The Complexity of Ethics in Education

“Abandon the urge to simplify everything, to look for formulas and easy answers. Begin to think multi-dimensionally, to glory in the mystery and paradoxes of life, not to be dismayed by the multitude of causes and consequences that are inherent in each experience -- to appreciate the fact that life is complex.” 

M. Scott Peck

In the face of increasing complexity, it seems somewhat instinctive to try and create order from chaos and simplify things to make it more understandable.  However, in doing so we find ourselves reducing the nuances or shades of grey to stark black and white.

Ehrich et al (2010, p.174) points out that, “education is a moral and ethical activity that is heavily value-laden”.  However, ethics are based in morals, values, and beliefs and are intrinsically personal, shaped a s a result of cultural, social, digital, environmental and professional interactions over time.  Consequently, they evolve.  Ethics are fluid, never static.  It therefore becomes troublesome when codes of ethics are put in place stating what is and is not ethical behaviour.  Clearly there needs to be some set of guidelines as to what constitutes moral/ethical practice in any institution otherwise there is anarchy.

Ethics concerns itself with best practice behaviour when dealing with situations we find ourselves in when relating to students, colleagues, whanau and the wider community.  As such, an individual’s morality, behaviours, values and beliefs are usurped in favour of a collective code of practice or ethics.

The basis for much of our code of ethics is borne out of three main ethical “strands” – consequentialism, non-consequentialism and virtue ethics (Cranston, Ehrich & Kimber, 2004).  Consequentialists focus on fact that the, “rightness or wrongness of actions depends on their consequences” (p.3).  As such, it is the outcomes of an action that determine whether or not the behaviour in the first instance was or was not ethical.  This is fine in principle, but it requires considerable skill on the part of the individual to be able to predict all potential outcomes of any given action.  Non-consequentialists base their ethical viewpoint in, “duty, rights, laws, motive, intuition and reasoning” (p.3), and not simply the outcome.  Non-consequentialists.  They take a step back and look at the reason for doing something in the first place.  What was the motivation?  In this respect, it is a more preventative view in attempting to critically interrogate the thinking that has gone into the action before it is implemented. Finally, Virtuists argue that “ethics of care” (p.4) is central to any consideration of ethics when dealing with other people.  Consequently, it is the position from which many institutions – education included – base their ethical considerations.  It relies on the moral character of individuals to make reasoned, ethical decisions.  In other words, people of good character tend to make ethical decisions.  This explains why a lot of time and effort goes into explaining what is considered ethical and unethical behaviour in schools so as to develop that base of awareness in the belief that – in almost all cases – teachers will make informed ethical decisions rather than ones based in ignorance.

How rigid should codes of ethics be in educational institutions (or any institution for that fact)?  Schwimmer & Maxwell (2017) argue for three key conditions when formulating any code of ethics:

      1.  They should be open and flexible over closed and prescribed (p.150).  In this respect it should recognise that ethics are shades of grey and rarely black and white.

      2.  They should explicitly encourage critical judgement by recognising, “duty to reasonable dissent” (p.157).  In this respect, people should be free to hold or express opinions at variance with those of the institution they find themselves in.  However, this should be tempered with the word reasonable.
 3.  They should avoid being used as a moralistic device to vilify those who do not meet such lofty goals.  In this respect they should recognise the fallibility of human involvement.  However, this should not be used as an excuse for clearly un-ethical actions.

These guidelines are important as they recognise the ethical tensions that many teachers feel.  These ethical tensions are often covered by a culture of caring, the establishment of relationships with students, whanau and community, and wanting to see students do well.  As a result we find ourselves in positions where our actions could be considered unethical, yet morally justifiable to the individual as “caring”, “helping”, “supporting” or “developing”.

Codes of ethics are essential in education in that they recognise the conscious or unconscious power imbalance that exists between student and teacher, and serves to protect them both.  Yet they become increasingly complex to navigate as more layers of human interaction are added in.  The model proposed by Elrich, Kimber, Millwater & Cranston (2011, p.178) – Figure 1 – while commendable, presents as a black and white model when in reality there are layers of the model lurking within layers. 

Figure 1

Every individual involved in the critical incident that generates a critical dilemma and the implications of it, brings their own agenda, morals, ethics and beliefs to it.  The complexity increases as affected parties increase.  In this respect, it is better to conceptualise this model as more than a simplistic flow chart, and imagine it in 3 dimensions.  Every point at which another individual becomes involved, spawns another model within the existing model.

Don’t get me wrong, this model serves as a useful tool for theorising our actions and potential outcomes of it – but it may be better to step back from it initially and consider the role of critical reflection before taking action.

We recognise from our earlier readings in reflective practice that the depth of reflection from surface to deep, theoretical analysis can be summarised in the five levels of reflective practice noted by Zeichner and Liston (1996, in Finlay, 2007, p.4):

1. Rapid reflection - immediate, ongoing and automatic action by the teacher.

2. Repair –thoughtful decisions to alter their behaviour in response to students’ cues.

3. Review – thinking, discussing, writing about some element of their teaching.

4. Research –systematic and sustained thinking over time, informed by research.

5. Retheorizing and reformulating –critically examining personal practice in the light of              academic theories.

So we should be with our decision making.  It would be most beneficial to engage in critical reflection at the upper levels (Stage 4 and 5).  We should be asking ourselves – prior to implementing any action:

•       Why am I doing this?
•       Who is advantaged and disadvantaged by my actions?
•       Can this “advantage” be seen as exploitive?  Can this “disadvantage” be seen as inequitable?
•       Am I potentially compromising myself and/or my students?

Once this thinking has taken place, then Elrich et al (2011) model could be used to check the proof of concept.

References:

Cranston, N., Ehrich, L., & Kimber, M. (2004). « Right » versus « wrong » and « right » versus « right » : understanding ethical dilemmas faced by educational leaders. In Australian Association for Research in Education Conference (pp. 1–17). Retrieved from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/967/1/cra04031.pdf

Ehrich, L. C., Kimber, M., Millwater, J., & Cranston, N. (2011). Ethical dilemmas: A model to understand teacher practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(2), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.539794

Finlay, L. (2008). Reflecting on “Reflective practice.” Retrieved 

from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c128/691f2615de873dfe544fcb5dc902fe812675.pdf

Schwimmer, M., & Maxwell, B. (2017). Codes of ethics and teachers’ professional autonomy. Ethics and Education, 12(2), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2017.1287495

Quotes About Complexity (2018). Goodreads.com. Retrieved 20 February 2018, from https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/complexity