10.3 Pennsylvania Code and NAEYC Ethics
Key Takeaways
- 22 Pa. Code Chapter 235 (amended 2021) is Pennsylvania’s Code of Professional Practice and Conduct for Educators: the primary professional obligation is to the student; maintain boundaries; protect confidentiality; do not exploit professional relationships; fulfill duties to colleagues and the profession.
- PSPC: when charges are based solely on Chapter 235, discipline is limited to a public or private reprimand; other Educator Discipline Act grounds (including sexual misconduct) can mean suspension or revocation.
- The NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct (2011) uses ideals and principles toward children, families, colleagues, and community/society; P-1.1 — we shall not harm children — takes precedence over all other NAEYC principles.
- A popular activity that violates confidentiality or equity (named IEP stories on social media, public ranking, excluding a child from a photo because of disability) is an ethics fail even if families clap.
- NAEYC guides early childhood practice; it does not replace Chapter 235 or the Educator Discipline Act as Pennsylvania’s legal disciplinary framework.
10.3 Pennsylvania Code and NAEYC Ethics
PECT lens: Objective 0005.3 asks you to apply legal and ethical regulations and guidelines related to PreK–4 education. Pearson names Pennsylvania’s Code of Professional Conduct and the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct. In current Pennsylvania law that Code is 22 Pa. Code Chapter 235, the Code of Professional Practice and Conduct for Educators (rewritten August 2021). NAEYC’s Code (revised 2005, reaffirmed May 2011) is the national early-childhood ethics document. Mandated reporting of abuse is 0005.4 (next chapter). FERPA mechanics lived in 0004.2. Here the question is: What must a professional do, and what happens if they do not?
A kind, popular teacher can still fail this objective. The exam loves the crowd-pleasing move that violates confidentiality or equity: a social-media “growth story” with a named child’s IEP, a public behavior chart, a fundraiser that excludes children who cannot pay, a joke that disparages a student. Ethics is not a vibe. It is a duty.
Chapter 235 in force — not the 1992 outline you may have photocopied
The Professional Standards and Practices Commission (PSPC) adopts the Code under the Educator Discipline Act. After the 2021 rewrite, the operative duties sit in three sections. Older 235.4–235.11 language is reserved. Study the current duties.
§ 235.5a — Commitment to students. “The primary professional obligation of educators is to the students they serve.” That sentence is the spine of 0005.3. In fulfillment of it, educators:
- Exercise powers in good faith and for the benefit of the student
- Maintain appropriate professional relationships and boundaries with all students at all times, in and outside the classroom
- Shall not sexually harass students or engage in sexual misconduct
- Exert reasonable effort to protect students from harm
- Shall not intentionally expose a student to disparagement
- Exhibit consistent and equitable treatment and shall not unlawfully discriminate
- Shall not interfere with a student’s political or civil rights
- Shall not distort or misrepresent evaluations or facts regarding students, or misrepresent subject matter or curriculum
- Shall respect a student’s right to privacy and comply with federal, state, and local student-records and confidential communications rules
- Shall not be on school premises or at a student activity under the influence of alcohol or unauthorized drugs, or furnish alcohol, tobacco, vaping products, or illegal drugs to students
- Shall refrain from inappropriate communication with a student or minor, including electronic communication (sexualized content, flirting, comments on attractiveness or romantic history; concealment of the communication is a red flag)
§ 235.5b — Commitment to colleagues. Do not deny a colleague’s professional rights; do not distort evaluations; no sexual harassment or unlawful discrimination; no coercive influence over professional decisions; no retaliation against a colleague who in good faith reports suspected legal or standards violations; respect colleagues’ privacy in health and personnel information.
§ 235.5c — Commitment to the profession. Comply with law and written school policy; take positions on the basis of qualifications; do not help an unqualified person into the profession or recommend someone not certificated for the job; do not falsify documents or records; report required information accurately; cooperate with investigations; protect test security; do not accept gifts that impair or appear to influence judgment (de minimis tokens openly given in appreciation are allowed); shall not exploit professional relationships with students, parents, or colleagues for personal gain; use school funds and property only as authorized.
| Chapter 235 idea | PreK–4 snapshot | Trap |
|---|---|---|
| Student is primary | Choose the option that protects the child, not the teacher’s popularity | “The parents loved the post, so it was ethical” |
| Boundaries | No texting a seven-year-old from a personal phone as a ‘friend’ | “I only message after 8 p.m. so it is caring” |
| No disparagement / equity | No sarcasm about a child’s body, family, language, or disability | Public comparison as ‘motivation’ |
| Confidentiality | IEP, behavior, and family stories stay in professional channels | Class Instagram as a therapy dump |
| No exploitation | Do not sell your tutoring to your own students on the side in violation of policy; do not use a family for free labor or gifts | “They offered, so it is fine” |
| Profession | Do not give tomorrow’s PSSA item as practice; do not sign a PKC roster as if you were PK–4 certified when you are not | Helping a friend skip certification |
Electronic communication is written into the Code on purpose. Group apps and class social media are professional spaces. Sexualized, secret, or boundary-blurring messages are misconduct even if “nothing physical happened.”
PSPC discipline: Code-only versus everything else
§ 235.2 and the PSPC’s grounds-for-discipline page say the same thing:
- Violations of Chapter 235 may be supporting evidence in a disciplinary case and may be an independent basis for discipline.
- When the charges are based solely on violation of the Code, the Educator Discipline Act limits applicable discipline to a public or private reprimand.
- If the conduct also meets another ground in the Act — immorality, incompetency, intemperance, cruelty, negligence, sexual misconduct, sexual abuse or exploitation, failure to report, retaliation, or a qualifying criminal conviction — discipline is not capped at a reprimand. The Commission may suspend or revoke (and some convictions require revocation).
Negligence in the Act can be a continuing violation of a duty, including a duty in Chapter 235. Sexual misconduct includes verbal, written, electronic, or physical conduct designed to establish a romantic or sexual relationship with a child or student; consent is not a defense.
Exam trap: “Any Chapter 235 violation automatically revokes the certificate.” Too broad — Code-only is reprimand-capped. “PSPC cannot touch ethics, only crimes.” Too narrow — the Code is an independent basis, and non-criminal grounds exist. “NAEYC is what PSPC uses to revoke.” Wrong statute.
NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct — ideals and principles
NAEYC’s Code is for people who care for and educate children birth through age 8 in all settings. It is ethics of the field, not Pennsylvania’s certificate-discipline statute. The Statement of Commitment (“I will never harm children…”) is a personal pledge; NAEYC is explicit that it is not part of the Code.
Core values include: childhood as a unique stage; knowledge of development; the bond between child and family; children understood in family, culture, community, and society; dignity of each child, family member, and colleague; respect for diversity; relationships of trust and respect.
Ideals (I) are aspirational — what we strive for. Principles (P) state what is required, prohibited, or permitted. Each of four relationship sections has both.
| Section | Relationship | Exam-ready anchors |
|---|---|---|
| I | Children | P-1.1: Above all, we shall not harm children — emotionally damaging, physically harmful, disrespectful, degrading, dangerous, exploitative, or intimidating practices are out. This principle has precedence over all others in the Code. Inclusive play and learning (I-1.8); no discrimination in benefits or activities (P-1.3); assessment used to benefit, never a single score as the sole decision (P-1.6) |
| II | Families | Do not deny family access to the classroom unless a court order says so (P-2.1); involve families in policy and in significant decisions about their child; confidentiality (P-2.13) except when the child’s welfare is at risk; do not exploit families for private advantage (P-2.11); communicate in a language they understand |
| III | Colleagues (co-workers and employers) | Respect, no gossip that diminishes a colleague’s reputation; raise concerns with the person first when children are not at risk; if children are at risk, go to authority; do not discriminate |
| IV | Community and society | Honest description of services; take only positions you are qualified for; know and follow laws that protect children; advocacy so all children have access to care, education, health, and safety |
Ethical dilemma (NAEYC glossary): two professional values conflict — for example, family privacy versus a child’s safety. Then you consult the Code, especially P-1.1, and other practitioners. Safety of children wins over a parent’s request to “keep this bruise between us.” That is still not a license to gossip in the staff room.
Classroom look (NAEYC + 235 together): A Grade 2 teacher is asked to skip outdoor time for children who have not finished a packet so the class “looks high-performing” for a walkthrough. Harm to children’s physical and social development (NAEYC P-1.1 / I-1.5) plus inequitable treatment (235.5a) beats the walkthrough photo. The professional move is developmentally appropriate practice and honest representation of the program (NAEYC P-4.1; 235.5a no misrepresentation of curriculum).
The popular-activity trap: confidentiality and equity
0005.3 items are often stories, not section-number recitations.
Confidentiality fails dressed as community:
- Posting a named child’s “IEP reading win” or meltdown on a personal or class social account
- A family night slideshow of one child’s evaluation meeting
- Announcing “our special-ed friends” during a school tour
- Using a child’s journal about a parent’s job loss as a read-aloud without consent
Chapter 235 requires privacy. NAEYC P-2.8 and P-2.13 require confidential assessment and family information. FERPA (0004.2) is the records law underneath. Popularity does not create consent.
Equity fails dressed as tradition or fun:
- A field trip only children who sold wrapping paper can attend
- Holiday parties that shame families who do not celebrate
- Ability-based photo lines (“high readers in front”) for the yearbook
- Excluding a child who uses a feeding tube from the pizza party “so others are not uncomfortable”
- A public clip chart that always displays the same names
NAEYC P-1.3 forbids denying benefits or giving special advantages on the basis of disability, language, family structure, and other listed classes (with a narrow exception for programs lawfully designed for a particular population). Chapter 235 requires equitable treatment and forbids disparagement. The ethical option is an activity every child can join with dignity, or a private professional communication — not a viral post.
Exploitation fails: Tutoring your own assigned students for cash in violation of policy; steering families to your spouse’s test-prep business; accepting a large gift and then changing a grade. 235.5c(10) and NAEYC P-2.11 both close that door.
How the two codes work together
Use both without swapping their jobs:
- Is a child about to be harmed, disparaged, excluded, or exposed? Stop. 235.5a + NAEYC P-1.1.
- Is this a record, IEP, or family secret? Need-to-know, private setting. 235.5a(10) + NAEYC Section II + FERPA.
- Is this a colleague problem? No retaliation, no hallway diagnosis of the colleague; children-at-risk goes up the chain. 235.5b + NAEYC Section III.
- Is this honesty about the program, testing, or your certificate? 235.5c + NAEYC Section IV.
- Will PSPC treat this as Code-only? Reprimand ceiling. Sexual, abusive, criminal, or other Act grounds? Certificate at risk. NAEYC still tells you the right action; PSPC tells you the Pennsylvania legal risk.
Do not pick HIPAA as the classroom ethics statute. Do not pick NAEYC as the document that revokes a PA certificate. Do not pick “the activity was popular” as a defense.
How to decode a 0005.3 stem
- Identify who is owed the duty — student first, then family, colleague, profession/community.
- Look for confidentiality, equity, boundaries, exploitation, test security, or honesty.
- If the cute option exposes a child or ranks children, it is wrong even if it “builds community.”
- Match PSPC outcome to Code-only reprimand versus suspension/revocation for other grounds.
- Abuse reporting itself is the next objective; here, know that ethics requires protecting children and that confidentiality yields to safety, without turning the lounge into a briefing.
A Grade 1 teacher wants to “build community” by posting a weekly Struggle to Success story on the class social-media page, using a named child’s IEP reading goal and a photo of the child’s scored running record. Families often like the posts. What does 0005.3 require?
Which statement best describes the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct as PECT 0005.3 uses it?
An educator’s only proven misconduct is a Chapter 235 violation: the teacher distorted a colleague’s evaluation and accepted a large gift that appeared to influence a grade, with no sexual misconduct and no criminal conviction. What discipline limit does Pennsylvania apply to Code-only charges?