Running head: ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 1

Assignment #2-The Ethics Assignment

EDUC 525 L02-Ethics & Law in Education

John Ruddell (30014685), Adam Hasni (10049941), Samantha Jones (10026274), Michael Parry

(10099157)

University of Calgary

Dennis Parsons

November 3rd, 2017

ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 2

Applying Three Schools of Ethical Thought

Teachers (including student teachers) need to constantly evaluate the social connections

that they create with their students. This process requires that teachers ask themselves, “[w]here

do I draw the line between a relationship that promotes or hinders motivation and learning?”

(Aultman, Williams-Johnson & Schutz, 2008, p. 637) prior to developing a rapport with each of

their students. As the VW University Administrative Committee, it is our responsibility to utilize

our chosen three schools of ethical thought in order to determine whether any of the parties

involved overstepped their ethical boundaries or, otherwise, failed to act when the inappropriate

student-teacher relationship was brought to their attention.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue Ethics is “concerned with the character of the individual” (Donlevy & Walker,

2001, p. 21) rather than the specific set of underlying principles that drive his or her actions.

According to Donlevy & Walker (2001), “[i]t is in the doing – the acting out on an ethical matter

that is where the ethical virtue of the individual is revealed” (Donlevy & Walker, 2001, p. 22).

Consequently, despite Derrick’s good intentions his actions highlight character qualities that

requiring scrutinizing. Subsequently, throughout his first practicum Derrick had demonstrated

multiple accounts of behaviour that a virtuous person, in a position of trust (e.g. teacher), would

condemn. For instance, he engaged in discussions involving the waxing of genitals, he met

frequently with a student outside of class without additional adult supervision, and confessed his

previous illegal drug use to his students.

Acting with what is considered “practical wisdom” or “phronesis” is essential when

gauging whether or not a person is acting with virtuous intent (Donlevy & Walker, 2001, p. 22).

Derrick did not act in a wise manner when he decided to be Max’s personal “confidant” to later
ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 3

becoming her significant other. “A decision made with practical wisdom is made with eyes wide

open to all the pre-existing elements [and] contextual factors...” (Donlevy & Walker, 2011, p.

22). Regardless of the fact that Derrick was no longer Max’s teacher, he was still acting as a

person in a position of trust. As follows, Derrick does not display the predispositions that are

required of a virtuous human being and, by extension, teacher.

Deontological Ethics

What distinguishes the Deontological ethical school of thought from the others is the fact

that “what is at stake is one’s obligations to act in accord to ethical principles or rules…..[and]

people must be treated as ends [rather than] means” (Donlevy, 2017, Slide 40). Derrick treated

Max as an ends to his own means when he made the decision to pursue a personal relationship

with her. Moreover, Derrick did not take into account how his actions could possibly negatively

affect Max and other stakeholders involved. Likewise, the principal at Pierre Trudeau failed to

intercede when a student teacher was actively pursuing one of his students. Protecting his or her

students is the number one priority of a principal. Consequently, the school administration failed

in its obligation to provide a safe schooling environment and, therefore, meet the categorical

imperative condition. The categorical imperative meaning that when you make an ethical

decision, it must be “universally applicable to all persons including the decision maker”

(Donlevy, 2017, Slide 40).

According to Crosby, (2017), “...ethical behavior [for educators] entails doing what is

most appropriate for a given situation even when there is no direct law or rule to govern the

activity” (p. 4). In essence, the university failed to appropriately screen their B.Ed candidates

(e.g. Derrick) for their emotional stability and ethical character prior to entering into their

practicums. In addition, the university supervisor decided to disregarded Derrick’s unbefitting

ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 4

relationship with Max. The deontologist would, therefore, state that regardless of whether or not

the university had policies in place to penalize Derrick for treating Max as an ends to his own

means, it is the universities duty to take responsibility for the actions of their practicum students.

Utilitarian Ethics

Staveren (2007), describes Utilitarian Ethics as a method for individual agents to have

moral preferences and to act in the interest of others, but only when the action toward others

generates a net utility gain (i.e. “good”) (p. 22). Derrick, as a teacher, should have maintained

professional boundaries with students and avoided giving a single student preferential and

personal treatment, regardless of intention. Following the principles of Utilitarian Ethics, Derrick

might have been more inclined to “sacrifice” the one student (i.e. Max) and focus his attention on

his remaining students, in order to produce the greatest amount of “good”, which would involve

providing all students with access to a well-rounded education. It can be argued that under this

framework, Derrick was unethical in choosing to pursue a single student, perhaps for more than

student-teacher relations, at the expense of the remaining students and, by extension, the

reputation of his peers. (Derrick did not need to sacrifice Max, he simply needed to act as a

professional teacher engaged to teach all students thereby serving the greater good for his

profession, teachers, all students and the institutions involved.)

VW University is also implicated in unethical actions under the Utilitarian lens, firstly by

failing to intervene despite knowing about the relationship between Derrick and Max during

practicum, and, secondly for failing to provide additional screening of B.Ed candidates

concerning emotional and ethical character. In both instances, lack of action by the university

provided the greatest amount of “good” to, arguably, Derrick by not suspending or expelling him

from the B.Ed. program. Consequently, fellow student-teachers may now carry the negative

connotation of Derrick’s actions, potentially limiting the prestige of their credentials or hindering
ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 5

future career prospects; while public school students at Pierre Trudeau High, already having

difficulty in school, may be further pushed from an adequate education. As pointed out by

McHugh et al. (2012), a student’s relationship with teachers can foster academic value, sustain

long-term engagement, and create an enduring sense of themselves as learners (p. 12). Derrick’s

preferential treatment and the intimate relationship may, in the long term, prove detrimental to

Max’s peers. Following the logic from the latter, the principal of the high school acted

unethically when he ignored the needs for all students to have access to a safe and inclusive

learning environment in favour of a student-teacher relationship that appeared to help a single

known “problem” student.

Consequently, this ethical framework can be extended to include Max. Under a

Utilitarian lens, it can be argued that Max acted unethically. This is not to say that Max acted

maliciously but, rather, that she undertook an action that, while questionable, did not provide any

benefit to additional parties. For instance, no indication is given that Max sought aid from either

the principal or university prior to her post-secondary difficulties. By expressing her issues to the

Calgary Herald, she acted out of self-interest without considering the greatest “good” for the

majority, which, in this instance, would be the staff at her former high school and the damaged

reputation that VW University education students would inherit via Derrick’s actions. (Do you

think that by Max shining a light on the unethical conduct she is helping prevent the situation

from happening to other students?) Therefore, it can be argued that Max acted unethically when

shifting the responsibility for her actions, such as post-secondary struggles, to others in a way

that only benefitted her.

Administrative Committee’s Decision

ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 6

From a Virtue Ethics standpoint, “practical wisdom” was not applied during Derrick’s

student-teacher tenure and, thus, his ill suited professional conduct was of a low “moral caliber”

(Crosby, 2017, p. 6). From the perspective of the Deontologist, Derrick, the school

administration, and the university all failed to uphold their obligations to act in ways expected of

teachers and the institutions in which they represent. Further, both the school administration and

the university failed in their ethical expectation, choosing to overlook Derrick’s behaviour and

his failure to act in loco parentis towards Max.

Lastly, from the perspective of a Utilitarian, all parties, including Max, failed to act in the

interest of others. By failing to consider the impact of his actions on the other parties involved

Derrick failed to generate a net utility gain, while Max neglected to consider her actions and their

impact upon her school. Further, VW University is also implicated in unethical actions due to the

fact that it failed to intervene despite being fully aware of the unbefitting relationship between

Derrick and Max. Similar to the latter, the principal of the high school acted unethically when he

ignored the needs of providing a safe and inclusive learning environment for all students in

favour of a single student-teacher relationship. Overall, all of the various parties failed to

consider the proper ethical actions, based on their role within education, through the lens of one

or another of the chosen three schools of ethical thought.

Very strong work!

You have looked through three ethical lenses, critique the scenario and supported your analysis.
Your analysis is clear, and fairly comprehensive. I have made a few comments above to help
guide further consideration of these ethical schools of thought.

Your work demonstrates you have a good understanding of the relevant concepts and should be
able to apply them going forward. Your reference list is strong and the in-text citations help
support your reasoning.

A
ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 7

References

Aultman, L., Williams-Johnson, M., Schutz, P. (2008). Boundary dilemmas in teacher-student

relationships: Struggling with “the line”. Teaching and teacher education 25(2009), 636-

646. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222431792_Boundary_dilemmas_in_tea

cherstudent_relationships_Struggling_with_the_line/links/00b495294c1dd8a715000000

Crosby, Z. (2017). The role of ethics in educational leadership. Retrieved from https://s3.amazo

naws.com/academia.edu.documents/34004087/Ethics_Leader.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=A

KIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1508280736&Signature=ZoePYtTi231gkpbbgn

TloHoBfYg%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DThe_Role_

of_Ethics_in_Educational_Leader.pdf

Donlevy, J. (2017). October 19, 2017 class #1: What is ethics? [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved

from https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/193826/viewContent/2700411/View

Donlevy, J., & Walker, K. (2011). Working through ethics in education and leadership: Theory,

analysis, plays, cases, poems, prose, and speeches. Rotterdam, NDL: Sense Publishers.

McHugh, R. M., Horner, C. G., Colditz, J. B., & Wallace, T. L. (2013). Bridges and barriers:

Adolescent perceptions of student–teacher relationships. Urban Education, 48(1), 9-43.

Van Staveren, I. (2007). Beyond Utilitarianism and Deontology: Ethics in Economics. Review Of

Political Economy, 19(1), 21-35.