An important part of effective, visionary leadership is ensuring that your ethics provide a continuous, steadfast compass that serves as a guide through cha

1

VALUES AND ETHICS IN EDUCATIONAL

ADMINISTRATION Editor: Chris Branson University of Waikato, New Zealand

Editorial Board: Paul Begley Nipissing University, Canada Paul Bredeson University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA Charles Burford Australian Catholic University, Aust Margaret Grogan Claremont Graduate School, USA Catherine Hands OISE/UT, Canada Olof Johansson Umea University, Sweden Kenneth Leithwood OISE/UT, Canada Pauline Leonard Louisiana Tech, USA Katarina Norberg Umea University, Sweden Anthony Normore California State University, USA James Ryan OISE/UT, Canada Allan Walker Hong Kong Institute of Education, China Lindy Zaretsky Simcoe County District, Canada

LEADING WITH HEARTS AND MINDS: ETHICAL ORIENTATIONS OF EDUCATIONAL

LEADERSHIP DOCTORAL STUDENTS

Linda R. Vogel University of Northern Colorado

Greeley, Colorado, USA Introduction Leaders make decisions every day that impact the lives of others, making the act of leadership a moral issue. Foster (1986) explained that, “Each administrative decision carries with it a restructuring of human life: that is why administration at its heart is a resolution of moral dilemmas” (p.33). Leadership implies intentional decision-making to enact change, rather than merely to continue and support current systemic processes, and such decisions are rooted in a leader’s definition of what are positive changes, as well as the ultimate effects of such changes. Views of what needs to be changed, the outcomes and methods of change, as well as who will benefit from such changes, and how, are based on one’s values. A leader’s system of values, or deeply held beliefs, is the ethical framework from which a leader develops a vision, defines and shapes the change process, and takes actions to make his or her vision a reality. Leadership is not a solitary activity by definition. One is not a leader without followers, and so the ethical framework that guides a leader’s decisions and actions always impacts those whom are being led. The influence of leaders on groups of people magnifies the impact and importance of leaders’ ethics, particularly in a democratic society where leaders are expected to represent and express the shared values of followers. By stepping into educational leadership roles, school and district administrators accept responsibility for the “broader community welfare” of the students, teachers, and parents that

CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF LEADERSHIP AND ETHICS UCEA

VOLUME 10 NUMBER 1

VALUES AND ETHICS IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION

ISSN 1703-5759

MARCH 2012

2

schools serve (Marion 2005, p. 272). The values and resulting ethical frameworks that guide these leaders then become critical to the immediate community that they serve and, as students achieve or fail, the larger society. As Zubay and Soltis (2005) point out, education, itself, is essentially a moral undertaking because, “it is concerned with the development of human beings and human interactions” (p. 3). Teachers and school administrators impact how young people make sense of themselves and their world, respond to others, and how to carry out their roles as citizens, employees, family members, and friends. Educational leadership is becoming increasingly complex as American society becomes more diverse and schools are held responsible for multiple social tasks at the local, state, and federal levels. The 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) focused school reform efforts on narrowing the achievement gap between students from low and high socioeconomic backgrounds and diverse ethnic groups, as well as other student subgroup categories. The accountability systems, which developed in response to the NCLB legislation, have created ethical dilemmas for educational leaders, as well (Meier & Wood, 2004; Marshall & Oliva, 2010). Educational leaders must make decisions on which children are taught what (curriculum) and how (instruction), strategies for garnering input from parents and community members, methods for communicating current and desired educational results to all stakeholders (which is everyone—from students and parents to taxpayers and employers), and how to develop and implement change to ensure that all children gain functional use of what has been identified as essential skills and knowledge in order to increase equity of opportunity in adulthood. Complicating this already formidable load of responsibilities are the many competing views of what the process of schooling and the results of education, should be. With so many demands and so many influencing factors, educational leaders must have a clear understanding of what Kouzes and Posner (2007) call one’s own “voice” (p. 47-59), or personal guiding values, if they are to successfully navigate contradictions and conflicts to provide stable and positive leadership to improve schools and the educational experiences of all children. This study examined the personal guiding values which shaped the ethical framework of 20

educational leaders who pursued their doctoral degrees in educational leadership at a Rocky Mountain university over a ten year period. By qualitatively analyzing the ethical platforms that these educators developed, the researchers hoped to shed light on which values and ethical frameworks school and district leaders have and are using to navigate the many and often competing demands they face in their daily lives. Such knowledge can advance the discussion of ethical leadership in the current complex educational arena, as well as perhaps point the way to a new lens through which to view the ethical behavior of educational leaders. Ethical Frameworks In the Western tradition, the discussion of ethics dates back to Plato (427-347 B. C.) and Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). The root of the word ethics is the Greek word ethos, “which translates to customs, conduct, or character” (Northouse 2010, p. 378). Values are more individualistic and personal, expressing individual choices or preferences (Strike et al., 2005). Moral principles, however, express a sense of duty and obligation to others and are shared by a group of people. Beliefs and values of what is right and what is wrong therefore provide the basis of discussion and agreement within a group as to what is considered moral by that group. These agreements on moral principles then provide a foundation for an ethical framework, which “provides a system of rules or principles that guide us in making decisions in a particular situation,” (Northouse, p. 378). For individuals and societies, ethical frameworks are group norms that define what is considered good or bad, moral or immoral, and thus guide our individual and collective actions. From a teleological perspective, the outcome of an action determines how ethical the action is. The terms for how outcomes can be assessed vary. Ethical egoism places the most concern on one’s own well- being and self-interest and is viewed as the least desirable compass for a leader’s actions. Utilitarianism and altruism both focus on the well- being of others, rather than self-interest, and are considered more desirable ethical approaches for leaders. A utilitarian perspective holds decisions and actions that result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people as the best or most moral decisions and actions. Utilitarianism can also be called the principle of benefit maximization (Strike et al., 2005)

3

where the overall results of a decision or action are the determining crucible, even if all do not receive equal benefits. An altruistic perspective views actions that promote the best interest or welfare of others as the most moral. Strike et al. (2005) articulated a corollary of altruism, the Principle of Equal Respect, that requires people be treated as means rather than ends, are viewed as “free and rational moral agents,” and are viewed as having equal value (p. 17-18). Ethical actions based on the Principle of Equal Respect would be characterized by respect for the equal, intrinsic worth of each being and respect for each being’s freedom of choice. Strike et al. (2005) also articulated two other, sometimes opposing, corollaries, which focus on the benefit to others as outcomes of actions. The Principle of Equal Treatment holds that “in any given circumstances, people who are the same in those respects relevant to how they are treated in those circumstances should receive equal treatment” (p. 55). Justifying efforts at addressing inequities is the Maximin Principle. Under this principle, inequalities are permissible when everyone benefits as a result of maximizing the welfare of those who typically receive a minimum share of the benefits – a perspective, which characterizes social justice efforts. While a teleological criterion of behavior could be seen as justifying the infamous Machivellian approach of the ends justifying the means, a deontological criterion also weighs the morality of an action aside from the consequences it may generate. Doing the “right thing” would be determined by whether the action fulfilled a duty to others, did not infringe upon the rights of others, benefitted others, and was virtuous in itself (Northouse 2010). Examples of virtuous actions include “telling the truth, keeping promises, being fair, and respecting others” (p. 381). Shapiro and Stefkovich (2005) present multiple paradigms for the analysis of ethical behavior. These include the ethic of justice, the ethic of critique, the ethic of care, and the ethic of the profession. Based on a liberal, democratic tradition, the ethic of justice is defined as a “commitment to human freedom” and “procedures for making decisions that respect the equal sovereignty of people” (Strike, 1991, p. 415). The emphasis on the role of the individual in relation to the larger society can vary,

however. The work of scholars such as Hobbes, Kant, Rawls, and Kohlberg places “the individual as central and social relationships as a type of social contract where the individual, using human reason, gives up some rights for the good of the whole or for social justice” (Shapiro & Stefkovich 2005, p. 11). The thoughts of Aristotle, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, and Dewey see “society, rather than the individual, as central and seeks to teach individuals how to behave throughout their life within communities” (p.11). The ethic of justice frequently serves as the basis for legal principles and formal policies because of its analytic and rational approach to judging human behavior and interactions. The ethic of critique is rooted in critical theory and emphasizes ethical behavior as that which addresses inequities among individuals and groups, related to social class and other factors which impact one’s power and voice, as well as the ensuing treatment, resources, and other benefits. The ethic of critique “asks educators to go beyond questioning and critical analysis to examine and grapple with those possibilities that could enable all children, whatever their social class, race, or gender, to have opportunities to grow, learn, and achieve. Such a process should lead to the development of options related to important concepts such as oppression, power, privilege, authority, voice, language, and empowerment,” according to Shapiro and Stefkovich (2005, p. 16). The ethic of care is rooted in the work of feminist scholars, such as Gilligan and Noddings. The ethic of care urges educators to nurture the emotional and moral development of children rather than stress academic achievement as the main or sole purpose of schooling. This ethic places students at the center of ethical decision-making and focuses on relational values such as trust, loyalty, belonging, self-worth, and self-efficacy and the needs and desires of young people in schools. Shapiro and Stefkovich (2005) add a fourth ethic of profession which integrates the other three ethics, based on an educational leader’s examination of his or her own values and the ethical codes set forth by various professional organizations. Shapiro and Stefkovich recognize that there may be conflicts among the three previously discussed ethical frameworks, so the best interest of the students should be foremost in determining the actions taken by educational leaders.

4

The Evolution of Educational Leadership as an Ethical Endeavor Scholars of educational leadership since the mid- 1990’s have increasingly emphasized the moral or ethical aspect of leadership notes Northouse (2005). In the early 1970s, Greenleaf advanced the concept of servant leadership, which focused on how leaders take care of the needs of followers and thus become leaders. Sergiovanni (1992) also advocated for servant leadership in his book, Moral Leadership: Getting to the Heart of School Improvement. Farling, Stone, and Winston (1999), Russell and Stone (2002), Sandjaya and Sarros (2002), and Blanchard (2003) have all explored the various dimensions and manifestations of the concept of servant leadership. Various instruments have also been constructed to attempt to define or measure servant leadership (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009). The influence of values and the related issue of moral actions of leaders are also discussed by a number of educational scholars with only a sampling noted here. Marion (2002) discusses morality within the context of the control exercised by leaders over followers in an organization. Northouse (2005) prefaces his chapter on leadership ethics with the observation that, unlike previous chapters that focused on “one unified leadership theory or approach,” the topic of ethical behavior is multifaceted and divided among many viewpoints. Northouse also identifies five principles identified in the research that define the behavior of ethical leaders, those being respect for others, serving others, showing justice, manifesting honesty, and building community. Lashway (2006) presents general moral principles and a series of questions to guide ethical decision-making. Matthews and Crow (2010) draw upon servant and moral leadership to support the development of professional learning communities by school leaders. Fullan (2003, 2010) stresses the need for moral leadership at all levels of the educational system for school reform to succeed. Many texts also correlate the topics covered by authors with the five Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards, one of which is ethical behavior on the part of school and district leaders (see for example Hoy and Miskel, 2005). In 1997, several major educational organizations including the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), the National Association of Elementary School

Principals (NAESP), and the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) worked under the auspices of ISLLC, sponsored by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), to develop educational leadership standards. The fifth standard deals with ethics, stating that “a school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner” (Green 2005, p. 6). The National Policy Board for Educational Administration adopted the ISLLC standards as accreditation standards, effectively holding educational administration preparation programs responsible for not only developing pre-service educational leaders’ awareness of ethical concepts and frameworks but also for developing their ability to apply such concepts and frameworks to make ethical decisions that would positively impact the experiences of students. Based upon the imperative of educational leadership preparation and development of ethical awareness and decision-making, this study was conducted to identify the various values and frameworks that practicing educational leaders espouse as the basis for making ethical decisions. The statement of ethics developed by students in a educational leadership doctoral program at a Rocky Mountain university over a decade reflect a melding of the ethics of justice, critique and care, as described by Shapiro and Stefkovich (2005), and an orientation toward altruism in their responses. Methods This qualitative study examined the ethical platforms created by 20 doctoral students in a Rocky Mountain educational leadership preparation program over a ten-year period. All students enrolled in the program over the ten years were invited to submit their education platforms, created as an assignment in a doctoral seminar course in the program, to the researchers for analysis, with disclosure of the researchers’ intents and methodology as well as an opt out option. In their first doctoral seminar course, each student was asked to create and share a personal code of ethics that guides his/her behavior and to discuss the importance of this code to him/her as an educational leader. The codes or platforms of ethics were to be a list of personally held beliefs and values that could be drawn from readings, professional association norms, and personal experiences. The students were also

5

asked to reflect on how their beliefs and values guided their behaviors as educational leaders and the importance of defining one’s ethical framework. Of the 47 students who completed the assignment over the research time period, twenty students returned their educational platforms via email to the researchers thereby resulting in a 43% participation rate of possible subjects in this study. These participants included seven males and 13 females, who each held various education positions, including 11 principles, five district-level administrators, one counselor, and three teachers. Each researcher using open coding system and NVIVO7 software analyzed the documents separately. The data were also coded using Shapiro and Stafkovich’s (2005) definitions of justice, critique, and care. The researchers compared coding to increase the reliability of interpretation of the data. Themes in the open coded data were then identified, as well as frequency of themes in and among responses. Trends in ethical orientation were examined regarding gender, level of school leadership, and the date of the platform creation in relationship to major educational policy events, particularly the 2001 No Child Left Behind reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act. Results Teleological (Utilitarianism and Altruism) and Deontological Views The responses of the educational leaders in the study were overwhelmingly focused on the teleological aspect of ethical behavior. Respondents concentrated on what their decisions and actions would result in, particularly for those to whom they were responsible (students and teachers). Of the 90 open codes identified, 68 (or 76%) were focused on the outcomes of their behaviors. Such codes as “passion” referred to the desire to generate passion in students for learning. Twenty-two of the identified open codes referred to deontological views of behaviors as inherently good and desirable, such as acting calmly or with humility, integrity, objectivity, or kindness. These responses tended to focus on the individual’s behavior, but often in relation to how that behavior would impact others. One respondent explained, “I am not any good to myself or others if I fail to maintain balance in my life.” None of the responses reflected an ego-centric perspective.

Altruism was reflected more strongly in the data than utilitarianism, as can be seen in Table 1, with the desire to improve the situation of others and establish a caring environment identified in 73% of the 90 open coded categories. As one respondent discussed the value that she places on people, she explained that her guiding principles are to, “strive to be conscious of and vigilant about our larger humanity and global world. In every situation, seek not to promote any act of thought, word, or deed by any individual or group that will perpetuate, long term or short term, the destruction of human dignity…Human welfare must pervade individual values, preferences, and freedoms.” One male principal identified “love” as, “the attitude that, in a healthy manner, places the needs and wants of others above my own.” Care for oneself, as noted in the quote above, was only viewed as legitimate if it enabled the individual to do good for others so even the responses that involved self- care were essentially altruistic. (See Table 1) The respondents when discussing legal obligations and accountability requirements expressed utilitarian views more frequently. One public school principal responded that, “We have laws, policies, and procedures to guide us through our work and, because we are a public business, I have a responsibility to follow those guidelines.” Regarding accountability requirements, another public school principal explained, “Schools belong to the communities they serve…Educators are accountable to the communities and need to share achievement results with them, whether these results are favorable or not.” Another respondent vowed to, “professionally and legally manage the public assets”, which reflects a feeling of stewardship of community resources, too. Three doctoral students specifically named stewardship as one of their guiding ethical principles. One district-level administrator explained the following:

Stewardship is key to my vision of what a leader should be and model. My hope is that I have practiced and facilitated stewardship, viewing leadership not as an authoritative role using coercive power, but as a willingness to lead without using rewards, punishment, or direct command to get things done….It is necessary to understand that stewardship relies on the empowerment of staff, helping them to take responsibility for themselves, the success of their learners, and ultimately the success of the school.

6

Critique Justice Care Accessibility Accountability Appreciation Life-long Learning Advocacy Attention to Detail Balance Listening Awareness Benefit Maximization Calmness Love Change Citizenship Care Loyalty Courage Consequences Character Moral Obligation Cultural Proficiency Consistency Collaboration Motivation Diversity Data-based Decision Making Communication Optimism Empowerment Democracy Compassion Passion Equity Excellence Confidentiality Patience High Expectations Fairness Dignity Persistence Non-exploitation Formative Use of Data Do No Harm Protect Opportunities Fundamental Rights Empathy Real Life (experiences for students) Parental Involvement Golden Rule Enthusiasm Reflection Risk Taking Instructional Leader Faith Relationships School Improvement Judgment Family Respect Social Justice Legal Obligation Forgiveness Responsibility Logical Positivism Grace Self-Belief Objectivity Gratefulness Student Interest Protection of Rights Hermenuetics Support Public Servant Honesty Support of Student Learning Stewardship Honor Teacher Support Transparency Hope Humility Trust Truth Integrity Understanding Workforce Development Kindness Value People Vision

Table 1. Open coding classification according to the Ethics of Critique, Justice, and Care.

Twelve participants also identified their role as a public servant as guiding their actions and decisions. When these respondents identified their decisions as based on the desired outcomes of their actions, those outcomes consistently reflected a desire to fulfill obligations to others. Ethics of Critique, Justice, and Care Each of the twenty educational leaders in the study expressed values and beliefs that were consistent with the aforementioned three ethics in the delineation of their codes of ethics. Each respondent explicitly discussed the principles of the ethics of care and justice, and the ethic of critique was directly discussed by all but one female participant in the study. The following Chart depicts the frequency with which the participants expressed values consistent with each of these ethical approaches.

Chart 1. Average coding frequencies for the ethics of

critique, justice, and care by gender.

More specifically, sixteen open coding categories reflected a desire to change societal inequities, including references to cultural proficiency, removal of barriers to learning, and advocacy for all children, and were classified as reflecting the ethic of critique. Examples of coded responses classified as reflecting the ethic of critique are provided in Table 2.

0  

5  

10  

Cri(que   Jus(ce   Care  

Coding  Frequencies  

Male   Female  

7

Table 2. Ethic of Critique coding examples.

Responses in this category also included a focus on change, such as the respondent who felt that, “universal education is not about the status quo; it allows us to responsibly call for change by inviting all parties to the discussion. If, as a system, we are providing education that is not meeting the need of our students, as leaders we must shepherd change.” Addressing inequities, empowering students and parents, and embracing diversity were also dominant responses that reflected the ethic of critique. All but one female and all of the ma

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.