week one replies
arnita
replies1815.docxDaniel Tebo
WednesdayMar 16 at 3:21pm
Upon choosing Case Study 3.5, this researcher enjoyed exploring the leadership scenarios and ethical paradigms within; especially given his current and ongoing status as a federal law enforcement officer. For those who may be unfamiliar with the provided case study, the summarized version of the scenario is that Jenna, a school educator, decided to break what appeared to be school policy and produce her legally owned and carried personal firearm onto school property (via her locked car positioned within the parking lot).
The first question is whether Jenna had "the right to disobey school policy" (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016, p. 48) if she believed the safety of others was at stake. It is important to note, the scenario does not state Jenna broke any legal statutes; for carrying in a locked vehicle onto a school parking lot is often permissible in many (if not all) states. However, policy on the other hand is a different story... it is not law. Policy can often be broken without legal repercussions; therefore, Jenna does have the right to choose if she is going to adhere to school policy. However, as a caveat to that statement, this researcher acknowledges Jenna, a paid employee, likely forfeited her right to carry by agreeing to the policies when hired. This researcher believes Jenna gave up her right to carry but does maintain a conditional choice to honor that policy each day - and if given the right circumstances (the safety of others) could ethically be broken; even though she may face administrative action. She must decide whether her individual choice and action is considering the benefit of the community (John 13:34) in the long run. If she were reckless, her choice could bring more harm than good. She certainly should had considered discussing her thoughts and feelings with her leadership before potentially compromising her role and position.
This is where the multiple paradigms (ethic of care, critique, and profession) come into view...
This researcher's discussion so far has mostly dealt with the ethic of care; for this ethic "considers the consequences" (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016, p. 17) of Jenna's actions. Jenna needed to weigh these consequences deeply in light of trying to love those around her. She needed to ensure she explored where her loyalty and trusts lie... This researcher argues that is with the safety of her students and co-workers; however, to do that, she compromised her loyalty to her employer and the policies within. On the flip side, the school administrator must examine this situation through the same lens. He must take time to wisely discern (Hosea 14:9) and understand the totality of the circumstances. Did Jenna act with due regard or recklessness? Did she show deception or dishonesty when confronted? What consequences were adopted and, then what consequences will result from any decision he makes? This researcher believes a written reprimand should be issued at minimum; with a maximum of 1-3 days suspension issued. This will establish respect for the policies and ensure others understand the same, while not discrediting Jenna's heart to care for those around her.
Next, the ethic of critique. Undoubtably, gun control within and around schools has been a growing topic of debate in modern society. As noted in the discussion questions for the case study, some schools are training staff to carry firearms on their person within schools. This fact and growing discussion must be considered in the handling of the situation. This is why this researcher believes Jenna should have vocalized her concern in staff meetings and board hearings and her leadership must consider the sensitivity of the issue when deciding how to handle/resolve the situation. Through guided, transparent, and respectable conversation, this researcher believes the topic can be redefined and reframed for enhanced community standards (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016, p. 13).
Lastly, the ethic of profession. This paradigm offered by Shapiro and Stefkovich (2016) provides the greatest lens which to view this case study through. Truly, this post could double in length under this microscope alone; however, in an attempt at brevity, this researcher will simply state at this point a clear divergence between Jenna's personal code of ethic and the agreed upon professional code of ethics has surfaced. The other paradigms further bolster this claim and provide the inner cogs of such. Therefore, the best way to resolve this situation at Jenna's level would have been to consider the expectations of her employer and the community before compromising her primary role (p. 27). If she had done so, this researcher believes she would have had the conversations this researcher has repeatedly suggested in this post. Instead, she acted on her out, out of policy, and has now put her employer in a situation where they must consider the expectations of the institution and the community; and this is why this researcher believes the written reprimand and/or minimal time suspension should be actualized. From here, the leadership should pursue continued reform and policy resolution to ensure the ethical safeguarding of their faculty and students.
References
Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2016). Ethical Leadership and Decision Making in Education (4th Edition). Taylor & Francis. https://libertyonline.vitalsource.com/books/9781317681106
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). Crossway Bibles.
YesterdayMar 17 at 11:52am
Ethical Paradigms--Discussion 1.docx Download Ethical Paradigms--Discussion 1.docx
Ethical Paradigms
Daniel L. York
Rawlings School of Divinity, Liberty University CLED 815
Author Note
I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Daniel L. York
Email: [email protected]
Ethical Paradigms
There are at least two ethical dilemmas in the case study “The School of Hard Knocks” (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016). First is the dilemma of how a school effectively disciplines a student bully. The second dilemma involves a teacher, Mr. Washington, who, by all witness accounts, allowed the bully Ricky Johnson to be punched in the stomach by another student. Multiple ethical paradigms address both issues.
Justice Paradigm
A justice paradigm if in place in this school would support both those hired to work in the school system and the students. All should be treated with equality, fairness and in a manner which preserves their dignity as well as safety (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016). Was corporal punishment (still practiced in 19 states) ever applied to Johnson after he bullied other students? Furthermore, Mr. Washington is entitled to due process as a teacher despite his allowing Johnson to be punched.
Critique Paradigm
The ethic of critique would suggest closer scrutinization of Johnson to determine if there are factors in his home environment of suffering or oppression that might account for his need to bully others (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016). Similarly, were there anger issues from Washington’s past or flaws in the school’s discipline process that might account for him permitting the student John Patterson to punch Johnson in his stomach? Is it possible that Washington was using a measure of critique by hoping that in Johnson getting punched by another student he might have a better appreciation for the deplorability of his own actions hurting other students (a taste of his own medicine)?
Care Paradigm
The ethic of care seems readily apparent in Mr. Green’s push to protect Washington because of his 25 years of successful service in the school system as well as his reputation as a “pillar of the community” (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016, p. 44). For a district superintendent to insert himself by suggesting how Ms. Henry, the principal, handle the situation put both at some degree of risk should there be accusations of favoritism or covering up a potentially serious incident.
Profession Paradigm
The ethic of profession is applicable from the viewpoint that teachers are charged with promoting the success and safety of each student under their watch (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016). There is also merit in considering a teacher’s long-standing record of solid performance as Green did towards Washington.
Biblical Worldview
The Bible gives Christian educators valuable instruction that weaves together justice, care, critique and certainly the high calling of teaching. In Deuteronomy and Hebrews, God modeled discipline in correcting and punishing the Israelites for their rebellious behavior and He expected parents to discipline their children (HCSB, 2010). Proverbs lists many benefits of discipline. David asked God not to punish him from a state of wrath (Psa. 38:1). Is it possible that Mr. Washington held Johnson and encouraged Patterson to hit him because he was angry with a bully that in his opinion had not received appropriate punishment?
The Apostle Paul often demonstrated care for those God entrusted to his leadership (HCSB, 2010, 2 Cor. 11:28, 1 The. 2:8). Leaders care for those whom they serve because Jesus modeled such leadership and taught that a good shepherd ensures the safety and wellbeing of his sheep. Green was devoted to taking care of Washington—behavior consistent with a good shepherd.
Finally, James has much to say about the high standard expected of teachers (HCSB, 2010, Jam. 3:1-2). From a professional vantage, Washington, by allowing Patterson to hit Johnson, put his reputation at risk and modeled poor judgment for one entrusted with protecting the safety of students. Leaders are expected to take charge when conditions dictate the need for action, but they are also charged to display restraint when emotions run high.
References:
HCSB. (2010). Holman Bible Publishers.
Shapiro, J. P., Stefkovich, J. A. (2016). Ethical leadership and decision making in education.
(4th ed.). Taylor & Francis.
