LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

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 welfare” (NASP Guiding Principle I.1). They apply the ethical principle of respect for self-determination and autonomy to their professional practices by seeking informed consent to establish a school psychologist–client relationship and by ensuring that the individuals with whom they work have “a voice and a choice” in decisions that affect them.

School psychologists sometimes ask the question, “Who is the client?” In the school setting, multiple different parties may be recipients of school psychological services or affected indirectly by their decisions. NASP’s code of ethics identifies the client or clients as the individuals who have entered into a school psychologist–client relationship for the purpose of receiving services. A school psychologist–client relationship is established by an informed agreement with a client about the school psychologist’s duties to each party in the professional relationship (NASP, 2020, p. 41). Often more than one individual is a primary client, such as when the school psychologist-client professional services relationship involves parents and their child (also CPA, 2017).

      Except for urgent situations, school psychologists generally seek the informed consent of an adult (the parent or guardian of a child) to establish a school psychologist–client relationship (NASP Standard I.1.2). They respect the right of the individual providing consent to choose or decline the services offered (NASP Standard I.1.5), and they “reopen discussion of consent when appropriate, such as when there is a significant change in previously agreed on goals and services, or when decisions must be made regarding the sharing of sensitive information with others” (NASP Guiding Principle I.1). School psychologists also honor, to the maximum extent appropriate, the right of children to assent to or decline school psychological services (see Chapters 3 and 7).

      However, when working with children, sometimes it is necessary to balance the rights of self-determination and autonomy against concerns for the welfare of the child. The NASP’s code of ethics states: “Ordinarily, school psychologists seek the student’s assent to services; however, it is ethically permissible to bypass student assent to services if the service is considered to be of direct benefit to the student and/or is required by law” (NASP Standard I.1.4; also CPA, 2017, I.35). If a child’s assent is not solicited, school psychologists nevertheless ensure that the child is informed about the nature of the services being provided and is afforded opportunities to participate in decisions that affect them (NASP Standard I.1.4, II.3.14).

      As noted, school psychologists often provide services within the framework of an established school psychologist–client relationship. However, as members of a school’s instructional support team, practitioners also provide consultative services to student assistance teams, classrooms, or schools that do not fall within the scope of an established school psychologist–client relationship (NASP, 2020, p. 41). Thus, while school practitioners encourage parental participation in school decisions affecting their children (NASP Standard I.1.1, II.3.13), not all of their consultative services require informed parent consent, particularly if the resulting interventions are under the authority of the teacher and within the scope of typical classroom interventions (NASP Standard I.1.1) (also see Chapter 7).

      During their careers, school psychologists will encounter dilemmas regarding how to balance the rights of parents to make informed decisions about their children with the rights and needs of those children. For example: Under what circumstances should minors have the right to seek school psychological services on their own, without parent permission? When should a minor be afforded the opportunity to make a choice whether to participate in or refuse the psychological services being offered? We will be exploring these issues in the chapters ahead.

       Privacy and Confidentiality

      Psychologists “respect the right of persons to choose for themselves whether to disclose their private thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and behaviors” (NASP Guiding Principle 1.2; also APA Principle E), and every effort is made to avoid undue invasion of privacy (APA Principle E; NASP Standard I.2.1).

Скачать книгу