Case Studies - Ethics

The major assessment task for this unit will allow you to demonstrate your capacity to apply and communicate your knowledge of key areas of ethical reasoning and decision making, explored in relation to two education-relevant case studies. Completion of this Assessment Task relates to Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APST) 2.1, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4 ILO 1: Reflect critically on the extent to which education’s character and purpose give rise to ethical duties for teachers ILO 2: Decide how best to apply ethical reasoning principles in relation to your teaching practice, taking into account compliance with professional codes of conduct and relevant legislative and regulatory imperatives ILO 3: Critique the ethical dimension of your engagement with parents and carers, justifying the importance of sensitivity and confidentiality when negotiating strategies to foster their children’s wellbeing ILO 4: Evaluate the impact of recent developments in education ethics and philosophy on teaching, and explain how these might inform the formation of your own professional practice Assessment criteria Criterion 1: Take a position on a topic and defend with reference to scholarly literature, appropriate codes of conduct, relevant legislation and policy, and other sources. Criterion 2: Apply a rationally-defensible decision making framework to address ethical problems as they appear in the case studies. Criterion 3: Write to third-year Bachelor standard (AQF7), consistent with scholarly writing conventions, presenting a well-structured argument and work that is free of errors in grammar spelling, punctuation, and referencing. 2500 words in total (strictly no more than 2800 words), not including reference list or cover sheet if you choose to use one. It is suggested that you allocate 1800 words for your work in sections A and 700 words for your work in section B. Preamble: This assessment task allows you to share your understanding of key aspects of education ethics and theory, and to explore how they might inform your professional practice. As this task is designed to capture your understanding of concepts at the standard of a third year undergraduate in a Bachelor degree programme, it is important that, however you choose to present your ideas, they are supported with cohesive reference to scholarly literature (using the Bailey text as a foundation) and professional resources (e.g. relevant code of ethics, legislation, policy, curriculum). Both sections in this assessment task relate to material covered in your lectures, readings and tutorials (weeks 4 – 12 particularly), but you may find it useful to refer to your work in weeks 2 – 4, concerning the purpose of education. Be sure to keep your answers concise, with succinct references to professional or scholarly sources where required. YOU MUST ADDRESS BOTH SECTIONS. The first section is weighted at 50% of the assessment task’s total score, and you are required to address ONE of the two options presented. Section B is weighted at 30%, and only one case study is presented. The remaining overall 20% is allocated to writing format and quality. ______________________________________________________ Section 1: You must choose to address EITHER of the two case studies described below. Please note that you may attempt ONLY ONE option. Option A DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS CASE STUDY IF YOU ARE ATTEMPTING OPTION B (below). Case Study 1: Theoretically informed Ethical Decision Making You are a Grade 1, 5 or 11 teacher in the second full year of your employment in a government school setting (Primary), and have designed an extended group-based activity for your class (planned to extend to a sequence of five sessions over the following week). Consistent with pedagogical best practice, you have selected group members carefully, such that each group’s composition ensures the most effective all-round learning experience for each member, taking into account their prima facie learning capacity as well as their social ‘presence’ in the class. You are pleased after the first session, because not only did each team appear to remain engaged until the end of the activity, students who do not normally appear to get on with each other seemed productively to cooperate, and their general social engagement appeared to have become more accommodating after only the first session. The second of five planned sessions is to occur this afternoon. But at lunchtime you are called by the school’s bursar to the reception area where the father of one of the students greets you. He seems a little aggravated, but not sufficiently so to warrant your summoning assistance. He explains to you that, while his (‘high achieving’) daughter reported enjoying yesterday’s group activity, he was alarmed to learn that she has been placed in a group with the (‘low achieving’) son of a family with which he refuses even peripherally to engage, on the basis that they are ‘poor and out of area,’ and he will not allow his daughter to mix with him (the boy has learning difficulties, but not so severe as to qualify for support under the relevant act). The father acknowledges that as a parent he has little say over who the school lets in; but he claims that he has every right to decide with whom his daughter should mingle, whatever she might say, especially when mingling with lower achieving children will almost certainly bring her grades down. He said his daughter does not mind engaging with the boy, but that does not understand how important it is to mix with the ‘right’ people. You believe that it is in the all-round best interests of both his daughter and the boy, and the class in general, that they do work in the same group, and this seems to have been confirmed in your observations. You also believe that it is a valuable exercise to foster inclusivity, as well as to encourage active and informed citizenship (you see the classroom as a microcosmic society in which important dispositions can be modelled and cultivated). The father disagrees and accuses you of trying to ‘level down,’ indoctrinating your students with your own biased beliefs about inclusivity, equity and education’s value as a tool for social change. He demands that you remove the boy from his daughter’s group (he likes the other children). What is the right thing to do here? How would you characterise the ethical significance of this situation? Does it present an ethical dilemma? Are you indoctrinating your students? Does the father’s argument prompt you to alter your position concerning the activity’s original purpose and the groups’ composition? Explain how would defend your position either to comply with or deny the father’s request, with explicit reference to his parental rights and his child’s and the other children’s rights and/or interests. How do contemporary models of thinking around inclusivity and indoctrination play out in defence of your decision? How can you ensure that your position is rationally defensible (i.e. are there good reasons for taking your stance? What are these?)? How 3 does your relevant Professional Code of Conduct and the Australian Professional Standards for Teaching inform your approach to the situation? How does reference to key documents such as the Alice Springs (Mpartnwe) Declaration support your case? Option B DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS CASE STUDY IF YOU ARE ATTEMPTING OPTION A (above). Case Study 2: Document analysis and ethical response to parental demand Read with attention and care the attached article (p. 6, below) from The Spectator (23 March, 2024). You are a primary or secondary teacher in a government school. A number of parents have shared the article with each other and support its main criticism of the identified elements of the curriculum. They have elected a spokesperson, the mother of one of your students, to approach you to discuss your views and how they shape your teaching of mathematics. She argues that the thrust of the article should be supported, that mathematics teaching as described has taken the political role of the curriculum, and ‘political correctness,’ too far, and that if you are teaching her child, and the children of those she represents, you should just focus on mathematics as such and ignore ‘the other stuff,’ all of which they consider to be forms of indoctrination and brainwashing. Of course you are caught unawares and have no prepared response. She hands you a photocopy of the article and asks to meet with you again in a week to discuss your thoughts and how you propose to respond to their demand. After she leaves you find your principal and share the exchange with her, seeking advice apropos how to proceed. She proposes that you read the article to understand its argument and the concerns it raised for the parents, and summarise them (the article’s main points) for her – she will accompany you to the next meeting with the parent. The principal also respects your professional status and autonomy, given that the demand is made of you as the classroom or subject teacher, and wishes to allow you to formulate the ‘official’ response, provided she supports the case you make. As an ethical professional your first priority is to understand the parents’ perspective and concerns – this means understanding the article (as well as summarising it for the principal). You then need to formulate a response that takes a position on the article’s stance/s and supports your recommendation to accede to the parents’ demand or to reject it. Given that this may escalate to higher authority, the principal asks that you develop a short report for her that she will use to inform her guidance concerning the meeting, and to justify the position you and she agree to take were the parent to escalate the complaint. Your first objective, therefore, is to develop a well-informed, rationally defensible argument to convince the principal to support your position. Should you accede to or reject the parent’s demand and why should your principal support your decision? 4 In no more than 2000 words (taking into account the volume of writing you require to address Section 2 of this assessment task, below) write an account of your ethical position on this situation. It must comprise two parts. The first part must be a descriptively critical analysis of the article. What are the author’s main points? What reasons does the author provide to support them? (These questions invite a descriptive response.) Are they good (i.e. true or compelling) reasons that justify the author’s criticisms of the curriculum? Why? What makes them true or compelling? (These questions invite a critical response.) If they are true or compelling, are you (and the school) ethically obliged to reconsider your approach to the teaching of mathematics, and register your position via the relevant channels? Why? If they are not true or compelling, how would you justify your own criticisms of the author’s argument? (These questions invite an ethical response, and thus we segue to the second part…). The second part must be a justified recommendation (i.e., an argument) concerning the response to the parent: ‘Having critically analysed the article, and considered the parents’ position in relation to it, I recommend that we should/should not do as the parent asks, for the following reasons.’ In recommending either to accede to the parents’ demand or to reject it, you should give clear reasons why your argument should be accepted by the principal. Your reasons MUST be supported by reference to the semester’s following core concepts (all of which are accessible via the weekly content and/or textbook chapters): children’s rights, professional ethics, inclusion, parental rights, state control of education, indoctrination and brainwashing. You must also refer to the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Declaration to support your argument by tethering it to the Commonwealth’s position on education’s aims and purpose. You may also refer to the Australian Curriculum (especially concerning the relevant cross-curriculum priority) to support your position. Each of these concepts may be used critically to address the article’s main points. _______________________________________________________ Section 2: Duty of Care and Negligence This task does not require you to explain and defend what you would ‘do’ ethically in this situation. Rather, it requires you to make an impartial ethical-legal judgement about a teacher’s actions (or inactions), on the balance of probability guided by the principles of duty of care and negligence. The object of this exercise is to demonstrate the depth of your understanding of the complex nature of professional duties (or care) in all educational contexts. Phillip is a first-year teacher in his second term at a K – 6 primary school. He is on yard duty this morning, and observes a tussle breaking out between two year 6 boys about 20 metres from where 5 he is standing, and no other teachers seem present. Students (of all ages) begin to gather around the two fighting boys as their grappling escalates. Phillip notices this and becomes concerned that the situation could become more serious unless someone intervenes. He is not sure how best to do this, as the boys are becoming quite violent and are almost as big as Phillip. He notices another teacher at the far corner of the yard, who does not seem to be aware of the fight, and decides to summon a nearby student, asking her to run to the other teacher for help (he turns away from the fight to indicate his colleague’s location). His plan is carefully to approach the fighting boys while the other teacher makes her way to the fray as backup. While he is finalising his instruction to the student, however, he hears a loud ‘crack’ and turns to see the crowd of students disperse, allowing him a view of one of the boys lying seemingly unconscious on the ground, bleeding from the head. Around 90 seconds have elapsed since Phillip first noticed the fight. Other teachers arrive and an ambulance is called. The injured boy is taken to hospital, where it is confirmed that he has suffered concussion and a fractured skull as a result of his head hitting the concrete after being punched to the ground by the other student (whose admission of this is confirmed by the students who witnessed the fight). Is Phillip’s decision to respond in the way he did consistent with reasonable expectations of a professionally trained teacher? Did he breach a professional duty of care? On the balance of probabilities should he be found professionally negligent? Why? Discuss with explicit reference to the four requirements of liability that apply to questions of negligence, defining each and explaining them in the context of Phillip’s situation. ** Text book to reference The Philosophy of Education - An Introduction by Richard Bailey Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Moltow and Thoars (2023) The Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Declaration Winstanley, C. `Educational Opportunities - Who Shall We Leave out' in Bailey, R., Ed., The Philosophy of Education - An Introduction (London: Bloomsbury, 2010), pp. 113 - 124. ** Please note that the second case study of Section 1 (you are required to choose only ONE case study in section 1) centres on an article from a popular current affairs magazine which represents a particular view of education with reference to Australia's First Nations people (specifically concerning the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures cross curriculum priority). Providing this as the subject matter for critical ethical analysis is in no way to be interpreted as constituting a position in relation to or endorsement of its content. This is an opportunity to employ your ethical vocabulary and cultivated critical thinking to engage professionally, sensitively, respectfully, and intellectually with an important issue that generates strong feelings in the community, and to which you will be subject in your professional lives. **