helping professions is that of beneficence. Beneficence, or responsible caring, means that psychologists engage in actions that are likely to benefit others, or at least do no harm (CPA, 2017; Welfel, 2012; also APA Principle A). “To do this, school psychologists must practice within the boundaries of their competence, use scientific knowledge from psychology and education to help clients and others make informed choices, and accept responsibility for their work” (NASP Broad Theme II). Read and consider Case 1.2.
A Kia Motors assembly plant opened near the school district where David Kim is completing his school psychology internship. A number of Korean Kia employees and their families were relocated to the United States and now live in David’s school district. Some of the adults and children are quite fluent in English; others speak little English. The special education director asked David to conduct a school psychological evaluation of an 8-year-old girl, Seo-yeon, because she appeared to be struggling academically more than other Korean students at her school. Although Seo-yeon has acquired some conversational English proficiency,