1. Epilogue Ethics, Law, and Advocacy Jacob, Decker, & Hartshorne 1

2. Advocacy and Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) NASP’s code of ethics states: “School psychologists consider the interest and rights of children and youth to be their highest priority in decision making and act as advocates for all students” (NASP- PPE Introduction). In addition, school psychologists are encouraged to work as advocates for change to better address the needs of all children (NASP-PPE IV.1). 2

3. Advocacy (Cont.) School psychologists have an “obligation to speak up for the needs and rights of students even when may be difficult to do so” (NASP-PPE Introduction, also see definition of advocacy). There is conflict inherent in the dual roles of child advocate and school employee. 3

4. Advocacy and Free Speech Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, Will County (1968) concerned a public school teacher who wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper criticizing the way in which the board of education handled proposals to increase revenue for the schools. He was subsequently dismissed on the grounds that the letter was detrimental to the operation of the school. 4

5. Pickering (Cont.) When Pickering reached the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court held that “in the absence of proof of false statements knowingly or recklessly made by the teacher, his right to speak on issues of public importance could not furnish the basis for his dismissal, and that under the circumstances…his dismissal violated his constitutional right to free speech” (1968, p. 563). 5

6. Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) Garcetti, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, limits the free speech rights of government employees. The Court held that, “When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.” 6

7. Garcetti (Cont.) The opinion goes on to state: “Without a significant degree of control over its employees’ words and actions, a government employer would have little chance to provide public services efficiently…Thus, a government entity has broader discretion to restrict speech when it acts in its employer role, but the restrictions it imposes must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect its operations.” 7

8. Garcetti (Cont.) This ruling suggests that school psychologists employed in public schools (state actors) could be disciplined for criticizing the policies and practices of the school district where they are employed if speaking in their official job role, rather than as private citizens. 8

9. Garcetti (Cont.) It is important to note that the opinion did acknowledge the significance of federal and state whistle-blower protections of employees who expose unlawful or otherwise inappropriate actions by their employers (see, for example, Settlegood v. Portland Public Schools, 2004). Academic free speech explicitly excluded. 9

10. Garcelli (Cont.) The implications of the Garcetti decision for school psychological practice are not yet clear. As Justice Souter noted in his dissenting opinion, employers generally prefer for employees to voice concerns about workplace practices openly and directly with a supervisor rather than disclosing their concerns to the public (p. 8). 10

11. Practice Suggestions Work with administrators to identify and agree on communication channels and forums that are appropriate within-district venues for psychologists to voice concerns about ineffective school policies and practices. Emphasize the potential positive effects of new practices rather than simply criticizing existing practices. Take care to identify when you are speaking as an employee vs. private citizen. 11