Читать книгу Ethics and Law for School Psychologists - Susan Jacob - Страница 27

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.)