CLED 815
DISCUSSION ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
The student will complete 4 Discussions in this course. The student will post one thread of at
least 400 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday of the assigned Module: Week. The student
must then post 2 replies of at least 200 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Sunday of the assigned
Module: Week.
This course utilizes the Post-First feature in all Discussions. This means you will only be able to
read and interact with your classmates’ threads after you have submitted your thread in response
to the provided prompt.
After reading Shapiro & Stefkovich, post your initial thread and briefly describe your
understanding of how we can use multiple paradigms when addressing various ethical dilemmas.
Address either Case Study 3.4 or Case Study 3.5. Be intentional to reflect a biblical worldview as
you respond to your chosen case study.
In our text this week, we find the root definition of ethics, “Ethics comes from the Greek
word ethos, which means customs or usages, especially belonging to one group as distinguished
from another. Later, ethics came to mean disposition or character, customs, and approved ways
of acting. Looking at this definition from a critical perspective, one might ask: Ethics approved
by whom? Right or wrong according to whom” (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016, p. 10). As Temple
mentioned in his presentation, leading ethically is essential. Leadership in any venue may be
impacted by ethics. Shapiro and Stefkovich contend that the 21st century consists of a society that
has become more demographically diverse than ever and that given the far reach of the diversity
found within educational systems, the leaders of tomorrow will need to be prepared to recognize,
reflect on and appreciate the differences of a complex society. (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016).
Due to the far-reaching impact of a complex society, these authors suggest that real life situations
and challenges must incorporate multiple ethical paradigms. Shapiro and Stefkovich introduce
four ethical paradigms which include, “the ethics of justice, critique, care, and the profession.
Justice, critique, and care are familiar to many in the field of educational leadership. All too
CLED 815
often, however, professional ethics is seen as an extension of another paradigm and not thought
to stand alone.” (p.6).
Ethically leadership is nothing to do frowned upon by Christians. On the contrary, the
Bible is full of examples of ways that ethics are applied practically. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17, a
prime example if provided of how the Bible, itself is to be used to provide a standard to live by
and set a measure of what is right and wrong. The verse says, “All Scripture is breathed out by
God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that
the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). In this
very manner, scripture acts as a biblical paradigm for an answer to deeper spiritual answers to
issues.
Shapiro and Stefkovich’s paradigms attempt to answer three particular questions in
educational leadership. The views that they take on are justice, critique and care. These authors
and the fourth dimension of profession. According to Shapiro and Stefkovich, the ethic of justice
primarily sets its ideals on the rights and law and is part of liberal democratic tradition. (2016).
In this perspective, issues of good and evil are attended with along with fate versus free will. If
one only employs the stance of ethical justice, the authors contend that “Viewing ethical
dilemmas from this vantage point, one may ask questions related to the rule of law and the more
abstract concepts of fairness, equity, and justice. These may include, but are certainly not limited
to, questions related to issues of equity and equality; the fairness of rules, laws, and policies;
whether laws are absolute, and, if exceptions are to be made, under what circumstances; and the
rights of individuals versus the greater good of the community.” (p.12). While the ethic of
justice sees the rights and laws in the concept of democracy, it raises questions and concerns
surrounding laws and process used to determine if the laws are just. This seaway the reader to the
CLED 815
next ethic which is the ethic of critique. Shapiro and Stefkovich write, “The ethic of critique is
based on critical theory, which has, at its heart, an analysis of social class and its inequities.”
(p.12). Critique asks leaders to push beyond law and process. The authors go on to say, “the
ethic of critique, inherent in critical theory, is aimed at awakening educators to inequities in
society and, in particular, in schools. This ethic asks educators to deal with the hard questions
regarding social class, race, gender, and other areas of difference, such as: Who makes the laws?
Who benefits from the law, rule, or policy? Who has the power? Who are the silenced voices?”
(p.14). The ethic of care is one that seems to be written off in a male dominant society. Shapiro
and Stefkovich contend that the ethic of care is usually brushed off and considered a moral
decision rather than an ethical one. (2016, p. 15). However, as the authors noted, “Growing out
of the ethic of justice, the ethic of care, as it relates to education, has been described well by
Noddings (1992), who created a new educational hierarchy placing “care” at the top when she
wrote: “The first job of the schools is to care for our children” (p. xiv).” (p.15). They go on to
say:
The ethic of care is important not only to scholars but also to educational leaders who are
often asked to make moral decisions. If the ethic of care is used to resolve dilemmas, then there
is a need to revise how educational leaders are prepared. In the past, educational leaders were
trained using military and business models. This meant that they were taught about the
importance of the hierarchy and the need to follow those at the top, and, at the same time, to be
in command and in charge of subordinates (Guthrie, 1990). They led by developing “rules,
policies, standard operating procedures, information systems … or a variety of more informal
techniques” (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p. 48). These techniques and rules may have worked well
when the ethic of justice, rights, and laws was the primary basis for leaders making moral
decisions; however, they are inadequate when considering other ethical paradigms, such as the
ethic of care, that require leaders to consider multiple voices in the decision-making process.
(p.16)
While each of the paradigms have their own unique qualifiers, “the ethics of justice, care, and
critique are not incompatible, but rather, complementary, the combination of which results in a
richer, more complete, ethic. He visualized these ethics as themes, interwoven much like a
CLED 815
tapestry.” (p.18). These themes must work together in an almost seamless fashion in order to be
effective. What is missing is the fourth paradigm – the ethic of profession. According to Shapiro
and Stefkovich, this is what fills the gaps.
Case Study 3.4 – The School of Hard Knocks.
Presented in this case study are several issues. Below are the players in this scenario:
Ricky Johnson – 1st grader, known as a school bully - reputation for aggressiveness at
school & in community
Mr. Johnson - adult, 25 yr. school security guard – claims he would not harm a student
School Nurse
Guidance Counselor
Ms. Henry – School Principal
Additional students – confirmed allegations that Mr. Johnson allowed Ricky to be hit
John Peterson – student alleged attacked by Ricky & then given permission to retaliate
Mr. Green – Millville District Superintendent
While the case study presented does give details that outline a disturbing scenario which would
place any school administrator in a difficult ethical situation. There are some details that are left
out of the story that leave gaps which need to be filled in as well.
First, Ricky is a first grader with a reputation of aggressive and mean behavior in the school and
community. The ethic of care would immediately make me want to find out more about the
situation. As Shapiro and Stefkovich pointed out, “The first job of the schools is to care for our
children” (p. xiv).” (p.15). The fact that the narrative states that it was common knowledge that
Ricky has behavioral issues, but little else beyond that is mentioned raises concerns for the
overall ethically state of the community at large in this instance.
Next, the issue of justice if obviously on center stage here. However, justice and critique do
have to intertwine and work together in order to draw any conclusions. There are no rules or
polices outlined in the study. However, one would have to assume that the school district and
each individual school would have laws, rules and policies in place that would mandate how
situations. Since Ricky has a pattern of behavioral issues, it seems that Mr. Johnson’s argument
may be justified that he restrained the child to stop him from engaging in mischievous antics.
However, there is no way that one individual can be certain of the intent of another.
The ethic of justice, critique or care were not considered at all by any of the staff or employees in
the overall scenario when you consider the greater good of the community (school body). All of
the students at lunch witnessed the altercation. The school nurse and the guidance counselor
both encountered Ricky. Ms. Henry questioned witnesses and Mr. Johnson. There was no swift
and quick remedy and nothing that showed there was a greater concern for the overall well-being
of the best interest of Ricky or the school population in rendering a decision in this matter.
CLED 815
References
Shapiro, Joan Poliner and Jacqueline A. Stefkovich. (2016). Ethical leadership and decision
making in education. New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN: 9781138776272
Matt, thank you for your post. I appreciated the way that you presented your thoughts on
the case concerning Ricky and Mr. Washington. While I see your point when you are analyzing
the matter of the case against Mr. Washington’s actions in this scenario, it is my opinion that the
scope of the discussion is broader than simply the action or allegation at hand. I would interject
that the scope of the situation extends further into the ethics of the community. While I agree
with your summation of the facts that address the situation concerning Mr. Washington
restraining Ricky and then the allegations concerning Ricky’s assault, there is the matter of the
fact that the school and community being aware of his behavioral issues. The first sentences of
the case study say, “Ricky Johnson was known as a school bully. During the school year several
students suffered from his aggressive and mean behavior. Ricky was only in the first grade and
had already developed a reputation among his peers and the school community.” (Shapiro &
Stefkovich, 2016, pg. 43). According to the ethic of care, “The first job of the schools is to care
for our children”. (pg. 15). If “care” had been employed by the staff, administration and his
peers, would Ricky have been in a situation that escalated to this? Perhaps, we can turn to
scripture for a biblical perspective. Galatians 6:2 says, “Bear one another’s burdens, and so
fulfill the law of Christ.” If it is known that Ricky is troubled where is the evidence that anything
has been done to help him. Genesis 4:9 points us back to the fact that we are our brother’s
keeper.
References
Shapiro, Joan Poliner and Jacqueline A. Stefkovich. (2016). Ethical leadership and decision
making in education. New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN: 9781138776272
CLED 815
Mitch, thank you for your thoughtful post on the case study concerning the teacher with
the handgun. I will concur with your statement that there are numerous viewpoints to vet when
reviewing this case study and applying the multiparadigm approach of ethics. From a biblical
viewpoint, I would say that you hit the nail on the head when you pointed to the scripture in 1
Peter as a reference as it relates to the teacher, Jenna. Even if Jenna did not ‘intentionally’ break
any rules or laws surrounding her right to bear arms or to keep her firearm with her, she indeed is
subject to the authority to which she reports. In Daniel 2: 21 it says, “He changes times and
seasons; he sets up kings and deposes them” which reinforces that fact that we are to submit
ourselves to authority. In this instance, Jenna went against the ethic of justice and used her own
judgment to bring a weapon on school grounds even though she knew the ethic of her profession
did not allow it. While your argument that Jenna employed the ethic of critique may
“technically” make sense here, I would argue that in this case critique does not apply. Shapiro
and Stefkovich write, “The ethic of critique is based on critical theory, which has, at its heart, an
analysis of social class and its inequities.” (pg. 13). Jenna began to have fears due to events that
had been televised of gun violence and the crime rates in her community. The case study states,
“That evening, she read the state’s firearms law yet again, thinking of how vague it was on the
issue of school safety zones. She couldn’t understand how she could not, as a trained gun handler
with hours of practice, protect both herself and her students by having her small handgun with
her at work. She knew she was not the insane shooter of the highly publicized school shootings
on the news and she was aware that there was some movement in her state as well as others.
After all, she had her FBI, state, and child abuse clearances and was a respected member of
society. She then made a decision, a compromise.” (pg. 47). Therefore, I contend, Jenna made a
conscious decision to defy the rules which did not involve the ethic of critique.
