LITERATURE REVIEW
Marie Mc Leod /Jingping Sun
Based on
Article 1: Campbell, E. (1997, May). Ethical School Leadership: Problems of an Elusive Pole. Journal of School Leadership, 7, 287-300.
Article 2: Lynn Beck "The Ethical challenge of Educational Administrators: Grappling with the complexity of Moral Leadership" ----in Cunningham & Cordeiro (2000). Educational Administration: A Problem-Based Approach (214-219). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Recently, much attention has been drawn to the moral dimension of school leadership. A plethora of terrifying acts of brutality in schools have inspired, if not demanded, an emergence of educational settings where such events will not occur. Bombarded by violence, drug use and abuse, adolescent pregnancy, educational administrators instituted a host of programs------character education, community service, multicultural education efforts and drug awareness programs------all aimed at fostering culturally accepted values. However as Beck aptly points out, although the underlying principles of such efforts are good ones, such activities are limited “ in their ability to encourage deep and lasting changes in the moral fabric of our schools”. Morality encompasses more than a few principles and commitment to or avoidance of certain behavior. Rather it involves a continuous assessment of our “practices, norms and policies to see if they, in fact honor values such as justice, respect and the full dignity of each person”(Beck in Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2000).
Campbell (1997, May) points out that it is ironic to assert goals of ethical leadership while continuing to accept ethics as subjectively defined values of opinion and preference Through her literature review and her personal experience of teaching future school leaders Campbell (1997, May) finds that school leaders either are unaware of the moral dimension of their role or their considerations are subordinated by instrumental ones related to policy and strategy and there is no effective solution offered in the administration programs to prepare future leaders for the role of an ethical leader. In addition, this difficulty was complicated by pervasive contemporary climate of relativism because it undermines the administrators’ ability to discern ethical principles beyond their individual subjective feelings if accepted as a variable substitute for traditional moral and ethical philosophy.
We agree with both authors that the moral dimension of leadership is very important. Hodgkinson claims that “values constitute the essential problem of leadership … If there are no value conflicts then there is no need for leadership” (1991, p. 11). A central issue relating to the exploration of moral orientations to leadership is the nature of the values used by leaders in their decision making and how conflicts among values can be solved (Leithwood, 1999). Hodgkinson (1991) introduced a value paradigm as the major contributor to this approach. Hodgkinson (1991) divides values into two categories: right and good. “Good” is preference while “right” is the duty bound (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2000). Hodgkinson (1991) presents 3 foundations of values: Type I or transrational, Type II or rational and Type III or subrational moving from Deontological-Nomothetic-Discipline Dimension to Axioiogial-Idiographic-Indulgence Dimension. Transrational values are “conative”, grounded in principles, that “take the form of ethical codes, injunctions, or commandments” (Hodgkinson, 1991, p. 99). Rational values are “cognitive”, grounded in consensus or consequences, that “engage our reasoning” (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2000, p.206). Subrational values are affective, rooted in emotional preference, that are characterized by self-interest and self-concern. Of the three, Hodgkinson (1991) recommends that leaders choose higher over lower level values when confronted with value conflicts. When faced with an ethical dilemma, it is better to seek the “right” rules from transrational values first, then from rational values, and from subrational values.
However, Campbell addresses the complexity involved in translating philosophical principles into practice within a prevailing climate of value relativism. Beck also acknowledges the complexity of moral leaderships. She points out that the moral demands of educational leadership go well beyond considerations of specific acts of moral choice. She suggests that leaders and administrators should first experience themselves as moral agents and then they should support such experiences for others.
We agree with Campbell (1997, May) that it is difficult to apply ethical principles into decision making when leaders or administrators are unaware of the moral dimension of school leadership and when they subordinate ethical considerations to policy and strategy. Only focusing on action-guiding principles fails to take into account the fact that “ in any given situation moral perception comes on the scene prior to moral judgement; moral perception can lead to moral action outside the operation of judgement entirely; and perception involves moral capacities not encompassed by moral judgement (Blum, in Beck and Murphy,1994). Hauerwas and Burrell (in Beck and Murphy,1994) arrive at the similar conclusion. The moral capacities involved in moral perception means the abilities to recognize morally significant details in situations. Therefore, the efforts on preparing future moral leaders should focus first on helping them to pursue an understanding of themselves and others in a moral perception as a foundation to ethical behavior in their leadership (Greenfield, 1979). And the efforts should also focus on develop “extraordinary value sensitivity” as Hodgkinson suggests (1991, p.164), rather than on pursuing which principles to commit to. The much more crucial work according to Starratt is ‘’to create a schoolwide learning environment that promotes the moral integrity of learning as the pursuit of the truth about oneself and one’s world, however complex and difficult that task may be”.
Campbell argues that relativism paralyzes school leaders’ abilities to choose and to act upon the “right” principles among competing values based upon the argument that “If everything is relative then nothing we do is wrong or right”(Campbell 1997, 291). We acknowledge that exaggerating relativism to the extent that it substitutes the traditional values and morals is wrong because at this extreme lies the fundamental flaw of relativism: it becomes absolute since we can never judge what is right and wrong. But this doesn’t mean we don’t accept relative ideas. On the contrary, we believe that to regard some principles as objectively right itself is a subjective approach, that the rightness of some principles depends on the situation and that the ethical reasoning process itself is a subjective approach. Hodgkinson (in Campbell, 1992) identifies there are some values regarded commonly as right, which he calls as shared values, as a “metavalue” or “objectified value” that is a result of subjective and deliberate forces. As long as leaders and administrators perceive themselves as moral agents and develop the capacity to identify moral issues in the situations and engage themselves in ethical reasoning, they are approaching moral dimensions of their leadership. Although these approaches are subjective themselves, but they are"moral approaching".
To help leaders and administrators to perceive themselves as moral agents and to create an ethical school, they must look inwardly as well as outwardly. They must attend to what some have called the state of their own “souls”. Meeting this challenge is arduous, requiring us to be active and reflective simultaneously. Beck has identified standards of good practice which involves being conscious, encouraging dialogue, modeling and being reflective, which when adopted, will aid administrators in providing ethical leadership. Only by using ethics as informing their understandings of themselves as moral agents and of their schools as moral agencies can it be possible for administrators and leaders to adopt ethical reasoning into their decision making process. Only then can it be possible for leaders to choose among competing values and alternatives including policies and political strategies. Finally, to ensure success moral leaders must do more than clarify their beliefs and philosophies about education. One must acknowledge the wider political concept in which leaders breathe. Coupled with an acknowledgement of the uniqueness of their context, the ethical school administrator has a vision that includes the interrelatedness of all those involved in the school and community viewing others as beings with respect and dignity. Ethical guidelines may be identified, however the difficulty lies in how such guidelines are enforced.
Reference
Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Fransisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Beck, L. & Murphy, J. (1994). Ethics in Educational Leadership Programs: An Expanding Role. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Campbell, E. (1992). Personal morals and organizational ethics: How teachers and principles cope with conflicting values in the context of school cultures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, Toronto.
Hodgkinson, C. (1991). Educational leadership: The moral art. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Leithwood, K. Jantzi, D. & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing Leadership for Changing Times. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Starratt, R. j. (1991). Building an ethical school: A theory for practice in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27 (2), 185-202.
For additional information about moral leadership log on to the following websites:
Hinman, L. M. (2000). “Ethics Updates: Glossary.” [On-line]. Available: /glossary. html.
Klimes, R. (2000, Nov. 14). “Ethics Choices: How to Reason Ethically”. A learnwell CE Course LW-E101 [On-line]. Available:
Patterson, J. L. & Patterson, J. H. (2000, Winter). “Ethics and Decision-Making in Schools”. The Internet Source For Schools. 3(2). [On-line]. Available: Decision -Making_in_Schoo…
Moral Leadership
……the ultimate test of moral leadership is its’ capacity to transcend the claims of multiplicity of everyday wants and needs and expectations, to respond to the highest levels of moral development, and to relate leadership behavior-its roles, choices, style, commitments—to a set of reasoned, relatively explicit conscious values.(p.46)
Educational leaders in this climate face enormous challenges, as many believe it is their duty to encourage students to embrace accepted social and cultural mores. Burns consciously communicates the theory that reinserting morality into schools will do much to curb violence and by extension, other social problems. Block also posits the view that educational leaders are “accountable for the well being……..of those around us”. Clearly the moral demands of educational leadership go well beyond considerations of specific acts of moral choice. Similarly, frontal attacks on anti social behaviors and attitudes are not enough to create ethical schools The much more crucial work according to Starratt is ‘’to create a schoolwide learning environment that promotes the moral integrity of learning as the pursuit of the truth about oneself and one’s world, however complex and difficult that task may be”.
Ethical administrators, Greenfield argues, must serve as advocates for students and schools must be responsive to students’ needs. To achieve this, administrators seeking an ethical school must look inwardly as well as outwardly. They must attend to what some have called the state of their own “souls”. Meeting this challenge is arduous, requiring us to be active and reflective simultaneously. Beck has identified standards of good practice which involves being conscious, encouraging dialogue, modeling and being reflective, which when adopted, will aid administrators in providing ethical leadership. To ensure success moral leaders must do more than clarify their beliefs and philosophies about education. One must acknowledge the wider political concept in which leaders breathe. Coupled with an acknowledgement of the uniqueness of their context, the ethical school administrator “has a vision that includes the interrelatedness of all those involved in the school and community……viewing others as beings with respect and dignity”(Craig 94)
ByrneArmstrong, H. (2000, May). “Ethics and the Teaching Profession.” Combined Dinner 2000: The Dilemma of ethics. [On-line]. Available: http: //hsc.csu.edu.au/pta/pda/ ByrneArm_TALK_ ComDin2000.html.
Boostrom, R. (1998). “What Makes Teaching a Moral Activity?” The Educational Forum, 63, pp. 58-64.
Campbell, E. (1996). “Ethical Implications of Collegial Loyalty as One View of Teacher Professionalism.” Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 2(2), 191-208.
Campbell, E. (1997b). “Ethical School Leadership: Problems of an Elusive Role.” Journal of School Leadership, 7(3), 287-300.
Campbell, E. (2000). “Professional Ethics in Teaching: towards the development of a code of practice.” Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(2), 203-221.
Campbell, E. (2001, in class). The differences between ethics, morality and values. The sixth lecture of 1041 course. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto.
Chapman,W. (1998). Critical Thinking. [On-line]. Available:
Covey, S, R. (1990). The seven habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic (1st ed.). New York; Toronto: Fireside Book.
Cunningham, W. & P. Cordeiro. (2000). “Moral and Ethical Dimensions of Leadership.” Journal of School Leadership, 7 (3), 287-300.
Duke, D. (2000). Caring Safe Schools for All Children. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hinman, L. M. (2000). “Ethics Updates: Glossary.” [On-line]. Available: acused.edu /glossary. html.
Jones, T.M. (1991), “Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations and issue-contingent model”. Academy of Management Review, 16, pp. 366-95.
Klimes, R. (2000, Nov. 14). “Ethics Choices: How to Reason Ethically”. A learnwell CE Course LW-E101 [On-line]. Available:
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1998, 4th ed.). Beijing: Foreign Language Education and Research Press.
Marshall, C. (1992). “School Administrations’ Values: A Focus on Atypicals”. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3): 368-386.
Neufeldt, V. & Guralnik, D. B. (1988). Webster’s New World Dictionary. (3rd college edition), New York: Webster’s New World.
Patterson, J. L. & Patterson, J. H. (2000, Winter). “Ethics and Decision-Making in Schools”. The Internet Source For Schools. 3(2). [On-line]. Available: Decision -Making_in_Schoo…
Rest, J. (1986). Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. NY: Praeger.
Shafer, W. E., Morris, R. E. & Ketchand, A. A. (2001). “Effects of personal values on auditors’ ethical decisions”. Accounting, Audition & Accountability Journal, 14 (3), 254—277.
Sockett, H. (1990). “Accountability, trust, and ethical codes of practice.” in: J. Goodlad, R. Soder & K. Sirotnik (Eds), The Moral Dimensions of Teaching (pp. 225-249). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Starratt, R. J. (1994). Building on Ethical School: A Practical Response to the Moral Crises in Schools. London: Falmer.
Wimalasiri, J. S. (2001). “Moral reasoning capacity of management students and practitioners: An empirical study in Australia”. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(8), 614-634.
References
Organizations can be used to rationalize and
legitimize irrationality by means of institutionalization which
is supported and legitimized by science and technology whereby
science has become an ideology. Indeed, Science can then be seen
as quantified rhetoric; thus, Feyerabend (1975b:6) saw science
as "just one of the many ideologies that propel society and it
should be treated as such", and he did by stating in a later work
that "there is no distinction between logic and rhetoric. The
'subjective' and the 'objective' side of an argument merge into
one ... Notions with clearly defined intensions, Such as
'science', 'myth', 'metaphysics', are incapable of capturing
distinctions between elements (subtraditions) of a historical
tradition" (Feyerabend, 1981b:6).
Furthermore, educational researchers may be divided into two
separate schools of thought: the orthodox who follow the
empirical sciences, and the heterodox who pursue the
phenomenological arguments; while the former is concerned with
empirical research and statistical analysis, the latter regards
organizations as social inventions and as permeated with
ideology. For the heterodox school, it is experience which is the
essence of reality, while the orthodox subordinates experience
to behaviour. Logical positivists who dominate the orthodox
school, try to separate values from facts and ignore morality and
freedom of choice, while the heterodox school and critical
theorists believe this to be the more important part of
educational research.
Yet
Simon cannot tell administrators how values actually can be
removed from administration, simply because there is no solution,
values cannot be removed. Thus the central issues of
administration are philosophical rather than scientific. And this
arguments can also be applied to educational research. Values are
the result of human beliefs and actions and therefore can only
be subjective. Personal values are then reflections of one's own
subjective existence.
The penetration of positivist science ever since Taylor's
scientific management tries to increase the control by a
technical elite, where administrators are thought to be concerned
only with the factual verification of decisions, rather than with
their ethical content. Simon (1957:248) claimed that
administration can be made more scientific by ignoring ethical
content in the decisions-making process. Thus, he stated that:
"in so far as decisions can be said to be 'correct', they can be
translated into factual propositions. Their ethical element must
be eliminated before the terms 'true' and 'false' can be applied
to them". In a later article, Simon (1975) developed such ideas
further and refers to management science as "meta-technology"
designed for the objective application of technological systems.
Such techniques ignore a value system in which broad social and
human interests are reflected. The positivist decision-making
model "rationalizes choice as such by means of calculated
strategies and automatic decision-procedures" (Habermas,
1971:63). Rather than ignoring values, Hodgkinson (1978, 1983)
would use such values as a guide line for research and action in
educational administration.
Researchers who believe that their
research is objective and value-free simply implement such
subjective values as enshrined in the preconceived methodology
Feyerabend, P. K. (1975a). Against Method: Outline of an
Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: New Left Books.
The philosophical and sociological foundations of educational research.
------
98 Abstracts
------
John Joshua
Faculty of Education
Department of Educational Policy and Management
University of Melbourne
Paper presented at the A.A.R.E. Annual Conference,
Adelaide, 29 November - 3 December 1998.
Ethics of Educational Leadership, The, 1/e
Ronald W. Rebore, St. Louis University
Copyright 2001, 290 pp.
Paper format
ISBN 0-13-787920-2
Feyerabend, P. K. (1975b). How to Defend Society Against Science.
Radical Philosophy,II, Summer 1975:3-8.
Feyerabend, P. K. (1978). Science in a free society. London: New
Left Books.
Positivists try to separate facts from values and thereby create
a misrecognition of such social interests which determine what