My Ethical Platform

In the course of the readings I have done recently, I had been exposed to many new, at least to me, concepts which I found to be appealing, fascinating and useful in understanding ethics and morality. They helped me develop new understandings about life and to a certain degree re-define the meaning of my work. As I am gathering the ingredients of my own ethical platform, I am finding that I need to borrow elements from different authors even though their views of morality sometimes contradict each other. As my journey meanders through my personal and professional life, I am seeking to find the best of all ethical worlds which resonates with my sense of right and wrong. Having said that, there is one approach to ethics that I was originally tempted to adopt as my own platform.
The situation matters the most......at first
Fletcher's Situation Ethics described by Markham was appealing to me at first because I believe that an ethical person should approach any situation with an open mind in a manner not restricted by preconceptions, rules or principles. I firmly agree that "people matter more than principles" and therefore "needs of people should [always] take priority". I am also in agreement with the idea that the only intrinsically good "thing" is love, which to me means love for all humanity. Then, like many others before me, I ran into an ethical road block when I realized that the logic of situation ethics doesn't address the possibility of justifying universally negative actions, such as killing, in situations where it could be rationalized to be the most loving action. Just a mere possibility of such paradox made me decide to look further. Although I have moved on to consider other ideas, situation ethics contributed to my platform by providing me with what I consider to be the necessary first step, or the fundamental principle, to apply to any ethically challenging situation.
The fundamental principle
I believe that one of the most basic forms of showing respect towards people is acknowledging the context of the situation they are in rather than blindly applying moral prescriptions or rules. After all, human beings are not machines and their behavior cannot be fully analyzed using the concepts of physical science. Understanding humans takes more than applying formulas, algorithms and equations and from a perspective of a logically oriented mind understanding human behavior is a messy and ambiguous process. What complicates understanding human behavior even more is that each of us functions among a group of people equally unpredictable, illogical and non-linear. Although we should be held accountable for our actions, I believe that by at least recognizing the complexity of the situational context of human behavior we acknowledge each other's humanity. Paraphrasing Markham's description of situation ethics which he defines as acting "situationally, not prescriptively", I think that we should think situationally and not prescriptively first.
In other words, to act morally, a leader must avoid applying ethical rules or prescriptions before taking into consideration all possible perspectives and gather the necessary background knowledge. Conversely, an unethical leader would make decisions and render judgments without considering the level of uniqueness of the situation and circumstances surrounding it. An ethical leader approaches each situation as if it were a unique, one of a kind event, unlike anything that happened before. After that, and only after that, the leader is free to apply any ethical platform he/she might have.
In search of balance
Since our actions have great impact on the most easily influenced members of the society, their families and the people who serve them, our teachers and staff, I think that we have a moral obligation to consider a multitude of ethical platforms and not just settle on one prescription for what is right or just. Following just one, strictly described doctrine, would put us in situations where too many unresolved moral conflicts would arise. The two approaches to ethics which influenced me the most, and are equally important to me, are the deontological ethics and consequentialism. As I am developing my platform I am in a constant search for finding balance between those two approaches.
My categorical imperative
As moral leaders we are often on a search for what Kant referred to as a categorical imperative or a golden rule that will lead us to judgments and decisions that are always right, regardless of the context or situation. I think that looking for categorical imperatives is essential in creating the points of moral reference that can circumscribe for what we fundamentally stand. Following this logic I have developed a list of imperatives for educational leaders first of which I consider to be categorical in nature.
No person should use their position of influence to intentionally or unintentionally harm a person with less power or influence. Since adults have inherent advantage over children the above also means: No adult should ever intentionally and unintentionally harm a child. I am using "unintentionally" because I think that it is one of our obligations to be informed and inquisitive even if this mandate appears to be unfair to us. "I did not know" is not a valid excuse for those who are sometimes the only people our students can rely on. By "harm" I mean a lot more than distress, pain or discomfort. I extend the meaning of this term to not meeting all, and not just educational and emotional needs, no matter how extensive they might be. This imperative should guide our actions well beyond the basic premise of not causing harm and has implications for creating a specific type of learning environment.
As an urban educator I am well aware that we must do everything we can to create learning conditions that are focused on a lot more than reading, writing and achievement measured with standardized testing. Negative voices sometimes claim that the negative forces outside of the school are so strong that teaching institutions will never be able to overcome them. I wholeheartedly disagree with these theories. Our students spend many hours of their lives inside our buildings where we control most aspect of their surroundings including the food they consume and the air they breathe. We carefully select and supervise the people who work with them, choose appropriate books and materials and arrange space for the maximum learning and comfort. We even provide training for parents and family members on anything they need to learn in order to be better at caring for their children. To the skeptics I say that we have an overwhelmingly enormous potential to overcome any barriers to students' achievement provided we open our minds and commit ourselves to this cause.
My categorical imperative leads me to defining the most critical mandate for urban school leaders which in my opinion should be: "Creating and supporting learning communities which are designed to unequivocally meet a multitude needs of all students and all adults who surround them at school and outside the school". In other words, it is a part of my ethical platform that our duty extends beyond just a child alone and includes everyone who has direct impact on their well-being: parents, siblings, friends, classmates and extends to every staff member of their school.
Imperatives for educational leaders
The following imperatives, while less "categorical" than the one described above, are nevertheless, in my opinion essential for moral educators and leaders in our schools. Part of my ethical platform is that I firmly believe that:
• Each leader must have a clear vision of what is an equitable and fair quality education because schools sooner or later become an incarnation of what a leader envisions or fails to envision.
• Each educator must cultivate the meanings of essential components of schooling such as teaching, learning, achievement, data use and ect.
• Each leader is responsible for collaboratively cultivating these meanings on the school-wide scale and include all stakeholders in the process of public discourse about these meanings.
• Each leader must promote reflective learning for everyone and especially for himself/herself and must create the conditions for others to become reflective learners as well.
• Each leader must consider all possible, intended and unintended, outcomes of his/her actions and take responsibility for these outcomes.
Important as these imperatives are to me, after reading about Kant's ideas on ethics, I was left with a feeling that they were not fully aligned with my sense of right and wrong. I realized that the source of my uneasiness was the possibility that someone could act on his or her ethical imperative in such was manner as the outcomes of their action yielded results that were against what their ethical imperative was intended to accomplish. Considering the consequences
According to Kant, the morality is based on a single imperative from which all duties are derived. Although Kant didn't did think that his ideas on ethics can be summed up as a search of a golden rule, his concepts nevertheless resonate with this way of thinking. Golden rules of any kind are appealing as they provide an ethical "short cut" to solving moral dilemmas. They work well in theory yet in practice they seem tricky.
We all agree that killing innocent people is wrong, all children should learn and everyone should have an equal opportunity to succeed but the real life often presents us with situations that are not clean cut or straight forward. One of the challenges to categorical imperative approach is that the golden rule or imperative must be formulated in such way as it would apply, without modifications or alterations, to all situations. That, in my opinion, is nearly impossible. I cannot envision an ethical leader who would not consider the outcomes of his/her actions regardless how convinced he/she was of the universality of their categorical imperatives. As long as there is the slightest possibility to make a "wrong" decision on the basis of our imperatives, which is always the case, we have to consider the consequences by asking the following questions:
• What are the immediate consequences this particular action or decision?
• What are the long term implications?
• Is there a conflict between the short term gain and long term results?
• Am I seeing this situation from all possible perspectives?
• Did I consider everything and everybody who can possibly be impacted by what I am about to do?
• Did I consult a sufficient number of people whose interests are at stake?
Of course, for a reflective ethically serious leader, this list might include many other questions specifically relating to a given situation. In fact, my work and life experience has taught me that being able to reflect is one of the most important characteristic of a successful leader. This reflection is most productive when specific questions are guiding our thinking process.
Questions to consider
As an opponent of tayloristic, modernism-laden scientific management practices I believe that human endeavors are non-linear and sometimes not entirely logical and therefore their exploration must involve wide, open-ended themes that allow for building self-awareness, understanding around the meanings behind the purpose for schools' existence or mission. I believe following questions reflect this type of thinking:
• What is the purpose for my school to exist?
• Is there a better way to serve our students and teachers?
• What type of public life is the institution I lead promote or encourage?
• To what degree is my school reminiscent or similar to a turn of the century factory?
• Do my actions impact students and teachers that way I intended for them to do?
Pondering questions like these speaks to my sense of what rational thinking process progressive school leaders must be constantly engaged in which is described by Ravitch as follows:
Doubt and skepticism are signs of rationality. When we are too certain of our opinions, we run the risk of ignoring any evidence that conflicts with our views. It is doubt that shows we are still thinking, still willing to examine hardened beliefs when confronted with new facts and new evidence.
Our thinking must go beyond mere analysis of our opinions and possible predictions of our actions. We must constantly examine the role of our beliefs in decision making process and help others do this as well. As the lead learners in our school communities, we also need to cultivate a culture of reflection of the meanings that surround us.
The meanings must be cultivated
I believe that one of the moral imperatives for educational leaders also ought to be to define and promote the meaning of the work every member of our learning communities should be involved in. The word "meaning" signifies more than wanting to convey, expressing intentions and denotation and connotation of words. According to Starratt, "the term meaning refers to the cultural and personal meanings that are attached to or embedded in events, circumstances, information, and symbols". Those personal meanings of all members of our learning community will come together in a cohesive, and powerful way when they are viewed through the lens of common myths, beliefs and convictions expressed as a school vision which is also a personal vision of the leader.
While I am a strong believer in developing school visions, I see them as a lot more than the fancy documents prominently displayed throughout our buildings. I think that vision statements are only valid when they are closely tied to the meanings promoted by the school leader and a community of teachers and learners. It is the responsibility of the leader to do what is necessary to ensure that there is a common understanding among all stake holders on important aspects of schooling by defining the meanings behind essential questions such as:
• What does it mean to provide a quality education to all students?
• What is "excellence" and what is "not good enough"?
• What does it mean to meet the needs of students, parents or teachers?
• What does it mean to "collaborate"?
• What does "working hard" and "working smart" mean in our building?
• What are the definition of "teaching" and "learning"?
• How do we define "leadership" and "teacher leadership"?
All I have considered so far leads me to the conclusion that all ethical situations need to have a backdrop which provides an environment that supports collaboration, communication and respect of diverse point of views of the school so it can become a true community. The most critical element of this type of democratic environment is the relentless, even if overly idealistic, pursuit of intellectual solidarity discussed by Hollenbach.
Intellectual Solidarity
Since our schools are filled with people coming from various cultural and religious backgrounds, meaningful discussions on important issues usually stir up emotions and make agreements more difficult. Seeking ideas and concepts that allow us to connect and agree on an intellectual level can eliminate or at least weaken the boundaries that divide us and ultimately bring us closer together.
The following quote, although referring to the issue of human rights, resonated with my sense of what the public school should represent and therefore contributes to my ethical platform as an urban school leader.
Intellectual solidarity as a dimension of common good also has important implications for the institutions that shape public life. In particular, it suggests that institutions that secure and protect human rights for all are essential to the common good of a community of freedom. (Hollenbach, 2002, p. 159)
When I envision an ideal learning environment, I see a close knit community of learners involved in a complex matrix of inter-personal communications around a common purpose. While I still consider human aspects of school, educational leadership, teaching and learning, to be the most essential element of public schooling, I now see it in a different light; as an institution that by the virtue of impacting the youngest members of our society has a profound impact on our public life and our freedoms. In other words, I now fully understand that the school structures do a lot more than communicate priorities and regulate behavior. They set the stage for what the future would entail. A question can be raised as to whether the schools should re-create the reality as it is or the reality as it ought to be.
Reality... as it ought to be.
The final element of my ethical platform is the notion that educational leaders cannot blindly accept the reality as something final that cannot be changed. In fact, I think that we need to think of the students and their families as the agents of positive societal change. It is our responsibility to communicate this idea both individually and as a shared knowledge. "What is common and what is individual are both required in any successful communication. The common and the individual mutually interpenetrate and mutually determine each other." (Hollenbach, 2002, p. 74).
More important than the manner of communicating it, is the specific content of the vision of the future of the world we are communicating and that must not be just the outcome of our creativity and desire of dominate. When formulating our vision we need to take into account the needs of all people we serve and what our civilization, in general, needs to allow our future generations to thrive in the atmosphere of trust and respect. Now more than ever, we need all people to realize that collaboration is the new competition our survival depend on how well we work together to solve global problems. This vision needs to be built slowly and by consensus so goals of individuals are alligned with the common good which should always be about justice and equity. This entire process must take place as we consider, with a great attention to the detail, all points of our ethical platforms like the one described above.

Now, that you know where I am coming from, it's your turn. What is your ethical platform?