ethics case study ppra

• About SAFLII
• Terms of Use

South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg

Mamodupi v property practitioners regulatory authority and another (j68/23) [2023] zalcjhb 19 (13 february 2023).

Protecting Pupil Rights

Author(s): Carolyn Stone, Ed.D.

• Political affiliations;
• Mental and psychological problems potentially embarrassing to the student and the student’s family;
• Sex behavior and attitudes;
• Illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating and demeaning behavior;
• Critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships;
• Legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians and ministers;
• Religious practices, affiliations or beliefs of the student or student’s parent;
• Income (other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under such program” (United States Department of Education, 2020).
• Explain that the tool can help identify if the student has a social or emotional challenge
• Inform the parents/guardians that if such a challenge is identified, they will receive help following up on the information
• Explain confidentiality
• Let parents/guardians know they and their students aren’t required to complete the tool or answer any question they find objectionable
• Encourage parents/guardians to ask questions and express concerns about their student’s social/emotional development.
• Provide information about the tool, the process and follow-up assistance
• Provide a contact name for someone who can answer questions
• Make a copy of the screening tool available to the legal guardians
• Avoid requiring students to respond to any surveys that include the eight protected categories because obtaining written parental permission will be problematic and time-consuming, and it’s unlikely you’ll get a critical mass. If you do require such a survey, then you must follow the PPRA law.
• Conduct only district-developed or district-provided surveys, and even then, check to be sure they avoid questions in the eight protected categories. ​
• If you need to distribute your own survey or needs assessment that infringes on any of the eight protected categories, have it vetted by the district appointee who approves such surveys, and obtain the authorization in writing. Then follow PPRA requirements for parental permission. 
• Be transparent with parents/guardians about any protected information that is to be collected from their child.  
• Be aware of relevant laws and raise concerns when you think they are being violated. If you see something going out that might be a violation, speak up.
• Don’t berate yourself if you were the one who violated PPRA. We learn, and we correct. 
• First, do no harm.
• Informed consent for screening a student should be obtained from parents, guardians or the entity with legal custody of the student. Informed assent from students should be obtained.Screening should be a voluntary process, except in emergency situations precluding obtaining consent prior to screening. In these circumstances, consent should be obtained as soon as possible during or after screening.
• Clear, written procedures for requesting consent and notifying parents/guardians and students of the results of early identification activities should be available.
• All screening instruments should be shown to be valid and reliable in identifying students in need of further assessment.
• Screening must be developmentally, age-, gender- and racially/ethnically/culturally appropriate for the student to the greatest degree possible, and use of results should be informed by potential limits to validity as indicated.
• Early identification procedures and approaches should respect and take into consideration the norms, languages and cultures of communities and families.
• Any person conducting screening and involved with the screening process should be qualified and appropriately trained.
• Screening identifies only the possibility of a problem and should never be used to make a diagnosis or to label the student.
• Confidentiality must be appropriately ensured, and limits to confidentiality must be clearly shared within the scope of obtaining informed consent/assent (e.g., when immediate steps must be taken to protect life in an emergency situation).
•  If problems are detected, screening must be followed by: notifying parents, students, guardians or the entity with legal custody; explaining the results; and offering referral for an appropriate, in-depth assessment conducted by trained personnel with linkages to appropriate services and supports.

• REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY PRACTITIONERS
• RENEWAL OF FIDELITY FUND CERTIFICATES
• DEREGISTRATION OF ESTATE AGENTS
• CHANGE OF EMPLOYMENT, PERSONAL AND ENTITY DETAILS OF REGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS
• STAKEHOLDER PRESENTATIONS
• AFFIDAVITS FOR DISQUALIFIED PROPERTY PRACTITIONERS
• ACQUIRING THE REAL ESTATE QUALIFICATIONS
• INDUSTRY CONSULTATIONS ON PPA REGULATIONS 33.2.1
• EDUCATION PRACTICE NOTES
• EXEMPTIONS AND EXEMPTION CATEGORIES
• PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATION EXAMINATION (PDE)
• CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (CPD)
• CODE OF CONDUCT
• DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEES OF INQUIRY
• DISCIPLINARY PROCESS
• DISQUALIFICATIONS RELATING TO FIDELITY FUND CERTIFICATES
• CONDUCT DESERVING OF SANCTION BY ESTATE AGENTS
• PROHIBITION OF RENDERING OF SERVICES AS AN ESTATE AGENT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
• WITHDRAWAL AND LAPSE OF FIDELITY FUND CERTIFICATES
• INSPECTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS POLICY
• INSPECTORATE
• Inspections and investigation guidelines
• Inspections and investigations archives
• FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE CENTRE (FIC)
• ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FUND (Section 12)
• PURPOSE OF THE FUND
• TRUST MONIES
• LODGING A CLAIM
• CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A CLAIM CAN BE LODGED
• WHEN DOES A CLAIM LIE AGAINST THE FUND?
• PAYMENTS FROM THE FUND IN RESPECT OF A CLAIM
• TRANSFER OF RIGHTS AND REMEDIES TO THE BOARD
• EAAB vs. CONSTANTIA SECTIONAL TITLE MANAGEMENT
• Agents Portal
• Auditors Portal
• RECENT COLLECTION
• COURT JUDGEMENTS
• PPRA CONSUMER INFORMATION UPDATES
• RESEARCH REPORTS
• ARCHIVAL & SPECIAL COLLECTION
• Strategic Objectives
• Regulations
• BOARD MEMBERS
• Board Committees
• Delegation of powers of the Minister
• Executive Management Committee
• Committees of Inquiry
• Corporate Social Investment
• Contact Information
• Property Practitioner Act No. 22 of 2019
• SCHEDULE OF FEES 2023/24
• COMMUNICATIONS
• LATEST NOTIFICATIONS
• Press Releases
• PROPA Magazine
• AGENT Magazine
• Annual Report
• Annual Performance Plan 2019-2020
• Five Year Strategic Plan 2019 - 2024
• MULTI STAKEHOLDER GROUP - ( MSG )
• Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000
• Transformation Guidelines
• Archived Notifications
• Online Legal Complaint
• Applicant / Learner
• Employer / Estate Agency
• Terms and Conditions for the website of the Estate Agency Affairs Board
• FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Document Downloads

Code of Ethics

• Ethics Cases
• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
• Ethics Resources

Find case studies and scenarios on a variety of fields in applied ethics.

Cases can also be viewed by the following categories:

For permission to reprint cases, submit requests to [email protected] .

Looking to draft your own case studies?  This template provides the basics for writing ethics case studies in technology (though with some modification it could be used in other fields as well).

How might news platforms and products ensure that ethical journalism on chronic issues is not drowned out by the noise of runaway political news cycles?

AI-generated text, voices, and images used for entertainment productions and impersonation raise ethical questions.

Ethical questions arise in interactions among students, instructors, administrators, and providers of AI tools.

In water rights discussions, there is an ethical responsibility to include Indigenous people in both conversations and legislation decisions.

In this business ethics case study, Swedish multinational company IKEA faced accusations relating to child labor abuses in the rug industry in Pakistan which posed a serious challenge for the company and its supply chain management goals.

A dog may be humanity’s best friend. But that may not always be the case in the workplace.

A recent college graduate works in the finance and analytics department of a large publicly traded software company and discovers an alarming discrepancy in sales records, raising concerns about the company’s commitment to truthful reporting to investors. 

What responsibility does an employee have when information they obtained in confidence from a coworker friend may be in conflict with the needs of the company or raises legal and ethical questions.

A manager at a prominent multinational company is ethically challenged by a thin line between opportunity for economic expansion in a deeply underserved community, awareness of child labor practices, and cultural relativism.

A volunteer providing service in the Dominican Republic discovered that the non-profit he had partnered with was exchanging his donor money on the black market, prompting him to navigate a series of complex decisions with significant ethical implications.

• More pages:

Privacy and Paternalism: The Ethics of Student Data Collection

In February 2021, MIT’s Schwarzman College of Computing launched a specially commissioned series that aims to address the opportunities and challenges of the computing age. The MIT Case Studies in Social and Ethical Responsibilities of Computing (SERC) series features peer-reviewed, freely available cases by topic-area experts that introduce readers to a range of questions about computing, data, and society. The following article is excerpted from Kathleen Creel and Tara Dixit case study, featured in the Summer 2022 issue of SERC . —The Editors

For many high school students in the United States, classwork and homework begin the same way: by opening a laptop and logging into a learning platform. Students spend hours of their days composing essays, practicing math problems, emailing teachers, and taking tests online. At schools with policies governing in-class phone use, students message friends on school-provided devices that come to feel like their own. But many do not realize that schools and third-party companies can collect their personal communications as data and, in some cases, as evidence.

Schools want to protect students from cyberbullying peers and from harming themselves or others. To address these issues, administrators install monitoring software. A single word in an email, instant message, or search bar indicating bullying (“gay”) or self-harm (“suicide”) can trigger an alert to school administrators and law enforcement. In September 2021, monitoring software in a Minneapolis school district sent over 1,300 alerts to school administrators stating that students were viewing “questionable content.” Each alert extracted flagged text from students’ messages, emails, or school documents and sent it to school administrators for review . In other districts, monitoring software escalated students’ mentions of suicide to police .

A national survey of parents of school-aged children found that a majority of parents did not want their child’s educational data to be shared with law enforcement. Despite widespread, and increasing, parental concern over how and with whom student data is shared, with near ubiquitous use of learning platforms in the classroom, students and parents are left without practical ways to opt out of engagement with companies whose data collection policies and practices put students’ privacy at risk.

Despite widespread parental concern, students and parents are left without practical ways to opt out of engagement with companies whose data collection policies and practices put students’ privacy at risk.

In addition to protecting students, education researchers and makers of education software also want to use the rich trove of data students generate to improve students’ education. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based educational technology aims to “ meet students where they are ” by using the student’s data to track progress and create personalized learning plans. Makers of educational software hope to understand how students are interacting with software in order to improve future offerings, while education researchers hope to use student data to understand learning and educational disparities.

However, data collection comes with costs. In 2016, the Electronic Frontier Foundation studied 118 education technology software services and apps commonly used by schools. Seventy-eight retained data after students had graduated; only 48 encrypted personal information about students. Some school districts require educational software providers to disclose their data collection practices to parents and allow them to opt their child out, yet only 55 percent of parents surveyed had received a disclosure and 32 percent said that they were unable to opt out. This lack of data encryption, transparency, and choice is concerning. Despite policies that aim to provide both transparency and access, most students and parents are unaware of what data is being stored and who has access to it.

Adults are routinely subjected to similar invasions. Yet the special moral status of children makes the tension between their protection and education and the protection of their privacy especially fraught. On one model of childhood privacy, the paternalism view, students are children to be protected and educated by responsible adults who make decisions on their behalf. Parents and guardians may succeed in maintaining their child’s privacy from others by using laws like the Family Educational Privacy Rights Act (FERPA) to shield their child’s student records. However, the child has no privacy from her guardians and educators: Parents and school administrators may read her social-emotional–learning diaries and text messages at any time. The child is a “ moral patient ”: a being deserving of protection, but lacking the agency to make their own choices without oversight. Protecting her from a chance of harm from herself or others is worthwhile, no matter how small the chance of harm, because there is no countervailing duty to protect her privacy.

On another view , the essential role of the child is not to be protected but to “become herself.” Through exploration and play, the child develops her own agency, autonomy, and ability to freely choose. To the extent that a child is aware of being monitored in her experimentation and aware that her decisions and explorations may be interpreted out of context and punished accordingly, she cannot explore freely. The child also needs privacy in order to develop herself in relation to others. Respecting the privacy of communications between children allows them to develop genuine friendships, as friendship is a relationship between two people that cannot survive constant surveillance by a third party.

Respecting digital privacy also builds relationships of trust between children and adults, as philosopher Kay Mathiesen has argued . Trusting a child gives her an “incentive to do the very thing” she is trusted to do, building her capacity to behave in a trustworthy manner . By contrast, the act of surveillance can decrease both the child’s trust in the adult and the adult’s trust in the child , even if no malfeasance is discovered. Researchers have expressed concern that digital surveillance may also decrease a student’s civic participation and their willingness to seek help with mental health issues. As such, on this view, parents and school officials are obliged to respect the privacy rights of children unless there is a significant reason to violate them; perpetual background surveillance without cause is inappropriate.

On some issues, both perspectives align. Neither students nor their parents would choose to trigger false alarms that send law enforcement knocking or knowingly allow learning platforms to resell identifiable student data to commercial vendors. But the broader dilemma remains. Knowing when to treat children “as children” and when to treat them as responsible agents is, as philosopher Tamar Schapiro has argued , the essential predicament of childhood. We cannot wait for adult data privacy to be settled before tackling it.

Privacy and Contextual Integrity

Before the use of computers in education, students communicated primarily in person, which prevented most third parties from knowing the contents of their conversations, and did their schoolwork on paper or the ephemeral chalkboard. What data they did produce was confined to paper records locked in filing cabinets. Such data was difficult to aggregate: If shared at all, it was mimeographed and mailed or read aloud over the telephone. A third party aspiring to collect data on students would be stymied by the friction of acquiring the data and the expense of storing it.

Today, students generate electronic data every time they send email or messages, take quizzes and tests on learning platforms, and record themselves for class projects. The volume, velocity, and variety of the data they generate has shifted dramatically . As cloud computing prices fall, analytics companies become incentivized to collect and store as much data as possible for their future use. Educational software and websites are no exception. Companies analyze and mine data about students’ day-to-day activities to find useful patterns for their own purposes, such as product improvement or targeted advertising .

As cloud computing prices fall, analytics companies become incentivized to collect and store as much data as possible for their future use.

Without additional legal protection, the trend toward increasing student data collection, storage, and reuse is likely to continue. Given the contested moral status of children, how should their privacy and persons be protected? What policies or laws should we adopt? In order to choose one policy over another, we need first a reason for the choice — a justification of why a certain norm of privacy is correct based on a broader justificatory framework. We will seek it in Helen Nissenbaum’s classic analysis of privacy as “contextual integrity.”

Contextual integrity suggests that every social context, from the realm of politics to the dentist’s office, is governed by “norms of information flow.” Each social context is governed by different expectations regarding what people in different roles should do or say. For example, it would be appropriate for a dentist to ask a patient his age but unusual for a patient to reverse the question. In addition to norms of appropriateness, each social context has norms governing the proper flow or distribution of information. Thus, privacy is defined as the “appropriate flow of information” in a context, not as secrecy or lack of information flow.

According to Nissenbaum, there are five parameters that define the privacy norms in a context: Subject, Sender, Recipient, Information Type, and Transmission Principle. Any digression from norms typical for a context constitutes a violation of contextual integrity. However, the principle is not fully conservative: New practices can be evaluated in terms of their effects on “justice, fairness, equality, social hierarchy, democracy,” and autonomy as well as their contribution to achieving the goals relevant for the context. On these grounds, the new privacy norm may be chosen above the old.

The contextual integrity model can be used to evaluate reliance on educational software in schools. Any learning platform can be analyzed in terms of the appropriateness of its privacy policy to the privacy norms of the classroom. Consider Gaggle’s privacy policy. Gaggle, an online platform designed for use in the classroom that seeks to replace communication tools such as blogging software and email clients with similar software equipped with content filters, states that, “Gaggle will not distribute to third parties any staff data or student data without the consent of either a parent/guardian or a qualified educational institution except in cases of Possible Student Situations (PSS), which may be reported to law enforcement.”

Imagine that a student sent a message to another student at 8 p.m. on a Saturday and Gaggle flagged it as a potential indicator that the student is depressed. Analyzing this scenario according to the contextual integrity norm, the five parameters would be:

• Subject : Student 1 (the author of the message) and Student 1’s mental health concerns
• Sender : Student 1 (the author of the message)
• Recipient : Student 2 and Gaggle. If Gaggle alerts Student 1’s parents, school administration, or law enforcement of student activity, they also become recipients.
• Information Type : Student data (in this case, a message and its associated metadata, such as sender, recipient, timestamp, and location)
• Transmission Principle : The recipient will not share the student data with third parties without the consent of the parent/guardian or educational institution, except in cases of Possible Student Situations (PSS).

The desire to protect students and intervene to help them when they struggle with depression or anxiety is laudable and may initially appear to justify Gaggle’s new norms for classroom communication. However, the context of childhood friendship before the introduction of digital messaging was one in which it was possible for a student to discuss their feelings of sadness with another student on a weekend, outside of the classroom, without being overheard and without school intervention. Whether in person or on the telephone, the context of the interaction between Sender and Recipient was one of friendship mediated by the transmission principle of the telephone, which permitted information flow without disclosure to a third party. Pre-Gaggle messaging also presumes a disclosure-free channel for communication between friends.

Given these changes, the introduction of Gaggle meaningfully alters both the transmission principle and the set of recipients, thereby violating the preexisting privacy norms. In the contextual integrity framework, in order to argue that the new privacy norm is beneficial, proponents could appeal to its positive contribution to “justice, fairness, equality, social hierarchy, democracy,” or autonomy. If the new privacy norms do not contribute to these goods, they must contribute instead to the goals of the context. In order to evaluate whether the privacy norms reshaped by Gaggle are beneficial, we must determine what goals, and whose goals, should be considered relevant to the context.

Student Privacy Laws

The foregoing analysis assumes that the relevant context of communications between children who are friends are those of friendship: namely, that the norms of privacy that apply to adult friendships and adult message communications should also apply to childhood friendships and childhood message communications. However, if the first, guardian-centered viewpoint presented above is correct, it may be that the relevant context of analysis is primarily that the sender and recipient are both children, not that they are friends. Legally, that is the case: In the United States, a child has no right to privacy from their parents. Parents may monitor the online communications of children as they please.

Privacy from school officials or other adults is dependent on school policy and on the wishes of the parents or guardian until the child reaches the age of 18. There are three primary federal laws in the United States that aim to protect student privacy and security: the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA). Although each attempted to meet the information security needs of its day, the three collectively fall short in protecting student privacy from contemporary data collection.

FERPA provides the strongest federal privacy protection for student data, but has not been updated in the past decade. FERPA gives parents three rights: the right to access their child’s education records, the right to a hearing in which they may challenge inaccuracies in those records, and the right to prevent personally identifiable information (PII) from their child’s record from being disclosed to third parties without their written consent.

FERPA typically allows school officials to share student data only if both direct identifiers, such as student names, and indirect identifiers, such as a student’s date or place of birth, are removed. However, school officials may access PII data provided they have a “legitimate educational interest” in doing so. This privilege is extended at the school’s discretion to educational technology providers who take over roles previously performed by school officials, are under “direct control” of the district, and agree to be bound by the same provisions against reuse and reselling as a school official would be. Since most educational technology providers fall under these provisions, they are permitted to collect and store personally identifiable information about students. Other laws similarly allow third-party software providers to collect data without requiring transparency as to the uses of that data.

The patchwork of federal student privacy laws, supplemented by state legislation such as California’s Student Online Personal Information Protection Act (SOPIPA), has changed little in the last decade. But as the social practices to which the laws are applied changes — as student data becomes more voluminous, its transmission becomes easier, and as educational software providers take on activities once performed by school officials — the informational norms that privacy laws sought to protect are violated. The contextual integrity framework helps us understand why this is. Even if the prevailing social context (a high school), the subject of the data (students), sender (school officials), many of the recipients (school officials, school districts), and the laws governing transmission remain the same, the addition of recipients such as the providers of educational software and the changes in principle of transmission (paper to email, or email to centralized learning platform) generates a violation of contextual integrity and therefore of privacy.

In order to illustrate how a change in educational technology can violate contextual integrity without violating FERPA, consider the case of InBloom. InBloom was an ambitious nonprofit initiative launched in 2011 to improve the U.S. education system by creating a centralized, standardized, and open source student data-sharing platform for learning materials. Educators and software professionals from several states started building the platform. Although the platform complied with FERPA, it meaningfully changed the transmission principle under which student data was transmitted. Before, student data had been stored only locally, at the school level, and in the fragmented databases of educational technology providers. Now it would be pooled at the state level and national levels, granting both school officials and their authorized educational software providers access to a much larger and more integrated database of student data, including personally identifiable information and school records. This is a violation of the contextual integrity of student data, and the backlash InBloom faced from parents, activists, and local school officials was on the grounds of the changes it would prompt in the transmission and storage of data. The InBloom incident highlights the need for updated student privacy legislation, and perhaps for legislation that incorporates principles of contextual integrity. While InBloom shut down in 2014, many of the parent and activist criticisms of its data pooling would apply equally to the for-profit educational technology companies that continue to collect and store data in its absence.

Privacy and Justice

Another factor relevant for the evaluation of contextual integrity is the social identities of the actors involved and how they interact with the roles they inhabit. Student privacy concerns can be compounded when combined with existing biases and discrimination, including those based in class, sexuality, race, and documentation status. According to a study by the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), low-income students are disproportionately subjected to digital surveillance. This is because many schools distribute laptops and other devices to low-income students, a side effect of which is increased access to student online activity. In some cases, school officials can view the applications a student opens and their browsing history in real-time. Privacy concerns have been exacerbated with virtual learning, as schools expanded laptop distribution significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to a study by the Center for Democracy & Technology, low-income students are disproportionately subjected to digital surveillance.

The privacy of LGBTQ students is also threatened by school surveillance software. In a Minneapolis school district, there were several incident reports of Gaggle flagging LGBTQ-specific words like “gay” and “lesbian” because they may signify bullying, which led to at least one LGBTQ student being unintentionally outed to their parents. Fear of outing may cause LGBTQ students to curtail their online discussions, which could be especially impactful since queer youth often seek meaningful connection to other queer youth online in order to understand their identities.

Learning platforms may exacerbate existing systemic racism and bias in school-based disciplinary measures as Black and Hispanic student suspensions, expulsions, or arrests have been greater than for White students for similar offenses. Existing teacher biases, often associated with school-based disciplinary actions, may be embedded into AI-based education software, resulting in adverse impacts on marginalized students. Researchers at the University of Michigan studied the sociotechnical consequences of using ClassDojo, a data-driven behavior management software for K-8 students. ClassDojo allows teachers to add or subtract “Dojo points” from students for behaviors such as “helping others” or “being disrespectful.” The researchers found that use of ClassDojo had the potential to reinforce teacher biases, as when teacher stereotypes about which students were likely to be more “disrespectful” or “disruptive” were seemingly substantiated by ClassDojo behavior records gathered by the teachers themselves, and also found that ClassDojo had adverse psychological effects on students.

Violations of student privacy also disproportionately impact undocumented students. FERPA prohibits school officials from sharing student information, including immigration status, directly with government agencies such as Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE). However, ICE can access this data in other ways. The “third-party doctrine” holds that if individuals “voluntarily give their information to third parties” such as banks, phone companies, or software vendors, they no longer retain a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” When the makers of educational websites or purveyors of student surveys sell student data to brokers, they make it possible for ICE to buy data about undocumented students. This can have effects on the enrollment of undocumented students . As students realize that their documentation status is no longer private, they may withdraw from school out of concern that their family members may be targeted for deportation.

Addressing Privacy in Context

In addition to the planned and routine violations of contextual integrity that may occur when educational software providers resell supposedly anonymized data or school officials aggregate student data across contexts, there are the accidents. Large databases, or “data lakes” as they are evocatively called, are prone to rupture and spill. The U.S. Government Accountability Office analyzed 99 data breaches across 287 school districts, from July 2016 to May 2020. According to their report , thousands of students had their academic records and PII compromised. Bigger and more affluent school districts that used more technology and collected more student data were impacted most. The report states that compromised PII like social security numbers, names, addresses, and birth dates can be sold on the black market, causing financial harm to students who have otherwise clean credit histories. Compromised records containing special educational status or the medical records of students with disabilities who are on an Individualized Education Program (IEP) can lead to social and emotional harm.

The government’s awareness of the frequency of data leaks and their negative consequences for student privacy, financial well-being, and medical confidentiality establishes a context for legislative solutions.

The government’s awareness of the frequency of data leaks and their negative consequences for student privacy, financial well-being, and medical confidentiality establishes a context for legislative solutions. Many data leaks flow from third-party educational software providers who are not following information security best practices. For example, nearly 820,000 students’ personal data from the New York City public school system was compromised in early 2022. Before the leak, the school district was unaware that the educational software provider responsible had failed to take basic measures such as encrypting all student data.

In addition to encryption, other best practices include anonymizing data when possible, including using techniques like differential privacy. Although anonymizing data by removing direct identifiers of students provides some measures of privacy, Latanya Sweeney’s work has shown that when linked to other data sources, it can be possible to reverse-engineer the anonymized data, which is known as linkage attacks. Most individual Americans can be identified by their “anonymized” Facebook accounts or their health care information.

To protect against linkage attacks and further ensure privacy, differential privacy is a technique that introduces statistical “noise” in sensitive data by slightly modifying select data fields in order to ensure that individuals are not identifiable. Differentially private individual data may be inaccurate; however, the aggregate results remain fairly accurate. Even if the data set is accessed, individuals’ privacy will be less likely to be compromised.

Differential privacy is used by researchers to secure their data, within companies that hold PII, and by the U.S. Census Bureau . The statistical algorithms to implement differential privacy are most effective on large data sets as the utility of small data sets decreases due to noise . Thus, school systems with large and sensitive data sets may increase privacy with this technology. Differential privacy has not been widely adopted within educational technology. In addition to the complexity of implementing differential privacy compared to data anonymization, many educational technology systems need the ability to identify specific students and track their progress. Implementing differential privacy internally, as opposed to when releasing data to researchers, could impede these pedagogical functions.

Data stored long enough is likely to leak. Introducing requirements that stored student data be encrypted and anonymized would protect data subjects from reidentification when it does. But not all student data can be anonymized and still remain useful. For data that cannot, one proposed solution is the establishment of “information fiduciaries.” A fiduciary is a representative who is required to make decisions in the best interests of their clients. Stipulating that schools and the educational software providers with whom they contract must act as fiduciaries when they handle student data would confer additional legal obligations to act in the best interests of the students and their privacy.

The Value of Data Collection

Requiring that an information fiduciary act in the best interests of the students, however, returns us to our original questions: what are the best interests of students, how should their interests be weighted, and who should have the authority to decide? The paternalism perspective advocated for protecting students, even at the expense of their privacy, while they develop the capacity to make autonomous decisions. The second perspective suggested that prioritizing students’ privacy is in their best interests so that they may develop autonomy and maintain trusting relationships with the adults in their lives. Many adult caretakers take up a perspective between these two, changing their comparative valuation of children’s protection and autonomy as children age. However, people acting from either perspective would take themselves to be acting in the best interest of the child. Establishing an information fiduciary does not solve the substantive moral question of which of the child’s interests the fiduciary should prioritize.

One factor difficult to weigh is the educational value of big data collection for K-12 students. Since K-12 students are evaluated so frequently and thoroughly, completing daily or weekly homework assignments and in-class assessments, sophisticated analytics typically are not needed to determine when they are struggling academically or what skills they need to focus on, as they are used in the university setting. Some studies show benefit from the use of educational data to personalize learning, although comprehensive reviews show that the hype surrounding personalized education often far outstrips its current benefits. The rhetoric of personalized learning was that “adaptive tutors” created with the help of big data analytics “would be more efficient at teaching students mastery of key concepts and that this efficiency would enable teachers to carry out rich project-based instruction,” writes educational researcher Justin Reich in his book “Failure to Disrupt: Why Technology Alone Can’t Transform Education.” Instead, the primary use of adaptive online learning, he explains, is in providing students with ancillary practice in math and early reading. The primary value of educational data collection has been for researchers: both academic researchers interested in education and educational disparities and educational technology researchers interested in improving the products they sell.

Educational software will continue to be adopted by school systems for its perceived value in increasing access to high-quality and personalized education. As a result, student privacy issues will escalate. Current federal privacy laws such as FERPA require updating in order to meet these challenges, as they do not hold school districts or educational software providers to the government’s own standards of student privacy and information security. Yet ensuring that school officials and educational software providers respect the contextual integrity of information transmission for student data, or adopt policies that represent a student-centric rather than guardian-centric perspective on children’s rights and privacy, might require more than a simple update.

Kathleen Creel is an assistant professor of philosophy and computer science at Northeastern University. Tara Dixit is a Chantilly High School senior. A full version of this article, as well as a bibliography, can be accessed here .

National Capital Chapter

PR Ethics: Context & Content

By Don Bates, APR, Fellow PRSA

Before any discussion of ethics in the public relations industry, we need to define what the term means.

Ethics, according to the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, are “well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues.”

Obvious obligations for everyone are not to commit rape, robbery, murder, assault, slander, or fraud. As public relations practitioners, we have additional obligations related to how we act on our own or on behalf of those who pay for our services.

Personal ethics are defined by character, integrity, and values. Professional ethics are defined by such written codes as the PRSA Code of Ethics; PR Council’s Code of Ethics and Principles; Arthur Page Society’s Seven Principles; IABC’s Code of Ethics.

As the PRSA Code explains: “Each of us sets an example for each other – as well as other professionals – by our pursuit of excellence with powerful standards of performance, professionalism and ethical conduct.”

Examples of improper conduct under these codes include:

• Lying by omission such as knowingly failing to release certain financial information, which gives a misleading impression of the organization’s performance.
• Not correcting inaccurate information discovered in a website, blog, annual report, press release, or media kit.
• Deceiving the public by employing people to pose as volunteer speakers at public hearings or participate in “grass roots” campaigns.
• Setting up front groups and engaging in “grass roots” or letter-writing campaigns to legislators on behalf of undisclosed interest groups.
• Stealing from your employer or client by stealing money, time, supplies, proprietary information, and trade secrets.
• Discriminating on the basis of age, disability, equal pay, pregnancy, race and color, religion, and sex.

Guidelines for ensuring ethical conduct include:

• Be honest and accurate in all communications.
• Act promptly to correct erroneous communications.
• Investigate the truthfulness and accuracy of information released on behalf of employers or clients.
• Reveal the sponsors for promoted causes and interests.
• Obey company rules and bylaws.
• Disclose personal financial interest (such as stock ownership) in a client organization.
• Don’t tease, bully, sexually harass, or verbally or physically abuse a coworker or non-employee.

There are scores of ways to help make certain that public relations practitioners and their employers and clients act as ethically as possible.

A few have been summarized here, but they only scratch the surface, especially when it comes to the larger ethical behavior of for-profit, government, and nonprofit organizations as well as individual practitioners.

What do you think? Submit your suggestions and recommendations by emailing [email protected] . Feel free to share ideas, programs, anecdotes, case studies, book excerpts, PR news stories, and anything else you think will be helpful to other practitioners and their employers and clients.

https://bizfluent.com/list-6850278-list-ethical-issues-business.html https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics/

About the Author

Sign Up for Our Email List

• First Name *
• Email Address *
• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Progressions

Advancing the Profession and the Future Professional

What Is the PRSA Code of Ethics?

One recurring question public relations professionals are faced with is, “Why do ethics matter?” Well, the PRSA Code of Ethics answers this question: Ethical practice is the most important obligation of a PRSA member.

When practitioners launch their careers, they know public relations is not a ‘clock in, clock out’ job. It’s a job that needs attention at all hours of the day. Similar to the work schedule, ethical work should never stop.

Kirk Hazlett, an inductee of the PRSA’s College of Fellows, said, “PRSA’s Code of Ethics provides practitioners at any level with guidance whenever they encounter a questionable situation.”

The preamble says, “The Code is designed to be a useful guide for PRSA members as they carry out their ethical responsibilities.” This sets an example for PRSA members to hold themselves to the highest ethical standards. The Code also includes the PRSA Member Statement of Professional Values, which consists of six values. These values are the fundamental beliefs that guide ethical decision-making. These values include advocacy, honesty, expertise, independence, loyalty and fairness, and are incorporated into best practices for public relations professionals.

The PRSA Code Provisions of Conduct is the real focus, though. This portion of the Code focuses on real-world examples of situations professionals have faced and what the ethical route should be taken.

“ The members of PRSA’s Board of Ethics and Professional Standards work diligently to ensure that the Code of Ethics is current and applicable to today’s realities,” Hazlett said when asked about real-world application of the Code. “Ethical Standards Advisories provide the most current thinking on ethical issues such as social media, use of interns and native advertising, just to name a few.”

The Code of Ethics is the most widely accepted set of regulations for public relations professionals. The Code is frequently updated to reflect the ever-changing field of public relations. By referencing the Code of Ethics, a practitioner shows their practices are ethical while also being in the best interest of their client.

Andrew Young is a sophomore at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) where he serves as the public relations director of the MTSU PRSSA Chapter. He is also a member of the Advocacy Subcommittee for PRSSA National.

About the Author

Krista Watson

1 thought on “ what is the prsa code of ethics ”.

Thanks for taking the time to share the important role of ethics in public relations, Andrew. You’ve done a good job of capturing the essence of PRSA’s ongoing efforts to raise awareness and to educate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Recent Posts

• District Conference Preview: Ready, Steady, RACE! (Universidad Argentina de la Empresa 2024)
• The NFL is branding themselves for Taylor Swift Fans
• Mastering the Art of Pitching – Tips From a Media Relations Expert 
• District Conference Preview: Zooming + Booming: How To Fast Track Your Career (University of Nebraska at Omaha 2024)
• Supporting Black PR Students: Allies’ Role in Fostering Inclusivity
• Career Guide
• Case Studies
• Chapter Development
• Chapter Development Month
• District Conferences
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Integrated Marketing Communications
• Intern Talk
• Internships
• Leadership Assembly
• National Events
• PRSSA National Committee
• Social Media
• Student run firms
• Thought Leadership
• Twitter chat
• Uncategorized
• Writing Skills

Recommended Reading

• Brand Channel
• Brian Solis
• ComPRehension
• Journalistics
• Marketing Pilgrim
• NYC PR Girls
• Peter Shankman
• Platform Magazine Blog
• PR Expanded
• PR Job Coach
• PRSA New Pros
• Social Business News
• The Future Buzz
• The PR Daily
• The PR News Blog
• Web Ink Now

Features of the PRSA Code of Ethics

The current PRSA Code of Ethics consists of three parts:

• A preamble that sets out the goals and role of the document
• A statement of professional values, which identifies and describes six values of the public relations profession
• A list of six “code provisions of conduct,” each of which is elaborated with a core principle and examples of the provision in practice.

At the end, a pledge to uphold these values and promote the reputation of the profession – as well as to accept any appropriate sanctions for aberrant behavior – can be signed.

Reflecting the code’s aspirational nature, the preamble to the Code of Ethics describes the ethical orientation of the PRSA and the desire for ethical behavior on the part of its members. It clearly states that, while no formal system of enforcement is in place, the PRSA may restrict association membership to those who violate the code.

Six professional values are listed, described as “the fundamental beliefs that guide our behaviors and decision-making process”: advocacy, honesty, expertise, independence, loyalty, and fairness. These values serve a number of purposes for the field of public relations. They seek to improve the reputation of the industry (expertise, fairness, honesty) while also emphasizing the value of its services to clients (advocacy, loyalty, independence). More detailed descriptions of these values can be found in the graphic below.

The next section gives six code provisions of conduct . For each code provision, a guiding statement (identified by the code as a core principle ) and 1-2 statements explaining the provision’s intent are followed by specific guidelines for behavior by public relations professionals. For each provision of conduct, 2-4 related examples of improper conduct are provided.

For example, the provision titled “competition” outlines the equitable and appropriate competition between professionals in the public relations industry. Its core principle, “promoting healthy and fair competition among professionals preserves an ethical climate while fostering a robust business environment,” is followed by the stated intent “To promote respect and fair competition among public relations professionals” and “To serve the public interest by providing the widest choice of practitioner options.” It gives the following guidelines:

A member shall:

• Follow ethical hiring practices designed to respect free and open competition without deliberately undermining a competitor.
• Preserve intellectual property rights in the marketplace.

It then provides the following examples of improper conduct under this provision:

• A member employed by a “client organization” shares helpful information with a counseling firm that is competing with others for the organization's business.
• A member spreads malicious and unfounded rumors about a competitor in order to alienate the competitor's clients and employees in a ploy to recruit people and business.

All in all, 14 potential examples of improper conduct are covered among the six provisions of conduct. Clearly, this list does not exhaustively cover all potential ethical crises that might face public relations practitioners. However, it does provide some concrete examples for comparative use by professionals who find themselves in a questionable ethical situation.

Works Cited & Resources