Case Study 1: Theoretical Informed Ethical Decision Making
Discuss about the Teaching Professional Formation And Professional.
Education ethics and theories inform teachers’ decisions and actions in their professional practice. Education ethics and theories refer to professional guidelines that govern a teacher’s actions and decisions and set standards between right and wrong (Winch, Oancea, & Orchard, 2015). Ethics seeks to standardize actions and rationalize decisions taken in a professional practice. Teachers have an obligation to create conducive learning environment that nature learners’ and enable them achieve their full potential. Ethical standards are a significant resource that provides guidelines to teaching practice. Teachers require exemplary values and morals to engage with students and other stakeholders and meet educational objectives (Strike, & Soltis, 2015). Teachers are responsible for what happens around the learning environment and are charged for any offence that occurs within their span of duty (Falkiner, Thomson, & Day, 2017). This outlines the importance of teachers understanding the teaching professional in relation to law. The teachers are then able to rationally defend themselves from criminal charges when levied against them (Crigger, & Godfrey, 2014). The teacher is therefore required to a bid to highest ethical standards and assumes responsibility and accountability when practicing teaching. The following essay discusses two case studies relating to theoretically informed ethical decision making and duty of care and negligence in the teaching profession practice. The essay will use professional resources relating to ethics, curriculum and legislation and review scholarly sources to analyze and put forward arguments.
The first case study present a scenario where I have to decide between a student’s father escalation and my original decisions to group his daughter who is a high achiever with a boy who is a low achiever. The class group had been designed consistent with pedagogical best practices to ensure effective and all round learning experiences to all students. The groups’ results were impressive as students were engaging and becoming more accommodating. A father of high achieving student complains that his daughter should not mingle with a low achieving student in fear that the daughter’s performance is likely to be negatively impacted. The following is my rational defensive argument to a theoretically informed ethical decision.
First, I will settle down the parent for a discussion to explain the whole issue. The discussing will involve explaining the objectives of the group work, how they are designed, and the benefits that students get from the class groups. This will allow me time to let the parent understand my decision is right and of best interest to all students including his daughter. This means that I will not change the student group membership but proceed to defend by decision. The case has ethical significance that I have to decide what is right or wrong to do (Davson-Galle, 2009). This entails that I have to decide and defend by decision or accept I was wrong to have taken the decisions when designing class group. The parent feels and thinks that I am wrong to allow his daughter who is a high achiever to interact and work in the same group with a low performing student. This view is different to my opinion and professional practice and I have to defend my ethically informed decision. The situation therefore presents a dilemma. I am faced with two situations that I have to decide on. On one side, am faced with a situation to go ahead and explain my decision or give in to parent’s argument and change his daughter group membership. This situation has two sides, explaining and making parent understand my decision or accepting I made a wrong decision and agree to change the student from the current group and follow the parent’s wish. I have to choose between defending professional practice and student’s best interests and parent’s rights over their students. The father of the student feels that he has right to who his daughter interact with and that the daughter is too young to know that people that one surround themselves with have great impact to their success. Therefore the parent feels he has a duty to protect his student from low performing student who can lower his daughter performance. This is different to classroom setting and the objective of the school system. The Australian education system seeks to promote equity and excellence and provide students with best learning environment (Leibowitz, & Hlengwa, 2017). Therefore, the father’s argument doesn’t prompt me to change by original position but create a need to consider parents’ rights to their children in the scenario. Instead of altering my position I will opt to explain and convince the parent that my decision is right and of best interests to the students.
Case Study 2: Duty of Care and Negligence in the Teaching Profession Practice
My decision to group a high performing student and a low achieving student is right. In accordance to Common Wealth Guidelines, I have a responsibility to make decisions that promote learning to all students. The decision to allocate a high achiever student and low achiever was deliberately and rationally made. The class group is designed to specific learning objectives and is consistent with professional teaching practice. The design used meets and is consistent to pedagogical best practices. I have an obligation to protect students’ rights in ensure there is equity and excellence in learning. First I have to protect learners’ dignity and promote mutual respect. This means that I cannot engage in practices that interferes with learners self worth or intimidates or humiliates them in the process of learning (Maxwell, & Schwimmer, 2016). This ensures that all learners are treated with dignity and courtesy despite of their abilities and backgrounds. Secondly, I have to interact with students without displaying preference or any form of biasness. According to Common Wealth Guidelines, I also have to make decisions that are in best interests of the students’. This enables to maintain objectivity when relating with students. I appreciate the parent’s efforts to protect their children’s rights. However, parent’s right does not collide with professional practices that aim to improve learners’ ability to learn. The parents have rights to assess their children’s learning conditions, learner’s performance information, and safety of the environment. Therefore the parent’s rights are not supposed to interfere with the learners’ best interest and professional practice.
My defense is much influenced by contemporary models of thinking around indoctrination and inclusivity. I strive to defend provision and access of high quality education that is free from any form of discrimination. I tend to reason and put forward arguments that endorse support and engagement between school members and build communities that are respectful to one another. This entails advocating for inclusive education every-day, every classroom, and students are learning to achieve supportive, inclusive, safe, and disciplined schooling environment (Maxwell et al., 2016). In order to ensure my argument is rationally defensible, I cited government policies on education, professional codes of conducts, scholarly evidence, and Australian Professional Standards for education. These sources enhance credibility of my evidence of argument and offer a convincing rational argument that I made informed ethical decisions. The decision to defend my original position is relevant to Professional Code of Conduct and Australian Professional Standards for Education. They inform my decision to defend professional practices and engagement. The professional Code of Conduct ad Australian Professional Standards for Teachers provide guidelines to defend and make decisions in ethical dilemmas. Therefore, my understanding on Professional Codes of Conduct and Professional Standards of teaching practice informed by decision on the situation. The Melbourne Declaration was useful in shaping my argument toward inclusivity and indoctrination. The foundation documents provide inclusive education policy statement that enhances inclusivity in learning institutions (“Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young” n.d.).
Analysis and Arguments
From the discussion, I will defend my original stand and explain to the parent the rationality behind my decisions using code of conducts, professional standards, and foundation document. This will enable the parent understand and appreciate the school learning process that will effective and enhance student success.
In the following case study, Phillip, a first year teacher is involved in a situation where students fight while he is on duty for supervision. The students fight ends up with one student being badly injured and taken to hospital. Duty of care is defined as legal obligation that one party has of safety to another party (“Duty of Care”, 2018). It is a legal responsibility for an action or omission of an action that is reasonably foreseeable that cause damage or harm to others (Lucadou-Wells, & Bourke, 2015). Negligence is breach of duty of care that leads to damage. Negligence is proven when an entity fails to take proper action of what is within their responsibility to take care and avoid harm or damage. Negligence has to be failure of taking reasonable care where damages are incurred by the other party (“Mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect,” 2018). In accordance to Common Wealth Guidelines, teachers and the school authority have duty of care to ensure no reasonable foreseeable injuries or damages happen to learners (Sugrue, & Solbrekke, 2014). They have to take responsibility and ensure reasonable care is taken or no omission leads to injuries. The following discussing analyses if Phillip has a duty of care and negligence to the fight damages. This will involve 4 steps to prove if Philip is guilty or not. They include duty of care, breach of duty of care, harm, and causation.
- Was there a professional duty of care
Yes. Phillip has a teacher had a duty of care to the injured boy. The teacher has a professional duty of care to ensure not injury or harm come to students. Teachers are supposed to make through arrangements and ensure students are free from foreseeable harm (Sugrue, & Solbrekke, 2014). This entails that teachers should take responsibility to foreseeable and proximity harm that can happen to students. According to Geyer V Downs (1977), children need supervision and care from teachers when they are at school because it impossible for parent to take care of them while in school and thereby transferring duty of care to teachers. Phillip therefore actions or omission of his actions meet reasonably foreseeable and proximity factors.
- Breach of Duty of Care
Conclusion
Phillip breached duty of care as it is the teacher’s job to take care and supervises students. Phillip was only 6 meters from where the fight was happening. He noticed that the boys were gathering and fighting one another. In this situation, Philip delayed and did not take any action to stop the fight immediately. It took more than 90 seconds since he first noticed the fight for the gathering boys to start dispensing. Phillip arrived at the scene when all other boys had dispersed and it at this time that he noticed one boy on the ground and bleeding. Phillip action could have prevented the boy from being injured. Therefore, Phillip breached duty of care by omitting an action that could have prevented the boy from being injured.
- Harm
Yes. There was harm that occurred in the scenario. One boy was left lying on the ground unconsciously bleeding from the head. It was confirmed in the hospital that the body suffered concussion and fractured skull. The boy’s head was hit against a concrete surface after he was punched by the other student to the ground. Therefore, it evident that breach of duty of care led to injuries that were confirmed in the hospital.
- Causality
Yes. There is causation that can be proved to have led to harm confirmed in the hospital. Philip as a teacher had a duty of care to students. He had a responsibility to supervise and ensure care is provided to the students. Philip breached duty of care by not acting when he first noticed that the boys were fighting. He took around 90 minutes to respond and at the time one of the boy was already lying on the ground and other had dispersed. This shows that Philip omission to act to a reasonably foreseeable scenario led to injuries. The boy was unconscious and bleeding on the head that was confirmed by doctors upon arrival in the hospital. Therefore it can be said that Phillip omission of action that was within his responsibility led to the boy’s injury.
From the analysis above, Philip is guilty. It can be proven that Philip was neglected his responsibilities that caused injuries to another person. Therefore Philip has a duty of care that he breached by omission leading to the injuries that could have been prevented if he acted appropriately.
Conclusion
From the two case studies, it evident that teachers’ actions are sensitive and can elicit controversies. Education ethics form guidelines that teachers can use to justify their actions or decisions. Ethics standardize and rationalize teachers’ decisions in their professional practice. Ethics are also important for handling ethical dilemmas. In the first case study, a parent escalates that his high achieving daughter is grouped with a low achieving boy and that he feels it might influence the daughter to perform poorly. The response to the parent was a rational defense to original position that the decisions is within teaching professional practice. The decision to defend the original position was influenced by contemporary models of thinking based on inclusivity and indoctrination. The rational and convincing defensive argument is supported by Professional Code of Conduct, Australian Professional Standards and foundation sources such as Melbourne Declaration. In the second case study, Philip is proven of negligence. He had duty of care to student when he delayed an action that could have prevented one boy from being injured. He had duty of care, breached duty of care that led to injured and the casual relationship can be easily proven. Therefore, it can be concluded that teachers should use educational ethics and theories to govern their behavior in their professional practice to avoid being liable of negligence management .
References
Crigger, N., & Godfrey, N. (2014). From the inside out: A new approach to teaching professional identity formation and professional ethics management . Journal of Professional Nursing, 30(5), 376-382.
Davson-Galle, P. (2009). Reason and professional ethics management . Farnham, UK: Ashgate
Duty of Care. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/principals/spag/safety/Pages/dutyofcare.aspx
Falkiner, M., Thomson, D., & Day, A. (2017). Teachers’ understanding and practice of mandatory reporting of child maltreatment management . Children Australia, 42(1), 38-48.
Leibowitz, B., & Hlengwa, A. (2017). Special issue:‘Ethics, care and quality in educational development’. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning (CriSTaL), 5(1), i-iii.
Lucadou-Wells, R., & Bourke, J. F. (2015). Teaching Business Law: Some ethical dimensions from Australia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 209, 102-108.
Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young. (n.d.). Retrieved April 4, 2018, from https://www.curriculum.edu.au
Mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect. (2017). Retrieved from https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/mandatory-reporting-child-abuse-and-neglect
Maxwell, B., & Schwimmer, M. (2016). Professional ethics education for future teachers: A narrative review of the scholarly writings. Journal of Moral Education, 45(3), 354-371.
Maxwell, B., Tremblay-Laprise, A. A., Filion, M., Boon, H., Daly, C., van den Hoven, M., … & Walters, S. (2016). A five-country survey on ethics education in preservice teaching programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(2), 135-151.
Strike, K., & Soltis, J. F. (2015). The ethics of teaching. Teachers College Press.
Sugrue, C., & Solbrekke, T. (2014). Professional responsibility: New horizons of praxis. Routledge.
Winch, C., Oancea, A., & Orchard, J. (2015). The contribution of educational research to teachers’ professional learning: Philosophical understandings. Oxford Review of Education, 41(2), 202-216.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
