When teachers are
provided on-going opportunities to learn through experiences, experiment with
new ideas, and then creatively implement new programs; they are more likely to
become teacher leaders in both their schools and communities. These opportunities are beneficial by
allowing prospective teacher leaders to develop broader perspectives related to
the identified needs within schools and across the district. This encourages reflection about their own
practices and provides variety in their work and recognition of their
expertise. These roles and opportunities
thereby influence others and serve as critical forms of ethical renewal for the
field of special education.
The great divide in
education may not be between general and special educators but rather between
community ethics compared to professional ethics. Although values and ethics are frequently used
interchangeably, the two terms are not identical. Values pertains to beliefs and attitudes that provide
direction to everyday living, whereas ethics pertains to the beliefs
we hold about what constitutes right conduct. Ethics are moral principles
adopted by an individual or group to provide rules for right conduct. As noted
by Remley and Herlihy (2016), ethics are aspirational goals
representing the maximum or ideal standards set by the profession, practiced
through your professional behavior and interactions.
If you agree that it is
essential to place principles before personalities, then as an ethical
professional you would seek to integrate
virtue ethics and principled ethics to reach better ethical decisions and
policies. Let's take this moment to differentiate between principled
ethics and virtue ethics. Principled ethics are a set of obligations and a method that focuses on moral
issues with the goals of solving a particular dilemma or set of dilemmas
and establishing a framework to guide future ethical thinking and behavior
(Meara, Schmidt, & Day, 1996). By contrast, virtue ethics focus upon the professional's character traits
and nonobligatory ideals to which she or he aspires rather than on solving
specific ethical dilemmas.
Reflecting
upon principled ethics we tend to ask, ‘Is this unethical?’ By contrast, in the
pursuit of virtue ethics we might reflect upon whether one is doing what is best
for his or her followers, clients, or students. Crucially, virtue ethics
requires consciousness of ethical behavior. Therefore, the virtuous
professional would deem it unethical to use approaches or techniques that
might not result in the greatest benefit to her or his followers, clients, or
students or to use any techniques to which he or she has not been thoroughly
trained, even if their use might not be prohibited in practice.
Therefore,
virtue ethics focus upon ideals rather than obligations and on the character of
the professional rather than on the action itself. Thus, the intentional demonstration
of principles before personalities. Five characteristics of virtuous
professionals were described by Meara et al (1996). These were:
· Virtuous agents are
motivated to do what is right because they judge it to be right, not just
because they feel obligated or fear the consequences.
· Virtuous agents rely on
vision and discernment, which involve sensitivity, judgment, and understanding
that lead to decisive action.
· Virtuous agents have
compassion and are sensitive to the suffering of others. They are able to take
actions to reduce their clients’ pain.
· Virtuous agents are
self-aware. They know how their assumptions, convictions, and biases are likely
to affect their interactions with others.
· Virtuous agents are
connected with and understand the mores of their community and the importance
of community in moral decision making, policy setting, and character
development. They understand the ideals and expectations of their community.
So, how
can special educators become empowered to always demonstrate principles before
personalities? Finding
few references to the leadership roles of special educators, Billingsley
(2007) explored potential contributions of teacher leadership for special
education by reviewing select teacher literature from general education--
including the “emergence of new teacher roles in schools, the roots and
meanings of teacher leadership, and potential benefits of teacher leadership”
(p. 164). Analyzed research, drawn
conclusions, and provided implications for future practice or research by York-Barr,
Sommerness, Duke, and Ghere, (2005); Bays and Crockett (2007); as well as
Billingsley (2007) were each grounded within the conceptual framework of
special education leadership and the ethical treatment of students with special
needs. While each study’s limited sample
certainly restricts the ability to generalize results, the shared references
amongst and between the collective researchers served to narrow the focus of
each study while expanding the implications of individual results to the field
of special education and educational leadership.
Conducting
a meta-analysis of nearly 50 articles and studies was conducted in addition to
a case-study interview with a special education teacher who possessed nearly
thirty- years of experience during which time she reviewed the professional
literature to develop the Supports with Imagination
and Meaning (SWIM) program, Billingsley (2007) selected and reviewed teacher
leadership literature in general education, including the emergence of new
teacher roles in schools, roots and meanings of teacher leadership, and
possible benefits of teachers as leaders.
After reviewing several examples of teacher leadership in special
education, Billingsley investigated barriers to teacher leadership and ways of
supporting the work of teacher leaders.
As a result, Billingsley found support in the literature for the belief
that serving the needs of students with disabilities requires multiple leaders
across school-wide and district-wide levels.
Teacher leadership can be present in different forms for varied
purposes, including management, instruction, and school reform. Therefore, teacher leadership may be
structured either formally or informally as it evolves through presented
opportunities and explicit needs within schools.
Special educators
become leaders by adeptly confronting barriers to the education of students who
have disabilities, rather than accepting the norms and values of the status quo
(Billingsley, 2007, p. 166). Through focus
group interviews with special educators selected based on documented
effectiveness serving students with low-incidence disabilities York-Barr et al.
(2005) found it is better to “understand their realities of practice in
inclusive education and to identify supports for such practice” (p. 193).
Although York-Barr et al did not specifically focus upon teacher leadership,
they did discuss how special educators served as “informal leaders” (p. 200) by
articulating “a sophisticated understanding of how their schools and districts
functioned organizationally and politically” (p. 193). They also suggested that
teacher leaders provided the vision, direction, and plans for special education
and encouraged prospective teacher leaders to collaborate and advocate across
multiple levels within their educational systems, thereby leveraging the
social, structural and fiscal resources beneficial for students with
disabilities. In doing so, prospective
teacher leaders project a concrete understanding that the degree to which they
are connected in a school influences the degree to which students with
disabilities are connected, supported, and provided opportunities for success
within the culture of the school (p. 211).
The
invitational
leadership model provides a comprehensive design that is inclusive of many
vital elements needed for the success of today’s educational organizations. As cited
by Burns and Martin (2010,
“Invitational theory is a collection of assumptions that seek to explain
phenomena and provide a means of intentionally summoning people to realize
their relatively boundless potential in all areas of worthwhile human endeavor”
(Purkey,
2016, p.5). Studies by Purkey & Siegel (2013) as well
as Burns and Martin (2010), posited leadership advancing Invitational
Education (IE) theory would encourage people to tap into their unlimited
potential. IE theory includes vital elements needed for success within today’s
educational organizations (Burns & Martin, 2010). Therefore, teacher
preparation and graduate programs intending to develop highly qualified teacher
leaders are ethically obligated to seek to identify and optimize professional development
based on correlates addressing educational leadership (Council for the Accreditation of Educator
Preparation, 2022). Optimal educational leadership has been identified as a
correlate that promotes sustained school success (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011).
Clearly further
research on teacher leadership in special education is required to promote the
opportunities for teacher leaders in schools and optimize student learning in
the least restrictive environment, which is the clearest indicator of professional
ethics. Possible research questions suggested by Billingsley include:
- What
is the nature of teacher leaders’ roles at the school (e.g., elementary,
secondary) and district levels?
- What
factors (e.g., personal, organizational, preparation) influence the exercise of
special education leadership by both special and general educators?
o
How
does the culture of the district and school influence teacher leaders’ work?
o
How
do special education leaders learn to work within the social organization of
their schools?” (173)
Additionally, related to previous research by Anderson (2017), it is not yet known if and to what degree public schools that are led by leaders exhibiting high emotional intelligence (EQ) would have teachers exhibiting high EQ. Are such schools more likely to have students receiving education in an inclusive setting? These are crucial questions that invite further research on effective teacher leadership in special education.
To Cite:
Anderson, C.J. (June 30, 2022). Demonstrated leadership and the pursuit of ethics in special education. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/
References
Anderson, C. J. (2017). Examining demonstrated emotional intelligence and perceptions of inviting schools. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 23, 35-61.
Bagley, S. & Tang, K. (2018) Teacher
leadership in special education: Exploring skills, roles,
and perceptions. Journal
of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership (JoITL) 2 (1) Dec
Bays, D. A., & Crockett, J. B.
(2007). Investigating instructional leadership for special
education.
Exceptionality, 15(3), 143-161. doi:10.1080/09362830701503495
Billingsley, B. S. (2007).
Recognizing and supporting the critical roles of teachers in special
education
leadership. Exceptionality, 15(3), 163-176.
doi:10.1080/09362830701503503
Burns,
G., & Martin, B. N. (2010). Examination of the Effectiveness of Male and
Female
Educational Leaders Who
Made Use of the Invitational Leadership Style of Leadership. Journal of
Invitational Theory & Practice, 1629-55. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
Lashley, C. (2007). Principal
leadership for special education: An ethical framework.
Exceptionality,
15(3), 177-187. doi:10.1080/09362830701503511
Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the Correlates. Solution Tree Press
Meara, N.S. Schmidt, L.D., & Day, J.D. (1996) Principles and virtues: A foundation of ethical decisions, policies, and character; The Counseling Psychologist, 24 (1), 24-31.
Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J.M. (2016). Fundamentals of invitational education (2nd ed). The International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from:
https://www.invitationaleducation.net/product-category/books/
Purkey, W. W., & Siegel, B. L. (2013). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach yo professional and personal success. Humanics. Retrieved from:
http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html
Remley, T.P. & Herlihy, B. (2016). Ethical, legal, and professional issues in counseling (5th ed.). Pearson
Shapiro, J., & Stefkovich, J.
(2000). Ethical leadership and decision making in education :
Applying
theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
York-Barr, J., Sommerness, J., Duke,
K., & Ghere, G. (2005). Special educators in inclusive
education
programmes: reframing their work as teacher leadership. International
Journal
of
Inclusive Education, 9(2), 193-215. doi:10.1080/1360311042000339374
