Final+Course+Reflection+-+5345

EDLD 5345: Human Resources Management //See also Mock Mediation as an additional course assignment. // //x// I view the concept of ethics as a function of three core conditions: transparency, accountability, and trust. When discerning the ethical ramifications of an action, we ask ourselves, “Am I comfortable with any and all persons involved having complete knowledge of my action and its consequences?” We consider, “Am I comfortable with shouldering the responsibility for any outcomes that result from this action?” As educators we live in a world of accountability, and no choice can be made simply for its own sake. As educators and as leaders, we look at every decision through the lens of the Butterfly effect (Stewart, 1991, p.141). The decisions we make directly affect the lives of our students, and therefore the larger world: we accept the burden when we enter the profession. And finally, at the heart of all of our decisions, we ask, “Does this choice value the students to whom I have been entrusted?” Educators are indeed custodians of the public trust. We are the institution entrusted every day with the most valuable resource of our community, and that trust must be brought to bear on each and every decision. An administrator is the face of the schoolhouse and acts as the north point on a campus’ ethical compass. The decisions are not simple: many opinions vie for attention, and the consequences of one action mix inextricably with the consequences of another. Various stakeholder groups hold different values dear, and policies at the district, state, and federal level appear seemingly at odds with one another. This complicated network of cause and effect, of action and reaction, make those guiding questions of ethical decision-making all the more critical.

I had the privilege of interviewing Ms. Sonia Cardenas and Ms. Cicely Tuttle, Human Resources Coordinators for the Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District. In that interview, I asked them to outline the possible outcomes for an investigation of ethics violations related to a staff member. Ms. Cardenas and Ms. Tuttle walked me through the process of investigation, informing me that the first action that might be taken would be to place that employee on administrative leave, either with or without claims depending on the severity and/or the merits of the case. After the investigation is concluded, consequences are recommended to Dr. Gene Buinger, superintendent of HEB ISD, for a final personnel decision. If complaint is found to be with merit, as is the case in approximately 60% of investigations conducted by HEB ISD’s Human Resources department, a variety of penalties may be enforced, including a formal reprimand, termination of a contract, or even recommendation to pursue legal action. In addition, if any complaint is made regarding inappropriate conduct with a student, the district follows legal guideline for making a report to Texas Child Protective Services. (S. Cardenas and C. Tuttle, personal communication, January 20, 2011). I considered that sobering percentage of legitimate infractions of professional ethics as I developed scenarios of possible ethics violations in a district. In particular, I looked at ethical violations that have come to the fore in the massive proliferation of social networking sites and applications. Although such a matter involves off-campus speech, our district, like many, has implemented policies that directly address social networking (Bissonette, 2009, p. 34). It brought many of the personal anecdotes that I collected in the process of completing this assignment all the more disquieting.

In some ways this assignment created more questions than it answered. In 2001, The University of Western Ontario offered a course entitled, “The Debate between Consequentialism and Deontology”. In its course description, they describe the two areas of ethics in the following way: “Consequentialism, frequently identified with Utilitarianism, is the theory according to which right actions are those that maximize good outcomes. Deontology, with its roots in Kant, determines rightness by features of acts other than their outcomes.” (Isaacs, 2001) I find this to be fascinating, particularly in the context of my interviews, my collected anecdotes, and my observations of educators' presence in a cyber-social world. Many might describe ethics as a sense of right and wrong, or “what you are in the dark” (Moody, as cited in Bissonette, 2009, p. 81). We see, instead, that the determination of that simple paradigm is not so simple, after all. Is a “good” choice one that is made with the best of intentions, or is it one that has the best possible result? When we make decisions about, for instance, dress code: do we make the decision to limit one person’s liberties for the well-being of the many? Is this a reflection of a personal sense of right and wrong, or an adherence to a policy structure? When an educator has the unfortunate experience of having a personal contact post a questionable picture on a Facebook page, has the teacher in fact violated her moral turpitude clause?

My district has created policies I view as an incredibly proactive approach to online communication and social networking as it applies to educator ethics. Even prior to the passing of the revisions to the state Educators’ Code of Conduct, the district spoke in specific terms in the DH (LOCAL) section of the policies regarding teacher behavior in these environments. The idea that “conduct off school time, even online, is considered public behavior” seems a simple one: however, many district staff members do not fully understand the ramifications of this concept (Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD, 2011-2012). Even now, many of my colleagues chafe at the idea that they have to de-tag photos with friends at a birthday party because of the presence of alcohol in the picture or at the recommendation that they “de-friend” a parent who allows their student to maintain a Facebook page and a “friendship” with that student. While these are certainly infringements on privacy rights that others may not endure, teachers have long been held to a higher standard of public appearance. The boundary between the personal and the professional, the private belief and the public standard, is a blurry one. The core understanding that followed me through this assignment remains: for a public figure, the appearance of impropriety stands interchangeable with the act (Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, 1992).

** References: ** 81st Texas Legislature. (2010, December). //§247.2 Code of Ethics and Standard Practices for Texas Educators.// Retrieved January 20, 2011, from Texas Secretary of State: [] Bissonette, A. (2009). //Cyber Law: Maximizing Safety and Minimizing Risk in the Classroom.// Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD. (2011-2012). //Employee Handbook .// Bedford, TX: HEB ISD. Isaacs, T. (2001). //Course Outline: The Debate between Consequentialism and Deontology.// Retrieved January 23, 2011, from publish.uwo: [] Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, 5 C.F.R. 2635.101, pt. A (1992.) Stewart, N. (1991). //Does God Play Dice? The Mathematics of Chaos.// Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.