This assignment is intended to guide your understanding of ethics as purposeful conduct by providing practice in applying the Ethical Reasoning Model. In this module you will complete a case analysis in which you are to apply all steps within the Ethical Reasoning Model.
The presentation of this module/lesson is divided into two parts. (Basically to better accommodate the requirements of YouTube videoing.)You will complete both parts this week and after completing them, you will have the information you will need tocomplete the exercise.
As a basis for acquiring practice and proficiency with applying the Ethical Reasoning Model, you will analyze the Cheerleader or Banished case found in the attachments of this assignment’s directions. You will analyze the situation and arrive at a solution to resolving the matter by applying the Ethical Reasoning Model.As an example of this process you are provided a sample application of the application of the model in the video lecture “Turnabout”.
As a part of the model, you will apply the Priority Principle,as an aide in making a final decision in your determination of an ethical solution. Then you will subject your decision to something called theSquirm Testto check and determine if, indeed, you have arrived at an acceptable and ethical solution.
In step four of the model, you are asked to identify three alternatives/actions that you believe could be viable solutions to resolve the dilemma/problem described in this case study. Once you have identified the three alternatives, you are toselectjust one of the alternatives to be addressed by each of 5 lensesthat provide differing perspectivesfor screening the problem.
To provide additional guidance in completing the exercise, also utilize the rubric, the Ethical Reasoning PowerPoint, and the script from my lecture regarding the application of the Ethical Reasoning Model to the case study “Turnabout.” This case study will be referred to and explained within the lecture as an example of applying the Ethical Reasoning Model.
Your main objective is to resolve the issue presented in the case study by applying the Ethical Reasoning Model. And, of course, presenting your solution and the process you used to arrive at the solution in a written format.Specific instructions for completing this exercise and formatting your written response follow.
Assignment Instructions:After completing both parts 1 and 2 of the lecture videos for the Ethical Reasoning module, begin your analysis.
Step 1:Determine and present the facts.
Step 2:Determine what the ethical dilemma of the situation is.
Step 3: Identify the stakeholders and their desires/needs.
Step 4:Develop three viable alternative solutions to the situation.
#Step 5: Focus the following lenses on one of the alternative solutions from the preceding step.
Lens 1: Ethic of Care/Obligation
Lens 2: Equitable Treatment
Lens 3: Individual Rights
Lens 4: Utility
Lens 5: Empathy
Step 6: Apply the Priority Principle (ELCC 5.1)
Step 7:Apply the Squirm Test
Step 8:Present your Final Decision addressing ELCC 5.4 by discussing:
a) Implications, conclusions, and consequences, considering all relevant moral and legal assumptions, contexts, data and evidence.
b) Strategies to prevent difficulties related to moral and legal issues regarding the decision.
*
Case Study: Cheerleader or Banished
Was it part of a premeditated plan of destruction by all three teenagers or a case of at least one of them being in the “wrong place and the wrong time.” That’s what Addison School District officials were trying to determine on the Sunday morning prior the following Friday night’s football game. Tom Henson, the high school principal, was up at dawn running on the high school track and noticed tire marks in the end zone region of the football field. Upon further inspection it was obvious that somebody had gone to a great deal of trouble to vandalize the field with a vehicle. “Donuts” had been carved on the fifty-yard line and at several other spots, including both end zones. School officials were “sick.” The field was one of the campus’ focal points and included an irrigation system. Also, an expensive mower had been purchased to clip the field throughout the growing season. Addison Public Schools expended concentrated efforts on keeping their facilities clean and attractive…it was expected by the community. Now, five days before the season football opener, the field looked like a four-wheeler mud track.
The vehicle that did the damage had driven through a chain link fence that bordered the property. At least fifty feet of the fence had been destroyed and was lying on the adjacent practice field. The police were called and an investigation started and both law enforcement and school officials were reasonably sure that if more than one person was involved in the vandalism, the secret would not be well kept.
By Sunday afternoon, a big break emerged in the case. Three students who lived across from the football field not only saw the truck doing the damage, but also got its license plate information. By that evening, Evan Wilson, a prior year’s graduate and former athlete was arrested and charged with property destruction.
As the investigation unraveled, it was revealed two high school students were accompanying Wilson in the vehicle. All were intoxicated at the time the vandalism took place. Accompanying Wilson were Thomas Phillips, a high school senior who was involved in no co-curricular activities and Laura Thompson, a high school senior, cheerleader, and volleyball player. In the investigation, it was revealed by the two boys that Laura was in the backseat of the pickup truck passed out and knew nothing of what had happened to the football field. Laura corroborated the boys’ stories, but many were skeptical.
Officials from the local law enforcement agency had arrested and charged Evan Wilson, but legal charges against the two high school students were pending further investigation. It was now left to school officials as to what disciplinary actions, if any, should be taken. Should they be expelled from school entirely; be given short-term suspensions; should Laura be allowed to continue cheerleading and volleyball? Many in the community were “out for blood”, but it was pretty much evident that neither of the students was in control of the vehicle when the vandalism occurred. Damage to the field and fence was estimated to be in the range of $8000. There were also junior varsity football games that had to be rescheduled to out-of-town sites due to the field’s condition.
School officials had to decide what, if any punishment, would be administered to the high school students involved in the vandalism. Neither had ever encountered problems in school. Laura was a candidate for a six-year medical degree program, not to mention her involvement in the athletic program. An expulsion or suspension of a long-term nature carried a significant impact on her future.
Both Laura and Thomas admittedly were intoxicated at the time of the vandalism. Did the school district’s zero-tolerance substance abuse policy pertain to them since they were on campus and intoxicated? If so, they faced expulsion.
Rubric: Analyzing Ethical Situations(This exercise has a maximum point value of 70 points).
Task Exemplary
5 points Acceptable
3 point Unacceptable
0 points
STEP 1: Determine the facts
“Just the facts, ma’am”
Who?
What?
When?
Where?
How?
And Why? Candidate thoroughly identifies who, what, when, where, how, why, and determines and speaks to the adequacy of having enough information about the problem to identify the ethical issue(s).
Candidate identifies most (at least 5 of the following) who, what, when, where, how, why, and determines and speaks to the adequacy of having enough information about the problem to identify the ethical issue(s). Candidate identifies a few (4 or less of the following) who, what, when, where, how, why, and there being enough information about the problem to identify the ethical issue(s).
STEP 2: Determine the ethical dilemma
What is the fundamental issue, the root of the problem, the essence of the dilemma?
What values are in conflict? In an exemplary manner (90-100% coverage of the items indicated) the candidate determines whatthe essence of the dilemma is and what if any, Code of Ethics is in conflict with one another, and what Code of Ethics is met/violated. In an acceptable manner(75 -89%coverage of the items indicated) the candidate determines whatthe essence of the dilemma is and what if any, Code of Ethics is in conflict with one another, and what Code of Ethics is met/violated. In an unacceptable manner(less than 75% coverage of the items indicated) the candidate determines what the essence of the dilemma is and what if any, Code of Ethics is in conflict with one another, and what Code of Ethics is met/violated.
STEP 3: Determine Stakeholders and their Needs
Determine who the claimants are and what you think each of them would want you todo in the situation, The candidate clearly identifies the stakeholders, all the empirical and theoretical contexts relevant to all the main stakeholders, and shows the tension or conflicts of interests among them.
The candidate adequately identifiesthe stakeholders, shows some general understanding of the influence of empirical and theoretical contexts on stakeholders, but does not identify any specific ones relevant to situation at hand. The candidate does not adequately
Identify and/or explain at least two empirical or theoretical contexts for the issues. Presents problems as having no connections to other conditions or contexts.
STEP 4: Develop Viable Alternative Solutions
At least three alternatives. Why three? The first and sometimes most obvious alternative may not be ethical or the best.
The candidate clearly clarifies three (3) alternatives solutions to the issue. There is evidence of a high degree of reflection and creativity expressed in the candidate’s response.
The candidate sufficiently clarifies two (2) alternatives solutions to the issue. There is evidence of a moderate degree of reflection and creativity expressed in the candidate’s response. The candidate clarifies only 1 alternative solution to the issue. There is NOT evidence of an adequate degree/level of reflection and creativity expressed in the candidate’s response.
Step 5: Application of Lenses
Lens 1: Ethic of Care
The Ethic of Care focuses on the obligations that professionals owe their clients The candidate thoroughly addresses 3 ethical principles from a Code of Ethics thatfocuses on the obligations owed to clients that should be considered in fulfilling in addressing the case study. The candidate thoroughly addresses 2 ethical principles from a Code of Ethics that focuses on the obligations owed to clients that should be considered in fulfilling in addressing the case study. The candidate addresses only 1 ethical principle from a Code of Ethics thatfocuses on the obligations owed to clients that should be considered in fulfilling in addressing the case study.
Lens 2: Equitable Treatment
The Equitable Treatment lens (or the justice lens as some prefer) focuses on fairness, on equity, not on equality.
The candidate thoroughly discusses the equitable treatment of the dilemma by answering the following questions?
-Does this alternative result in equitable treatment of the claimants?
-Does this alternative promote favoritism?
-Does the alternative promote impartiality?
-If some are treated equitably and other inequitably, the Priority Principle is applied.
The candidate adequately discusses the equitable treatment of the dilemma by answering the following questions?
Does this alternative result in equitable treatment of the claimants?
-Does this alternative promote favoritism?
-Does the alternative promote impartiality?
-If some are treated equitably and other inequitably, the Priority Principle is applied.
The candidate does not adequately discuss the equitable treatment of the dilemma by answering the following questions?
Does this alternative result in equitable treatment of the claimants?
-Does this alternative promote favoritism?
-Does the alternative promote impartiality?
-If some are treated equitably and other inequitably, the Priority Principle is applied.
Lens 3: Individual Rights
Concerned that the ultimate decision demonstrates respect for human dignity.
THE RIGHT TO: Choose Freely, The Truth, Privacy, Not to be Injured, What is Agreed. The candidate thoroughly discusseshow the decision demonstrates respect for human dignity and rights
-the right to choose freely,
-the right to the truth,
-the right of privacy,
-the right not to be injured,
-the right to what is agreed.
The candidateadequately discusses how the decision demonstrates respect for human dignity and rights
-the right to choose freely,
-the right to the truth,
-the right of privacy,
-the right not to be injured,
-the right to what is agreed.
The candidate,less than adequately,discusses how the decision demonstrates respect for human dignity and rights
-the right to choose freely,
-the right to the truth,
-the right of privacy,
-the right not to be injured,
-the right to what is agreed.
Lens 4:Utility
Do the benefits of implementing this alternative outweigh the costs? Is the greatest good for the greatest number achieved by implementing this alternative?
The candidate , in an exemplary manner, thoroughly discusses applying the priority principle to answer the following questions:
-Will benefits of this decision outweigh the negative consequences?
-Is the greatest good or the greatest number achieved by this alternative?
The candidate, in anacceptable manner, provides a general discussion applying the priority principle to answer the following questions:
-Will benefits of this decision outweigh the negative consequences?
-Is the greatest good or the greatest number achieved by this alternative?
The candidate does not, in anacceptable manner, discuss applying the priority principle to answer the following questions:
-Will benefits of this decision outweigh the negative consequences?
-Is the greatest good or the greatest number achieved by this alternative?
Lens 5: Empathy
Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” The candidate thoroughly addresses consequences in a way that him/herself or loved ones would be willing to experience or not experience. The candidate generally addresses consequences in a way that him/herself or loved ones would be willing to experience or not experience. The candidate does not (or inadequately) address consequences in a way that he/she or loved ones would be willing to experience or not experience.
STEP 6: Priority Principle Applied
ELCC 5.1
Decide which obligation should gain pre-eminence.
“The Principle of Priority states (a) you must know the difference between what is urgent and what is important, and (b) you must do what’s important first.”Steven Pressfield
The candidate determines if the “Priority Principle” needs to be applied to each lens for each solution provided.
The candidate practices demonstrating principals of integrity and fairness by prioritizing the yes’s and no’s to determine if the alterative being examined is ethical. The candidate determines if the “Priority Principle” needs to be applied to each lens for 2 of the solutions provided.
The candidate practices demonstrating principals of integrity and fairness by prioritizing the yes’s and no’s to determine if the alterative being examined is ethical. The candidate determines if the “Priority Principle” needs to be applied to each lens for only 1 solutions provided.
OR The candidate does not practice demonstrating principals of integrity and fairness by prioritizing the yes’s and no’s to determine if the alterative being examined is ethical.
STEP 7: Squirm Test
Would you be able —without embarrassment —to face the stakeholders of this decision, the news media, your colleagues, your family, and yourself when this alternative is announced as the final decision? The candidate clearly provides evidence of having applied the “Squirm Test” in arriving at, and announcing a final decision in the matter at hand. The candidate adequately provides evidence of having applied the “Squirm Test” in arriving at, and announcing a final decision in the matter at hand. The candidate DOES NOT adequately provides evidence of having applied the “Squirm Test” in arriving at, and announcing a final decision in the matter at hand.
STEP 8 (a): Decision
ELCC 5.4
Candidates understand and can evaluate the potential moral and legal consequences of decision making in the school. The candidate effectively evaluates and thoroughly discusses implications, conclusions, and consequences, considering all relevant moral and legal assumptions, contexts, data and evidence.
The candidate adequately evaluates and briefly discusses implications, conclusions, and consequences considering most but not all the relevant moral and legal assumptions, contexts, data and evidence. Candidate fails to adequately evaluate implications, conclusions, and consequences of the moral and legal issues or the key relationship between the other elements of the problem, such as context, assumptions or data and evidence.
STEP 8 (b):
Decision continued
ELCC 5.4
Candidates discuss strategies to prevent difficulties related to moral and legal issues. The candidate thoroughly discusses strategies to prevent difficulties related to moral and legal issues regarding the decision. The candidate provides some detailed strategies to prevent difficulties related to moral and legal issues regarding the decision. The candidate provides little or no strategies to prevent difficulties related to moral and legal issues regarding the decision.
Item 9: Completes the Reflective Summary Form IN AN EXEMPARY MANNER, THE CANDIDATE:
A. Describes in detail how the activity was planned and implemented.
B. Lists the document(s) included as artifacts for this activity
C. Writes a reflective summary of his/her knowledge, skills and understanding in planning and implementing this activity.
D. Develops a reflective summary that is athoughtful and well-developed response (500 words or more) using the following prompts as a guide:
-Describesin detail new knowledge and skills gained from participation in this activity.
-Describesin detail the challenges she/he experienced.
-Describes what more is needed to know or learn about his/her school and/or to be a more effective school leader in this area of leadership.
-Describes what is needed for the candidate to improve in this area of leadership.
-Identifies who could help the candidate improve in this area of leadership.
IN AN ACCEPTABLE MANNER, THE CANDIDATE:
A. Describes how the activity was planned and implemented.
B. Lists the document(s) included as artifacts for this activity
C. Writes a reflective summary of his/her knowledge, skills and understanding in planning and implementing this activity.
D. Develops a reflective summary that is a well-developed response (500 words or more) using the following prompts as a guide:
-Describes new knowledge and skills gained from participation in this activity.
-Describes the challenges she/he experienced.
-Describes what more is needed to know or learn about his/her school and/or to be a more effective school leader in this area of leadership.
-Describes what is needed for the candidate to improve in this area of leadership.
-Identifies who could help the candidate improve in this area of leadership.
IN LESS THAN AN ACCEPTABLE MANNER, THE CANDIDATE:
A. Describes how the activity was planned and implemented.
B. Lists the document(s) included as artifacts for this activity
C. Writes a reflective summary of his/her knowledge, skills and understanding in planning and implementing this activity.
D. Develops a reflective summary that is a response (500 words or more) using the following prompts as a guide:
-Describes new knowledge and skills gained from participation in this activity.
-Describes the challenges she/he experienced.
-Describes what more is needed to know or learn about his/her school and/or to be a more effective school leader in this area of leadership.
-Describes what is needed for the candidate to improve in this area of leadership.
-Identifies who could help the candidate improve in this area of leadership.
Reflective Summary Form to Follow
“`
Reflective Summary for Internship Activities
Name of Assignment*:
Course in which the assignment was given (course number and name):
Semester/year assignment was completed:
ELCC Standard Element(s)*:
*Refer to the course syllabus for the name of the assignment and the ELCC standards applicable to the assignment.
Describe in detail how the activity was planned and implemented. Include the date, location, stakeholders involved and specifics of planning and implementation of the activity. What did you do? Who was involved? Where did this activity take place?
(You can adjust the spacing here by using the ENTER key.)
List the document(s) included as artifacts for this activity. Including but not limited to federal/state/local laws or regulations related to the activity; policies; forms; minutes/agendas for meetings; new documents produced. For course embedded activities the artifact is the assignment that was completed for the field experience.
(You can adjust the spacing here by using the ENTER key.)
Write a reflective summary of your knowledge, skills and understanding in planning and implementing this activity. The reflective summary should be a thoughtful and well-developed response (500 words or more)using the following questions as a guide:
• Describe in detail new knowledge and skills gained from participation in this activity. What did you learn about this area of leadership? What did you learn about yourself? What did you learn about your school and/or community?
• Describe in detail the challenges you experienced. What did you learn about your school that might need to be changed or improved? How could you have been better prepared for this activity? What would you do differently to improve the outcome? Did you have any “surprises” as you engaged in this activity?
• What more do you need to know or learn about your school to be a more effective school leader in this area of leadership?
• What do you need to do to improve in this area of leadership?
• Who could help you improve in this area of leadership?
Enter your response below. Response should be a minimum of 500 words. ______________________________________________________________¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬-_______________________
