Sunday, October 19, 2008
"If it's not Broke, oh, it is broke?"
In my job as principal among other responsibilities I manage the building budget. Facilities, tools, supplies, and equipment cost money. What gets attention and support; what waits?
One of my most recent dilemmas involves where to spend our limited school resources. The superintendent created an entrepreneurial environment during her tenure. This included grant writing, planning for matching funds, and utilizing the building from early morning to late at night. If she had her way we would run 24/7/365 and make a reasonable return on the investment.
When the building, tools, and equipment are used hard repair and replacement are inevitable. Here are my choices for this week:
Hand washing stations in 8 labs need repaired or replaced; replacement costs for each station estimated at $7,000 and $10,000 each or $90 per hour for time and pay for materials as needed.
The cafeteria manager and the baking and pastry chef share the walk-in freezer. The food service manager (who moved to another district) ordered in bulk over the summer for fall delivery and government surplus was also delivered recently. The chef is gearing up for several large events in October and November and the other cafeteria managers have no room in their freezers at their schools. Additionally the three door reach-in freeze in the baking and pastry lab was diagnosed with two warped doors needing replaced at the cost of $1,400 each or to replace the entire freezer at the cost of $6,700.
With the help of local and grant funds over the past few years several of the manufacturing labs received new equipment, power, floors, and paint. The welding lab nearly doubled in floor space and equipment. Something having to do with the tig welders continues to set off the fire alarm pull stations in random parts of the building. It seems the additional tig welders or the movement of all the tig welders to a new bus bar or the ground or the proximity to the fire alarm wires creates the alarm. As the building principal you do not want to see your volunteer fire fighters several times over the course of two weeks. The company that installed the wiring and panel and the monitoring company do not suggest the same repair; electrical contractors are currently providing quotes. To date fixes range from internal and low cost and external over $10,000.
A major piece of equipment in the manufacturing cluster program is down and repair costs exceed 50% of the old equipment; a new piece could cost $20,000 or more. There is another class in the building with the same equipment.
The maintenance supervisor has been out since the end of May.
You may ask where the dilemma is. While these are facilities and equipment concerns students and teachers are impacted.
Interpretation of the problem (ethic of critique)
Stakeholders in this situation are students, teachers, maintenance/custodians, employers, community, and me. Students could be without a voice, are often impacted, and they do not know. For example the instructor teachers on other machines and does not use the manufacturing equipment or tig welder. The employers are impacted when the student applies for a job and starts working lacking a skill set. The community feels the clash when prices go up or the student employee loses a job. We also have adult education classes in the building; adult students also pay for training which should include tig welding.
Teachers take pride in their labs and their students. Teachers without proper facilities, equipment and tools are demoralized. This can be a very vocal or silent group. Maintenance and custodians work to keep facilities and equipment clean and safe, another vocal or silent group.
Relevant arenas of practice consist of self, profession, and organization. I see this as circle or figure-8 race track: self v. profession v. organization. When I refer to self I refer to each individual student, teacher, maintenance/custodian, and employer involved. These individuals clash with the profession and organization that should provide and yet have limited resources. The organization’s limited resources force a choice or choices providing for some and not all involved in the dilemma.
I believe pride in work and self are values in the conflict.
The turbulence created from the conflict impact morale and a feeling of helplessness. The teachers want the best for their students and themselves. When facilities and equipment are less than optimal discouragement descends.
Towards a humane response (ethic of care)
In this situation different stakeholders are faced with some similar and different levels of motivation. For example all stakeholders are concerned with values grounded in preference i.e. self, personal preference, habitual, and comfort. Students, teachers, employers, and community are motivated by outcomes. Is the student getting the proper training on the proper equipment? Are the facilities adequate? Is the student employable? Perceptions of others, consultation, and expert opinion are gathered when deciding where to spend money. This is not an experience in which the trans-rational appear.
The conflict is interpersonal for some and intrapersonal for me. The teachers, employers, and maintenance/custodians are at times at odds with one another. The intrapersonal conflict for me is the ultimate decisions for committing the resources. The human needs are to value and feel valued and validated by committing the funds to the program/s.
Ethical action (ethic of justice)
I believe the action or response that would maximize benefits and respect individual rights for all stakeholders is to give everyone new, now; this is not an option. I return to a much used educational word: adequate. Adequate sounds inadequate, sounds less than I want in my lab, in my school, for my students, or for my teachers.
Do the ends justify the means? And if this is truly an ethical dilemma how will I resolve the dilemma? In this example I lean toward avoidance and creative insubordination. Avoidance is not unconstructive in this regard; it is the solution that considers the desired outcomes and avoidance of negatives. There is a fine line between insubordination and subordination and in the above circumstances working in a team often drives the best results. The ends v. means? I liked the newspaper test reference. If this was in the paper tonight or tomorrow, what would I say? How would I feel? Would I still be working here?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Note: This narrative was written by "Thomas" and posted by the blog administrator.
For more than a decade, my home country, Liberia, had undergone a deadly civil crisis. When I matriculated to the University of Liberia in September, 1987, I didn’t complete my study when a civil war hit Liberia on December 24, 1989. During this period, I escaped along with some people and was in the bush for several days. My intention was to flee to Ghana but the possible route for me was to go through the Republic of Ivory Coast, also known as Coted’Ivoire.
My siblings and mother who were in the country side escaped to Ivory Coast during the early stage of the war. I was happy to hear that they had fled. At last, I was successful to cross into Ivory Coast in August, 1990. While in Ivory Coast, I wrote and passed the United Nations teachers recruitment test designed to select qualified Liberians to teach Liberian refugee children enrolled in UN assisted elementary schools. Selected teachers were given in-service training to strengthen their instructional and classroom management skills. I started teaching in the school system in September, 1991. As a refugee and teacher, my allowance (salary) was relatively good to cater for my mother and siblings since I was only one somehow educated and working. In 1993, I informed my mother and siblings that I was going to resign and leave for Ghana. I explained to them that Ivory Coast being a French speaking country, I would not be able to meet my career goal in life and the level of contribution I envisaged to make to my family, community and country would not be realized. The concern of my family was the job and support they received; in other words, they could not think about the big picture I was considering. The dilemma experienced: Should I resign from the job and go to Ghana for a study that I wasn’t certain about in terms of financial resources, and forgo the earnings and family’s needs? This was a hard decision to make; however, after considering the economic and aesthetic values of knowledge, social prestige, and, self esteem, I convinced my family that resignation from the job was unavoidable, and I was prepared to take the risk. I resigned and departed for Ghana in April, 1993. After a period of struggle in Ghana, I was offered admission and won a UN scholarship.
In 1997, I completed my BS degree study at the University of Ghana. I returned home where there was relative calm. I secured employment with the University of Liberia as Teaching Assistant in Agricultural Engineering. I was never motivated by the professor whom I work with. I assisted the students in tractor driving and maintenance, mathematical problem solving, and marking of papers. He would permit me to read a book for day when I needed it for a week to digest the materials in order to help the students. My professional life became miserable and started hating the course because he was not just my pivotal person. I decided to return to Ghana for graduate study since I was not defining myself professionally.
Dilemma experienced: Leaving job and not certain of financial support for graduate study became a serious dilemma. However, I took the risk and resigned from the job as Teaching Assistant, and left for Ghana for the second time.
Upon arrival in Ghana, I secured a teaching job with at high school known as Precious Jewels Foundation School System. The principal and proprietor of the school was my former schoolmate at the University of Ghana. While in the school, I was appointed as elections chairman to conduct the student council elections for academic 2002/2003. The principal’s son was vying for the position of school president. Another student, a male, was opposing the principal’s son. Instead of the principal allowing the students to make decisions about their choice through ballots, he wanted me to determine the outcome of the elections in favor of his son. Dilemma experienced: Should I maintain my little earnings by faking the result in the interest of the principal or make a moral judgment as a result of my professional values and accept losing income? When the elections result was about to be announced in the school auditorium, the principal called me to meet him in his office. I refused to attend to his call because I considered it my moral obligation to remain impartial until the release of the final result. The principal’s son lost the elections and his opponent won with a very wide margin. This brought rift between the principal and me. As a result of my efficacy in instructional activities and leadership, I was supported by the teachers and student populace.
Seeking financial support for graduate study, I applied to the Association of African Universities head office in Accra, Ghana, for a Ford Foundation International Fellowship. The competition included 1400 applicants. After an initial review, 20 applicants of the initial 1400 were invited for personal interviews. A total of nine applicants were determined to be qualified for a fellowship and I was one of the nine. I was admitted at Penn State University for my Master’s degree study (2003-2005). Dilemma faced: Should I stay in America to defy immigration regulation and work or return home to contribute my quota to the development of my war ravaged country under a life threatening condition? In support of my inner conviction to impact lives of young people and community leaders, I returned home and secured job with a regional based NGO, Social Enterprise development Foundation of West Africa, and was able to contribute meaningfully to the development of my country.
Applying the Value Audit Process: Begley, P. (2005). A Value Audit Guideline. Penn State
Step 1: Interpretation of the Problem (ethic of critique)
-The stakeholders include: Family members (mother, brothers, and sisters), principal, teachers, professor, students, friends, organizations, and I.
-What arenas of practice are relevant? The relevant arenas of practice are self, profession, organization, community, and culture. For example, “self” is relevant as an arena of practice because my focus is to bring about self esteem and self actualization socially, economically, and professionally. In this way, my moral stand in decision making is paramount. The meta-value of profession is critical as an arena of influence.
-Does the conflict exist within an arena or between two or more? Example: personal vs. organizational. The conflict exists within an arena. The conflicts existed within an arena and also between two or more people, in relation to my values, the meta-values of my profession (i.e. aesthetic, economic, and ideological purposes) community, culture or organization. For example, making a decision to leave my family and resign from a job in Ivory Coast for a study which I didn’t have money for, was indeed a conflict within the self. The situation at the high school was a conflict between two or more people.
-Can the values in conflict be named? The values are integrity, goal-achievement, commitment, responsibility, honesty, justice, courage, and patriotism.
-How much turbulence are the values in conflict creating? The degree of risk was high for all dilemmas experienced. For example, if I had not gotten a scholarship, I wouldn’t have gotten my first degree.
Step 2: Towards Humane Response (ethic of care)
-What motivations and degrees of commitment are apparent among the stakeholders?
The levels of motivations among the stakeholders include the following:
Concerned with self, personal preference, habitual, comfort. Earning a higher degree would give me a higher income; high self esteem; and a high social prestige.
Concerned with desired outcomes, avoidance of undesirable. My family didn’t want to starve (avoidance of undesirable); therefore, my being on the job to help sustain them, was their desired outcome.
Concerned with ethical postures, first principles, will or faith. My decision was and has been basically embedded in faith.
-Is the conflict interpersonal or intrapersonal? The conflict is interpersonal and intrapersonal. For example, when the dictatorial and unprofessional practice of the principal was opposed, it became an interpersonal conflict. Taking a moral stand to announce the fair results of the elections became intrapersonal (within me).
-What are the human needs, as opposed to organizational or philosophical standards? Human needs are physiological, security, self esteem, and self actualization. These needs were considered at levels. For example, when I resigning from a UN job in Ivory Coast to travel to Ghana for study, my mother and siblings were concerned about food to eat and house to live in, which represent physiological and security needs. On the other hand, I was concerned about self esteem and the thought of empowering them economically in the near future.
Step 3: Ethical Action (ethic of justice)
-What actions or response would maximize benefits for all stakeholders?
For example, I rendered fair judgment in declaring the election result of the high school openly. I remained impartial and the student populace and teachers accepted the result as being free, transparent, and fair, although the principal wanted the result to favor his son. Secondly, my desire for further education enabled me to secure employment after completing master’s degree and was able to build a better house for my mother.
-What response would respect individual’s rights? Response in line with values that an organization or institution is subscribed to or a meta-value of one’s profession. For example, in the case of the high school, our individual rights were respected.
-Are desired ends or purposes interfering with a selection of a means or solution?
Yes, indeed, the desired ends interfered with the process of selection a solution. For example, the desire of self esteem interfered with the sustenance plan of my family since I had to resign a job that was sustaining all of us.
-If an ethical dilemma exists, I can resolve it by taking a moral stand. I took a moral stand at the high school in opposing the principal’s dictatorial and unprofessional behavior. I ignored his threat of dismissal and did the right thing.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
My first passion has always been baseball. I still fantasize about a career covering a major league baseball team for a newspaper, or calling games on the radio each night, or anchoring SportsCenter on ESPN. I let my obsession wane as I got into my career, but having XM Satellite radio with every broadcast of every game has rekindled some of the old flame.
I read baseball books constantly as a boy. Roger Angell, Roger Kahn, Peter Gammons, David Halberstam, and others were my literary role models; my fellow English teachers wonder why I haven’t read Hawthorne or Fitzgerald. I wonder why they don’t appreciate what it meant to be a Brooklyn Dodger fan in the early 1950’s.
For as much as I appreciate the history of the game and the literary tradition of baseball, I enjoy playing and coaching the sport even more. I’ve been in a competitive men’s league in my hometown area for the past 13 years, and had the opportunity to coach at the Junior Varsity level for two years while teaching in Local School District. This time as a coach is the subject of my critical incident.
When I first took the position, an area man who ran an auto body shop had taken the varsity coaching position from a teacher who had coached for a number of years but had very little success. The new coach, who we’ll just call BB, had played softball with my dad in their younger adult years. My father also officiated his wedding ceremony, so yes, we had met. He also had a reputation as a hot-head who was notoriously more interested in his players on the field than in the classroom or outside school. Knowing all of this, I learned quickly to expect the unexpected from BB.
During that first year, we were able to keep nearly all the players who started. BB’s varsity team did a fair job of playing up the their competition, but were not talented enough to win a lot of games. My JV team did not fare very well, but we played hard and were competitive in some games where we should not have been. I declined the offer to move up and be the varsity assistant, however, because of many instances where BB and I clashed over how issues such as the importance of players being academically eligible and my high expectations for my players to grasp complex nuances of the game. BB said on numerous occasions that he didn’t care about his players in the classroom, and also that our players could not handle advanced signal systems because they were “just from around here.” He also did a poor job of managing games on the field and routinely embarrassed himself with poor conduct directed toward umpires and other coaches.
Our second year went poorly, as you can tell. Record-wise, my JV team did very well, winning a very prestigious tournament against three top teams. The varsity players quit the team in droves, leaving BB little choice but to call up players from my team to fill the holes. I was left with as few as two players for practice. My role as a teacher, and a well-liked teacher, was to catch the players who quit and try to bring them back, while commiserating with them that playing for BB had become nearly impossible.
At the end of the season, I applied against BB for the varsity job, knowing full well that I would not be offered the position. BB had painted the school’s golf cart, and donated money for the after-prom party. I had done great work in the classroom and on the field as a coach. The politics of the school leaned toward BB. I did not choose to come back as JV coach again. There is some tongue-in-cheek material in this paragraph.
Thankfully, I met the new softball coach and worked alongside him as the varsity assistant for the next two years. The bitter taste that had been left in my mouth by a corrupt organization that would rather have BB as its varsity coach than me was appeased somewhat by the fun Jack and I had with the softball team. We didn’t win much, but we molded a group of young women into a team that learned how to care about their performance. This opportunity to teach young people to take pride in preparation and how you carry yourself despite long odds for success was great character-building experience.
Value Auditing a Critical Incident (Paul Begley, Penn State, 2005)
Step 1: Interpretation of the Problem (ethic of critique)
The stakeholders in this critical incident were quite varied, ranging from players and parents of players to the coaches involved to the administrators charged with hiring coaches. The stakeholders with the most voice were BB and the administrators, both of whom had much more influence with their voices than the players. I had a voice, although it was subordinated by my lack of political “pull.”
Throughout this time, relevant arenas of practice included self, group, profession, organization, and community. There was much conflict between these arenas. For example, my personal passions for teaching and coaching young people in an ethical manner with strong moral components clashed with administrators and BB’s desire to maintain organizational practices focused on political and bureaucratic traditions. This struggle between self and organization is one that dominated my years at Local School District. I will maintain, however, that without this struggle I would not have entered administration and encountered the measure of success I have had. I can fairly maintain that the turbulence of the conflicts between BB and myself pushed me out of the pit of bureaucracy and community politics and above the fray. This is the first time I’ve ever commented that I am better for not getting the job I wanted so badly.
Step 2: Towards a Humane Response (ethic of care)
The stakeholders involved had divergent motivations. But, and here is where I have a more cynical view of meta-values, each major stakeholder claimed the same motivation.
I had motivations concerned with self and personal preference (my passion for baseball); motivations concerned with desired outcomes (a winning baseball program with young men who were successful on and off the field); and motivations concerned with ethical postures (a baseball program needed a coach that cared about doing things the right way).
BB’s motivations were concerned with self (his son was on the team, he played there in high school); avoidance of undesirable (winning was placed above player development and academics); and ethical postures (a baseball program needed a coach that cared about doing things the right way).
The administration’s motivations were concerned with self, desired outcomes, along with an interesting twist of concern for the perceptions of others. At the meta-value level, however, that similar ethical posture was there as a refrain (the baseball program needed a coach that cared about doing things the right way).
So, we have three different stakeholders who cared about “doing things the right way.” What was the right way? Was it my value system? Was it BB’s? Was it the administration’s? Each set of values was different, although we each wanted the same result. Hence, my hesitation to blindly advocate for meta-values; there must be more grass-roots effort expended to establish common “mini-values” before a meta-value can mean anything at the organizational level.
Step 3: Ethical Action (ethic of justice)
There is an old saying in baseball: “you’re only as good as the next day’s starting pitcher.” I feel the same way about justice in public school systems. While the maximized benefits for the student athletes involved in the baseball program would have been to have a coach in the school who valued each person’s overall worth and contributions both on and off the field, the administration did not see the situation the same way. They felt that they owed the auto body shop owner who painted the golf cart a coaching job, even though he repeatedly embarrassed himself with umpires, lost many players due to personality conflicts, and alienated parents because of his coarse manner.
The decision made was wrong. There is no question in my mind that an unethical decision was made by the athletic director when I applied for the coaching job. It has little to do with me personally, and I feel comfortable saying that now that I am at a school where we deliberately work to make ethical decisions free from political influence. It was the wrong decision because those involved had to suspend their own morality and values to retain a coach who consciously subverted their administrative vision for student programs.
Now, let me qualify something: I made the right decision for myself and the players. I could not continue as JV coach. The “ends” of a successful program were interfered by me being in the building and BB being out of the building. The best solution for the program, no matter who the coach turned out to be, was for one of us not to be involved any longer. The players had too much of an outlet for complaining about BB with me, which undermined his efforts. This was addition by subtraction since one of us would not be involved any longer.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Note: This narrative was authored by ECM and posted to the blog by the blog administrator.
As a middle school reading teacher, I worked as part of the middle school team. Because my district was tiny—fewer than 800 students—all the middle school teachers (grades 7-8) were on the same team because there was only one teacher for each subject area for both grades. Other members of the team included: the science, social studies, math, English, learning support and writing/public speaking teachers, and the blended and guidance counselors. The middle school principal, nurse, and school psychologist were also official members of the team, though they only came to meetings if necessitated by a specific situation. The team met every day for 40 minutes, during which time we discussed student academic, social, and emotional issues, as well as complaints about administrators, parents, and all the other issues that typically promote faculty grumbling. We also met with students and parents, held IEP conferences, and planned middle school events.
I should point out that while I considered most of my colleagues to be excellent teachers, my teaching style was quite different. My desks were arranged in groups of four; I had a reading corner with a lending library, bean bags and carpet; and my classes were largely based on small and large group discussions and projects related to text. My colleagues subscribed to the more traditional classroom set-up and lecture formats.
The extent of my participation in team conversations was determined largely by topic. On a number of occasions, our team got into heated arguments over policies, and responses to organizational dilemmas. At other times, the whole team would debate a student issue or school policy with an administrator or the school psychologist. Team members also argued issues directly related to the practice of teaching and to the students. One such case was the deliberation over the possibility of sending Maria to the alternative school, housed in a defunct garment factory next door.
I thought this was the worst idea anyone could ever have considered! Maria was a Mexican-American student who had just moved into the district one year ago and received learning support for a reading disability. (She was the only Mexican-American student in the school.) Her mother was a drug dealer who, after a drug arrest, purchased a bus ticket and went to Mexico to live with her boyfriend, abandoning her children. Maria’s younger brother (a sixth grade student in the elementary school) had overdosed on cocaine earlier in the year and was lucky to survive. Maria was taking care of her younger siblings with no parent in the house until Children & Youth finally stepped in and placed Maria with a foster family in the district who knew her and her family.
Because of all of these factors, naturally Maria had some trouble with authority figures. I sent her to the office on a number of occasions, myself, until I figured out how to relate to her. Other teachers could not make the situation work, and, consequently, Maria spent many after-school hours in detention. So, it was no surprise when three of the team members, including the learning support teacher (who had a very large teaching load), proposed that Maria should go to the alternative school.
The alternative school was tiny, bursting at the seams with students from our district and a neighboring district, ranging from grades 7 to 12. One and one-half teachers and an aide were in charge of the alternative school. Students completed their work online in the mornings and were free to play computer games, as a reward for good behavior, in the afternoons. The students in the school were mainly drug dealers and other habitual disciplinary problems. It was basically a dumping ground for those students who teachers could not cope with in the regular building.
I entered this debate with passion. Why would we send the abandoned daughter of a drug dealer to this building? What good would we accomplish by placing her with drug dealers? What would we be teaching her by abandoning her yet again? Didn’t we owe it to this girl to spend some extra time with her? My worries fell on deaf ears in our team meeting, so I met with the blended counselor on my own. She agreed that it would be a bad placement for the student, but the teachers and the principal did not want to deal with her anymore. I talked to the principal. He wanted to do what the team requested. The foster mother agreed to the move because Maria was behind in her coursework, and the principal assured her that Maria could make up any lost time (up to one school year) in the alternative education setting.
This was a really challenging interpersonal situation for me. While I was concerned about the impact of this decision on Maria, my colleagues were concerned about the impact her behavior would continue to have on their classes. We were arguing from two very different perspectives. I had the minority voice, so we shipped her off to the alternative education building mid-year. Two years later, I still feel that we failed Maria.
Step 1: Interpretation of the problem:
The stakeholders included the teachers, counselors, administrator, Maria, and her foster mother. Maria was voiceless. Her foster mother agreed to the placement because she thought Maria could make up an academic year in the five months remaining in the school year.
The following arenas of practice are relevant: self, professional, organizational, community, cultural, with conflict occurring between and within multiple arenas. Conflicts existed between the self and organizational and between the professional and organizational. My values conflicted with the values I perceived in the organization—order and conformity over the individual. I also felt conflict between my personal professional values and those of my colleagues—I was willing to spend extra time without an aide to help Maria with her coursework, but my colleagues were unable or unwilling, in some cases, to act similarly. I believe conflicts existed between the organizational and cultural, and community and cultural, as well, which made it so difficult for my colleagues to work with this student, many of whom were from the district community or a neighboring community, both with homogeneous rural populations.
Values in conflict included: flexibility, adaptability, obedience, authority, justice, conformity, teamwork. The values in conflict created some turbulence within the team as the blended counselor and I lost an impassioned battle over what we perceived to be dangerous social and academic risk to one student.
Step 2: Towards a humane response:
I think my colleagues were concerned with the self and preference, as removing Maria from their classrooms would create a less challenging experience in their classrooms. I think they were also concerned with desired outcomes—fewer distractions from Maria would mean more uninterrupted time and focus spent on content. The counselor and I were concerned with avoidance of undesired outcomes—we saw a move to alternative education as possibly disastrous for Maria’s future. Maria’s foster mother and the principal were concerned with perceptions of others and consensus among experts, which they largely received. The conflict was interpersonal, with colleagues differing in values, motives, and actions.
The human needs were, for Maria, the sense that people around her cared enough to spend the extra time required to help her understand content and develop positive relationships of caring. Maria’s foster mother had a need to feel that she was taking proactive steps to help Maria further her education and improve her behavior.
Step 3: Ethical action:
The actions taken by the principal—sending Maria to the alternative education building—maximized benefits for most stakeholders. Maria would no longer be a distraction in my colleagues’ classes. Keeping Maria in the regular school and providing her with increased counseling services and academic support would have respected her individual rights. A more open team system, in which colleagues shared effective practices in working with learning support or behaviorally challenging students, might have alleviated discipline problems concerning Maria before alternative education was even considered. The ends did not interfere with the means for the majority because sending Maria to the alternative building alleviated distractions in my colleagues’ classrooms. The ends would have interfered with the means if we were making a decision based on best interests for the student and her potential for academic and social success.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Note: This narrative was authored by JTW and posted by the blog administrator.
It was approximately 8:05 a.m. in the morning. School had just begun. The resuscitation of the pledge of allegiance and the moment of silence was completed in each classroom of the school. As I prepared to leave my office to begin a formal observation of a teacher, Mrs. Light came rushing into the office. She looked at me and said, “I do not know what to do about this so I am bringing it to your attention.” She opened the palm of her hand to reveal a 22 caliber bullet!
I immediately asked her where she found it. She explained that as she was closing her door to begin class she found it laying directly outside her door on the floor. I began to think furiously as to what my next move should be. Is there a possibility that there is a student in the building with a gun? Are they planning on using it to harm another student or a teacher or possibly me? Are they already executing a plan somewhere inside the building? I calmly said thank you to Mrs. Light and told her that I would take care of the situation immediately and asked her to return to her room.
I immediately called the Superintendent to inform him of the situation. He was not in the district that day, of course, but he asked me to get the administrative team to my building as soon as possible and together we would discuss what course of action needed to be taken to ensure the safety of all involved. As I was waiting for the administrative team to convene I decided to notify the school over the intercom to stay in their classrooms until further notice and asked the teachers to be certain to lock their doors from the outside. I could not take the chance of having someone enter a classroom and begin a shooting spree; all I could think about was the incident at Columbine High School.
I directed the custodian to check all exterior doors to ensure the security of the building. Anyone who came to the main office door was allowed to enter but was asked to remain in the office. I was certain that as soon as all of the administrators from other buildings began arriving at my building that the office staff would realize that this was not going to be an ordinary day.
At approximately 8:30 a.m. we convened a conference call in my office with the Superintendent. Together, as a team, we collaborated on what was our next move. Police, both state and local were notified as well as the Sussex County bomb squad. We requested the bomb dog be brought from the Sussex County into the building to make sure that we did not have a gun in the school that possibly had already been fired. We also decided that we would collectively search all rooms, available space in the school as well as students and their lockers. Basically we decided that it was necessary to make a sweep of the entire building inside and out, for it was the only way to ensure the safety for everyone inside the school.
An announcement was made over the loud speaker that everyone would need to stay in their classrooms until further notice and any classroom emergencies should be called into the main office. We knew that we were under a time constraint due to the amount of building space we needed to search and the amount of students and their lockers that would need to be searched. There was also a time constraint due to students and teachers being locked in rooms without food, water and bathroom facilities.
At approximately 8:45 a.m. we began to search all areas including lockers, rooms, and students. We began in the front hallway where the 22 caliber was initially found and systematically went through each hallway, room and locker one at a time. The local police provided us with metal detecting wands to use to scan the students. At approximately 9:35 a.m. the Sussex County police dog arrived and was taken through the building to alleviate fears of a fired weapon. The building both inside and out was determined to be safe and by approximately 11:00 a.m. all students were able to move about freely and classes resumed for the remainder of the day.
A letter was drafted, as per the Superintendent’s request, explaining the incident. I was very relieved that this seemed to be an isolated incident, possibly a bullet that fell out of a student’s pocket that was left there from a weekend of hunting.
At approximately 1:30 p.m. in the afternoon that same day, Miss Uply came into the office and asked to see me. She too had something in her hand. She looked at me and said, “I’m not sure what to do about this but I thought I should bring it to your attention.” At that point and time I thought déjà vu! What could possibly be wrong now? She opened her hand and unfolded what looked like a Kleenex and inside the Kleenex was a pocket knife. I looked at it in disbelief. How could this day go so wrong? First a 22 caliber bullet and now a knife! She must have saw the look on my face and said to me, “I do not think this one is as bad as our incident earlier.” Shannon gave this to me because she was afraid that she would get into trouble. She knew that you were searching everyone so before you searched her she hid the pocket knife in a tissue box in the classroom. When the searches were over she retrieved the knife and gave it to me and asked me to bring it to you and explain to you what she did. To make a long story short, this young ladies father is a knife maker and she had the pocket knife left in her sweatshirt pocket from the weekend and forgot it was there. When her class was told that they would need to be searched and they were asked to empty their pockets she found the pocket knife, panicked and hid the knife before she was searched.
I brought Shannon into my office and asked her to explain what had happened and how the pocket knife came into the school. It was not my decision to make as to whether she would receive a suspension or possibly even an expulsion due to a weapons violation, but I did promise her that I would speak on her behalf as to the sincerity and cooperation that she showed in my office. Fortunately, we do not have a zero tolerance policy and the superintendent understood that mistakes can be made and told the student that if there is another incident such as this one she will be suspended and an expulsion hearing will occur.
Let me take you back to the 22 caliber bullet. Approximately a month later, rumors throughout the student body were brought to my attention. A specific student was being tied to the 22 caliber bullet that was found in the hallway outside Mrs. Light’s doorway. We checked the students schedule and indeed he was a student in Mrs. Light’s first period class. We called Fred to the principal’s office and explained to him the severity of the situation and that we were being told by many students that the 22 caliber bullet found the previous month was his. Fred confirmed and apologized for not coming forward. He explained to us that he was afraid of the consequences of his actions and did not want to be chastised by his peers. As previously thought, he was hunting over the weekend, thought that he had taken all of the ammunition out of his jacket pocket and obviously missed one.
In light of now knowing what happened on that day should Fred have a consequence for his actions, or non-action, on the day of the incident? Police were involved, the school day was disrupted. We do have a school board policy #713 which states if a student impedes or delays the educational process they can be disciplined by reprimand, detention, suspension or even expulsion. We decided to give the reprimand, taking into consideration the student’s previous record and sincerity.
Both of the incidents presented could have been disastrous from many aspects, but because of level heads, collaborative teamwork and cooperative students, staff and faculty, the day was salvaged for academia to continue. This day made me realize that I am capable of providing leadership to my school. Even more so, I can be an effective member of an administrative team.
Step 1: Interpretation of the problem (ethic of critique)
• Who are the stakeholders? The stakeholders from the incidents of the day are Mrs. Light, Miss Uply, Fred, Shannon, all students, parents, administration, superintendent, office staff, custodial staff, local and state police, Sussex county police and the bomb dog.
• Are any unrecognized or without voice? Due to how the incidents originated the students, teachers and parents are without voice. They had no control as to the events that occurred. They were a captive audience due to the possible severity of the situation.
• What arenas of practice are relevant? The arenas of self, group, profession, organization, community and culture were all relevant.
• Does the conflict exist within an arena or between two or more?
The incidents conflict is between the culture and the organization. The culture is one of acceptance of guns, ammunition and knives due to the number of people in the community that hunt for food or play. The organization, in this case the school, exists to educate. The organization is not accepting of weapons within the school setting, however is willing to be understanding of mistakes made. There also is a conflict between self and the group due to the fact that not all students and their families are accepting of hunters and their use of weapons. This is a case of a few interrupting the education of the majority.
• Can the values in conflict be named?
In this specific scenario the values of profession, care and critique are all aligned. There is a question however as to whether or not justice was served due to the fact that neither student truly received a punishment as such, other than a reprimand. One could say that a certain faction of the community would be in conflict with the value of justice in this case.
• How much turbulence are the values in conflict creating?
There is a degree of risk for structural damage to people, specifically the relationships between students, teachers and the administration because of the disruption that was caused for all. This incident could also cause damage to the relationship between the community and the school administrators. I believe the one salvation is that the community is never privy to what consequences are given to students, unless of course the student shares the information with other students, then all bets are off!
Step 2: Toward a Humane Response (ethic of care)
• What motivations and degrees of commitment are apparent among the stake holders?
Mrs. Light and Miss Uply used rational values that were grounded in consequences. They were concerned about the outcomes that the weapons would bring for everyone involved. Fred and Shannon were acting sub-rationally when they brought the weapons to school and grounded in consequences when they acknowledged their mistake to the administration. Fred also was grounded in consensus. He was concerned of what his peers would say or do if they found out it was because of his actions that they had to be locked in their classrooms for quite some time. The superintendent required the use of rational values that were grounded in consensus by the administrative team. The remainder of the student body, faculty, staff and parents had no motivation and commitment, as previously stated they were a captive audience.
• Is the conflict interpersonal (among individuals) or intrapersonal (within an individual)?
I believe the conflict is both interpersonal and intrapersonal. It is interpersonal because there are many stakeholders involved. It is also intrapersonal due to the beliefs that both of these students have in regard to the value and purpose of a weapon which is in direct contrast to the thought process of the value, or non-value of weapons within the educational system.
• What are the human needs, as opposed to organizational or philosophical standards?
The human need, first and foremost, in this scenario is the safety of the students, staff and teachers in the school. The organizational or philosophical standard is the weapons policy that is in place to deal with organizational factors and needs for the educational environment within the school.
Step 3: Ethical Action (ethics of justice)
• What actions or response would maximize benefits for all stakeholders?
In this scenario, I believe that the actions taken by administration did maximize the benefits for all stakeholders. All decisions were made in a timely manner to minimize the disruption of the school day and the educational process.
• What actions or response would respect individual rights?
I believe the individual rights were respected due to the lack of a zero tolerance policy.
• Are desired “ends” or purposes interfering with the selection of a “means” or solution?
The desired “ends” of the school is to ensure that the student’s education is not impeded or delayed. When a weapon is brought into a school, intentionally or unintentionally, the educational process is delayed. It is our jobs as administrators to minimize the impact the decisions of students have on the educational process. All stakeholders were treated equally in this scenario.
• If an ethical dilemma exists (a choice between equally unsatisfactory alternatives), how will you resolve it?
I have always prided myself in taking a moral stand. I believe that we compromise our character if we do not.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
This narrative of a critical incident relates to events I experienced during my fifth year as an elementary school principal in a small town in
The context of my narrative is as follows. I was a “teaching principal” in a JK-8 school located in a small town in rural central
My school was located at the extreme edge of a geographically large school district, so my supervisor, an “area superintendent” for the large school district, did not visit my little rural school often, preferring to rely on telephone conversations. In any case, after four years at the school as a principal, things were running pretty smoothly. I had developed a reputation as a young but effective school administrator. In retrospect I can see that I was perceived as an “instructional leader.” While I didn’t realize it at the time, I was very focused on curricular programs and school district initiatives as a way to build consensus among staff. No wonder the superintendents considered me a good little soldier! Specific curricular innovations tended to be adopted as our school improvement projects and my notion of protecting the best interests of students was through well run curricular programs, conscientious teaching, and good resources.
This was the early 80’s so Special Education legislation was a big priority at the district office. We educators were experiencing a shocking increase in paperwork and documentation related to identifying and accommodating the needs of students with special needs. Parents were now required by law to be members of committees and students identified as having special needs had to have individual learning plans. This was the beginning of the big accountability push that is still with us today. I recall keeping track for two weeks of how my admin time was being used as part of a master’s degree project and was shocked to discover that a full 50% of my admin time was now directed to special education related activities. But I didn’t mind because I intuitively sensed that I could used these newly identified students with special needs as a lever to procure additional resources and support for my school, my teachers and my students. Being a principal of a small school in those days meant you needed a strong entrepreneurial streak and the instincts of a used car salesman. If there was a grant or free resource available from the district, I was all over it. I even used to beg sample copies of reading texts and math textbooks from my colleagues in other schools. One advantage of small grade groupings is that one could quickly accumulate enough books for a “class set” that way.
At some point in the Fall semester of that year the superintendents and school district announced and “implemented” (a new word for us in those days) their new policy for special education procedures in the district. I studied it carefully, mostly with the intent of mining it as a source of additional resources for the school, but also because I was in the habit of using new policies and curricular innovations as a professional focus for the staff. One component of the new policy indicated that funding was available for hiring classroom assistants in support of children identified with learning disabilities. This really grabbed my attention because we really needed some help with of special needs kids.
In compliance with the requirements of this new policy, we as a staff formed an “IPRC” (need identification) committee and carefully documented the needs of students, most of whom we were already accommodating informally. By late in the Fall term, and as a result of some formalized testing, it became apparent that a little boy in particular, a grade five student, had a significant learning disability and, according to the terms of the policy, was a prime candidate for having a teaching assistant assigned to support him in the classroom. There were forms to fill out and protocols to be followed in order to get this kind of support. We complied to the policy protocols with the greatest care. I consulted regularly with the superintendent and district coordinator of special education, and by about mid-November all was submitted. I even had the names and resumes for several potentially good hires to fill the new teaching aide position we were expecting and I informed the staff that I was confident we have our new staff member in place by start of term in January. I should also mention that quite a few schools in our district, especially those located in the city where the district office is located, had managed to have teaching aides assigned to them throughout the first semester.
January came and there was no new aide. I contacted my superintendent and asked if we had failed to provide something he needed and when we could expect to have our new classroom aide. He was slow replying and, when he did, informed us that he needed to visit the school and see this child himself before he could make a judgment about allocating more resources. It took a few weeks to get him to the school. When he did come, I made sure the boy’s Mom, who was a member of the IPRC committee of course, was there. Our part time special education teacher had all the paperwork and test scores and minutes of meetings ready for the superintendent to examine. The superintendent visited the school and classroom and then left without making any commitment, although I certainly asked.
As more weeks went by, I became pretty frustrated. The policy was clear. We had done the paperwork. And to my mind it was a no-brainer, the boy needed the help and the policy said we were entitled to the additional support. Why was the superintendent delaying a decision that was so obvious? Indeed, many other schools in the district had received additional support in the classroom for very similar cases. I became more insistent with my phone calls. Finally the superintendent informed me that there was no more money for teachers aides, that the budget had been completely expended for the year. I refused to accept that answer. The policy was clear and there was no mention of budgetary limits. Why should my school be denied support so readily provided to other schools? Indeed, all the rhetoric up to now had been about our sacred and legally bound duty as educators to meet the needs of every identified special needs child. I was incensed and more than a little suspicious that our little rural school was once again getting stiffed for resources to which we were entitled. The difference this time is that we were backed by the law and a policy that seemed pretty ironclad. I insisted that the needs of this little boy be met through the appointment of classroom aide. I made it clear that the school community would accept nothing less, hinting broadly of dissatisfied parents calling to protest.
The superintendent visited my school again soon after that conversation. We met in my office. He informed me there would be no new classroom assistant, once again stating that there was no money left for new hires. He then informed me that, beginning the following Monday, my assignment would be altered. I would teach the grade 7 / 8 class 60% of the day. I could carry out my principal’s duties during the time in the afternoon. This was something less than two hours per day. The French teacher who had been my half-time administrative relief in the afternoon, was to work as an aide in the grade five class during the afternoon in support of the little boy needing the extra help. He further added that because I was so deeply committed to the needs of this little boy that I would surely be agreeable to this arrangement.
I felt deeply betrayed, but really had no choice. I started teaching the grade 7 / 8 students history and geography in the afternoon, in addition to the language arts and math I taught in the morning. My relief teacher worked with the little boy as a support teacher for about 1.5 hours each day. I actually found that I enjoyed teaching history and I’m sure my grade 7 / 8 students were beneficiaries of this arrangement, but I was still very offended that I was being punished personally for the district’s failure to provide resources they had guaranteed and were by law required to provide. In what I now understand to be a naïve view of what “policy” means. I believed that if the policy that I dutifully honored and complied with in all respects called for providing support to my students, then that support would be provided. Otherwise, why have the policy?
By the end of that year I had completed my fifth years as a principal. I have always been one for five year cycles and my disenchantment with what I perceived as the superintendent’s unethical actions became the tipping point for a decision –it was time for a change. I began to make plans for leaving education to do something else. I considered law school –something I had seriously looked at as an undergrad in university. I also applied to medical schools at 33 years of age. Most medical schools would not consider me because of my age, but there was a medical school in
Step 1: Interpretation of the Problem (ethic of critique)
I can see now that I had failed to properly understand the perspectives of key stakeholders in this situation. I naively thought the superintendent and the school district were focused by the same in-school, student-oriented agendas I had. I did not realize the extent to which broader organizational and political agendas might exist. I thought we were in accord on objectives and means, and that the policy accurately and literally conveyed the ends and means of meeting the needs of special education students. As a relatively new principal I was aware that some of the larger urban schools often seemed to get more than their due share of resources from the district, but I did not fully appreciate that many of the principals of those schools were every bit as good as me in chasing down those resources.
The conflict or tensions that developed over this situation spilled over a number of arenas of practice. My personal and professional belief systems both gave me the drive and energy to assertively pursue what I interpreted as the best interests of the school. I had also become accustomed to the good will and benevolence of senior district administrators, accorded to a relatively new principal who seemed to be going out of his way to champion their initiatives and policies. I was used to winning. Also, compared to the situation today, the parents were not strong players in this process. There were no strong advocacy groups. The teachers and I were the main advocates for the parents and student.
My personal and professional efforts to bring this matter to a head apparently created tensions for the superintendent and for the school district. I now understand how the new demands for accountability emanating from intensified social expectations for schools created a lot of pressure on the district. This was a relatively turbulent time for educators and school administrators. The demands associated with identifying and documenting the needs of students with special needs was rebalancing the allocation of professional time in schools, and straining the finances of the school district in ways that had not been encountered before, but certainly have become common since that time. The district special education policy was created in response to this pressure and promised to meet the needs of all students as the law demanded. I as a school principal made the mistake of interpreting that policy literally –resources were promised if particular conditions were met. I did not realize that this policy was as much a political response to pressure from the community as it was document to guide the professional actions of educators in the system.
Step 2: Towards a Humane Response (ethic of care)
Although I was typical of principals of that era in the sense that my instructional leadership was focused by programs, curriculum documents, and district initiatives, I was also very conscious that it was my professional duty to protect the best interests of my students. This seemed to come naturally to me as a principal with teaching responsibilities. In many respects that was my professional meta-value – the best interests of students. Plus, at a personal level, I have always had a competitive streak as well as an entrepreneurial bent. In my role as principal of this small rural school, I easily saw myself as its champion.
With the benefit of hindsight, I believe the superintendent was also well intentioned in terms of the needs of students, at least for the first part of the year. When the budgeted money was all expended and it became obvious that the distribution of resources across the district was uneven and that a whole lot more funds were needed, he was increasingly backed into a corner. And I was raising the stakes by insistently pointing out that he was required by law to provide the support I was requesting to the school according to the terms of a policy of which he was primary author.
I should add that there was no history of interpersonal conflict between us. To the contrary, he had always been supportive of me, and I of him until that time. I would say that we trusted each other. The circumstance that ultimately made this issue so pressing was the fact that there was a little boy whose educational needs hung in the balance. It started off as a professional matter, deteriorated to a fiscal matter that became stalemated, and ultimately was resolved by direct administrative action. The student’s needs were ultimately met, but that came out of my hide and, in my perception, to the detriment of the school culture, staff morale and overall effectiveness of the school’s operations.
Step 3: Ethical Action (ethic of justice)
In hindsight, the school district obviously became ensnared by the terms of a special education policy that it had developed for itself. Nobody anticipated the high number of students that would ultimately be identified as having special needs –something like 20% of the district enrollment. On the other hand, the superintendent allowed resources to be distributed unevenly across the district. Some schools, like mine, got nothing. Other schools, typically the larger urban ones, received large amounts of support. Not only were resources and benefits not maximized, the special needs of small rural schools were ignored.
While the student from my school ultimately had his needs met, at least partially, my rights to a reasonable amount of administrative relief time were compromised. In effect I was hoisted on my own petard. After spending most of the year championing this student’s needs, I was invited to provide the solution for meeting them myself. Everybody was in agreement on the “ends” of this policy –meeting the needs of students with special needs. But when the “means” got scarce and I kept pushing the matter, as a subordinate in the organization I became vulnerable to having responsibility for the whole problem downloaded on me. I felt personally betrayed in that my “good intentions” and conscientiousness were being punished, but organizationally I now realize that I had left my superintendent with no other recourse; if indeed there was no more funding available.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Will/Can There Be a Balance? By: Samantha, Professor of Education
This is a story about power and caring. The players include the administration of the university, the colleges of Education and Professional and Continuing Education and the Educational Leadership Department; the Educational Leadership doctoral faculty and program facilitator; and, ultimately and most importantly, the doctoral students in Educational Leadership. The dilemma involves the impact of economics linked to poor financial decisions by the top administration and the economic downturn of United States society as they affect program, professional, and personal integrity and ethics. The concern arises from the ways in which the difficulties are dealt with, i.e., how processes are put into place to ameliorate the problems; and whom they benefit, whom they harm, and why. It is a deeply personal story addressing the tensions between personal and professional ethics. It also presents a question I never thought I would ask: Is it possible for an ethic of care to function as the basis of decision making and relationships in an organization driven by economic “success”? If so, what compromises need to be made, and will the organization make concessions to care in the light of possible economic loss or delayed economic gain? Finally, what is the cost to a caring individual, personally and professionally, to live by an ethic of care where community building and relationships are rhetoric rather than practice?
The doctoral program in Educational Leadership began over a decade ago at a mid-size university with the mission of serving educators in the semi-rural and low SES urban areas in the region. Faculty with degrees from primarily research institutions were hired to develop and work in the program. Three years ago there were seven faculty members to serve approximately 80 students on the main campus, and one off-site campus. At the beginning of the summer 2008, students totaled almost 160, including two off-campus sites, with another starting in January 2009, increasing the number of students to 190; projected number of dissertations is 70, Spring 2009 and 100, Spring 2010. In June 2008, there were two full-time faculty, one two-thirds time, two three-quarter time, and the department chair expected to chair dissertations. Vacated faculty lines are not being filled.
Two years ago, the University commissioned the start of the College of Professional and Continuing Education (CPCE), which has become the base for all off-campus graduate courses and programs, as well as all non-degree courses and/or workshops. This college developed because of the need for increased revenue to offset University budgetary losses resulting from land purchases that have not yielded the income intended, and student housing construction problems. The intent, as well, for CPCE revenue is to limit increases in undergraduate tuition and fees, and to freeze tuition for graduate and doctoral courses (doctoral course tuition is the highest in the state). This narrative addresses CPCE only in terms of its connection to degree programs.
The provost arrived at the University two years ago, instigated CPCE, and brought the temporary dean of CPCE with him from his former university. The provost met with the Educational Leadership faculty to explain the benefits of working with CPCE with regard to offering the doctoral program in off-site locations, that is, the benefits in terms of profit sharing. After that meeting, we met with the College of Education (COE) dean and CPCE temporary dean to detail the working relationship. The primary concern for faculty centered on putting courses and, eventually, the whole program, totally online. Much discussion ensued, during which time the doctoral faculty questioned the pedagogical wisdom of totally online courses and, especially, putting the entire doctoral program online (the doctoral program was the particular target since it had shown much success and there was already the promise of off-campus delivery to central state K-12 administrators and intense interest in establishing a community college cohort central or north in the state). The doctoral faculty agreed to working with hybrid online courses, that is, 60% online and 40% face-to-face. The doctoral faculty were pressured—despite the administration’s denial of this—to sign a Memo of Understanding (MOU) with CPCE. Since that time, 1 ½ years ago, many demands have been made by the staff of CPCE regarding the delivery of courses (8 weeks instead of 16, all online as of fall 2010, adjuncts to chair dissertations and deliver online coursework). Finally, the mandate is that all graduate programs must be self-sufficient; however, despite requesting information for over a year, we have not received a breakdown of the costs of the programs (everything is included, salaries, phone, paper, advertising, graduate assistants, travel, etc.). When profit sharing is seen in that light, there are little, if any, monies for anything but the essentials.
A doctoral colleague and I have been removed from the doctoral program and re-assigned to the MA in Higher Education and the MA in Educational Administration, respectively. That act was not anticipated by either of us, nor was the new department chair or the outgoing department chair aware of that impending action. We were each called separately to the dean’s office to receive the “news”. When asked why this was occurring, she told each of us that she was going to fix the dysfunctionality within the program and among the faculty, and this was her way of doing so. Each of us asked for specific data, but was denied any explanation other than generalities, e.g., other faculty came to her about our dysfunctionality, students came to her, etc., and that was disturbing the effectiveness of the program (despite students recruiting others to the program and the program’s doubling in the last three years).
Incidents that May Have Lead To this Action.
1 At the spring meeting of the University Assembled, the President of the University presented the 5-10 year strategic plan. During the Q & A session, I noted that no mention was made of graduate education and asked what the plans were for that. He was taken aback, then responded that graduate education was only a service and that monies would not be taken at the expense of undergraduate education to support graduate education. I responded that it is my understanding that university status is dependent upon graduate programs, specifically doctoral programs. He agreed and said that they needed to be self-sufficient. End of response.
A while later, he embedded what he called a “white paper,” into a report of the committee tasked with writing and posting the strategic plan on the University website. If you were not aware of this paper, you most likely would have missed it. However, a doctoral student employed in the University alerted my colleague to it, and she told the department faculty about the paper and where to find it. The document stated that graduate programs were only a service to people in the region, that the people who wanted graduate courses were not “like us” in that they only wanted credit or degrees and weren’t interested in substance, and other demeaning comments. My colleague mentioned the paper to a doctoral student who, with another student, got the word out to other doctoral students, some of whom wrote or emailed the President, protesting his comments. One student’s files were taken from our office by the dean of our college; I do not know what happened. One of my students did receive a response from the President, which she felt skirted the issues.
My colleague and I were called to the dean’s office and questioned about how students found out about the “white paper”; it could be retrieved by various “clicks” from the University home page. We basically were told to keep our students “under control” and if students had questions, to invite the President to our classes. My colleague did that. The doctoral students asked tough questions and made him aware of 1) the doubling in growth of the doctoral program in three years and 2) the doctoral faculty’s decrease to half of what it had been three years ago, information he was surprised to hear! He said that when he wrote the paper, he didn’t even think about the doctoral program. It is the only doctoral program on campus, is most successful, and he is virtually unaware of it.
2 There have been continuous difficulties with the doctoral program and CPCE. Although we signed the MOU in good faith that there would be further discussion of issues as we moved forward, there have been changes made to it, without consult with faculty, that are now expected of the doctoral program and faculty. We must agree that the program being offered online and through CPCE is exactly the same program we offer on campus. True, the courses are the same, but the faculty who are putting the courses online are two three-quarter time persons who have not taught doctoral courses prior to this, will teach the online course once if they choose to, and then turn them over to adjuncts. Furthermore, CPCE has now mandated that all but two courses, one research course and the proposal course, will be taught in 8 week-sessions.
The facilitator or the doctoral program met with CPCE staff and agreed to the demands, despite the remaining faculty members’ disagreement and requests to meet with the CPCE staff to explain why the courses should not be taught in 8 weeks (as well as why all the courses should not be taught 100% online, especially since the initial agreement was a hybrid of online and face-to-face). My colleague and I were out-spoken about how this delivery could not possibly be conceived as pedagogically sound. The facilitator reiterated the efficiency and financial “effectiveness” while we strongly suggested that the integrity of the program is at stake. Our “complaints” were taken directly to the dean and we are seen as dysfunctional members of the faculty.
3 In the spring semester we had a program review, for which we had no input regarding the program reviewer or the process. The facilitator chose the reviewer, a friend, had a graduate student compile data concerning the program (number of students matriculated, number of years to finish, dissertations completed and length to do so, etc., much of which was inaccurate), and gave us the dates the reviewer would be here and the dates the reviewer would “help” us re-structure the program based on her review. We were aghast. When we objected to the process, the facilitator reported directly to the dean; we were viewed as dysfunctional “team” members. When the program reviewer was unable to keep the date for the re-structuring session, the facilitator gave us another date. The entire doctoral faculty responded they could not attend because of other obligations; the facilitator had the dean email us strongly encouraging us to “cooperate”. (Another date was chosen because too many other people would have been affected had we all had to re-schedule our prior commitments.)
4 My colleague and I have objected to adjuncts teaching because they tend to be hired with little or no time to prepare prior to the beginning of the semester. Additionally, the adjuncts we’ve had have had little background in research; the students who have had them are complaining because they are lost when they begin to work on their dissertations. Additionally, to hire adjuncts to teach the proposal course, which is the dean’s intent for this semester, is not appropriate because we have a unique dissertation, one that is focused on the student’s study of her leadership through an action research project (in virtually all cases) that is the lens through which her leadership is assessed. That is, the dissertation is really two studies: the assessment of a change project to improve the goals of the organization and the assessment of leadership through the ways in which the student leads the change.
5 My colleague and I also have been outspoken in our concern regarding adjuncts chairing dissertations. There are excellent adjuncts, but they are not required to be here other than for the courses they teach and may leave the University at any time, thus, potentially putting students in a precarious position. They, often, do not have a strong foundation in research, particularly action research. The intent of CPCE is to staff the online courses with adjuncts. The totally online program, additionally, brings into question the “need for” a dissertation. The on-campus program will receive no new full-time faculty, may receive three-quarter time faculty, and is encouraged to find adjuncts for courses.
Where Are We Now?
Because so many doctoral courses are unstaffed due to my colleague’s and my removal from the program and because of the number of students we now have, the dean has allowed each of us to teach one course in the program. The department chair scheduled me for a course I usually teach in the fall; the facilitator, upset because she wanted to teach it (she usually teaches it in the spring), spoke with the dean and I am now scheduled to teach a different course (which is fine, but is a new prep). I also am scheduled to teach a course in the MA in Administration Program, a new prep for me. Furthermore, the course is not filled and there has been vigilant monitoring to assure courses have a minimum number of students before they are allowed to meet; the doctoral faculty are always threatened with having a course closed because at this time students have not registered (students routinely register at the last minute to delay tuition payment). There is little chance this section will be filled, but the department chair has been guaranteed that it will be taught and I will teach it. I received my course assignment for the fall with only 5 weeks before the start of the new semester. The doctoral program has at least three courses not covered, one of which, the proposal course, has 4 sections. The dean’s response is to “find good adjuncts”.
My colleague is teaching a research course (she has taught the research courses in the past) and one course in the MA in Higher Education, a position she has wanted (one course in the doctoral program and one in Higher Education), but had been denied the opportunity to teach in Higher Ed for several years. The dean’s “reasoning” in the past has been that because she was doctoral faculty on a twelve-month contract, she could not teach in a master’s program; master’s faculty, on ten-month contracts, however, could teach in the doctoral program.
Value Audit Analysis
Using Hodgkinson’s definition of a values audit, that is, taking stock of my own values through reflection on this narrative, I am aware of how important caring, professional ethics, and social justice are to me, despite or in spite of, the surrounding circumstances. In light of those ethics, this narrative addresses the ways in which this university’s administrators use power as a mechanism to control, rather than to balance power of position with an ethic of care to engender education that is in the best interests of all students, to be governed by professional ethics to seek to maintain program integrity even in times of financial turmoil, and to lead with behavior that is socially just.
The conflict of this story is twofold: the perception of the doctoral program at the University and the maintenance of the integrity of the quality of the doctoral program as it is used to generate increased revenue for the University through growth of off-campus sites. The conflict involves the dean of COE, my colleague and me. Other doctoral faculty, the doctoral facilitator, and other department members are in the midst of the turbulence. Indirectly, and ultimately, the current students, potential students, and graduates of the program have concern for how the outcomes of the situation will affect the value of their degree.
The obvious difficulty stems from the difference between the administration’s need to use the doctoral program to bring in revenue without apparent concern for maintaining program integrity and without consideration for how the immediate changes in the delivery affect current and potential students, as well as the effect it has for graduates of the program; and my colleague’s and my need to voice those concerns with the expectation that they would be addressed. The result was that our not being compliant, that is, questioning and not simply following the mandates, resulted in punitive actions that impact our teaching, as well as in my case, the integrity of another program, and may influence our research. Additionally, the removal from the doctoral program has concerned students because we were the only full-time faculty in the on-campus program, thus, providing stability and continuity for them.
The deans have the mandate to bring in more revenue and will be evaluated in those terms. The CPCE dean was hired specifically to start a college with the primary aim of finding markets that would generate increased profit for the University. The deans of the academic colleges, some more than others (Engineering, Business), have as part of their performance evaluations the amount of money they bring in for the University. Consequently, I understand the pressure they are under regarding funding. However, in terms of the ethics of professional and caring, there is a gap between bringing in money and making sure that what is being done is in the best interests of all students, which would include doctoral students.
Dialogue would have been helpful to see what is needed and how the program could move forward, meet university needs, and maintain and improve its quality for students. That did not occur. Meetings held with the deans of COE and CPCE were controlled by them. They interpreted questions as our being non-cooperative and contentious. At the end of a meeting, we were pressured into agreeing with them, with one or the other saying that we had a choice; we did not have to comply. However, implied in that was non-agreement meant that we would receive no funding for our program. My colleague and I were ready to stand our ground because the colleges, especially CPCE, needs the doctoral program, as it has brought in more money by far in the past year than any other college’s program or courses. However, other doctoral faculty would not stand with us and were inclined to go along with what was proposed, even though there would be grumbling in our doctoral meetings.
Transparency related to decisions would be helpful. As is stands, we have been in the position of understanding one thing, then having that changed without our knowledge. For instance, we agreed to teach off-campus students using a hybrid model of online delivery. The next time we met with the deans, we were told that the program would be delivered totally online by fall 2010, even though we had an email from the COE dean stating we could teach the program using the hybrid model. When we evidenced surprise during the meeting, we were reprimanded by the dean of CPCE saying that we knew that the hybrid model was the delivery mechanism only until the whole program was online.
Maintenance of programmatic quality and reliance on appropriate and good pedagogy was never part of the conversation, although we asked the question. My colleague and I asked questions that addressed the wisdom of part-time faculty who had never taught in a doctoral program being required to put doctoral courses on line, of adjuncts who did no research teaching research courses, of adjuncts who had never participated in our dissertation process being responsible for teaching the course readying our students for their proposal writing (we have a unique dissertation), of teaching a doctoral course in eight weeks to students who work full time, of exporting our program to international sites without considerations for culture and monitoring who actually participates in the courses, of the ways in which field work would be done through online courses and who would supervise students, and, finally, how dissertations, both numbers of and chairs, would be handled. None of these were addressed. What did happen was the facilitator (this position is one of management, not decision-making; is to represent the others in meetings with the dean of COE or with staff from CPCE) reported (not requested b y the dean) to the dean whenever my colleague or I disagreed with what the dean wanted.
My colleague and I are not opposed to online courses, but believe we are rushing in without faculty expertise and without university infrastructure to support it. We have suggested that we use the hybrid model for 2-3 years, evaluate the delivery from student perspective and our perspective, then either go forward with total online courses, continue the hybrid, or determine another direction. Our concerns are simply interpreted as our being non-cooperative; other faculty members do not question in meetings with the deans.
There is a tremendous amount of turbulence that arises from and affects the program and
department faculty, the deans of COE and CPCE, the current students, graduates of the program, the presidents of community colleges who contracted with us to make a doctoral program available to community college leaders, and potential P-12 administrators who will begin the program in the fall. With the exception of the facilitator, the other program faculty are concerned about our not teaching in the program because of our expertise; the department faculty member have to deal with reassignment to courses in the doctoral program so that I can teach in the MA in Educational Administration program. Current students and the community college presidents are concerned with the integrity of the program and the methods by which the administration worked with us; they question what might they expect if another “controversy” occurs. The current students and graduates question the value of their degree if the program becomes totally online, even if that occurs only for off-campus sites, for the administration insists that the doctoral program is the same whether online or traditional delivery. Students beginning the P-12 cohort off-campus are confused, saying they were not aware that the program would be delivered totally online; many would not have signed up for it had they known. COE and CPCE deans view my colleague and me as dysfunctional.
My conflicts revolve primarily around an ethic of care: how does caring in this situation affect the students, the administration, and me? I believe in doing what is in the best interest of students. They want a degree for personal and professional reasons—knowledge, status, power---all of which have the potential if used appropriately, to work toward a more socially just and democratic society. Without caring, I do not believe that can be achieved. In this particular instance, my concern was for democratic education and social justice, neither of which were addressed or even alluded to. I tried to foster a democratic process through my questions that related to what is best for students and through requests to meet with CPCE staff members who continually seemed to be at odds with our thinking. Both tactics seemed only to exacerbate the situation by angering the deans and encouraging the doctoral facilitator to increase her covert support of the administrative proposals, perhaps because she was going up for promotion and needed the dean’s recommendation. Her continuous reporting my challenges and alternatives to the proposed actions of the administration served to annoy the dean who, then, saw my colleague and me as impeding the process and, thereby, as dysfunctional members of the program. Was our delivery too assertive—or aggressive? I honestly believed there was room for dialogue when the process began, but realized shortly after that the meetings with the deans were of two types neither of them favorable to dialogue. If we asked for a meeting, we needed to provide an agenda with reasons behind our concerns; the deans, then prepared responses for which there was, in reality, no room for debate or discussion. The other type of meeting consisted of being told by the deans we were to report for a meeting: no agenda, no discussion of time and date, and a presentation of what would be. At each of these meetings, we were asked if we agreed and told we could disagree. When I did, I learned quickly that there was no point as I wasn’t heard; the administrators simply reiterated their case and said we didn’t have to comply (implied threats of limited or no funding).
At one meeting, I tried to foster a compromise. We were stymied regarding how to handle dissertations is we admitted the number of students discussed and if we went to a totally online program for off-campus cohorts. At issue was signing the Memorandum of Understanding, which we were reluctant to do without the dissertation concerns resolved. My suggestion was to sign the MOU in good faith with the agreement we would re-visit the dissertation dilemma. The deans were pleased, and my colleagues, after some discussion regarding a guarantee to revisit this, signed the MOU. Needless to say, I have lived to regret that attempt at “compromise,” for changes have been made to the agreement without out input. The stock response is, “But you signed the MOU.” Since that signing, changes continue to occur, including totally online delivery, eight-week courses, adjunct delivery of online courses using templates developed by part-time staff, and the recurring comments about doing away with a dissertation. How could that be in the best interests of students? Was I too naïve, hoping to establish common ground—trust?—between the faculty and administration?
Through this whole experience, I’ve learned that speaking out, having voice, is punishable if what is said is not “in line” with administrative thinking. Do I become silent, or do I continue to question, challenge, and attempt to establish dialogue, and become susceptible to punitive measures? Will my punishments serve student needs, or will they actually take away from their best interests?
As much as I do not want to deal with the reality of budget, I understand that is a given. The administrators, from the president and provost to the deans, are under great pressure from the board of trustees to limit the debt encumbrances. Performance evaluations, therefore, in part, influence tenure at the University, depending on progress toward limiting debt and bringing in money through grants, increased enrollment, or innovative workshops or courses that draw people to campus. I can understand the priority those people put on revenue. However, I cannot believe that bringing in money has to be the driving force of the University. If the administrators saw the big picture, that is, education for students, how could they not think first of what students need and how we then move simultaneously to meet the needs and find ways to fund them? Administrators did not ask our students to suggest what they would be willing to do, give up, or consider in order to maintain quality in the program, as well as to increase the numbers of students in it. However, before that could happen, the issue of what is best for all students would need to be addressed, as the top administrators have decided that undergraduate education is the focus of the university and graduate education is only a service, as needed, to people in the region. My feeling is this is a social justice issue. The institution became a “university” because of the graduate programs, specifically because of the one and only doctoral program. The latter has gained a creditable reputation which the administrative body simply wants to use to increase revenue, but for which there is little support or recognition. This is not a balance of power and caring leadership.
Finally, I question caring in terms of caring for me. How much should I be willing to sacrifice on a personal and professional level for the best interests of students? Professionally, I’ve been put into a position of working with master’s level students going into K-12 administration. I have never been a K-12 administrator and chose not to get a PhD in that area. The people who must now teach in the doctoral program are former K-12 administrators with the practice and/or research to support their teaching. My focus is ethics, social policy, and theoretical perspectives of leadership. It is not the nuts and bolts of the principalship, New Jersey educational law, or school organization. I will have to devote much more time to class preparation, at the expense of research and personal time, in order to provide the best teaching for students because I’ve not taught the courses nor have I read the material. I will have to become involved in credentialing, which has not been part of my position to this point. Contact with doctoral students will be minimal, so there will be less opportunity for me to work with dissertation students whose work I know; which is a part of my work that I particularly enjoy.
As I write this section, caring for me, I feel physically disturbed. Is it legitimate for me to feel this way, or am I just whining? Perhaps this is why my research focuses on care of the self---what is it and is it “deserved”? What is meant by care for others as one cares for self? Is that an aspect of social justice we overlook?
Note: This narrative was authored by Samantha, Professor of Education, and posted by the blog administrator.