Recent events in corporate scandals have led to an increased community awareness and expectation for ethical behavior on the part of public school administrators, who are the CEOs of school districts and campuses. As a result of the Enron scandal, a number of business schools now require ethics courses for their students; the University of Texas, for example, began requiring an ethics course for all business students last fall (Nissimov, 2003). While not mandated by the American Association of Colleges and Schools of Business (AACSB), these courses are becoming more and more popular in current business programs. Supporters of ethics courses say that without a clear focus on ethical decision-making, these “schools do a good job of teaching the bottom line but gloss over the line between right and wrong” (Nissimov, 2003, p.1C). Arguments against ethics classes state that their effectiveness has not, and perhaps can not, be measured; however, Arthur Vargas, dean of the University of Houston’s Bauer College of Business states, “Unless you’re 100 percent sure ethics classes don’t work, you teach them” (p.4C). These same principles now being used to train leaders in the corporate world should also apply to the preparation of leaders in education.

Administrative leaders who are ethical and able to make ethical decisions are critical to the future of education. Previously, ethics has received little attention from professional organizations and even less attention in educator preparation programs. The lack of ethical administrators in part demonstrates a shortcoming on the part of educator preparation programs, including administrator preparation programs for principals and superintendents. Few educator preparation programs incorporate any study of ethics into the curriculum (Beck & Murphy, 1994). Those programs that do offer coursework on ethics often do so at the doctoral level, meaning that the master’s degree courses most often taken by aspiring principals and superintendents offer no formal training in ethical decision-making (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2001).

With increasing levels of accountability and complexity for school administrators, these gaps in ethics training must be addressed. Thus, the value of ethics among our school leaders is evident through other avenues as well, both on national and state levels. Ethics standards and codes have been implemented by such national associations as the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), the National Association for Secondary School Principals (NASSP), and the National Association for Elementary School Principals (NAESP). The National Policy Board for Educational Administration includes a unit on values in its curriculum for training principals (Thompson, 1994), and the Interstate Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) devotes one of its six standards entirely to the need for building ethical leaders (Green, 2001). Likewise, many states have also implemented ethical codes and standards. Most of these codes of ethics have been in place for a number of years, yet we do not have to look far to see evidence that such standards are still not being followed by today’s leaders.

Examining Student Perceptions of an Ethical Administrator

Developing educational administrators who are ethical and able to make ethical decisions is critical to the future of education. However, the definition of what constitutes an ethical administrator varies greatly. Hudson (1997) contends that “ethical virtues are reflected in the way we see ourselves as well as the way we see others, and are culminated in our relation to those others in the community in which we live” (p. 514). Ethics have been called the disciplined study of human conduct, and such conduct has been studied by many of the greatest thinkers of modern time (Hudson, 1997). Even philosophers like Socrates and Plato were intrigued by the study of ethics. More recent definitions of ethics focus on the impact ethical leaders have on organizations and individuals. For example, ethics has been recently defined as the knowledge of what is right and wrong, as well as being able to make the correct decision between the two (Pritchett, 1999). Thus, the goal of ethics is to make decisions that are in the best interest of both the organization and the individuals that make up that organization. The inherent ambiguity of a clear definition of ethics for educational leaders can be seen by Boleman’s (2001) description that ethics “is rooted in identity and faith. That’s one reason that spirit and soul are at the heart of the most successful leadership” (p. 42).

Obviously an understanding of the definition of what it means to be an ethical administrator moves far beyond the textbook version of “ethics.” A survey of 85 graduate students currently enrolled in master’s and doctoral level coursework in educational leadership was used to define the behaviors and characteristics of ethical administrators. This open-ended survey was given to students at various levels in their educational leadership coursework. The students also represent a variety of experience levels in education, as well as a well-distributed variety of ethnic backgrounds and gender. The surveys were completed anonymously, with no student identifiable information included. Each survey asked students to describe, in their own words, the behaviors and characteristics of an ethical administrator. The results yielded an overlap in what terms students used to paint their own portrait of an ethical administrator.

A total of 58 behaviors were listed at least one time by student respondents. The behavior that was most often cited as being indicative of an ethical administrator was being fair; 36 of the 85 students, or 35.3 percent, listed being fair as a behavior of ethical administrators. Being respectful of all persons was the next most frequently mentioned behavior, which was cited by 22 respondents, or 25.8 percent. The remaining behaviors that were cited ten or more times included being open (15 responses, 17.6 percent), being student-centered (13 responses, 15.3 percent), listening (12 responses, 14.1 percent), facilitating or assisting others (12 responses, 14.1 percent), and being a model for others (10 responses, 11.8 percent). These data can be seen in Table 1.

The second portion of the survey asked for characteristics – as opposed to behaviors – that define ethical administrators. Sixty-three different characteristics were mentioned by students, with a large number appearing only one time in the responses. The most commonly mentioned administrator characteristic was honesty (37 responses, 43.5 percent). Clearly this characteristic was mentioned far more often than any other characteristic or behavior, indicating how strongly students felt about this trait. Being positive and being caring or considerate were mentioned 27 times, or in 31.8 percent of the responses.

Fairness was mentioned 26 times and comprised 30.6 percent of the total responses; it is interesting to note that in addition to being an important characteristic of ethical administrators, fairness was also listed as the most frequently occurring behavior of these persons. Being professional and/or knowledgeable, being trustworthy and/or reliable, and being consistent were also frequently mentioned as important characteristics of ethical administrators. The findings for this question are shown in Table 2.

With these student-described behaviors and characteristics, perhaps what is needed is the portrait of an ethical administrator – one who not only knows the ethical standards that are expected but also knows how to model these standards in his or her daily decisions and behaviors. Consequently, the following tools are offered, based on national standards for ethical behavior, to help administrators examine not only their own awareness and implementation of ethical standards but also that of their faculty and staff. These same tools can be used by educational leadership programs to help prepare current and aspiring administrators to apply their knowledge of ethical standards to everyday practice.

Tools for Examining the Portrait of an Ethical Administrator

On the following pages are two tools an administrator (or an administrator preparation program) can use to examine ethical behavior. The first instrument, Portrait of an Ethical Administrator (Appendix A), is a survey that examines administrators’ ethical behaviors as they relate to (1) faculty and staff, (2) students, (3) community members and parents, (4) communication, and (5) general characteristics. This tool can be used to compare staff perceptions with administrator perceptions of what behaviors are valued with respect to ethical behavior. Administrators should assess their own perceptions, then assess the perceptions of their faculty and staff. Analysis of any discrepancies among the results can be used to facilitate understanding, communication, and rapport between administrators and their staff members.

Another tool, Self-check for Ethical Behavior (Appendix B), is designed for the administrator to use to self-assess his or her own behaviors. This tool may also be used to build awareness of ethical standards and as a dialogue for discussion about what is ethical in school administration and what is not. These short questions can easily be developed into case studies for use in the educational leadership classroom.

One additional tool that is helpful in developing ethical administrators is the development of a personal code of professional ethics (Czaja & Lowe, 2000). Preparation programs should certainly cover in depth the current codes of ethics governing educational leadership, whether they be from professional organizations such as AASA or whether they be dictated by state statute or code. However, having leadership students and/or practicing administrators develop their own personal code of ethics moves this understanding of ethical principles to the higher level of analysis and synthesis. As one student explained, “The exercise of writing my own personal statement of ethics helped to solidify my learner-centered values and an ethics-based leadership style.”

Ethical administrators as those who are concerned less about being right and focused more on behaving responsibly (Fasching, 1997). These administrators consistently do what is most beneficial for their students and their schools, without concern for personal gains or outcomes. The importance of having an ethical administrator, and being able to recognize this person as such, is inherent to the success of the school as a social entity:

Society or we do not invent principles; they are the laws of the universe that pertain to human relationships and human organizations. They are part of the human condition, consciousness, and conscience. To the degree people recognize and live in harmony with such basic principles as fairness, equity, justice, integrity, honesty, and trust, they move toward either survival and stability on the one hand or disintegration and destruction on the other. (Covey, 1992, p. 18)

The need for ethical administrators, then, is one that simply cannot be ignored. The obligation to work towards meeting this need rests with us all.

References

American Association of School Administrators (1981). Code of Ethics. Author.

Beck, L.G., & Murphy, J. (1994). Ethics in educational leadership programs: An expanding role. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Boleman, L. & Deal, T. (2001) Leading with soul: An uncommon journey. San Franscisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Czaja, M. & Lowe, J. (2000). Preparing leaders for ethical decisions. The AASA Professor, 24 (1), 7-12.

Dexheimer, C. (1969). The administrative ethics of chief school administrators: A study in accommodation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 30 (09A), 3670.

Fasching, D.J. (1997). Beyond values: Story, character, and public policy in American schools. In J.L. Paul, N.H. Berger, P.G. Osnes, Y.G. Martinez, & W.C. Morse (eds.), Ethics and decision making in local schools: Inclusion, policy, and reform (pp. 99-122). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

Green, R.L. (2001). Practicing the art of leadership: A problem-based approach to implementing the ISLLC standards. Columbus: Merrill Prentice Hall).

Hudson, J. (1997) Ethical leadership: The soul of policy making. Journal of School Leadership, 7(2), 506-520.

National Association of Elementary School Principals (1976). Statement of ethics for school administrators. Author.

National Association for Secondary School Principals (1973). Statement of ethics for hool administrators. Author.

Nissimov, R. (2003, February 13). Bringing conscience into classroom. Houston Chronicle.

Pritchett, P. (1999). The ethics of excellence. Retrieved June 26, 2002, from http://www.pritchettonline.com/library/ethics

Shapiro, J.P., & Stefkovich, J.A. (2001). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Thompson, S.D. (Ed.) (1994). Principals for our changing schools: The knowledge and skill base. Fairfax, VA: National Policy Board for Educational Administration.

Appendix A

Appendix B

Did you check "yes" for any of the items in the list? Congratulations! You are in violation of at least one ethical standard and could be at risk of losing your position because you did not follow the Code of Ethics and Standards for your profession.

Note: Some items overlap into more than one ethical area and could be in more than one category.

Content actions

Footer

This work is licensed by National Council of Professors of Educational Administration under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 2.0), and is an Open Educational Resource.

Last edited by National Council of Professors of Educational Administration on May 4, 2007 9:52 am -0500.