may face opposition, James will advocate for districtwide changes to reduce harassment and improve the school climate for LGBTQ+ youth (see Kosciw et al., 2020; NASP, 2017a; also Chapters 9 and 12).
James’s conduct (Case 1.4) is consistent with our ethical responsibility to speak up for the needs and rights of students even when it is difficult to do so (NASP Standard III.2.3) and to use our professional expertise “to promote school, family, and community environments that are safe and healthy for children and youth” (NASP Guiding Principle IV.1). School psychologists are ethically obligated to help ensure that all youth can attend school, learn, and develop their personal identities in an environment free from discrimination, harassment, violence, and abuse (NASP Guiding Principle I.3, Standards I.3.2, IV.1.2). Through advocacy and education of staff and students, James will work to foster a school climate that promotes not only understanding and acceptance of individual differences but also a respect for and valuing of those differences.
In keeping with our responsibilities to the communities in which we live and work, school psychologists know and respect federal and state law and school policies (NASP Guiding Principle IV.2; see Relationship between Ethics and Law later in this chapter). Also consistent with the broad principle of responsibility to schools, families, communities, the profession, and society, school psychologists monitor their own conduct to ensure that it conforms to high ethical standards, and they monitor the conduct of their professional colleagues. Self- and peer monitoring for ethical compliance safeguards the welfare of others and fosters trust in psychology (W. B. Johnson et al., 2012). If concerns about unethical conduct by another psychologist cannot be resolved informally through a collegial problem-solving process, practitioners take further action appropriate to the situation, such as notifying the practitioner’s work-site supervisor of their concerns or filing a complaint with a professional ethics committee (NASP Standard IV.3.2; also APA 1.04). (See the section titled Unethical Conduct later in this chapter.)
School psychologists also contribute to the profession by mentoring, teaching, and supervision: “As part of their obligation to students, schools, society, and their profession, school psychologists mentor less experienced practitioners and graduate students to assure high quality services, and they serve as role models for sound ethical and professional practices and decision making” (NASP Guiding Principle IV.4).
Finally, psychologists accept the obligation to contribute to the knowledge base of psychology and education in order to further improve services to children, families, and others and, in a more general sense, promote human welfare (CPA, 2017; also APA Principle B; NASP Guiding Principle IV.5). For this reason, they are encouraged to participate in, assist in, or conduct and disseminate research (NASP Guiding Principle IV.5). When school psychologists engage in research activities, they “respect the rights, and protect the well-being, of research participants” (NASP Standard IV.5.2) (see Chapter 10).
Summary
In this section, four broad ethical principles were introduced. The first was respect for the dignity of persons. Consistent with this principle, we value client autonomy and safeguard the client’s right to self-determination, respect client privacy and the confidentiality of disclosures, aspire to fairness in interactions with the client and others, and promote justice in the environments where we work and live. The second broad principle was responsible caring. We engage in actions that are likely to benefit others. To do so, we work within the boundaries of our professional competence and accept responsibility for our actions. The third principle was integrity in professional relationships. We are candid and honest about the nature and scope of the services we offer and work in cooperation with other professionals to meet the needs of children in the schools. The fourth principle was responsibility to schools, families, communities, the profession, and society. We recognize that our profession exists within the context of society and work to ensure that the science of psychology is used to promote human welfare.
ETHICAL AND LEGAL DECISION MAKING 9
In this portion of the chapter, we address these questions: What makes a situation ethically challenging? What if ethical obligations conflict with law? When the needs and rights of multiple parties conflict, is our primary responsibility to the student, parent, teacher, or school system? How do we evaluate whether a course of action is ethical? And how can we make good choices when ethical-legal dilemmas arise?
What Makes a Situation Ethically Challenging?
Jacob-Timm (1999) surveyed school psychology practitioners and asked them to describe ethically challenging situations that they had encountered in their work. She found that ethical-legal dilemmas can be created by situations involving competing ethical principles, conflicts between ethics and law, the conflicting interests of multiple parties, dilemmas inherent in the dual roles of employee and student advocate, poor educational practices resulting in potential harm to students, and because it is difficult to decide how broad ethics code statements apply to a particular situation. In a structured survey of school psychology practitioners, Dailor and Jacob (2011) found that almost three-fourths of the 208 respondents indicated they had encountered at least one of eight types of ethical dilemmas during the previous year. Whereas some ethical dilemmas are quickly and easily resolved, others are troubling and time-consuming (Sinclair, 1998). These findings support the view that, in addition to knowledge of the content of ethical codes, skill in using a systematic decision-making procedure is needed.
Relationship between Ethics and Law
As noted previously, professional ethics is a combination of broad ethical principles and rules that guide the conduct of a practitioner in their professional interactions with others. Law is a body of rules of conduct prescribed by the state that has binding legal force. Both the APA and NASP codes of ethics require practitioners to know and respect the law (APA, 2017b, Introduction and Applicability; NASP, 2020, p. 40, Standard IV.2.2; also see Behnke & Jones, 2012).
Professional codes of ethics are generally viewed as requiring decisions that are “more correct or more stringent” than required by law (Ballantine, 1979, p. 636). The APA’s ethics code states that if the code “establishes a higher standard of conduct than is required by law, psychologists must meet that higher ethical standard” (APA, 2017b, Introduction and Applicability; also NASP, 2020, p. 40, Standard IV.2.2).
In the delivery of school psychological services, practitioners may face decisions involving possible conflicts between codes of ethics and law. In such circumstances, practitioners are encouraged to ask themselves: “Do I understand my legal obligations correctly? What actions does the law specifically require or prohibit (must do, can’t do)? What actions does the law permit (can do)? Even if an action is legal, is it ethical? Do I understand my ethical obligations correctly?” (Knapp et al., 2007; Stefkovich, 2006). The NASP’s code of ethics states: “When conflicts between ethics and law occur, school psychologists take steps to resolve the conflict through positive, respected, and legal channels. If not able to resolve the conflict in this manner, they may abide by the law, as long as the resulting actions do not violate basic human rights” (NASP Standard IV.2.3; also APA 1.02, 1.03).
Ethical Challenge of Multiple Clients
School psychologists frequently face the challenge of considering the needs and rights of multiple clients and other recipients of services, including children, parents, teachers, and systems (Dailor & Jacob, 2011; NASP, 2020, p. 40; also see M. A. Fisher, 2013). The Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists states:
