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 and trainees must also be mindful of the fuzzy boundaries between their private and professional lives in cyberspace (Diamond & Whalen, 2019; Pham, 2014). Ethically, inappropriate posts on social networking sites can result in loss of trust in the school psychologist and impair their effectiveness. Legally, inappropriate social networking posts can threaten the job standing of school-employed practitioners or justify dismissal of a graduate student from their training program. The courts have upheld the right of school districts to discipline or dismiss employees for sharing information on their personal social networking sites—even on their own time and using their own electronic devices—if the material posted threatens to undermine the authority of school administrators; disrupts coworker relationships in the school, especially those based on trust and confidentiality; impairs the employee’s performance of their duties; or could disrupt the learning atmosphere of the school (e.g., Richerson v. Beckon, 2008; Spanierman v. Hughes, 2008). Furthermore, because K–12 educators are expected to serve as role models for children, the courts have upheld the right of training programs to dismiss students whose social networking posts show poor professional judgment and conduct unbecoming to a public school educator (Snyder v. Millersville University, 2008). (The right of school psychologists to make statements about matters of public concern is addressed in Chapter 12.)
Professional Models for Service Delivery
Professional models for the delivery of school psychological services differ from ethical codes in both scope and intent. The NASP’s Model for Comprehensive and Integrated Services by School Psychologists ([Model], 2020) represents a consensus among practitioners and trainers about the roles and duties of school psychologists, desirable conditions for the effective delivery of services, the components of a comprehensive school psychological services delivery system, and standards for best practices. This document can be used to inform practitioners, students, trainers, administrators, policy makers, and consumers about the nature and scope of appropriate and desirable services. The NASP and the APA seek to ensure that members abide by their respective ethical codes and investigate and adjudicate code violations. In contrast, the NASP’s Model identifies standards for excellence in the delivery of comprehensive school psychological services, and it is recognized that not all school psychologists or all school psychological service units will be able to meet every identified guideline.
FOUR BROAD ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
The four broad themes that appear in the NASP’s Principles for Professional Ethics provide an organizational framework for the introduction to ethical issues in school psychology in this section of the chapter. As noted previously, these themes also can be found in the literature on ethical principles (e.g., Bersoff & Koeppl, 1993; Prilleltensky, 1997; Ross, 1930) and other ethical codes, especially that of the CPA (2017). In this book we emphasize principles-based ethics. We encourage readers to think about the spirit and intent of broad ethical themes outlined in this section and to enhance their understanding of ethics by becoming familiar with other philosophical systems (see Knapp, VandeCreek et al., 2017).
Respect for the Dignity of Persons
Respect for the dignity of persons “is the most fundamental and universally found ethical principle across disciplines, and includes the concepts of equal inherent worth, non-discrimination, moral rights, and distributive, social, and natural justice” (CPA, 2017, p. 11; also see APA Principle E). NASP’s Broad Theme I states: “School psychologists engage only in professional practices that maintain the dignity of all with whom they work. In their words and actions, school psychologists demonstrate respect for the autonomy of persons and their right to self-determination, respect for privacy, and a commitment to just, equitable, and fair treatment of all persons.”
Self-Determination and Autonomy
School psychologists “respect the right of persons to participate in decisions affecting their own
