Ethics and Law for School Psychologists. Susan JacobЧитать онлайн книгу.
over whom they have evaluation authority” or “with their current or former pupil-clients; the parents, siblings, or other close family members of current pupil-clients; or current consultees.” And, “because they have an obligation to consider the well-being of all family members and to safeguard trust in psychologists, school psychologists are cautious about entering into sexual relationships with parents, siblings, or other close family members of the former client after the conclusion of the professional relationship” (NASP Standard III.4.4).
Consistent with the general principle of honesty and integrity, psychologists also do not take credit for work that is not their own (APA Principle C). “When publishing or presenting research or other work, school psychologists do not plagiarize the works or ideas of others” (NASP Standard IV.5.8). Furthermore, they take credit “only for work they have actually performed or to which they have contributed” (APA 8.12; also NASP Standard IV.5.9).
Responsibility to Schools, Families, Communities, the Profession, and Society
“Psychology functions as a discipline within the context of human society. Psychologists, both in their work and as private citizens, have responsibilities to the societies in which they live or work and to the welfare of all human beings in those societies” (CPA, 2017, p. 31; also APA Principle B; Prilleltensky, 1991; Shriberg & Moy, 2014). Consistent with these ideas, the NASP’s fourth broad theme states: “School psychologists promote healthy school, family, and community environments. They assume a proactive role in identifying social injustices that affect children and youth and schools and strive to reform systems-level patterns of injustice.” They “maintain the public trust by respecting law and encouraging ethical conduct. School psychologists advance professional excellence by mentoring less experienced practitioners and contributing to the school psychology knowledge base” (NASP Broad Theme IV).
Under the fourth broad theme of responsibility to schools, families, communities, the profession, and society, the NASP’s code of ethics has specific standards for promoting healthy school, family, and community environments (Guiding Principle IV.1 and subsumed standards); respecting law and the relationship of law and ethics (Guiding Principle IV.2 and subsumed standards); maintaining public trust by self-monitoring and peer monitoring (Guiding Principle IV.3 and subsumed standards); contributing to the profession by mentoring, teaching, and supervision (Guiding Principle IV.4 and subsumed standards); and contributing to the school psychology knowledge base (Guiding Principle IV.5 and subsumed standards).
Read and consider Case 1.4.
After several incidents of harassment of gay teens and students who do not conform to gender-role expectations, James Lewis, school psychologist, became increasingly convinced that the schools in his district were not a safe or supportive place for lesbian, gay, biattractional, or transgender (LGBTQ+8 ) youth. He began to read about the developmental needs and challenges of LGBTQ+ youth, and he spent time talking with LGBTQ+ teens about their experiences at school. He then formed alliances with school and community leaders who shared his concerns. Although he 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