“Are you Prepared to Defend the Decisions You've Made?” Reflective Equilibrium,Situational Appreciation,and the Legal and Moral Decisions of School Leaders
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2012
“Are you Prepared to Defend the Decisions You've Made?” Reflective Equilibrium,Situational Appreciation,and the Legal and Moral Decisions of School Leaders
This purpose of the study was to explore moral literacy and legal reasoning through educational leadership decision making. Participants in the study were students enrolled in a law and ethics course in an educational leadership graduate program. Each student drafted a personal code of ethics at the beginning of the course. Throughout the course, aspects of law, ethics and leadership were examined from a problem-based, case study approach offering students opportunities to examine school leadership decision making through legal and ethical lenses. At the end of the course, students wrote a reflection essay on the content studied, with a connection back to their personal codes and the relationship that those codes have to their legal knowledge, moral reasoning, and professional decision making in leadership. Respondents’ essays reflected each legal theme covered in the course, bringing ethical leadership to the study and practice of law. In addition, the essays illuminated ideas of reflective equilibrium and situational appreciation, both of which speak not only to the students’ personal codes of ethics but also to the approaches that the students bring to professional decision making. Educational leaders bring their personal ethics to the professional decisions they make and, as a result, to the defenses of those decisions. In the end, the questions asked and answered by the statutes, regulations, and cases covered in the course are not merely legal. They are also moral. And the issues raised speak not merely to legal compliance; they speak to leadership.
BeckL. G., & MurphyJ. (1997). Ethics in educational leadership programs: Emerging models.Columbia, MO: University Council for Educational Administration.
3.
BegleyP. T. (Ed.). (1999). Values and educational leadership.Albany: State University of New York Press.
4.
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Eraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
5.
BlackW. R., & MurtadhaK. (2007). Toward a signature pedagogy in educational leadership preparation and program assessment. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.ucea.org/jrle_2007_2_1/
6.
Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002).
7.
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
8.
Boring v. Buncombe County Board of Education, 136 F.3d 364 (4th Cir. 1998).
9.
BrickerD. (1993). Character and moral reasoning. In StrikeK. A., & TernaskyP. L. (Eds.), Ethics for professionals in education (pp. 13–25). New York: Teachers College Press.
10.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
11.
Brownell v. Los Angeles Unified School District, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 756 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992).
12.
CallahanJ. C. (Ed.). (1988). Ethics in professional life.New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
Cockrel v. Shelby County Board of Education, 270 F.3d 1036 (6th Cir. 2001).
Darling-HammondL., LaPointeM., MeyersonD., OrrM. T., & CohenC. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
17.
DavisM. (1991). Thinking like an engineer: The place of a code of ethics in the practice of a profession. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 20(2), 150–167.
18.
Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999).
19.
DonmoyerR., ImberM., & ScheurichJ. J. (Eds.). (1995). The knowledge base in educational administration: Multiple perspectives.Albany: State University of New York Press.
20.
Educational Leadership Constituent Council. (2002). Standards for advanced programs in educational leadership.Reston, VA: National Policy Board for Educational Administration.
21.
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 124 S. Ct. 2301 (2004).
22.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968).
23.
FaglesR. (Trans.). (1984). “Sophocles”: Three Theban Plays.New York: Penguin Books.
24.
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).
25.
Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998).
26.
GeeE. G., & DanielP. T. K. (2009). Law and public education: Cases and materials (4th ed.). Newark, NJ: Lexis-Nexis.
27.
GilliesJ. C. M. (2005). Getting it right in the consultation: Hippocrates’ problem; Aristotle's answer.London: Royal College of General Practitioners. Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560890
28.
Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 121 S. Ct. 2093 (2001).
29.
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975).
30.
GrossS. J., & ShapiroJ. P. (2004). Using multiple ethical paradigms and turbulence theory in response to administrative dilemmas. International Studies in Educational Administration, 32(2), 47–62.
31.
GuthrieJ. W., & ScheurmannP. J. (Eds.). (2010). Successful school leadership: Planning, politics, performances, and power.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
32.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
33.
HermanB. (1997, April). Moral literacy.Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
34.
HermanB. (2007). Moral literacy.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35.
HsiehH., & ShannonS. E. (2005). Three qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2010).
38.
KohlbergL. (1984). The psychology of moral development.San Francisco: Harper & Row.
39.
LangloisL. (2004). Responding ethically: Complex decision-making by school district superintendents. International Studies in Educational Administration, 32(2), 78–93.
40.
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).
41.
MattocksT. C. (2006). Leadership and the law. In DavisE. E. (Ed.), Qualities for effective leadership (pp. 105–119). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
42.
MilitelloM., SchimmelD., & EberweinH. J. (2009). If they knew, they would change: How legal knowledge impacts principals’ practice. NASSP Bulletin, 93(1), 27–52.
Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977).
46.
Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education, 827 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1987).
47.
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).
48.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2010).
49.
PaukenP. D. (2010). Morse v. Frederick and cyberbullying in schools: The impact on freedom of expression, disciplinary authority, and school leadership. In ShariffS., & ChurchillA. (Eds.), Truths and myths of cyber-bullying: Stakeholder responsibility and children's safety (pp. 159–192). New York: Lang.
50.
PaukenP. D., HermanT. L., & LatendresseF. (2010, April). Modeling moral agency in higher education through codes of ethics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
51.
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968).
52.
Roberts v. Robertson County Board of Education, 692 S.W.2d 863 (1985).
53.
Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 129 S. Ct. 2633 (2009).
54.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).
55.
SchimmelD., & MilitelloM. (2007). Legal literacy for teachers: A neglected responsibility. Harvard Educational Review, 77(3), 257–284.
56.
School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
57.
StarrattR. J. (1991). Building an ethical school: A theory for practice in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27, 185–2002.
58.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
59.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (2010).
60.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (2010).
61.
WagnerP. A., & SimpsonD. J. (2009). Ethical decision making in school administration: Leadership as moral architecture.Los Angeles: Sage.
