Well argued.

EDUC 525

Learning Task 2

1
 In a small town, a principal, J, is in charge of selecting a contractor for some minor repair
work for the school’s gym. A few different contractors have presented the school with
estimates for the repair work. Each contract with the school states that even if the actual
cost exceeds the price outlined in the bid, the school will only be required to pay the
quoted estimate. A company owned by J’s wife, K, submitted the cheapest of all the bids.
While J doesn’t own any stake in K’s company, this contract would help K’s company stay
afloat. As far as J knows the quality of the work will be the same regardless of the bidder. J
has specific mandates to maintain costs as low as possible while managing the school in
the most ethical manner. Should J put himself in a compromising position or save the
school some money? Good scenario!

Introduction

Making ethical decisions involves evaluating a situation and acting in a manner

consistent with our own ethical principles, often between what we want to do and what we ought

to do. When facing an ethical dilemma such as the scenario described above, it is important to

identify the possible solutions and their consequences. However, as educators, nearly every

decision we make can and will be subject to the scrutiny of the ATA Code of Professional

Conduct, so it is best to weigh the options and consider multiple schools of ethical thought when

faced with a contentious decision. The two most appropriate schools of ethical thought to

evaluate and contend between the possible solutions of this situation are teleological and

deontological ethics due to the simple fact that another party, the ATA, is involved. Nicely

stated.

Teleological

Suppose J takes a teleological approach. The lowest bidding contractor would be his

natural choice because the most ethical decision must achieve the greatest amount of good. The

ethical dilemma would probe, “What is the right outcome?” and the principal may ask himself,

“Does the end justify the means?” The decision to hire the most inexpensive contractor would,

for J, be the best outcome for the school and its students, regardless of who may benefit. The

2
final outcome of the school benefitting from J saving money on the job would thus justify the

teleology-driven principal's decision. K's business staying afloat and J benefitting from his wife’s

income is an irrelevant means to achieving the most desirable outcome. Demosthenes asserted

that in ethical consequentialism “every advantage in the past is judged in the light of the final

issue” (Olynthiacs; Philippics (1930) as translated by James Herbert Vince, p. 11). If his ethics

were questioned, the truth J would uphold is that K offers the lowest price, which, in turn,

benefits the students. The money saved would be allocated back to the school and the students,

therefore making the school a better place. The principal would be bound to an ethical intention

of creating the “greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people” (DonLevy & Walker,

2011, p.21). Personal loss or gain as a result of the greater good would be inconsequential to the

principal. Good argument.

Conversely, suppose that J, aware of the Code while still believing that doing what is in

the best interest of the students is to accept the cheaper bid, rejects K's bid. At surface level, K’s

bid might seem like the most ethical choice to the teleological ethicist and it may seem foolish

for J to reject it. However, we must consider that the consequences may outweigh the potential

monetary savings. If J were to be investigated and/or reprimanded by the ATA and possibly

terminated by the School Board, the choice does not seem as inconsequential as once thought.

Correct. J may realize the students’ best interest will be better served in the long run with him

there. Ultimately, J’s teleological underpinnings tell him to save the school some money, but the

implications of that decision would most likely force him to reject the bid while still staying true

to his values and upholding the integrity of his profession. Well said.

Deontological

3
 From the deontological perspective, the issue is more straightforward. J the deontologist

would assert that there are specific rules which govern how principals should behave and would

therefore abide by those rules. He must respond to school mandates and to the integrity of

profession itself, the latter in accordance with the ATA Code. According to the Code, a member

of the ATA “may not take advantage of a professional position to profit from the sale of goods or

services to/for pupils…” (ATA). While it could be argued that the principal is not directly

profiting from hiring K, it is a weak argument Correct that would not be upheld when disputing

disciplinary action. This is not simply a legal issue but an ethical one, and, under deontological

scrutiny, J would not act ethically if he accepted K's bid. Where teleological J was concerned

with acting with the good of the school in mind, J the deontologist is committed to staying true to

his own code of ethics, regardless of budgetary consequence.

Each school of ethical thought follows a different path of reasoning and places varying

importance upon the ‘means’ and the ‘end’ result. To the deontological, school principals are

obligated to ‘do the right thing’. In this scenario, the means cannot justify the end (This is true.),

as it is clearly in breach of the item 7 of the Code. The end being that J would not hire K and the

students would not benefit from the funds saved. The teleological approach is more concerned

with the end result and its benefit to the majority. Following this reasoning, it can be argued that

it is, in fact, appropriate for J to hire K as it is in the best interest of all parties and the potential

of personal financial gain is a product of the means and inconsequential. However, due to the

potential impact to of disciplinary action that J could subject himself to, hiring K is not worth the

trouble.

Decision

4
 J should contact the ATA for further guidance on the issue of hiring a contractor within

the budgetary allowance while disclosing the personal conflict of interest. Once aware of the

circumstances, should the ATA approve the decision to hire the cheapest contractor who also

happens to be K, we would do so. However, should the ATA disapprove to any degree, the next

lowest-bidding contractor would need to be hired. This approach uses teleological reasoning, as

it strives to maximize utility, while still working within the framework of the Code of Conduct

and abiding by its ethics. Good. In fact, he could farm out the decision to another principal or

superintendent with full disclosure.

Conclusion

What matters most is maintaining the dignity of the profession. Very good. When making

tough decisions, we, as teachers, role models, and members of the community, must consider

how our actions impact the institution of education, the students, and the public. It is of utmost

importance that our actions maintain the integrity of the teaching profession. Ultimately, we

must strive to maintain the trust of the children, parents, and community we serve while helping

to model our students into becoming ethical citizens themselves.

5
References

Alberta Teachers Association. (2004). Code of professional conduct. Edmonton, AB. Retrieved

July 2017 from

http://www.teachers.ab.ca/About%20the%20ATA/UpholdingProfessionalStandards/Profes

sionalConduct/Pages/CodeofProfessionalConduct.aspx

Demosthenes. Orations, Volume I: Orations 1-17 and 20. Translated by J. H. Vince. Loeb

Classical Library 238. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930.

Walker K. W. & Donlevy, J.K. (2006) Beyond relativism to ethical decision-making. Journal of

School Leadership, 16(3).