10.5 NASP Ethical Principles & Professional Standards

NASP Ethical Principles & Professional Standards

School psychologists operate at the complex intersection of federal statutes, state education regulations, local district policies, and clinical practice standards. While statutory law establishes the minimum legal threshold below which practice becomes illegal, professional codes of ethics establish an elevated standard of clinical excellence and moral responsibility. The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) Principles for Professional Ethics (2020 revision), integrated with the NASP Practice Model (Domain 10: Legal, Ethical, and Professional Practice), serves as the definitive normative guide for credentialed school psychologists.

                     ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
                     │       NASP Principles for Professional Ethics (2020)   │
                     └───────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
                                                 │
         ┌───────────────────────┬───────────────┴───────┬────────────────────────┐
         ▼                       ▼                       ▼                        ▼
  [Principle I]           [Principle II]          [Principle III]          [Principle IV]
  Respecting Dignity      Professional            Honesty & Integrity      Responsibility to
  & Rights of All         Competence &            in Professional          Schools, Families,
  Persons                 Responsibility          Relationships            & Society
  • Autonomy & Consent    • Beneficence           • Truthfulness           • Advocacy & Equity
  • Assent of Minors      • Non-maleficence       • Conflict of Interest   • Colleague Misconduct
  • Confidentiality &     • Competence Limits     • Dual-Setting Rules       (Collegial 1st)
    Mandated Limits       • Test Security           (Std. III.5.8)         • Systemic Reform

---

Broad Theme I: Respecting the Dignity and Rights of All Persons

School psychologists engage in professional practices that promote self-determination, autonomy, privacy, fairness, and social justice. They respect the fundamental human rights of all students and families.

1. Autonomy, Informed Consent, and Student Assent

• Informed Consent (Standards I.1.2–I.1.3): Parental consent (or the consent of an adult student) is sought before establishing a school psychologist–client relationship for psychological diagnosis, special education or disability-accommodation eligibility assessment, or ongoing counseling or therapeutic intervention outside the classroom. The 2020 definition of informed consent has three elements:
  1. Knowledge: Clear, understandable explanation of the purpose, nature of procedures, potential risks, anticipated benefits, alternative interventions, and limits of confidentiality.
  2. Voluntariness: Agreement given freely, without coercion, duress, or undue administrative pressure.
  3. Capacity: The consenting individual must be legally competent (an adult parent or court-appointed legal guardian; or an emancipated/eligible student).
• When Consent Is Not Ethically Required (Standards I.1.1 and I.1.2):
  • Consultation with a teacher or student assistance team when the resulting interventions stay within the teacher's authority and typical classroom interventions.
  • Reviewing education records, conducting classroom observations, and assisting with within-classroom interventions and progress monitoring.
  • Educational screenings conducted as part of a regular program of instruction. (Parents must be notified before a survey that screens for mental health problems and given the chance to opt their child out.)
  • Emergencies, or when a student may be a danger to others, at risk of self-harm, or in danger of maltreatment (I.1.2a).
  • A minor's self-referral, for one or several meetings to assess need and safety (I.1.2b).
• Student Assent (Standard I.1.4): While parents hold the legal authority to grant consent, school psychologists ordinarily seek the assent of minor students. Assent may be bypassed if the service is of direct benefit to the student or required by law, but the student still has the right to be informed about the services. Psychologists must explain assessment or counseling procedures in developmentally accessible language, honor student voice, and foster cooperative engagement.

2. Privacy, Confidentiality, and Its Limits (Standards I.2.1–I.2.6)

Confidentiality is the ethical duty to safeguard sensitive information revealed within a professional relationship. Crucially, confidentiality is never absolute. School psychologists explain the boundaries of confidentiality to students and parents at the outset of the professional relationship (Standard I.2.2). They release confidential information only to those with a legitimate need to know (I.2.4) and do not share a student's sexual orientation, gender identity, or transgender status without that individual's permission (I.2.5).

                    ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
                    │        Presumption of Professional Confidentiality     │
                    └───────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
                                                │
                                                ▼
                    ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
                    │  Four Mandatory Statutory / Ethical Exceptions:        │
                    ├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
                    │ 1. Suspected Child Abuse or Neglect                    │
                    │    (Immediate Mandated Report to CPS)                  │
                    │ 2. Imminent Danger of Suicide / Self-Harm              │
                    │    (Notify Parents & Crisis Stabilization)             │
                    │ 3. Imminent Danger of Violence to Identifiable Others  │
                    │    (Tarasoff Duty to Protect Target & Police)          │
                    │ 4. Lawful Court Order / Subpoena                       │
                    │    (Compliance with Judicial Mandate)                  │
                    └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

The Four Non-Negotiable Limits of Confidentiality:

1. Suspected Child Abuse or Neglect: Under state mandated reporting statutes, school psychologists must immediately report reasonable suspicions of child physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, or neglect directly to child welfare authorities (CPS/DCFS) and/or law enforcement. This legal duty cannot be delegated, filtered through administrative gatekeepers, or overridden by principals.
2. Imminent Danger to Self (Suicide Risk): If a student discloses suicidal ideation, intent, or planning, confidentiality must be breached immediately. The psychologist must contact parents/caregivers, initiate school safety protocols, and ensure continuous adult supervision until care is transferred.
3. Imminent Danger of Violence to Identifiable Others (Tarasoff Standard): When a student communicates a serious, credible threat of severe physical harm against an identifiable individual, the psychologist has an ethical and legal duty to protect the intended victim by notifying school administration, law enforcement, and the potential victim.
4. Lawfully Issued Court Orders and Subpoenas: Disclosure mandated by judicial orders, after taking appropriate steps to verify the order and consult legal counsel.

3. Fairness, Equity, and Justice (Standards I.3.1–I.3.2)

School psychologists promote culturally responsive practices, actively counteract systemic racism and educational disparities, and refrain from engaging in or condoning discriminatory practices based on race, ethnicity, language, national origin, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or socioeconomic status.

---

Broad Theme II: Professional Competence and Responsibility

School psychologists act with beneficence (doing good) and non-maleficence (doing no harm), maintaining the highest standards of professional practice.

1. Boundaries of Competence (Standard II.1.1)

School psychologists practice only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their formal education, supervised training, state credentialing, and professional experience. When confronted with specialized clinical populations or assessment techniques outside their expertise (e.g., assessing a student who communicates exclusively via American Sign Language, or conducting a specialized neuropsychological evaluation for pediatric stroke), psychologists must either:

• Seek specialized supervision and consultation from qualified experts; OR
• Refer the student to a competent specialist.

2. Continuous Professional Development (Standard II.1.3)

Psychologists maintain professional competence through ongoing professional development, reviewing empirical peer-reviewed literature, and maintaining state licensure and the Nationally Certified School Psychologist (NCSP) credential.

3. Test Security, Assessment Integrity, & Protocol Release (Standards II.4.5, II.5.1–II.5.3)

One of the most intense legal-ethical battlegrounds in school psychology involves balancing Test Security under copyright law against Parental Inspection Rights under FERPA and IDEA:

  ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐     ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐
  │        Test Publisher Copyright Law          │     │        FERPA / IDEA Inspection Rights        │
  │  (17 U.S.C. § 106 & Test Security Contracts) │     │     (34 CFR § 99.10 & 34 CFR § 300.613)      │
  ├──────────────────────────────────────────────┤     ├──────────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │ • Test stimuli, question booklets, scoring   │     │ • Parents have absolute legal right to       │
  │   keys, and manual algorithms are protected  │     │   inspect and review completed protocols     │
  │   intellectual property.                     │     │   containing student responses/raw scores.   │
  │ • Unauthorized copying or public release     │     │ • LEAs must provide access within 45 days.   │
  │   destroys psychometric test security.       │     │                                              │
  └──────────────────────┬───────────────────────┘     └──────────────────────┬───────────────────────┘
                         │                                                    │
                         └──────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────┘
                                                    │
                                                    ▼
                         ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
                         │         The Legally Compliant Ethical Harmonization:│
                         │  • Parents MAY inspect the protocol in person with │
                         │    a qualified psychologist explaining scores.     │
                         │  • Districts are NOT required to provide photocopies│
                         │    of copyrighted test protocols or test stimuli,  │
                         │    UNLESS parents cannot physically inspect in     │
                         │    person (e.g., extreme geographic distance).     │
                         │  • Blank protocols must NEVER be released.         │
                         └────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Critical Rules on Test Protocols:

• Blank Test Protocols: Blank protocols, test stimuli, and manuals are proprietary instruments. Releasing blank protocols to parents, attorneys, or teachers is an egregious ethical violation and a breach of federal copyright law.
• Completed Protocols: Completed protocols containing student answers are education records, and parents have the right to inspect and review them (NASP Standard II.4.5: inspect, "but not necessarily to copy"). Under FERPA (34 CFR § 99.10(d)) and IDEA (§ 300.613(b)(2)), copies are required only if failing to provide them would effectively prevent the parent from inspecting the records. State law can go further: California, for example, requires districts to give parents copies, and a federal court held that doing so for completed protocols was fair use (Newport-Mesa Unified School District v. California Department of Education, 2005). NASP Standard II.5.1 permits copies when law or district policy requires them, and copies to a qualified professional at the parent's request.
• Test Interpretation: School psychologists must be present to interpret raw scores and psychometric data during parental inspection to prevent misinterpretation.

---

Broad Theme III: Honesty and Integrity in Professional Relationships

School psychologists foster trust by providing transparent, truthful information, honoring commitments, and avoiding dual relationships that impair professional objectivity.

1. Accurate Representation and Accurate Documents (Standards III.1.1–III.1.3, II.2.1)

Psychologists accurately represent their credentials, training, and competencies (Guiding Principle III.1). They sign documents only when correct (Standard II.2.1), and they must never alter, misrepresent, or suppress assessment data to satisfy administrative quotas, save district funds, or change special education eligibility. They also do not alter reports completed by another professional without permission (Standard III.3.3).

2. Multiple Relationships & Conflicts of Interest (Standards III.4.1–III.4.4, III.5.1–III.5.8)

School psychologists refrain from multiple relationships that could reasonably be expected to interfere with professional effectiveness (Standard III.4.1). When multiple relationships are unavoidable, such as when no other provider is available, they set clear boundaries and put the client's needs first (III.4.2). They neither give nor receive payment for referrals (III.5.6).

The Dual-Setting Practitioner Rules (NASP Standard III.5.8):
School psychologists who also run a private practice ("dual setting practitioners"):

• must tell parents about psychological and educational services available free from the schools before offering paid services (III.5.8a);
• may not offer or provide private services to a student (or the student's parents or family) at a school or program where they are currently assigned, unless those services are not available in the school setting (III.5.8b);
• may not provide an independent educational evaluation for a student who attends the district where they are employed (III.5.8c);
• may not use the employer's tests, materials, equipment, facilities, or clerical help for private work without advance approval (III.5.8d);
• must conduct private practice outside contracted work hours (III.5.8e) and hold appropriate credentials for both settings (III.5.8f).

Broad Theme IV: Responsibility to Schools, Families, Communities, the Profession, and Society

School psychologists use their expertise to cultivate safe, supportive, and inclusive learning environments. They advocate for systemic reform, uphold the integrity of the profession, and monitor professional compliance.

1. Advocacy for Children and Families (Standards III.2.3 and IV.1.2)

School psychologists maintain an ethical duty to advocate for the best educational and mental health interests of children. When institutional policies or administrative mandates conflict with the developmental needs of children or ethical codes, psychologists must make known their commitment to the NASP Ethical Principles and actively work to resolve the conflict.

2. Addressing a Colleague's Suspected Misconduct (Standard IV.3.2)

Standard IV.3.2 covers suspected unethical practice by another school psychologist. It sets a collegial-first sequence, "if feasible." Legal duties such as mandated child-abuse reporting apply regardless of that sequence:

               ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
               │    Awareness of Colleague Ethical / Legal Misconduct   │
               └───────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
                                           │
                                           ▼
               ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
               │  Triage Step: Does the situation involve child abuse,  │
               │  imminent physical danger, or severe criminal acts?    │
               └───────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
                                           │
                          ┌────────────────┴────────────────┐
                          │                                 │
                         YES                                NO
                          │                                 │
                          ▼                                 ▼
            ┌───────────────────────────┐     ┌───────────────────────────┐
            │  IMMEDIATE FORMAL ACTION  │     │  STEP 1: COLLEGIAL        │
            │  • Report to CPS/DCFS     │     │  PROBLEM SOLVING          │
            │  • Notify law enforcement │     │  • Direct collegial       │
            │  • Notify superintendent  │     │    confidential dialogue  │
            │  • Protect student safety │     │  • Point out ethics code  │
            │    immediately            │     │  • Request corrective     │
            └───────────────────────────┘     │    action                 │
                                              └─────────────┬─────────────┘
                                                            │
                                            ┌───────────────┴───────────────┐
                                            │                               │
                                     Colleague Corrects             Colleague Refuses / Defends
                                     Deficiency                     or Violations Persist
                                            │                               │
                                            ▼                               ▼
                              ┌───────────────────────────┐   ┌───────────────────────────┐
                              │  Matter Resolved          │   │  STEP 2: FORMAL           │
                              │  Informally               │   │  ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTING │
                              │  • Document dialogue      │   │  • Report to district SPED│
                              │  • No formal filing       │   │    director / principal   │
                              │    required               │   │  • File state ethics board│
                              │                           │   │    or licensing complaint │
                              └───────────────────────────┘   └───────────────────────────┘

Detailed Colleague Misconduct Rules:

• Collegial Problem Solving First (Standard IV.3.2): When a school psychologist suspects that another school psychologist has engaged in unethical practices, they first attempt to resolve the problem through a collegial problem-solving process, if feasible, raising the concern directly and professionally.
• Further Action (Standard IV.3.2, continued): If collegial problem solving is not possible or productive, the school psychologist takes further action appropriate to the situation: discussing it with a supervisor in the employment setting, consulting state association ethics committees, and, if necessary, filing a formal complaint with state associations, state credentialing bodies, or NASP's Ethics and Professional Practices Board (EPPB). Standard IV.3.3 requires NASP members and NCSP holders to cooperate with EPPB investigations.
• When the Collegial Step Is Not Feasible: A collegial conversation is not a precondition when it is not feasible, for example when mandatory reporting laws apply (suspected child abuse), when someone is in imminent danger, or when criminal conduct is involved.

---

NASP's 7-Step Ethical Problem-Solving Worksheet

When ethical principles conflict with administrative demands, legal mandates, or parental wishes, school psychologists use a systematic process rather than intuition (Standard IV.3.1). NASP publishes a 7-step Ethical Problem-Solving Worksheet (2020):

Related model: Jacob, Decker, and Lugg's widely taught 8-step model (adapted from Koocher and Keith-Spiegel) covers the same ground. It adds a separate step for weighing the evidence that each consequence will actually occur (a risk-benefit analysis) and folds consultation into the "consult guidelines" step. If an exam item lists these steps, pick the one that fits the step being described.

---

Case Vignette: Applying the NASP 7-Step Model to Administrative Pressure

Scenario: A novice school psychologist evaluates a 3rd-grade English Learner experiencing profound reading failure. Multi-source data (WIDA ACCESS, native language Spanish assessments, nonverbal cognitive testing, and phonemic awareness probes) demonstrate a severe Specific Learning Disability in reading decoding and processing deficits, not attributable to second language acquisition. At the pre-IEP staffing, the elementary principal pulls the psychologist into a private office and states:
"Our district special education budget is in severe deficit this year, and our bilingual specialist caseload is overflowing. Change your evaluation conclusion to 'second language acquisition delay' so we do not have to place this student in special education. As your evaluator, I expect you to be a team player."

Application of the NASP 7-Step Worksheet:

1. Describe the Problem Situation: The principal is directing the psychologist to change an evaluation conclusion and suppress SLD eligibility to reduce district staffing and budget costs. The psychologist is probationary.
2. Define the Ethical-Legal Issues: The dilemma pits the psychologist's employee role against student advocacy. Issues include accuracy of documents (Standard II.2.1), priority of child welfare (Standard III.2.3), Child Find and FAPE under IDEA, and administrative pressure.
3. Consult Ethical-Legal Guidelines: Standard II.2.1 requires accurate documents; Standard IV.2.3 directs school psychologists to resolve conflicts between law or policy and ethics through positive, legal channels; IDEA bases eligibility on disability criteria (34 CFR § 300.8, § 300.306); Mills v. Board of Education held that budget shortfalls cannot justify withholding services.
4. Consult With Supervisors and Colleagues: The psychologist confidentially consults the district's lead school psychologist and the state association ethics committee, which confirms the reading of the standards.
5. Evaluate Rights, Responsibilities, and Welfare: The student has a legal right to FAPE, and a falsified report would cause direct educational harm. The psychologist owes accuracy; the principal and district face legal exposure.
6. Consider Alternatives and Consequences:
   • Alternative A: Change the report (a direct ethical violation that exposes the student to harm and the district to liability).
   • Alternative B: Resign abruptly and go public (high personal cost; leaves the student unsupported).
   • Alternative C: Decline to change the report, present the objective findings, cite IDEA, Mills, and NASP standards, and offer to meet with the special education director together (protects the student, gives the principal a lawful path, and documents the process).
7. Make the Decision and Take Responsibility: The psychologist chooses Alternative C, meets with the principal to explain the data and the legal exposure, presents the original report at the eligibility meeting, and documents each step. The student is found eligible and receives reading services.