Practical Application of the Ethical Decision-Making Manual for Helping Professionals - Essay Example

Practical Application of the Ethical Decision-Making Manual for Helping Professionals (Steinman, Franks Richardson & McEnroe, 1998 In regards to Ethics in Schools Zaida R. Valdes 206012 EDUC 30213 Each day, school staffs are required to make decisions that influence the ethical character of their school. Importantly, these ethical decisions reflect on the moral and ethical approaches of the school staff as individuals (Strike, 1997). It is essential that teachers, school counselors, principles and other administrative staff be aware that instructional leadership requires of them a dedication to ethical leadership (Strike, 1997). Ethics can be defined as a philosophy orientated toward the conduct of individuals with a society and the use of decision-making based on morals (Bradley & Hendricks, 2001). Numerous ethical decision-making models exist, however this paper will focus on the model proposed by Steinman, Franks Richardson and McEnroe (1998). This model focuses on ethical strategies within an inter-professional context, so that it attempts to provide guidance for ethical dilemmas that may occur across the helping professions, such as education, nursing, social work, law and medicine (Steinman, Franks Richardson & McEnroe, 1998). This paper shall review the complexity of ethical decisions that are at times required by teachers within elementary, middle and high schools. Firstly, a brief outline of five ethical principles considered necessary for all ethical decision-making models shall be provided. Secondly, the model of Steinman, Franks Richardson and McEnroe shall be detailed. Next, applications of the proposed ethical decision-making model shall be presented, as relevant to ethical considerations within the school system. Finally, a conclusion shall synthesize the main points of the paper to highlight the importance of ethics to schools. School staffs continually experience situations that could be considered ethical dilemmas, in which they are required to apply confident and strong decision-making abilities (Strike, 1997). As such, for school staff to behave in a manner that is considered ethical, it is necessary that they also be responsible for their behavior, as the two are interdependent concepts (Strike, 1997). Essentially, school staffs are expected as educational leaders to continually develop the ability and capacity for reflection on their behaviors and choices to determine if they have acted ethically. Although many of the numerous decisions teachers and other schools staff make throughout a single day may not immediately appear to have ethical implications, contemporary Western societies are experiencing a rapid advancement in technologies, increases in litigations, and an increased emphasis on issues of social protection, all of which are relevant to the conduct of school staff. Additionally, at a local level, educational institutions are more and more are required to adopt standardized assessments of student achievement, and to be aware of issues of equal opportunity across genders, ethnicities and physical/cognitive abilities (Strike, 1997). Another ethical consideration relevant to the school includes the evaluation of teachers' performance (Messer, 2001). Ethical decision-making models tend to be based on five over-riding moral principles (Kitchener, 1984 as cited in Bradley and Hendricks, 2001). Kitchener (1984) determined that these five principles formed the basis of the concepts that comprise any ethical decision (as cited in Bradley & Hendricks, 2001). The five moral principles are: 1) Autonomy - each individual is acknowledged to have a freedom of choice. In regards to school staffs, they have the right to make their own decisions that align with their personal philosophies, whilst also recognizing that they are responsible for their decisions, and that this responsibility requires assessment of the effects of one's actions on others. The rights of autonomy extend to students, and school staffs are encouraged to empower students to make their own decisions concerning their behavior, as well as to consider the consequences of their decisions and behavior on others. Within the school environment there may be times when it is necessary for school staff to consider the ability of the student to make a sound choice. For example, if a student is being neglected or abused at home but is unaware that such behavior is unacceptable. 2) Non-maleficence - this concept refers to the Hippocratic concept at the heart of all helping professions: First do no harm. The principle involves not intentionally inflicting distress upon others, as well as not placing others at risk of harm. School staffs are expected to uphold this moral in regards to punishment of students, as well as to encourage students' to develop this moral code as a basis of social interactions. 3) Beneficence - this concept maintains that it is the responsibility of the school staff to contribute to the welfare of the students, preventing harm to come to them as well as taking a proactive approach toward decisions and behaviors that will benefit the students. 4) Justice - this moral principle necessitates that school staff treat all students equally, regardless of gender, age, physical/cognitive ability, ethnicity, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, or religious affiliation. 5) Fidelity - this moral principle refers to school staff honoring their commitments to students, the parents of students, staff colleagues, the wider community, and of course themselves. School staff must be constantly aware that they have the instilled trust of numerous stakeholders, and make decisions that will not threaten those relationships of trust. The ethical decision-making model of Steinman, Franks Richardson and McEnroe (1998) provides a guiding framework for choices and behaviors among the helping professions. Their model reflects the work of Kitchener in that they highlight the ethical decision-making process as being made up of several concepts or components. The model especially focuses on three concepts that are particular to school staff ethical decision-making: confidentiality, student welfare and student supervision. The model proposed by Steinman and colleagues is comprised of an ethical hierarchy so that different people/groups are able to be considered at different levels in the overall decision-making process. The model uses a counseling context, and stresses that counselors should receive the most consideration in the ethical process. In regards to school ethics, this consideration could be transferred to that of the school/school staff. Other ethical decision-making models take a contrasting view and place the concepts of non-maleficence as the highest ethical consideration (e.g., Foster-Miller and Davis's 1996 model, as cited in Bradley & Hendricks, 2001). The components of Steinman et al.'s model are: 1) Identify the problem. 2) Identify the ethical standard that is most relevant to the problem - school staff should actively search for ethical principles that are considered applicable to the present situation, both within the school's ethical policies and the over-riding Code of Ethics for the Education Profession (National Education Association [NEA], 2002-2006). Staff needs to determine if their search helps clarify the problem at hand. If they are still unsure about the ethical standard involved it is necessary that they discuss the issue with colleagues, and perhaps the school's ethics committee. 3) Identify potential ethical traps - this step requires that a school staff remain aware that their belief in themselves as an ethical person does not mean that they can reach an ethical decision objectively without consultation with colleagues. Also, a staff member needs to remind themselves that they may be inclined to use their personal value system instead of the professional code of ethics. They need to beware of the belief that there is no absolute right or wrong just because there are differences in circumstances across students. Importantly, that the staff member needs to take care not to uncritically place the student first. 4) Construct a preliminary response - the school staff member should again consider their ethical codes of conduct, and what is suggested as a course of action. The staff member needs also to take the legalities of the situation into consideration, if any apply. Also, consideration of situations which should influence the end choice, if there is any, is needed. 5) Reflect on the consequences of such a response - this step requires that the staff member to determine both short-term and long-term consequences of a potentially chosen response. Importantly, it is necessary for the staff member to consider if the consequences will result in a conflict of interests for any of the stakeholders. It is necessary to identify if such consequences are unintended, and to consider overall if the decision is what the ethical codes are actually stipulating. In addition, the staff member needs to ask themselves if they would be able to provide logical support for their decision, if they were ever questioned about it. 6) Construct an ethical resolution - the staff member re-states the situation, accounting for all relevant circumstances. The identified ethical codes and laws have been identified, and their recommendations are now considered. The input from colleagues and ethical committees are also drawn on to construct a resolution. The identified consequences of potential actions for all stakeholders are considered, and a proposed resolution is determined. 7) Seek feedback from colleagues and supervisor (e.g. School principle) - the school staff member should then again make contact with colleagues, including the School Principle, and if necessary and attorney, in order to identify gaps in decision-making logic. 8) Implement action - is colleague and others feedback should identify areas of amendment to the resolution, these should be carried out. And when the school staff member is confident in the decided upon resolution, the appropriate action should be carried out. As evident from this model, school staff as helping professionals can draw on the framework to guide their decision-making, especially when encountering ethical dilemmas. A potential source of an ethical dilemma is the current national education focus on raising test scores on standardized assessments (Strike, 1997). This goal is considered by some school staff to be indirect conflict with the liberty of all students in that the standards do not take into consideration the competing demands of schools, such as wanting to be learning communities, or of being more inclusive of parents of students and the wider community (Strike, 1997). The systematic reform of education has as its goal, the centralization of all educational components so that they are mutually reinforcing. As such, schools at the local level will be unable to specialize in their delivery of services to students, as variation across schools in curriculum content will negate the centralized goal of systematic reform. For example, urban schools may have better access to, and more choices of, project resources as compared to a rural school, and so necessitate a difference in approach topics, such as in science. Strike (1997) notes that it is rare to find a standardized test that accounts for local variation, and that is comparable as well as affordable. According to the Steinman et al. model, a problem has been identified: Systematic reform requires standardized tests, yet a school or school staff member may want to specialize in the way that they deliver the curriculum relevant to the test. According to the NEA Code of Ethics for the Profession of Education (2002-2006) an educator shall: 1) not unreasonably stop a student from independent action in their learning process; and 2) not unreasonably deny the student's access to other points of view. It could be determined by a school/staff member, that the first code is most relevant to the current problem, in that refraining student's from utilizing resources that are immediately available, such as a coastal reef instead of a textbook (or complementary to), would violate this code. At this point the second step in Steinman et al.'s model has occurred, as the most pertinent ethical standard has been identified. It would benefit the school/staff member to consult among colleagues with and across schools to access different opinions on interpretation of the standards that apply to the current problem. As outlined in Steinman's model, the school/staff member needs to be aware of potential ethical traps. For example, the school/staff member may believe that an objective ethical decision could be met without consulting others; or that a passion for providing the best learning resources to students will enable the right ethical choice to be made. Alternatively, the school/staff member may consider specialization as more important than the ethical code, and not search for an appropriate one at all. As a preliminary response the school/staff member may consider the recommendation of the ethical code, and what it is actually saying. They could begin by defining the terms "unreasonable" and "independent action" in regards to the ethical code. An attorney could be contacted that is affiliated with the school to determine the scope of the legal issues involved in the decision. Also, consideration of circumstances such as health and safety with transport to the coast, and or going on a reef trip or beach excursion, needs to be remembered. There may be student's whose parents do not give them permission for a school excursion, and so how to justify the inequality of access to the learning materials. Additionally, the school/staff member would need to consider how the learning experience of the student's who go on an excursion can transfer acquired knowledge onto a standardized test. Reflecting on the consequences of the decision by the school/staff member to take a specialized approach to curriculum delivery would be the next step in the Steinman model of ethical decision-making. Short-term consequences might be more motivated students, greater involvement of parents in their children's learning experiences (e.g., assisting with transport on the excursion, or with supervision during the trip). Alternatively, the school/staff member may find that the organization involved is just too time-consuming, or costly in terms of petrol, food, sunscreen and or day passes to the reef. In terms of long-term consequences, a positive might be that students' will retain knowledge for longer due to the "hand's on" experience of the excursion, and because of the fun nature of the activity. As a negative, in the long-term, student's may have difficulty with the final standardized exam due to a lack of curriculum focus on national learning standards. Many of these consequences would be unintended, such as students being unable to adequately answer end of semester exams. Importantly, the school/staff member must determine if they could legally and ethically justify with confidence their final decision to have specialized curriculum. An ethical resolution to this dilemma would require a revision of all the steps so far involved in the ethical decision-making process. The school/staff member would consolidate the input they had received form other colleagues of the ethics committee of the school, and the school attorney if necessary. Consideration of whether it is actually possible to provide students with the "what" as determined at a national level, using the specialized "how" of the school, is also needed. The next to final step in the model requires that once a decision is made, in this case, to choose specialization of curriculum for science subjects, the school/staff member are required to again seek consultation with their peers and attorney, to ascertain if an oversight or ethical bias has occurred. Finally, when the school/staff member is satisfied that the decision for the science curriculum to be specialized so as to take advantage of the school's geographic location on the coast has been well received by peers, and amended where and if necessary, the resolution to implement specialization can take place. In conclusion, this paper outlined one ethical decision-making model, namely that of Steinman, Franks Richardson and McEnroe (1998). It was highlighted that the asaid model draws on Kitchener's five basic moral principles. Utilizing these principles, the model provides a framework for the helping professional, in this case a school/staff member, to be guided through ethical decision-making. An example of a contemporary ethical dilemma presented in this paper for schools/staff members was the national goal of systematic reform to the education system, in contrast to specialization of curriculum at the local level. The model was adequate in providing a resolution to the identified problem. It is evident that the need for an effective ethical decision-making model for schools is necessary. Works Cited Bradley, Loretta J, and Hendricks, Bret C. "Implementing Ethical Decision-Making Models." Texas Technical University. 13 May 2006. . Messer, David W. "The Impact of Dismissal of Non-tenured Teachers on Principals in Tennessee." Unpublished Dissertation, East Tennessee University (2001): 1-121. 13 May 2006. . "Code of Ethics of the Education Profession" National Education Association [NEA]. 2002-2006. 13 May 2006. . Steinman, Sarah O, Franks Richardson, Nan, and McEnroe, Tim. Ethical Decision-Making Manual for the Helping Professionals. New York: Wadsworth (1998). Strike, Kenneth, A. "Centralized goal formation and systematic reform: Reflection on liberty, localism and pluralism." Educational Policy Analysis 5.11 (1997): 33 pars. 13 May 2006 . Read More