The Importance of Courses in “Education Ethics” in Assessing the Accreditation and Certification of Educational Programs for Teachers

James E. Roper

Michigan State University
Department of Philosophy

Paper presented at the Annual Conference of The American Philosophical Association-Central Division, Session of the Society for the Philosophical Study of Education, April 20, 2007, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Copyright © 2007 by James E. Roper

            In the early ‘80’s, I helped pioneer courses in “business ethics” at Michigan State University.  I have also taught courses in “medical ethics.”  What is interesting about these two major professional areas is that organizations that control the accreditation of programs in medicine and business are now requiring that such programs include courses in ethics in their programs.  In addition, for six years, I have been teaching a course called “Ethical Issues in Government Decision Making.”         

Education is one of the most important institutions of our society.  If business and medical people are required to have ethics training, it is clear that K-12 educators should also have such training.  There are many reasons for this.  Educators are role models for our children.  Once they start school, children are exposed to their teachers almost as much as, and perhaps more than, they are exposed to their parents.  Many suggest that teachers should go beyond being role models and actually instruct their students in ethics.  In addition, there are specific ethical issues pertaining to K-12 education that arise both in the classroom and in the broader social context.  In is, therefore, imperative that teachers have a serious understanding of ethics.

            There are several ways to structure a course such as I propose.  The typical practical ethics course in a special area such as business or medicine—or, in this case, education—typically begins with an explanation of the rationale for such a course.  This explanation includes specific examples of some of the ethical issues that can arise for a teacher—including both cases that might arise in the classroom and broader issues an educator might be expected to understand.[1]  Next, students examine brief treatments of the major types of ethical theory—including theories that have broader implications for society, such as theories of distributive justice.  Students then proceed to examine in detail a number of specific ethical topics in education—both classroom concerns such as allocation of time among different groups of students and broader societal concerns such as the way educational benefits are distributed in our society.  We should not expect the relation between ethical theory and education to be simple; rather, it is likely to involve an interaction in which both disciplines benefit.  Below I specify a partial syllabus for such a course.

Before I consider possible objections to my proposal, I will give just one example of how an ethical issue might be approached in a class that would meet my criterion for an “education ethics” course.  The example I examine can be found on the syllabus in the Appendix below described as “Debate Case 2:  Teaching to the Test.”  As I say on the syllabus, “This case will deal with the problem, aggravated by “No Child Left Behind,” of teachers being forced to teach to various tests that their students must do well on for their schools to continue to receive federal money.” 

There are various approaches an instructor could take to this topic.  My own approach, alluded to in the sample syllabus, involves assigning four students the task of “debating” this topic in front of the class.  After their debate, both the other students and the instructor join into the discussion which the debate is crafted to facilitate.  I am designing a website to assist students and instructors in developing positions in such a debate.  I have also published a paper about such “debating” ("Debate as Informal Logic in Democratic Education"), which recently appeared in the Proceedings of the 2004-2005 Midwest Philosophy of Education Society, AuthorHouse, Bloomington, pp. 277-302.  For a full treatment of this issue, I refer readers to either of these sources; but I will provide a brief account here of the essentials of my approach.  I emphasize that other approaches are possible.  I believe my approach has some important advantages, but I also teach ethics in larger classes where such a strategy is impractical.

“Debating” a case that directly involves ethical issues involves doing the following:

1. Selecting a group of four students who have expressed some interest in the issue being considered.  I usually ask students to rank-order different possible topics, beginning with the ones they would most prefer to debate.

2.     I next meet with these students.  Our first task is to determine how to fashion the topic into a “resolution” that frames the issue in a way that allows students to debate it on reasonably even terms, and in a way that highlights the major ethical ramifications of the topic.  Two two-person teams are selected from the initial group of four students, and the chosen resolution must offer each of these teams “ground” to develop their arguments.  For the “Teaching to the Test” debate, a possible resolution would be: Resolved that a government policy that makes it essential that teachers spend a great deal of time preparing students for specific national tests is on-balance harmful to students.   A team of two of the four students,  hereafter called "Affirmative," would volunteer to “affirm” this position, and the other group of two students (called "Negative") would argue against (or “negate”) it.  In my paper, referenced above, I explain why asking students to defend views that they may not hold presents no problem; but this matter is complex and cannot be adequately addressed here. 

3.     Usually the next task is to determine the ethical standards the two teams will use to defend their positions.  It is typical that the two competing ethical standards in the debate reflect some variants of utilitarianism and deontology—that is, ethical principles that emphasize the importance of enhancing the common good (utilitarianism) and ethical standards that stress the importance of rights and/or duties.  Sometimes one or both sides might utilize ethical standards embodying both utilitarian and deontological aspects.   In this case, I believe Negative might adopt such a dual standard, while Affirmative might embrace a utilitarian ethical principle.

4.     After selecting the ethical standards to be used by the two teams, I work with the groups to determine what their specific substantive arguments will be and how the ethical standards they have chosen will be marshaled to support these arguments.  In this case, Affirmative might look toward making the substantive argument that the standardized tests promoted by “No Child…” provide a means of measuring the progress of students, teachers, and schools—thus assuring an overall utilitarian benefit for the whole society.  Negative might utilize an ethical standard embracing BOTH utilitarian and deontological aspects to argue that “no child…” leads to an educational environment in which rote memorization replaces creative teaching and learning.  From a utilitarian standpoint, society suffers because creativity is stifled.  The result is a society of people who have lost the ability to think critically about the “facts” they have memorized.  Such a society, as Thomas Jefferson said, is incompatible with democracy.  Individual teachers’ and students’ autonomy—and hence their moral rights—are abridged because they are all forced into a system that emphasizes memorization over rational enquiry.  Hence, Negative might argue, the “progress” that Affirmative says “No Child…” promotes is a crude measure of memorization—not an indicator of a healthy teaching and learning environment.  Obviously, the actual debate would be more complex; I am only trying to provide a brief indication of the general direction this case might take in the course I am proposing.  The thing to notice is the differentiation of ethical standards from the specific substantive arguments these standards qualify.  Getting students to understand this distinction is crucial to any practical ethics course. 

5.     I next help the students “map” the debate into a “flow.”  Each of the two groups will have two “speeches,” one for each student in the debate.  The first speech, the affirmative constructive, will present the “case” supporting the resolution.  The second, the negative constructive, will attempt to answer the affirmative case; and then to present negative’s own “offensive” positions.  Both affirmative and negative debaters will “filter” every specific substantive argument they make through the ethical standards they are using in the debate.   Laying out the details of how this debate would proceed, emphasizing the clash of different positions and the development of arguments throughout the debate, is a rather complex matter.  I hope I have said enough to show the general direction my course would take regarding this “No Child …” case.  When my website is available, it will provide detailed flows of debates about practical ethical issues.  

6.     Finally, I work with those who will present the final two speeches—the affirmative rebuttal and the negative rebuttal.  Each speaker will begin by “crystallizing" his or her views and then proceeding to answer various arguments still remaining in the debate. 

7.     After the debate is finished, I bring the whole class into the discussion of the issue as framed by the resolution and debated by the four students.  To motivate the other students in the class, I ask that they “flow” each debate and hand in both their flows and one-page analyses of each debate.  Then, I include an essay question on the midterm and the final examination that asks students to analyze one of the debates that has occurred.  I usually give students some choice in selecting the debate they will write about.     

This procedure is relatively complicated.  That is why I am developing the website and why I have written several articles explaining this approach, the latest of which is referenced above.  This is how I would teach such a class, assuming it was reasonably small (35-40), but the method described suggests the elements that any approach to teaching education ethics should utilize.  Students should be taught to “frame” ethical issues in ways that facilitate the best arguments regarding the matter being considered.  They should learn to utilize ethical theories to support their conclusions.  Finally they should subject the various views that emerge during the initial consideration of the topic to searching criticisms—seeking both “clash” (students should “directly respond” to arguments, not simply change the subject) and “argument development” (assuring that students “sustain” their arguments throughout the discussion).  The implementation of these ideas in the case of “Teaching to the Test” is suggested by the preceding discussion of my debate approach; but, as I said, there are many other viable approaches.

Those who might oppose such a course may point out that being a professional philosopher does not make someone a “better person” than someone who lacks such training.  Therefore, they will argue, formal training in ethics is unnecessary, perhaps harmful for teachers.  This line of argument represents a confusion that runs very deep.  I am not arguing that it is not possible to be a good person without having formal ethics training, and we should be thankful for that.  It is a fundamental confusion, however, to identify “being a good person” with “being someone who understands the intricacies of ethical theory.”  If this is the case, our opponent may intone, why should we care whether someone understands ethical theory?  The answer is that being a good person usually signals the ability to make “ethical” decisions when faced with fairly straightforward everyday problems-the kinds of problems we encounter in non-institutional contexts.  When we shift our focus to ethical evaluations in institutional settings—like that of a business person, a doctor, or a teacher in his or her professional milieu—things typically become much more difficult.  In such situations, understanding ethical theory is often crucial to making a decision that comports with one's basic ethical intuitions.  This is especially true if the question is one that has broad implications for public policy.  The examples I cite in the partial syllabus at the end of this presentation illustrate my position on this matter.  In addition, examples can be produced from other professional areas such as business and medicine that support my point.  Even if those opposed to my suggestion accept the argument I make in the preceding paragraph—and they should—they may introduce another argument against requiring students to take the sort of ethics course I propose here.  Specifically, they might argue that such a course is unnecessary because it already exists.  There is already a strong emphasis on ethics in many education programs.  I cite below a course drawn from the Michigan State University College of Education web site which might be taken to support such an argument.[2]

This course  description refers to “teachers’ professional and ethical responsibilities”; but notice what else is included in this course description.  If “connections of schools to other social agencies” and so on signals ethical evaluations, then we are clearly in the institutional realm I discussed above—territory where I have argued that understanding the complexities of the discipline of ethics definitely does offer illumination.  If it is replied that, after all, this course is telling the student all  he or she needs to know about the ethics of such relations, then I have another problem—a very serious one.  Do we want our teachers to accept the ethical views of the “authorities” who teach such courses?  In my view, and this position is well supported in both common sense and professional philosophy, the last thing we want to do is to suggest that ethics is simply a matter of accepting what some authority says without critically examining it.[3] 

            Yet, this is exactly what the “Code of Ethics for Michigan Educators” appears to reinforce.  This code can be found at the web site of the Superintendent of Public Instruction in the State of Michigan.[4]  Sadly, it is very similar to many “ethics codes” I have found on corporation web sites.  It utilizes what I have called the “Ten Commandments” model of ethics.[5]  In short, it is essentially a discrete check list—not an invitation critically to examine ethical issues in education.[6]  I argue that a very different model should be used to articulate codes of professional ethics—the “Wide Reflective Equilibrium” model.[7]  This view enjoys broad support in philosophical ethics, but even if one does not accept this (highly regarded) philosophical view, there are others that could be utilized.  The one approach that does not have support among professional (philosophical) ethicists is the “Ten Commandments” model, which reduces ethical judgment to obeying some authority. 

            In conclusion, this paper is intended to open a discussion—not to conclude one.  It is my view that K-12 education should follow the lead of other professions and require a course in ethics.  There are various ways to satisfy such a requirement.  Since ‘ethics’ is the noun, such a course should, at the very least, involve a professional philosopher with expertise in the discipline of ethics.  It would be a course in educational ethics; therefore, having someone from education co-teach it would be optimal.  It is not appropriate, however, for this course to be taught only by an education person—unless that person has extensive training in philosophical ethics and general philosophy. 

There are issues in ethics that cannot be adequately addressed without reference to other areas of philosophy—any more than someone can study the mathematical discipline of “analysis” without some understanding of “general topology” and other related areas.  An example of such an issue is the claim by Princeton philosopher Gilbert Harmon that "virtue ethics” is a bankrupt notion—a product of a discipline (personality theory) that Harmon claims is no longer viable as a discipline.[8]  Whether we agree with Harmon or not, no one can contest the fact that he is a very serious philosopher.  Since that is the case, his claims have to be critically evaluated.  Such assessment will require expertise in the philosophy of mind, epistemology, the philosophy of science, and perhaps other areas of professional philosophy—as well as some knowledge of psychology.

In summary, I suggest that colleges and universities that educate those who aspire to teach in K-12 grades (and future administrators in such venues) should require their charges to take a course that might be called “Ethical Issues in K-12 Education.”  I explain why such a course should, ideally, be co-taught by a professional philosopher (or someone with comparable training) and an education professor.  I also provide (in the Appendix) a possible syllabus for such a course and include an example of how I might implement my “debate” approach to analyzing education cases with ethical ramifications.  Finally, I defend my proposal against both the claim that such a course is not needed and the view that courses like this are already included in standard education curriculums.   

APPENDIX: Example Of Partial Syllabus for a Course in Education Ethics 

PHL/EDU 000: Ethical Issues in K-12 Education

Time/Place

Prof.  YYYYY YYYYYYY (Philosophy)                                           Office Hours:

Philosophy Professor’s Office                                                      _________________

Phone:  _____________________

Prof. XXXXX XXXXXXX (Education)                                           Office Hours:

Education Prof’s Office                                                                _________________

Phone: ______________________  

TEXT:  To Be Announced (or Written)                                               

DESCRIPTION: This course is intended for juniors and seniors in education or related programs, but others may find it useful and even important.  (See below.)  There are four broad educational objectives. First, we will learn to identify the ethical dimensions of K-12 educational practice.  Second, we will learn enough about ethical theory to conduct an ethical inquiry into a problem in order to reach an ethically acceptable resolution.  Third, we will combine theory and practice by studying the ethical dimensions of K-12 education’s relationships with students, parents, citizens, the government, and society as a whole.  Fourth, special emphasis will be placed on learning to express one's thoughts on these matters in a clear and well-argued manner. 

A SPECIAL FEATURE of the course is a novel approach to case studies.  The class will be divided into two-person teams.  These teams will debate each other about selected cases in a way that parallels intercollegiate "values" debate.  The class will include sufficient instruction in this approach to cases to enable students to engage in this educationally valuable exercise.  Students will, for example, learn a special form of note taking called "flowing" to keep track of the arguments presented in the debates.  (Because we will not involve ourselves in debate theory except in the most minimal sense, the time spent learning to "debate" will not be greater than the time usually required to learn any worthwhile approach to doing case studies.)

NOTE:  I am currently funded to develop a website to help students and instructors utilize this “debate method” of case presentations.  It should be up and running by fall 2007.   

PREREQUISITES:  The only prerequisite for PHL/EDU 000 is that students have achieved at least junior standing.  I believe that upper level students in education and related programs will find a course which focuses specifically on the ethical aspects of educational practice to be of obvious relevance in today's increasingly complex education environment.  Because of the socially pervasive nature of many of the topics covered, the course should also be of interest to some students who are not in education.  Students used to a “social science” approach to “ethics” should find this normative/philosophical approach an essential complement to the empirical study of “values.”  Indeed, any student who expects to participate in the decision making processes of this country must have an understanding of the elements of this course because of the enormous role education plays in our political life.  NOTE:  Students with some experience in the classroom, for example, through student teaching, will definitely be assets in this course. 

GRADING AND ASSIGNMENTS:  A case presentation in the form of a debate in front of the class.  This will involve writing a short position paper and doing some research.  Two in class examinations, which include both essay and multiple choice/true-false questions.  There will also be 8 to 12 "pop" quizzes on the reading assignment for the day.  Any student who carefully reads the assignments should do well on these quizzes.  (I will collect most "flows," on a random basis, which will count as pop quizzes.)  The lowest quiz grade (including flow grades) will be dropped in computing the student's quiz average.  This average will count 25% of the final grade.  The two examinations will count 25% each, and the debate will count 25% of the final grade.  Where a student's final average falls between two grades, I look at class participation, progress, etc. to determine the grade.  I use the following scale for calculating grades:  90-100 (4), 85-89 (3.5), 80-84 (3), 75-79 (2.5), 70-74 (2), 65-69 (1.5), 60-64 (1), below 60 (0).  I round off to the tenth place and round up grades, so an 84.45 rounds to 84.5 which rounds to 85.  In the debates, 4.0 is a 95 on the scale.  4.0- is a 90.  3.5+ is an 89.  And so on.  (4.0+ is 100.)  I follow University guidelines regarding academic dishonesty.  See the appropriate URL.  Students who miss exams or quizzes may be excused for University sponsored activities, religious holidays, and illness.  Appropriate documentation is required beforehand, except in the case of illness, where documentation may be provided (soon) after the event.  Students who miss the final exam because of illness must inform the instructor of this immediately.   

INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL:  I designed this course so that students need to attend class and do assignments regularly to perform satisfactorily.  Classes consist of (usually short) lectures, student debates, and/or class discussion.  There may be videos.  Late assignments will be accepted only in unusual circumstances.  Most class time is spent learning to apply the material in the text and lectures through debates and discussions, which will also be covered on the exams.   

PRELIMINARY PARTIAL SYLLABUS: For convenience, the Michigan State University Fall Semester dating is used for this syllabus.

Aug.   28                 Introduction to the Course.  Discussion of “class debates” and cases. 

30                The Ethics of Education: A General Introduction to the Subject.  

Sept.  4                  LABOR DAY – NO CLASS 

6  Justifying Ethical Statements: Wide Reflective Equilibrium (WRE); Comments on “The ‘Public Philosophy’ of Education.”[9] 

11 Lecture on Class Debates.  Read Roper Article and Explain Debate Web Resources.  Turn in Debate Preferences.                               

12 Review Roper & Sommers Article on classroom debate, Web Material.  Make Preliminary Debate Assignments.  

18 Responsibility: Various Ramifications of this Concept, Including Examples Drawn from K-12 Education.  Begin Group Meetings in Class.  Plan Meetings Outside of Class (Usually at Main Library). 20  Utilitarianism, Including Examples from K-12 Education.   

          25  Deontological Ethical Theories; Discussion of Rights & Duties, with Examples Drawn from K-12 Education. 

27 Distributive Justice and its Relation to Fairness; K-12 Examples. 

Oct.    2 “Ethic of Care”; Integration of Ethical Theories; WRE, again.  K-12 Examples                   

          4 Extended Discussion of Virtue Ethics.  Is Such a Theory Possible? Illustrate Discussion with K-12 examples.[10] 

9 Justifications of the State; Role of Major Publicly Traded Corporations.  Relate to K-12 Education.  This Topic Could Extend to Two Sessions.      

10 Debate Case 1:  Teaching Math in the Early Grades.  This case will deal with the idea that students have to be about 14 in order to engage in abstract thinking, so things like algebra and geometry must not be presented before that time.[11]   

16 Debate Case 2:  Teaching to the Test.  This case will deal with the

problem, aggravated by “No Child Left Behind,” of teachers being forced to teach to various tests that their students must do well on for their schools to continue to receive federal money.   Handout on First Examination.  

18  Film:  Many possibilities. 

23 Review for First Examination 

25 FIRST EXAMINATION 

 30 Debate Case 4:  Teacher Compensation.  We pay teachers very poorly given what we expect of them—especially compared to other industrialized nations.  This raises the issue of distributive justice as well as other ethical considerations. 

Nov.    1   Debate Case 5:  The Ethics of Electronic Citation and the Use of Computers in Research.[12]  

6. Debate Case 6:  The Ethics of Mainstreaming.          

8. Debate Case 7:   The Ethical Issues Surrounding Protecting Students in the Classroom (and in Transit).  A lot of material is emerging in light of the Virginia Tech Case.  Various approaches to security are being considered.  All this raises very serious issues about such matters as student privacy and access.  These are issues we will need to address as a society.    

13 Debate Case 8:  Ethics of “Social Advancement (Promotion).”   

15   Debate Case 9:  “Schools of Choice” Versus Public Schools: Ethical Considerations.  This is a problem for the larger society but teachers should be able to speak to it.           

20Debate Case 10:  Conflicts of Interest: Financial and Other.  This is a very broad and complex issue.  Teachers and administrators should be familiar with it in its various ramifications. 

22  FILM:  Again, many possibilities.                    

27Debate Case 11:  Ethical Issues in Teaching Science.  I have written two papers for this group addressing this matter.  (My original training, and much of my current teaching, is in philosophy of science.)  Obviously, one issue here is the “creationism issue.”  But there are others.   Handout on Second Examination. 

29 Debate Case 12:  The Ethics of Testing.  This is also a “philosophy of science” issue.  What can tests measure and how can they accomplish such “measurement”?  This is a very large topic that might be broken down.  Should anybody, or any group, be in a position to dictate what is taught in K-12?  Put this way, the relevance of this topic to the issue of “No Child Left Behind” is apparent.[13]   

  Dec. 4  Course Summary, Review for Second Examination, and Evaluation.                      

          6    SECOND EXAMINATION 

Dec.   15 (Fri.)  (10 a.m.-12 noon)  No Final Exam, but I will be in the regular classroom to discuss your grade, course issues, the course itself, etc.  I will also return and discuss the 2nd Exam.  This meeting is optional.  

ENDNOTES