Play the expert (PSYCHOLOGY)
spmwjbrbrad73
psy620week4article3.pdf
EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN Vol. 38, No. 3, 2015
Pages 329–344
Seven Basic Steps to Solving Ethical Dilemmas in Special Education: A Decision-Making Framework
Nancy Stockall
Sam Houston State University
Lindsay R. Dennis
Florida State University
Abstract
This article presents a seven-step framework for decision making to solve ethical issues in special education. The authors developed the framework from the existing literature and theoretical frameworks of justice, critique, care, and professionalism. The authors briefly discuss each theoretical frame- work and then describe the decision-making framework and guide the reader through the framework using an illustrative case approach.
Ms. Emma is a special education teacher working with students identified as having learning disabilities (LD). Now that it is the end of the year, Ms. Emma is thinking about which students on her class roster will be taking the state-mandated benchmark tests. During a brief informal meeting with the principal, Ms. Emma is surprised to hear that the principal wants several of the students with learning disabilities to take alternate assessments, rather than the standard benchmark test. Ms. Emma knows the law stipulates that alternate assessments are only administered to children with disabilities who are unable to take the benchmark tests, even when they are provided with accommodations. When Ms. Emma inquires as to why the principal wants the students to take alternate assess- ments rather than the curriculum-based measures, the principal replies, “They will never pass the benchmarks and that will bring down our scores. We can’t risk not meeting the state’s annual yearly progress targets. Our school barely met the state averages last year.” Ms. Emma left the meeting feeling very uneasy. Going against the principal in the upcoming individual education plan (IEP) meeting could jeopardize her job, but she also didn’t want to be pressured
Contact: Nancy Stockall, Sam Houston State University, Language, Literacy and Spe- cial Populations, Teacher Education Center, Box 2119, Huntsville, TX 77341–2119; email [email protected]
etc_38.3_03_Stockall.indd 329 8/13/15 2:35 PM
330 STOCKALL et al.
into doing something illegal. How can she and the IEP team resolve this ethical dilemma?
Ms. Emma is certainly not the first nor the last special educa- tion teacher to be faced with an ethical dilemma. An ethical dilemma is a situation in which an individual or team is faced with a difficult choice while fully aware of the nature of that choice and the affect- ing outcomes for good or ill (Paul, French, & Cranston-Gingras, 2001). How teachers, like Ms. Emma, resolve this dilemma will affect the lives of many people, including the student and family, the principal, society in general, and the teachers. Professional organizations, such as the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), provide teachers with a professional code of ethics that guide their practice. For example, the CEC code of ethics emphasizes the need for special education profes- sionals to “work with the standards and policies of their profession” (CEC, 2009, p. 1). While the professional code of ethics seeks to guide educators toward ethical practice by explaining the standards, know- ing how and when to enact these standards within differing contexts remains up to the individual to explore and define (Bigbee, 2012). The situation outlined in the vignette calls for a disciplined reflective stance, one that requires a team to stand back from everyday practices and their own embedded values to make an informed decision. To act in such a manner requires not only a set of principles but also a decision-making framework that guides the team through a process that culminates in a well-reasoned decision.
While there exist several decision-making models in the lit- erature, most are specifically geared toward a particular discipline, such as medicine, counseling, educational leadership, or psy- chology. Cottone and Claus (2000) reviewed nine decision-making models from the counseling literature and found that the effects of decision-making models continue to be uncertain, and many prac- tice-based models fail to integrate theoretical tenets. Vergés (2010) proposed that ethical models should include contextual factors and some researchers have developed models that are particular to spe- cialty areas such as psychology (e.g., Knapp & VandeCreek, 2007). However, decision-making models specifically designed for special education teachers dealing with ethical situations are clearly lack- ing in the current special education literature. The purpose of this article is to provide teachers and school-based teams with practical suggestions on how to resolve ethical dilemmas using a seven-step decision-making framework, or set of assumptions, that can guide the team toward resolving ethical issues. The framework is gleaned from the existing literature that integrates four theoretical perspec- tives: justice, critique, care, and professionalism. This particular
etc_38.3_03_Stockall.indd 330 8/13/15 2:35 PM
331SEVEN BASIC STEPS TO SOLVING ETHICAL DILEMMAS
conceptual framework is suggested as a means for education teams to gain a disciplined reflective stance. First, we provide background on the theories that inform the framework and we then describe the decision-making framework in more detail.
Theoretical Background
The theoretical perspectives integrated within the decision- making framework proposed in this article can assist teachers in appraising and balancing conflicting values in specific contexts. The framework is constructed from the theories of justice, critique, care, and professionalism (Foucault, Kritzman, & Sheridan, 1988; Gilli- gan, 1982; Noddings, 1982; Rawls, 1971; Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2005). Each of these represents a perspective or way of seeing a particular problem or dilemma. Examining issues from multiple theoretical per- spectives can reveal a team’s propensity to view issues from a domi- nant perspective and also allows the team to consciously redefine an issue from an alternative perspective. The decision framework here accomplishes this goal by presenting questions that shift the thinking of team members to consider varying perspectives before coming to a decision. The complexity of situations and diversity of cultures in today’s schools require that educators examine issues broadly to bet- ter understand those issues. While a rich and thorough discussion of each theory is not within the scope of this article, a brief overview is provided in Table 1. It should be noted that we have arbitrarily teased apart the perspectives of justice, critique, care, and professionalism to simplify the perspectives presented while still recognizing the com- plex intersections that occur among them.
A Decision-Making Process Framework
A decision-making process framework as proposed in this article has several advantages over using a single professional code of con- duct to resolve ethical dilemmas. First, a framework allows the team to uncover the details and nuances that create a professional dilemma in a specific context. Second, a framework helps organize and create automaticity in metacognition. That is, the team will need to monitor and control its thinking process to solve ethical problems and do it frequently enough to make the process routine and at a level of auto- maticity (Martinez, 2006). Thus, a decision-making framework allows the team to enhance its own metacognitive skills and invites proactive
etc_38.3_03_Stockall.indd 331 8/13/15 2:35 PM
332 STOCKALL et al.
T ab
le 1
.
T h
eo ry
O v
er v
ie w
T h
eo re
ti ca
l P
er sp
ec ti
v e
D es
cr ip
ti o
n
Ju st
ic e
T h
e ju
st ic
e p
er sp
ec ti
v e
h o
ld s
th at
a ll
p er
so n
s sh
o u
ld b
e tr
ea te
d e
q u
al ly
a n
d f
ai rl
y. M
o re
o v
er , t
h e
ju st
ic e
fr am
ew o
rk
en ta
il s
th e
co n
ce p
t o
f fa
ir n
es s
in t
h at
in d
iv id
u al
s sh
o u
ld c
o u
n t
as e
q u
al s
an d
t h
at t
h ey
a re
f re
e an
d m
o ra
l ( R
aw ls
, 19
71 ).
H er
e, t
h e
th eo
ry o
f ju
st ic
e is
o n
e th
at v
ie w
s ri
g h
ts a
s co
m in
g f
ro m
s o
ci et
y t
h at
a re
e st
ab li
sh ed
in la
w . T
o v
ie w
an
e th
ic al
d il
em m
a fr
o m
a ju
st ic
e p
er sp
ec ti
v e
m ea
n s
th at
o n
e is
c o
n ce
rn ed
p ri
m ar
il y
w it
h g
o v
er n
in g
la w
s th
at a
re
b as
ed o
n u
n iv
er sa
l p ri
n ci
p le
s th
at c
an b
e im
p ar
ti al
a n
d v
er ifi
ab le
. S o
w it
h in
t h
e co
n te
xt o
f sp
ec ia
l e d
u ca
ti o
n , t
h e
te am
w
o u
ld w
an t
to p
o se
q u
es ti
o n
s su
ch a
s: “
W h
at a
re t
h e
la w
s th
at g
o v
er n
s ta
te -m
an d
at ed
t es
ts f
o r
ch il
d re
n w
it h
d is
ab il
- it
ie s?
” T
h e
ju st
ic e
fr am
ew o
rk a
ss u
m es
t h
at la
w s
ca n
b e
cr ea
te d
t o
e q
u al
iz e
th e
d is
tr ib
u ti
o n
o f
g o
o d
s an
d s
er v
ic es
t o
ea
ch p
er so
n in
a f
ai r
an d
e q
u it
ab le
w ay
, a n
a ss
u m
p ti
o n
t h
at is
v eh
em en
tl y
a rg
u ed
b y
c ri
ti ca
l t h
eo ri
st s.
C ri
ti q
u e
L ik
e th
e ju
st ic
e p
er sp
ec ti
v e,
t h
e cr
it iq
u e
p er
sp ec
ti v
e at
te n
d s
to t
h e
n at
u re
o f
la w
s, b
u t
th is
v ie
w is
m o
re c
o n
ce rn
ed
w it
h d
et er
m in
in g
w h
et h
er a
la w
o r
th e
le g
al p
ro ce
ss is
ju st
. T h
e cr
it iq
u e
fr am
ew o
rk is
in fo
rm ed
b y
p o
st m
o d
er n
c ri
ti -
ca l t
h eo
ry a
n d
c en
te rs
o n
t h
e ex
am in
at io
n o
f so
ci al
p ro
b le
m s
in h
is to
ri ca
l a n
d c
u lt
u ra
l c o
n te
xt s.
F o
r ex
am p
le , c
ri ti
ca l
ra ce
t h
eo ry
p u
rp o
rt s
th at
r ac
e is
v ie
w ed
a s
n o
rm al
in A
m er
ic an
s o
ci et
y b
ec au
se it
is s
o e
n ta
n g
le d
in o
u r
ev er
y d
ay
li v
es t
h at
it s
ee m
s a
n at
u ra
l c o
n d
it io
n (
St ef
an ci
c &
D el
g ad
o , 1
99 9)
. T h
u s,
c ri
ti ca
l t h
eo ry
s ee
k s
to m
ak e
th e
“i n
v is
ib le
” v
is ib
le . W
h en
e xa
m in
in g
a n
is su
e fr
o m
t h
e cr
it iq
u e
fr am
ew o
rk , o
n e
ch al
le n
g es
t h
e is
su es
t h
ro u
g h
d eb
at e
an d
s ee
k s
to
re d
efi n
e o
r re
fr am
e th
e co
n ce
p ts
o f
p o
w er
, p ri
v il
eg e,
c u
lt u
re , l
an g
u ag
e, a
n d
e v
en ju
st ic
e (S
h ap
ir o
& S
te fk
o v
ic h
, 2 00
5) .
E ss
en ti
al ly
, t h
e cr
it ic
al p
er sp
ec ti
v e
se ek
s to
c h
al le
n g
e th
e p
as si
v e
ac ce
p ta
n ce
o f
th e
“w ay
t h
in g
s ar
e” a
n d
q u
es ti
o n
s th
e in
ju st
ic es
a n
d in
eq u
al it
ie s
in s
o ci
et al
s y
st em
s.
C ar
e W
h il
e th
e p
er sp
ec ti
v e
o f
ju st
ic e
an d
c ri
ti q
u e
b o
th e
n co
m p
as s
th e
id ea
li ze
d n
o ti
o n
o f
th e
“i so
la te
d in
d iv
id u
al ,”
t h
e et
h ic
o f
ca re
f o
cu se
s o
n t
h e
fu n
d am
en ta
l e le
m en
ts o
f re
la ti
o n
sh ip
s. I
t is
c o
n ce
rn ed
w it
h m
ee ti
n g
t h
e n
ee d
s o
f o
u r-
se lv
es a
n d
o th
er s
an d
b u
il d
s o
n t
h e
se n
se o
f o
b li
g at
io n
w e
h av
e to
c ar
e fo
r th
o se
w h
o a
re d
ep en
d en
t o
r v
u ln
er ab
le .
T h
e et
h ic
o f
ca re
c an
b e
d es
cr ib
ed a
s o
n e
in w
h ic
h t
h e
ac ti
v it
y o
f ca
ri n
g is
a m
o ra
l o n
e, r
at h
er t
h an
a s
et o
f p
ri n
ci p
le s
to b
e fo
ll o
w ed
. T h
is p
er sp
ec ti
v e
em p
h as
iz es
r es
p o
n si
b il
it ie
s an
d r
el at
io n
sh ip
s ra
th er
t h
an r
u le
s an
d r
ig h
ts . I
t is
a ls
o
b o
u n
d t
o c
o n
cr et
e si
tu at
io n
s ra
th er
t h
an a
b st
ra ct
a n
d f
o rm
al o
n es
( Tr
o n
to , 1
99 3)
.
etc_38.3_03_Stockall.indd 332 8/13/15 2:35 PM
333SEVEN BASIC STEPS TO SOLVING ETHICAL DILEMMAS
T ab
le 1
.
T h
eo ry
O v
er v
ie w
T h
eo re
ti ca
l P
er sp
ec ti
v e
D es
cr ip
ti o
n
Ju st
ic e
T h
e ju
st ic
e p
er sp
ec ti
v e
h o
ld s
th at
a ll
p er
so n
s sh
o u
ld b
e tr
ea te
d e
q u
al ly
a n
d f
ai rl
y. M
o re
o v
er , t
h e
ju st
ic e
fr am
ew o
rk
en ta
il s
th e
co n
ce p
t o
f fa
ir n
es s
in t
h at
in d
iv id
u al
s sh
o u
ld c
o u
n t
as e
q u
al s
an d
t h
at t
h ey
a re
f re
e an
d m
o ra
l ( R
aw ls
, 19
71 ).
H er
e, t
h e
th eo
ry o
f ju
st ic
e is
o n
e th
at v
ie w
s ri
g h
ts a
s co
m in
g f
ro m
s o
ci et
y t
h at
a re
e st
ab li
sh ed
in la
w . T
o v
ie w
an
e th
ic al
d il
em m
a fr
o m
a ju
st ic
e p
er sp
ec ti
v e
m ea
n s
th at
o n
e is
c o
n ce
rn ed
p ri
m ar
il y
w it
h g
o v
er n
in g
la w
s th
at a
re
b as
ed o
n u
n iv
er sa
l p ri
n ci
p le
s th
at c
an b
e im
p ar
ti al
a n
d v
er ifi
ab le
. S o
w it
h in
t h
e co
n te
xt o
f sp
ec ia
l e d
u ca
ti o
n , t
h e
te am
w
o u
ld w
an t
to p
o se
q u
es ti
o n
s su
ch a
s: “
W h
at a
re t
h e
la w
s th
at g
o v
er n
s ta
te -m
an d
at ed
t es
ts f
o r
ch il
d re
n w
it h
d is
ab il
- it
ie s?
” T
h e
ju st
ic e
fr am
ew o
rk a
ss u
m es
t h
at la
w s
ca n
b e
cr ea
te d
t o
e q
u al
iz e
th e
d is
tr ib
u ti
o n
o f
g o
o d
s an
d s
er v
ic es
t o
ea
ch p
er so
n in
a f
ai r
an d
e q
u it
ab le
w ay
, a n
a ss
u m
p ti
o n
t h
at is
v eh
em en
tl y
a rg
u ed
b y
c ri
ti ca
l t h
eo ri
st s.
C ri
ti q
u e
L ik
e th
e ju
st ic
e p
er sp
ec ti
v e,
t h
e cr
it iq
u e
p er
sp ec
ti v
e at
te n
d s
to t
h e
n at
u re
o f
la w
s, b
u t
th is
v ie
w is
m o
re c
o n
ce rn
ed
w it
h d
et er
m in
in g
w h
et h
er a
la w
o r
th e
le g
al p
ro ce
ss is
ju st
. T h
e cr
it iq
u e
fr am
ew o
rk is
in fo
rm ed
b y
p o
st m
o d
er n
c ri
ti -
ca l t
h eo
ry a
n d
c en
te rs
o n
t h
e ex
am in
at io
n o
f so
ci al
p ro
b le
m s
in h
is to
ri ca
l a n
d c
u lt
u ra
l c o
n te
xt s.
F o
r ex
am p
le , c
ri ti
ca l
ra ce
t h
eo ry
p u
rp o
rt s
th at
r ac
e is
v ie
w ed
a s
n o
rm al
in A
m er
ic an
s o
ci et
y b
ec au
se it
is s
o e
n ta
n g
le d
in o
u r
ev er
y d
ay
li v
es t
h at
it s
ee m
s a
n at
u ra
l c o
n d
it io
n (
St ef
an ci
c &
D el
g ad
o , 1
99 9)
. T h
u s,
c ri
ti ca
l t h
eo ry
s ee
k s
to m
ak e
th e
“i n
v is
ib le
” v
is ib
le . W
h en
e xa
m in
in g
a n
is su
e fr
o m
t h
e cr
it iq
u e
fr am
ew o
rk , o
n e
ch al
le n
g es
t h
e is
su es
t h
ro u
g h
d eb
at e
an d
s ee
k s
to
re d
efi n
e o
r re
fr am
e th
e co
n ce
p ts
o f
p o
w er
, p ri
v il
eg e,
c u
lt u
re , l
an g
u ag
e, a
n d
e v
en ju
st ic
e (S
h ap
ir o
& S
te fk
o v
ic h
, 2 00
5) .
E ss
en ti
al ly
, t h
e cr
it ic
al p
er sp
ec ti
v e
se ek
s to
c h
al le
n g
e th
e p
as si
v e
ac ce
p ta
n ce
o f
th e
“w ay
t h
in g
s ar
e” a
n d
q u
es ti
o n
s th
e in
ju st
ic es
a n
d in
eq u
al it
ie s
in s
o ci
et al
s y
st em
s.
C ar
e W
h il
e th
e p
er sp
ec ti
v e
o f
ju st
ic e
an d
c ri
ti q
u e
b o
th e
n co
m p
as s
th e
id ea
li ze
d n
o ti
o n
o f
th e
“i so
la te
d in
d iv
id u
al ,”
t h
e et
h ic
o f
ca re
f o
cu se
s o
n t
h e
fu n
d am
en ta
l e le
m en
ts o
f re
la ti
o n
sh ip
s. I
t is
c o
n ce
rn ed
w it
h m
ee ti
n g
t h
e n
ee d
s o
f o
u r-
se lv
es a
n d
o th
er s
an d
b u
il d
s o
n t
h e
se n
se o
f o
b li
g at
io n
w e
h av
e to
c ar
e fo
r th
o se
w h
o a
re d
ep en
d en
t o
r v
u ln
er ab
le .
T h
e et
h ic
o f
ca re
c an
b e
d es
cr ib
ed a
s o
n e
in w
h ic
h t
h e
ac ti
v it
y o
f ca
ri n
g is
a m
o ra
l o n
e, r
at h
er t
h an
a s
et o
f p
ri n
ci p
le s
to b
e fo
ll o
w ed
. T h
is p
er sp
ec ti
v e
em p
h as
iz es
r es
p o
n si
b il
it ie
s an
d r
el at
io n
sh ip
s ra
th er
t h
an r
u le
s an
d r
ig h
ts . I
t is
a ls
o
b o
u n
d t
o c
o n
cr et
e si
tu at
io n
s ra
th er
t h
an a
b st
ra ct
a n
d f
o rm
al o
n es
( Tr
o n
to , 1
99 3)
.
P ro
fe ss
io n
al is
m T
h e
id ea
o f
a p
ro fe
ss io
n al
p er
sp ec
ti v
e is
o n
e in
w h
ic h
t h
e m
o ra
l i m
p er
at iv
e is
t o
s er
v e
th e
b es
t in
te re
st o
f th
e st
u d
en t.
B
y p
ro fe
ss io
n al
, w e
m ea
n t
h at
t h
e ed
u ca
to r
is r
eg ar
d ed
a s
h ig
h ly
q u
al ifi
ed a
n d
e d
u ca
te d
f ro
m a
n in
st it
u ti
o n
t h
at is
r ec
- o
g n
iz ed
b y
a n
a cc
re d
it in
g o
rg an
iz at
io n
( e.
g .,
th e
C o
u n
ci l f
o r
E xc
ep ti
o n
al C
h il
d re
n )
an d
w h
o p
o ss
es se
s th
e k
n o
w le
d g
e an
d s
k il
ls t
o t
ea ch
in e
d u
ca ti
o n
. T h
e C
E C
c o
d e
o f
et h
ic s
is c
o n
st ru
ct ed
f ro
m e
ig h
t fu
n d
am en
ta l p
ri n
ci p
le s
th at
g u
id e
a sp
ec ia
l e d
u ca
to r’
s p
ra ct
ic e,
a n
d m
em b
er s
o f
th e
sp ec
ia l e
d u
ca ti
o n
p ro
fe ss
io n
a re
r es
p o
n si
b le
f o
r u
p h
o ld
in g
e ac
h o
f th
e p
ri n
ci p
le s
(C E
C , 2
00 9)
. W h
il e
re la
te d
t o
t h
e fr
am ew
o rk
o f
ju st
ic e,
t h
is p
er sp
ec ti
v e
in cl
u d
es o
n e’
s o
w n
v al
u es
a n
d
b el
ie fs
n ec
es sa
ry f
o r
d ea
li n
g w
it h
c o
m p
le x
is su
es in
w h
ic h
t h
e p
ro fe
ss io
n al
c o
d e
co n
fl ic
ts w
it h
o n
e’ s
p er
so n
al c
o d
e o
f et
h ic
s. F
o r
in st
an ce
, o n
e p
ri n
ci p
le in
t h
e C
E C
c o
d e
o f
et h
ic s
st at
es t
h at
“ sp
ec ia
l e d
u ca
ti o
n p
ro fe
ss io
n al
s se
ek t
o u
p h
o ld
an
d im
p ro
v e
w h
er e
n ec
es sa
ry t
h e
la w
s, r
eg u
la ti
o n
s, a
n d
p o
li ci
es g
o v
er n
in g
t h
e d
el iv
er y
o f
sp ec
ia l e
d u
ca ti
o n
a n
d
re la
te d
s er
v ic
es a
n d
t h
e p
ra ct
ic e
o f
th ei
r p
ro fe
ss io
n ”
(C E
C , 2
00 9)
. H o
w ev
er , i
f th
e an
in d
iv id
u al
o r
te am
’s m
o ra
l v al
u es
co
n fl
ic t
w it
h t
h e
n at
u re
o f
th e
p o
li ci
es in
st at
ed , t
h e
et h
ic o
f p
ro fe
ss io
n al
is m
m ak
es t
h e
w el
l- b
ei n
g o
f st
u d
en ts
t h
e p
ri -
m ar
y v
al u
e o
f al
l d ec
is io
n m
ak in
g a
n d
a ct
io n
s (S
h ap
ir o
& S
te fk
o v
ic h
, 2 00
5) .
etc_38.3_03_Stockall.indd 333 8/13/15 2:35 PM
334 STOCKALL et al.
Table 2.
Additional Ethical Dilemma Example
Scenario:
Twelve-year-old Maria is Latina and has autism. Maria is able to read at grade level, but has difficulty with reading comprehension. She is included in the language arts gen- eral education class at her middle school, and comes to the resource room for direct instruction on reading comprehension and math. One of Maria’s IEP goals is to partici- pate in academic discussions with same-age peers in the general education classroom. When the special education teacher visited the seventh-grade language arts class, she saw Maria working on word searches in the back of the room while the other students were engaged in a whole-class discussion. When asked why Maria was in the back of the room, the general education teacher explained that Maria got very anxious during their discussions, but calmed down quickly when completing the worksheets. The general education teacher indicated that the new inclusion policy was working, and that Maria was doing very well the class. The teacher continued on enthusiastically saying that she was happy to have Maria in class because she was so well behaved and quiet.
Step 1: Describe the context of the situation
General education classroom with 17 students: 9 Latino (4 female and 5 male), 8 Cauca- sian (6 females and 2 males); during large-group language arts discussion; one female Latina with autism.
Step 2: Describe the issues involved
No access to the general education curriculum; socially isolated from peer group; IEP goals not addressed; gender issues; cultural codes of conduct.
Step 3: Guiding questions
What are the beliefs of the teachers regarding the behavior of female Latina students? What is the value of education for students with disabilities? What does the law say about following the IEP? What is appropriate behavior for students with disabilities, Latinos, females? Who benefits from this situation? What are the short- and long-term consequences of being excluded from the class general education curriculum for Maria and her family?
Step 4: Identify alternative decisions
Conference with the general education teacher explaining the legal requirements related to following the IEP; suggest that Maria be included in small-group discussions in the classroom, gradually working toward time in the large-group instruction; co-teach in the language arts class and model how to prompt and reinforce Maria for volunteering during discussions.
Step 5: Identify consequences for each alternative
Classroom teacher may ignore IEP; the general education teacher may include Maria in small-group work; Maria may volunteer during discussions if the teachers co-teach several lessons together.
Step 6: Rank order alternatives
Conferencing, co-teaching, small-group work
Step 7: Monitor and modify the decision
Classroom teacher collects observational data on Maria’s performance during discus- sions; special education teacher to model then coach the general educator as Maria is taught to volunteer in class; IEP team reviews Maria’s goals and objectives.
etc_38.3_03_Stockall.indd 334 8/13/15 2:35 PM
335SEVEN BASIC STEPS TO SOLVING ETHICAL DILEMMAS
practices rather than reactive ones. Third, the framework presented here is unique in that it drives the team to examine the context of an ethical dilemma through the lens of four theoretical perspectives: justice, critique, care, and professionalism. The team can acknowl- edge and identify its individual intuitive level of justification, but the framework compels it to move forward in its thinking as it considers particular questions and evaluates potential alternatives within the school and community context. Finally, with the rise and frequency of change within our technological world, it is likely that the context in which teachers are trained will be different from the context in which they work. This framework can offer guidance to school teams that can be faced with ethical situations that may not have even been con- sidered by those who wrote the professional code of ethics for teach- ing children and families with disabilities (Vergés, 2010).
In the next section we identify and discuss each of the seven steps of the decision-making framework and apply them to the illustrative ethical dilemma faced by Ms. Emma. Table 2 presents an additional ethical dilemma in which the decision-making framework is used.
Step 1: Describe the Context of the Situation
The first step in the decision-making framework is to iden- tify the situation and all of its elements. The dilemma is situated in a public-school setting where the teacher is employed to provide special education services to children with and without disabilities. The immediate supervisor, the principal, is responsible for the direct administration of services for all children and is accountable to the superintendent and school board. While the law stipulates that all students must participate in the state-mandated tests, there are excep- tions to the rule. These exceptions specifically address students with disabilities who are unable to take the test even when provided with accommodations. For these students, an alternate assessment is pro- vided. The determination of who can and cannot take the standard assessment is determined by the members of the individualized edu- cation program (IEP) team.
Step 2: Describe the Issues Involved
The next step is to identify the issues inherent within the ethical dilemma, which, for the purposes of this article, is the dilemma pre- sented in the vignette. The teacher recognizes that all students, by law, must take the state-mandated benchmark test. Children who are unable to take the test are provided with an alternate assessment system that requires the use of a modified assessment. The modified assessment, while loosely based on the core curriculum, essentially tests a more
etc_38.3_03_Stockall.indd 335 8/13/15 2:35 PM
336 STOCKALL et al.
functional curriculum, such as life skills (Stockall & Smith, 2013). Life skills may include dressing oneself, using a vending machine, identi- fying environmental print (i.e., exit, enter, toilet), and demonstrating basic social skills (i.e., using polite forms of address, taking turns in conversation, asking and answering questions). If a student is part of the alternate assessment program that student will not be able to demonstrate knowledge of the standard core curriculum, including reading, mathematics, and other core content areas. An inaccurate assessment of the student’s abilities may lead other professionals to underestimate the student and potentially limit their rights to an equi- table education. The principal is invested in demonstrating that the school has met its obligation of adequate yearly progress (AYP) for all students. Sanctions for not meeting AYP may include teacher and administrative layoffs, reduced funding, and/or limited community control over the school’s operations. Finally, if the teacher goes against the principal’s recommendation for alternate assessment, the teacher may be reprimanded or even fired. After defining the issues, the team moves to the next step in the decision-making process.
Step 3: Pose Questions From Each Ethical Perspective That Might Affect Each Issue
Step 3 is the pivotal point of the framework, because it consists of specific questions that initially reveal the team’s personal beliefs and values. Once these assumptions are fully recognized they can be set aside as new perspectives are uncovered and examined. Examin- ing each set of questions in the framework compels the team to shift from one viewpoint to another, each time uncovering the nuances of the situation and then provoking another paradigmatic shift from that perspective to another. For example, the team’s first response is to take into account their own beliefs and values by asking questions such as: What are our beliefs about the role of assessment in the education of children with disabilities and those without? What are our beliefs about the assessment and alternate assessment processes? Does the way in which students are assessed matter? If so, why or why not? What is the value of education for children with disabilities? And on a more personal level, individual team members might wonder: How important is this job to me? What consequences am I willing to take to uphold my beliefs and values on this matter? Table 3 provides further guiding questions that educators may consider.
It is important for educators to be aware of the impact of their own values and beliefs because they will certainly influence the decision-making process. However, if the team can stand somewhat outside of the situation, where they can make judgments about its
etc_38.3_03_Stockall.indd 336 8/13/15 2:35 PM
337SEVEN BASIC STEPS TO SOLVING ETHICAL DILEMMAS
demands while being aware of their own assumptions, they can begin to appreciate other perspectives. The ethical imperative is to identify and clarify the multiple values and beliefs that are related to the issue at hand. Next, the team considers questions related to the ethic of jus- tice.
The ethic of justice. Questions that can guide the team’s reflection within the ethic of justice include: What does the law say regarding the assessment of children with disabilities? What are the specific criteria for using an alternate assessment with children identified as having a disability? Should this law be enforced? What are the conse- quences for not upholding this law? Is there a district policy regarding the assessment of children with disabilities? If so, what is it?
To address these questions, it is important that educators have access to the most recent legal information regarding the rules and regulations for assessing children with disabilities. One resource that the team may reference is the Web site www.wrightslaw.com, which offers current information on legal issues in special education. For more information, the team can also search the U.S. State Department’s
Table 3. Guiding Questions to Evoke Different Ethical Perspectives
• What are the team’s beliefs about the role of ___________ in the education of students with disabilities?
• What is the value of education for students with disabilities?
• Why does this issue matter?
• What consequences are the members willing to take to uphold their own values or beliefs?
• What are the laws related to this issue?
• What is the district’s policy regarding this issue?
• Who benefits from the district’s policy on this issue?
• Who has the authority and power to make this decision?
• How will our decision maintain or challenge the status quo?
• Who will benefit from the decision we make in this situation?
• What will be the short- and long-term consequences of our decision for the stu- dent and other stakeholders?
• What effects will this have on other students in the same or other marginalized groups?
• How does the student feel about the issue?
• How do the parents and family of the student feel about this issue?
• What does our professional code of ethics direct us to do?
etc_38.3_03_Stockall.indd 337 8/13/15 2:35 PM
338 STOCKALL et al.
special education Web site that provides regulations related to alter- nate assessments for students with significant disabilities. In addition, the team may refer to the special education policy handbook obtained from the school district’s special education director.
Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) stipulates that states can establish alternate achievement standards for students with significant cognitive disabilities and use alternate standards in determining proficiency for up to 1% of the total population of stu- dents tested when calculating AYP. This means that one possible explanation for including a student in the alternate testing might be to fill the 1% population group. The principal might have interpreted this regulation to mean that if 1% of the students with disabilities in the school took the alternative assessment, it would guarantee that the school would meet its AYP. Increasing the probability of meeting AYP would help to safeguard the school’s reputation, as well as the prin- cipal. Thus, seeking answers to these pivotal questions from a justice perspective can uncover misinterpretations and misjudgments.
The ethic of critique. Examining the situation from an ethic of cri- tique, the team reflects on the status quo and the inconsistencies that pervade the educational system in American schools. Questions that deal with social class, race, gender, and other differences are difficult to answer but must be considered when making a well-informed and rational decision.
From a critical perspective, the team considers questions such as: What are the cultural assumptions that undergird the special edu- cation laws and policies? How are students with disabilities regarded within the school, community, state, and national levels? Who makes the school policy? Who benefits from the school policy or state law? Who has the power at the local, state, and national level and how is it enforced? How will our decision maintain or challenge the status quo?
The team will want to consider how language or discourses work to form the identity of the student as one who has a disability. Our Western culture has historically held particular psychological assumptions about the nature of disability; for example, disability can be viewed as an inherent characteristic of an individual, thus plac- ing the disability within the individual (Rogers, 2003). If disability is viewed as within the person then teams’ assumptions may include: (a) disability is a weakness; (b) disability is biological and therefore permanent; (c) disability cannot be remediated, only compensated for; and/or (d) disability is abnormal. Each of these assumptions will then drive the decision making of the team and policy makers, lead- ing to policy that disempowers and marginalizes those with disabili- ties. Some disability advocates are currently working to reposition the
etc_38.3_03_Stockall.indd 338 8/13/15 2:35 PM
339SEVEN BASIC STEPS TO SOLVING ETHICAL DILEMMAS
location of disability from inside the child to within the instructional context (Lewis, Ketter, & Fabox, 2001; Rogers, 2003). Thus, if disability is a function of the environment or contexts of interaction, assump- tions that are based on the social construction of disability tend to empower those with disabilities by shifting the focus on changing the contexts rather than the individual. Therefore, teams that hold these assumptions might consider a decision to make testing accommo- dations for a child with a disability. Such a recommendation would imply that the child has the ability to achieve satisfactory results on the curriculum-based measures and that the disability resides outside of the child and within the environment.
The ethic of care. The ethic of care is an ethic of relation. Decisions based on the ethic of care focus on the relationship between the per- son who provides care and the cared for. It is in the context of relation that the attention of the caregiver is directed to the express needs of the cared for (Noddings & Kentel, 2011). In considering the needs of others the team will want to ask the following questions: Who will benefit from the decision made in this situation? Who will be hurt from the decision? What will be the short- and long-term consequences of the decision for the student, the student’s family, the principal, the teacher, and the teacher’s family? What will the student need to feel a sense of belonging within the school? What effects might this deci- sion have on other children with disabilities who take the alternate assessment?
In contrast to the ethic of justice, the ethic of care is oriented toward the needs rather than the rights of an individual. From an ethic of care, team members will want to recall conversations with the student in regard to their feelings about participating in the general education test- ing process. The team will also want to consider how the parents and family feel about the assessment process for the student. From an ethic of care, Noddings and Kentel (2011) remind us that “in every situation, care- givers must be attentive, exercise their empathic abilities, evaluate needs and their own capacity to respond, and consider the likely consequences of their proposed response on others in the web of care” (p. 15).
The ethic of professionalism. Finally, the team turns to the profes- sional organization CEC, and reviews the code of ethics (see https:// www.cec.sped.org/Standards/Ethical-Principles-and-Practice- Standards). The ethic of professionalism evokes questions for the team, such as: What is in the best interest of the student based on his or her unique needs? What would the teaching profession expect us to do? Who has the authority and power to make the decision for the student to participate in the testing? Have all stakeholders (e.g., the IEP team) been apprised of the situation?
etc_38.3_03_Stockall.indd 339 8/13/15 2:35 PM
340 STOCKALL et al.
Step 4: Identify Alternative Decisions for Each Issue
After careful reflection from multiple perspectives, the team can now return to the issues and generate possible alternatives for each issue. The goal is to identify all possible alternatives and solutions that have something in common and are viewed from an ethical per- spective. As opposed to brainstorming, a technique used to generate fluency of alternatives, a hierarchical heuristic (i.e., set of rules) pro- poses that the individual identify an “umbrella” term or category of solutions that in turn evokes other high-quality solutions (Butler & Kline, 1998). For example, the teacher first considers the concept of care, and proposes to place a student in the general education class- room for the state-mandated assessment. This idea evokes another idea to place the student in the general education classroom and give the classroom teacher a list of simple accommodations for the student. A third solution that comes to mind is to place the student in the gen- eral education classroom and the special education teacher provides the accommodations for the student. This heuristic facilitates solution generation and leads to solutions that are higher quality than those derived from brainstorming (Butler & Kline, 1998).
Step 5: Identify Consequences for Each Alternative
Once possible alternatives have been generated, the team con- siders each one carefully to identify the possible consequences of each alternative. There are risks and benefits from each possible solution and the team will want to consider the short-term, ongoing, and long- term consequences for each alternative. The first possible option is to place the student with a disability in the general education class- room to take the standard-based assessment. After further thought, the team finds that this solution may:
• result in the student failing the test, • place the student in a stressful environment in which he or she is
potentially unprepared, • put the teacher’s job in jeopardy for insubordination, and/or • implicate the general education teacher.
Conversely, this solution may also: • allow the student to graduate with a standard diploma, • allow the student to show his or her actual abilities in relation to
the standard curriculum, • create a more equitable and quality education for the student, • set a precedent for looking more closely at the eligibility of stu-
dents with disabilities to partake in the mandated assessments, and
etc_38.3_03_Stockall.indd 340 8/13/15 2:35 PM
341SEVEN BASIC STEPS TO SOLVING ETHICAL DILEMMAS
• create a feeling of satisfaction for the team as they regard them- selves as ethical and moral individuals.
Certainly there are other alternatives and consequences that could be considered, but the idea is that the team evaluates the alter- native in relation to the consequences of each alternative.
Step 6: Rank Order Alternatives and Decide Who Will Be Affected by the Decision and Who Needs to Be Represented in the Process
At this step of the decision-making process, the team has infor- mation that can inform collaborative negotiations with the primary stakeholders who will be affected by the decision. It is important to understand that a decision is never made in a vacuum but always involves at least one other person (Cottone & Claus, 2000). Because there exist different levels of consensus operating around a dilemma, it is possible that there will be disagreements. At this point in the decision-making process, the team is prepared to address the conflicts that may arise in discussion with the principal. The team will want to discuss and debate the issues identified in the dilemma in collabo- ration with the principal to: (a) identify the possible number of solu- tions, (b) rate their usefulness and efficiency in achieving a desired outcome, and (c) select the optimal choice accordingly.
While the team negotiation implies a context of disagreement, not all meetings involve conflict. The team may find that after dis- cussing the issues of the dilemma, a consensus may be reached. Or it may be the case that arbitration is necessary, and the team considers calling in a third party to hear the issues and help build consensus. For example, if after considerable discussion and weighing the merits and limitations of their options the team and principal are still unable to come to consensus, they may decide to enlist the help of the special education director as an arbitrator. The goal of the team members is to negotiate the alternatives with each other, where negotiation does not necessitate that all are happy with the decision but that each party can “live with” the decision.
Step 7: Monitor and Modify the Decision When Needed
Once a decision is made, all parties involved will need to moni- tor and modify the decision as needed. For instance, if all parties (i.e., teachers and principal) decide to include the student in the mandated assessment with accommodations, their roles and responsibilities must be determined for monitoring the student’s testing situation. The special education teacher can identify the accommodations to be used with the student and provide them during the testing admin- istration. Some accommodations may include presenting questions
etc_38.3_03_Stockall.indd 341 8/13/15 2:35 PM
342 STOCKALL et al.
aloud, individual or small-group testing, and/or extended time. The principal will want to compare the outcomes of the student’s test- ing with the achievement tests that the student took during the ini- tial evaluation for special education services. In this way, even if the student does not reach the benchmark criteria, the principal can still show evidence of the student’s AYP.
Final Thoughts
Professionals in the field of education, specifically special edu- cation, will undoubtedly face ethical dilemmas during the span of their careers. While many resources are available for special edu- cation teachers to utilize as they make these types of difficult deci- sions, oftentimes these resources fail to provide a clear framework for how to approach, reason through, and ultimately make the best decision. Grounded strongly within the theoretical literature, the decision-making framework presented in this article provides a well-defined sequence of steps that teachers can follow as ethical dilemmas arise. The four perspectives of justice, critique, care, and professionalism (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2005) provide the basis for the framework and offer guidance as the special education profes- sional: (a) considers the context and issues involved (Steps 1–2), (b) poses questions and identifies both consequences and alternatives for each issue (Steps 3–5), and finally (c) rank orders the alternatives and monitors the final decision (Steps 6–7). Following these steps can help school teams feel more confident in making well-informed and reasoned decisions.
References
Bigbee, A. J. (2012). Personal values, professional codes of ethics, and ethical dilemmas in special education leadership. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A, 73, 4-A.
Butler, D. L., & Kline, M. A. (1998). Good versus creative solutions: A comparison of brainstorming, hierarchical, and perspec- tive-changing heuristics. Creativity Research Journal, 11(4), 325–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1104_6
Cottone, R. R., & Claus, R. E. (2000). Ethical decision-making models: A review of the literature. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78(3), 275–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000. tb01908.x Medline:14626235
etc_38.3_03_Stockall.indd 342 8/13/15 2:35 PM
343SEVEN BASIC STEPS TO SOLVING ETHICAL DILEMMAS
Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (2009). What every special ed- ucator must know: Ethics, standards, and guidelines (6th ed.). Ar- lington, VA: Author.
Foucault, M., Kritzman, L. D., & Sheridan, A. (1988). Politics, phi- losophy, culture: Interviews and other writings. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- versity Press.
Knapp, S., & VandeCreek, L. (2007). When values of different cultures conflict: Ethical decision making in a multicultural context. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 38(6), 660–666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.38.6.660
Lewis, C., Ketter, J., & Fabox, B. (2001). Reading race in a rural context. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(3), 317–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518390110029454
Martinez, M. E. (2006). What is metacognition? Phi Delta Kappan, 87(9), 696–699. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003172170608700916
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Noddings, N. (1982). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral edu- cation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Noddings, N., & Kentel, J. (2011). Educating the young: The ethics of care. Bern: Peter Lang.
Paul, J., French, P., & Cranston-Gingras, A. (2001). Ethics and special education. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34(1), 1–16.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- sity Press.
Rogers, R. (2003). A critical discourse analysis of the special educa- tion referral process: A case study. Discourse (Abingdon), 24(2), 139–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596300303040
Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. (2005). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stefancic, J., & Delgado, R. (1999). Critical race theory: The cutting edge (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Stockall, N., & Smith, R. E. (2013). Alternative assessment portfolios for students with intellectual disabilities: A case study. Excep- tionality, 21(3), 127–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09362835 .2013.771557
etc_38.3_03_Stockall.indd 343 8/13/15 2:35 PM
344 STOCKALL et al.
Tronto, J. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. London: Routledge.
Vergés, A. (2010). Integrating contextual issues in ethical decision making. Ethics & Behavior, 20(6), 497–507. http://dx.doi.org /10.1080/10508422.2010.521451
etc_38.3_03_Stockall.indd 344 8/13/15 2:35 PM
Copyright of Education & Treatment of Children is the property of West Virginia University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
