Field Experience #10: Ethical and Legal Issues for Leadership, NASW and GaPSC Code Comparison, Annotated Bibliography and Ethics Summary
Review the professional code of ethics for educators and research another profession’s code of ethics, distinguishing similarities and differences. Research articles or publications from the past five years to find a PK–12 ethics issue, identify the factors creating the dilemma and determine the assumptions or inferences affecting how a leader would respond (GELS 2, 3, 9).
Documentation required:
- A chart aligning the NASW Code of Ethics with the GaPSC Code of Ethics for Educators, identifying similarities and differences.
- An annotated bibliography of the article or publication researched.
- A one-page summary of the ethical issue identifying the standards violated and steps taken to address the violation.
- A learning reflection, following the rubric.
Ten enforceable standards for Georgia educators
Six core values plus standards
Electronic boundary violations
Protect, report, investigate, prevent
Download the documentation as a Word file (.docx)
Model field experience documentation
Original example for study purposes (about 1,070 words). The school scenario in the summary is illustrative. Use your own field site, check your rubric and replace or add articles as needed.
1. Code of Ethics Comparison Chart: NASW and GaPSC
| Ethical area | GaPSC Code of Ethics for Educators | NASW Code of Ethics | Similarity or difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structure and purpose | Ten enforceable standards in state rule 505-6-.01; violations can lead to sanctions on an educator’s certificate. | Mission, six core values, ethical principles and detailed standards for practice; enforced through NASW adjudication and state licensing boards. | Difference: GaPSC is a list of prohibited conduct tied to certification; NASW is values-based and aspirational as well as enforceable. |
| Relationships with those served | Standard 2 (Conduct with Students): maintain professional boundaries; no abuse, harassment, sexual or inappropriate relationships, including through electronic communication. | Standards on conflicts of interest, sexual relationships and dual relationships (1.06, 1.09); value of the importance of human relationships. | Similarity: both forbid exploitation and require clear boundaries. NASW gives more guidance on managing unavoidable dual relationships. |
| Honesty and integrity | Standard 4 (Honesty): no falsifying records, evaluations, credentials or information in official inquiries. | Core value of integrity; standards on dishonesty, fraud and deception (4.04) and accurate records. | Similarity: both make truthfulness a core duty. |
| Confidentiality | Standard 7 (Confidential Information): protect student records, health and family data and test materials; share only as law permits. | Standard 1.07 (Privacy and Confidentiality): detailed rules on consent, disclosure, records and electronic communication. | Similarity: both protect private information; NASW includes more detail on informed consent and technology. |
| Reporting duties | Standard 8 (Required Reports): report ethics breaches and suspected child abuse; report breaches no later than 90 days after becoming aware. | Standards on impaired, incompetent and unethical colleagues (2.09–2.11) and legal duties to report abuse. | Similarity: both require action when colleagues act unethically; GaPSC sets a specific deadline. |
| Public resources and remuneration | Standards 5 (Public Funds and Property) and 6 (Remunerative Conduct): no misuse of funds, conflicts of interest or unapproved paid tutoring of one’s own students. | Conflict of interest standard (1.06) and fees (1.13). | Similarity in avoiding conflicts; difference in GaPSC’s focus on public funds. |
| Competence and professional conduct | Standards 1 (Legal Compliance), 3 (Alcohol or Drugs), 9 (Professional Conduct) and 10 (Testing). | Core value of competence; standards on impairment (4.05) and professional development. | Difference: GaPSC includes testing integrity, unique to education; NASW emphasizes ongoing competence and self-care. |
| Social justice and advocacy | Not addressed directly; focus is individual conduct. | Core values of social justice and dignity and worth of the person; duty to challenge discrimination and advocate for policy change (6.04). | Difference: NASW requires advocacy for vulnerable groups; GaPSC does not. |
2. Annotated Bibliography
Russell, K. N., Burnham, M. M., Trescher, S. A., & Knoche, V. A. (2022). School district policies regarding appropriate teacher-student relationships: What’s missing and what matters? Current Issues in Education, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.14507/cie.vol23iss1.2027
Russell and colleagues analyzed school district policies in Nevada governing teacher-student relationships to determine what they cover, how they describe consequences and whether they help teachers navigate ethically ambiguous situations. They found that most districts relied on required boilerplate language about sexual harassment and that policies gave little specific guidance for gray areas in which boundaries are often first crossed, such as communication through social media. The authors recommend policy reform and ongoing professional education. The article is useful for school leaders because it shows that prohibiting misconduct is not enough; staff need concrete expectations about texting, private messaging and out-of-school contact. A limitation is its focus on a single state’s policies, but its findings align directly with GaPSC Standard 2, which explicitly includes electronic communication, and with Standard 8’s reporting duties.
3. Summary of the Ethical Issue
The issue. Boundary violations between educators and students that begin through electronic communication, such as private social media messages and personal texting, are a recurring PK–12 ethics problem. [Illustrative scenario.] At a Georgia middle school, a well-liked coach began messaging a 13-year-old student through a personal social media account late at night, first about practice and then about personal problems, and asked the student not to tell anyone. A teammate’s parent shared screenshots with the principal.
Factors contributing to the dilemma. Several factors created the situation: unclear district guidance on electronic communication, as Russell et al. (2022) describe; the coach’s popularity and success, which made colleagues reluctant to question his behavior; students’ and staff members’ constant access to private messaging; and the absence of training on grooming warning signs.
Standards violated. The conduct implicated GaPSC Standard 2 (Conduct with Students), which prohibits inappropriate relationships carried out electronically and requires professional boundaries; Standard 9 (Professional Conduct); and, for colleagues who had noticed concerns without acting, Standard 8 (Required Reports).
Steps taken to address the violation. The principal (1) ensured the student’s immediate safety and contacted the family; (2) reported the matter to child protective services and law enforcement as required by Georgia’s mandated reporting law, because the messages suggested possible grooming; (3) placed the coach on administrative leave and preserved the electronic evidence; (4) notified the district’s human resources office, which conducted an investigation and reported the matter to the GaPSC Educator Ethics Division; and (5) followed up by revising the electronic communication policy to require school-approved platforms with parent visibility and by training all staff on boundaries and reporting.
Assumptions and inferences affecting the leader’s response. A leader might assume that a trusted, successful employee “would never” harm a student, or infer that friendly messages are harmless mentoring. Such assumptions delay action. Effective leaders recognize these biases, separate the facts from the person’s reputation and act on the duty to protect students first.
4. Learning Reflection
Comparing the GaPSC and NASW codes helped me see that the educator code is primarily a set of enforceable boundaries, while the social work code adds a broader set of values, especially social justice and dignity, that motivate ethical behavior. As a future school leader, I want to lead with both: clear expectations that protect students and a values-based culture in which staff understand why the rules exist. Researching boundary violations showed me that ethical failures often begin in gray areas that policies do not address, and that silence among colleagues allows them to grow. In my future leadership role, I will make expectations about electronic communication explicit, train staff to recognize and report warning signs and model the habit of examining my own assumptions before making decisions. This experience connects to the leadership standards addressed in this field experience by reinforcing that ethical leadership requires both knowledge of the code and the courage to act on it.
References
Georgia Professional Standards Commission. (2024). Code of ethics for educators (Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 505-6-.01). https://www.gapsc.com
National Association of Social Workers. (2021). NASW code of ethics. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics
Russell, K. N., Burnham, M. M., Trescher, S. A., & Knoche, V. A. (2022). School district policies regarding appropriate teacher-student relationships: What’s missing and what matters? Current Issues in Education, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.14507/cie.vol23iss1.2027
Tip: if your rubric asks for an actual documented case, search the GaPSC ethics sanctions or recent news for a Georgia case within five years and summarize the standards cited and the sanction imposed.
Frequently asked questions
How many standards are in the GaPSC Code of Ethics?
Ten: legal compliance, conduct with students, alcohol or drugs, honesty, public funds and property, remunerative conduct, confidential information, required reports, professional conduct and testing.
What are the NASW core values?
Service, social justice, dignity and worth of the person, importance of human relationships, integrity and competence.
More model assignments posted today
- Elementary education comprehensive exam
- Restaurant logo semiotic analysis
- CapraTek engagement study presentation
- Social media fraud OSINT briefing