educational management administration & leadershipweb.macam.ac.il/~sifriaoh/25938.pdf ·...

http://ema.sagepub.com

Administration & Leadership Educational Management

DOI: 10.1177/1741143207075389 2007; 35; 205 Educational Management Administration Leadership

Jacqueline Stefkovich and Paul T. Begley Ethical School Leadership: Defining the Best Interests of Students

http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/2/205 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

British Educational Leadership, Management & Administration Society

can be found at:Educational Management Administration & Leadership Additional services and information for

http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/35/2/205 Citations

at The Open University Library on June 24, 2010 http://ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.belmas.org.uk/

http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/35/2/205


205

Ethical School LeadershipDefining the Best Interests of Students

Jacqueline Stefkovich and Paul T. Begley

A B S T R A C T

This article explores the alternate ways ethical school leadership in the best interestsof students is conceptualized in the educational leadership literature from severalfoundational perspectives including philosophy, psychology, critical theory and caselaw. Perspectives which are grounded solely in theory are differentiated from thosegrounded in research and practical field applications. An argument is made for themerits of applying multiple ethical perspectives. The findings of existing research onthe valuation processes of school principals and their ethical leadership practices arealso discussed with a particular focus on their explicit or implicit interpretations ofthe meaning of ‘best interests of students’. A genuine regard for student best interestsemerges as a major influence on principal leadership practices in two ways: principalvaluation processes are heavily oriented towards rational consequentialistorientations; the best interests of students figures prominently as a meta-organizerand ultimate influence on their decision making.

K E Y W O R D S authentic leadership, educational leadership, leadership, leadershipdevelopment, best interests, values, ethics

Introduction

This article combines two discrete yet complementary strands of research topresent an integrated view of various conceptualizations of school leaders’ethical decision making in the best interests of the student. Beginning with adiscussion of best interests, a term widely espoused but eluding clear definitionin either theory or practice, the authors postulate that, at least in some forms,such as in the case of zero tolerance policies, ‘best interests of students’ ismore organizational or policy-related rhetoric than a genuine regard for studentwell-being.

On the other hand, a genuine regard for student best interests does emergeas a major influence on principal leadership practices through a large body ofresearch which shows that principal valuation processes are heavily directedtowards rational consequentialist orientations grounded in a concern for the

Educational Management Administration & LeadershipISSN 1741-1432 DOI: 10.1177/1741143207075389

SAGE Publications (London, Los Angeles, New Delhi and Singapore)Copyright © 2007 BELMAS Vol 35(2) 205–224; 075389

A RT I C L E

205-224 075389 Stefkovich (D) 14/3/07 14:53 05



well-being of students. In addition, research on how principals respond whenconfronted with ethical dilemmas suggests that the best interests of studentsfigures prominently as a meta-organizer and ultimate influence on theirdecision making.

Alternate ways that ethical school leadership in the best interests ofstudents is conceptualized in the educational leadership literature emergefrom several foundational perspectives including philosophy, psychology,critical theory and case law. Moreover, the analysis level of such researchvaries, some focusing on individuals, groups, or organizations, with othersaddressing society, government, or cross-cultural questions. The challengethen is to present a model of best interests that may serve as a guide to prac-titioners while taking into consideration the complexity of research that undergirds this concept. This article concludes with a conceptualization of such amodel.

Alternative Perspectives on the Study of Values and Ethics

One of the challenges that emerges when a group of scholars from multiplecountries engage in research together on subjects like moral literacy andbest interests is understanding each other’s perspectives on the subject.Even agreeing on vocabulary can be a challenge. Developing a shared syntaxcan require days or even years of scholarly deliberation before a consensuscan be established. The relationship between ‘values’ and ‘ethics’ asconcepts is one particular area where there can be lots of debate. Forexample, in 1999, Joan Shapiro of Temple University (USA) began a conver-sation with Paul Begley (then at OISE/University of Toronto, Canada) on thissubject at the 5th Annual Values and Leadership Conference held in Char-lottesville, Virginia. Eight years later the debate continues with only partialresolution.

This issue came up again in another context, at a symposium held at theNovember 2004 University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA)conference in Kansas City (USA), when a group of scholars, including Begleyand Shapiro, articulated a rather distinctive range of perspectives on the subjectof ethics and valuation processes. It became apparent that the research onethical leadership processes being conducted by scholars in countries likeCanada, Sweden and the USA is being carried out under circumstances reflect-ing quite distinct social contexts.

These scholars, despite the collegiality and frequency of interaction amongthem, approach the study of valuation processes and ethics from a variety offoundational perspectives. For example, Starratt’s (1994) work is grounded inphilosophy, whereas Stefkovich (2006) applies a legal perspective. Grossand Shapiro (2004) adopt a social justice orientation in their work, whereasBegley’s (2004) orientations focus on the cognitive processing associated with

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 35(2)

206

205-224 075389 Stefkovich (D) 14/3/07 14:53 Page 206



administrative problem-solving. Langlois’ (2004) approach is through appliedethics and moral theory.

This situation recently led Langlois and Begley to accept the challenge ofmapping out existing theory and research on the subject of values and ethicsof school leadership so that scholars working in this area could have someadditional conceptual clarity in terms of alternate views on ethical concepts ineducation, what scholars already know and can agree upon, and where the gapsin the knowledge base are. This was deemed an important step that shouldprecede any attempts at long-term collaborative work by a group of inter-national scholars. Accordingly, Langlois and Begley worked together at PennState University over several days during March 2005 to develop a conceptualframework for the work of the group. What emerged was the meta-ethicalanalysis of existing models and theories of leadership portrayed in Table 1.

The first step in mapping out existing work was identifying some parametersin order to set some limits on the range of literature and frameworks to bemapped out. Langlois and Begley settled on the following parameters:

• The focus of the inquiry is educational leadership.• The unit of analysis is the administrator as a moral subject.

Stefkovich & Begley: Ethical School Leadership

207

Table 1 Mapping out existing literature and research on moral leadership (Langlois and Begley, 2005)

Gounding

Analysis Levels Theory and Qual/quan/ Practice andepistemology descriptive research social relevance

Micro-ethical Starratt (1994) Langlois (2004) Langlois (2004)(individual) Hodgkinson (1978) Begley (1988) Begley and Johansson (1998)

Maxcy, (2001) Gross and Shapiro (2004) A. Walker (2003)Langlois (2004) Coombs (2004) Sergiovanni (1992)Begley (1996) Roche (1999) Barth (1990)Richmon (2004) Richmon (2004)

Meso-ethical Beck (1999) Leonard (1999) Beck and Murphy (1994)(group, organization) Foster (1999) Zaretsky (2004) Soltis and Zubay (2005)

Willower (1999) Sun (2004)Richmon (2004) Griggs (2004)Nash (1996) Grogan and Smith (1999)Noddings (1984) Stefkovich and ShapiroBeckner (2004) (2003)

Macro-ethical Evers and Lakomski (1991) Johansson (2003) Johansson and Bredeson(society, government) Strike, Haller and Soltis Norberg (2004) (1995)

(1988) Walker and Shakotko (1999)Frankena (1973)

Mega-ethical Walker and Dimmock Walker and Dimmock Walker and Dimmock(cross-cultural questions) (1999) (1999) (1999)

Wang (2002)Lapointe Godin and Langlois

(2005)




• The objective is to explore the tensions, contradictions and complexitiesof leadership.

• The work is grounded in an interdisciplinary and problem-basedapproach to inquiry.

Most graduate students and university faculty would readily agree thatreviewing and trying to make sense of the values literature is challenging,especially when the literature review crosses foundational and national bound-aries. Nevertheless, upon careful scrutiny some discernable patterns began toemerge. Some theories, particularly those grounded in philosophy (Hodgkin-son, 1996; Starratt, 2004) tend to focus on motivations, basic intentions or themeanings associated with values. Other theories promote particular moralorders—that is, urging the adoption of the right values such as an ethic of care(Noddings, 2003) or an ethic of community (Furman, 2003). When it comes toresearch, for example on the values manifested by school administrators orteachers, the tendency is towards describing the values manifested. To illustratethe latter, consider how transformational leaders (Leithwood et al., 1999) mightbe said to manifest values of collaboration, or a commitment to democraticprocesses. We may not know for sure why these administrators hold thesevalues, but we know they do because they tell us so, or we see those valuesreflected in their actions.

The model which emerged is essentially a two-sided matrix. One side of thematrix portrays three levels of grounding for the existing literature andresearch. These are theory and epistemology, descriptive research, and practiceor social relevance. the second side of the matrix outlines four levels of analysisreflected in the literature ranging from the micro-ethical (focused on the indi-vidual) level through to the mega-ethical (cross-cultural, global, transcendental)level.

Using this matrix it is possible to place in context most of the existing modelsand research and literature related to valuation processes and ethics and moralliteracy. A quick examination of the matrix will reveal that some scholars workpredominantly within one domain, some in two and a few across three levels.Note that this figure includes representative examples of scholarly work to illus-trate the utility of the framework. It is not a comprehensive mapping of allscholarly work on this subject. However, it is equally apparent that the ethicalconcepts which underlie the research models used by many of the scholars areincreasingly becoming hybrids or integrated versions of more traditionally andfoundationally bounded approaches—perhaps indicating that progress has beenmade in the field towards consensus on at least some fronts. Indeed, Langloisand Begley assert that this mapping framework is not intended to promote oneparticular approach to research and scholarship on moral literacy ineducational administration in favour of another. The objective is to map outwhat there is in terms of theory and frameworks for inquiry in an integrativeway.


208




Valuation Processes and Ethical Deliberation by SchoolLeaders

In our view, valuation processes relate to leadership in three important ways.The first is as an influence on the cognitive processes of individuals and groupsof individuals. It is important, perhaps essential, for persons in leadership rolesto understand how values reflect underlying human motivations and shape thesubsequent attitudes, speech and actions. Moreover, leaders should know theirown values and ethical predispositions, as well as be sensitive to the valueorientations of others. The second way in which valuation processes relate toleadership practices is as a guide to action, particularly as supports to resolv-ing ethical dilemmas. Ethics are highly relevant to school leadership as rubrics,benchmarks, socially justified standards of practice, and templates for moralaction. The third way in which valuation processes relate to leadership is as astrategic tool that leaders can employ to build consensus among the membersof a group towards the achievement of shared organizational objectives. In thissense leaders literally use ethics as a leadership tool in support of actions taken.However, as will be argued, these actions may or may not be ethical.

As argued by Begley (2006), authentic leadership is therefore grounded in theunderstanding or interpretation of observed or experienced valuation processesas well in ethical decision-making processes. As a starting point, this impliesthe appropriateness of a focus on the perceptions of the individual in a schoolleadership role, or as a participant in the educational enterprise, and how theindividual construes his or her role and environment. Although organizationaltheories, the policy arena, and other macro perspectives are relevant aselements of the context in which a school leader works, they are not a primarylocus of concern. Furthermore, administrative valuation processes can involvemore than ethics. A focus on ethics, as worthy as it is, will not necessarilyaccommodate the full range of human behavior. This is because ethics areculturally derived, not employed that frequently in day-to-day administrativedecision making, and may not always be an appropriate basis for decisionmaking in many administrative situations, particularly those occurring inculturally diverse contexts.

Research on principal valuation processes (Begley and Johansson, 1998) andproblem solving processes (Leithwood and Steinbach, 1995) demonstrates thatadministrators tend to employ ethics as a guide to action at certain times—insituations of high stakes urgency, when consensus is impossible, when respond-ing to unprecedented situations, and for certain hot-button social issues whichtend to quickly escalate debate to a point where people seek refuge within anethical posture. This illustrates the first way in which values relate to leader-ship—as an influence on the cognitive processes of individuals and groups ofindividuals. Ethics may be consciously or unconsciously employed in suchsituations. A typical application for ethics is as a personal guide to action,particularly as supports to resolving ethical dilemmas. However, there are more


209




strategic and collective applications for ethics. One of the most common in aschool or school district setting is using an ethic as a focus for building consen-sus around a shared social objective. These more collective and strategicapplications of ethics may be the more common manifestation of this valuetype in the administration of schools and school districts, as well as in thecorporate sector. This has been confirmed empirically by research conductedby Langlois (2004).

Accountability, Ethics and the Press for Rationality

Ethics represent a particular category of social/collective values of a trans-rational nature (Begley, 2004). Furthermore, the ubiquitous press for account-ability in educational decision making characteristic of our times generates aneffect on how and when principals will employ ethics as guides to theirprofessional decision making. Because ethics are often interpreted in cultur-ally exclusive ways, and do not require empirical evidence to justify theiradoption, they can be a very troublesome category of values to employ asguides to action in our increasingly culturally diverse schools and communi-ties where administrators increasingly sense the need to be accountable fortheir decisions.

As a practical consequence school administrators naturally gravitate towardsvalues grounded in rational consequences and consensus as guides to actionand decision making whenever that is possible. This process often takes theform of some conception of what is in the best interests of students. Even whena situation appropriately evokes, on the part of the principal, an ethicalresponse, what gets articulated to the stakeholders more often then not willusually be grounded in the rhetoric of rational consequences or consensus.Similarly, personal preference or self-interest orientations can be masked byrationally justified processes.

Research conducted by Begley and Johansson (1998) confirms that therelevance of principles or ethics to a given administrative situation seems to beprompted in the minds of school administrators by particular circumstances.These circumstances include: where an ethical posture is socially appropriate(for example, the role of the arts); where consensus is perceived as difficult orimpossible to achieve (for example, an issue involving ethnic bias); or whenhigh stakes and urgency require decisive action (for example, student safety).

Although the empirical research on the use of ethics is scant beyond thesefindings, there is some evidence (Langlois, 2004) to suggest the school leadersalso use ethics in strategic applications as ways to develop group consensus,and a basis for promoting compliance with minimum need for evidence ongroup or organizational norms. These are all examples of ethically sound—meaning good or socially justifiable applications of ethics to situations.However, one has only to survey the newspaper or work in an organizationor live in a community for a few years to readily detect situations where


210




ethics-based postures can be unethical, bad, and socially unjustifiable. Forexample, in our view ethical postures can be bad when:

• A cultural ethic is imposed on others (banning the wearing of all hatsindoors, including religious headgear).

• An ethic is used to justify reprehensible action (terrorist bombings).• An ethical posture veils a less defensible value (justifying photo radar in

the name of highway safety and law enforcement when lucrative profitsis the real goal).

• An ethic is used to trump a basic human right (a religious ethical ban onblood transfusions that results in a child being denied life-saving medicalcare).

The implication is that using ethics is not always necessarily ethical. Such isthe nature of ethics when they are adopted as guides to action. Trans-rationalvalues (Hodgkinson, 1996) of any sort, and ethics and principles in particular,are rather vulnerable to multiple interpretations in application from one socialcontext to another. When unexamined values are applied in arbitrary ways justi-fied in the name of democratic process, they can be anything but democratic.The essential, and often absent, component that would make adherence to avalue genuinely democratic is dialogue.

For these reasons unexamined ethics or values accepted at face value withoutdeliberation of meaning represent a particular category of social or collectivevalues of a trans-rational nature that may not be consistent with democraticleadership process. Getting back to the central premise of this article, it isapparent that in order to cultivate the ability to distinguish the differencebetween using ethics and being ethical, we need the capacity to discriminateactual intentions within ourselves and among others. This is not moral rela-tivism, nor is it value absolutism; it is critical thinking and moral literacy.Accordingly, an essential component of critical moral literacy for educationalleaders is an understanding of what a student’s best interests are and how weas educational leaders can act in accord with this concept.

Best Interests of the Student1

The term ‘best interests’ is frequently used by educators when discussingprofessional practice. Policymakers are similarly inclined to apply this term asa justification for their decisions. However, there is a lack of clarity in the litera-ture as to what constitutes a student’s best interests. School leaders tend tointerpret this phrase in a variety of ways, often times disagreeing on the bestcourse of action, and what is truly in the best interests of the student. Thus,the time has come for developing a more robust model to determine the bestinterests of the student when making ethical decisions. Just as judges rendertheir opinions on a case-by-case basis, carefully weighing the facts of the case


211




in the context of prevailing laws, so must educational leaders work within theconfines of their school communities, calling upon their own discretion andprofessional judgment within the context of each particular situation to deter-mine what is truly in the best interests of the student.

The ‘best interests of the student’ is at the heart of the ethic of the educationalprofession. As Shapiro and Stefkovich (2005: 23) point out:

Not all those who write about the importance of the study of ethics in educationaladministration discuss the needs of children; however, this focus on students isclearly consistent with the backbone of our profession. Other professions often haveone basic principle driving the profession. In medicine, it is ‘First, do not harm.’ Inlaw, it is the assertion that all clients deserve ‘zealous representation.’ In educationaladministration, we believe that if there is a moral imperative for the profession, itis to serve the ‘best interests of the student.’ Consequently, this ideal must lie at theheart of any professional paradigm for educational leaders.

This conceptualization of best interests intentionally refers to the student asan individual, as opposed to students in a group. The underlying assumptionhere is that if the individual student is treated with fairness, justice, and caring,then a strong message is sent to all students that they will also be treated withsimilar justice and caring and that they should treat others similarly. Thus,rights carry with them responsibilities, so much so that the rights of one indi-vidual should not bring harm to the group.

Beck (1994: 55) eloquently lends support to the caring aspect of this conceptof best interests in relation to the individual. Here, she focuses on the benefitsof caring:

For those who hold a caring ethic, the value of lives, their own and others’, has avery different basis. They believe that persons possess inherent worth and dignity.A caring, community-oriented ethic frees persons from pressuring others and them-selves to constantly strive to earn or maintain value [through achievement].

If a clash between individual and group needs emerges, an ethic of justicerequires that the educational leader must first decide if the individual is actingresponsibly in asserting his or her rights. If not, then what better opportunity isthere to take advantage of the situation as a teachable moment for the student?Take for example the case where a student takes a weapon from another studentwho is about to commit suicide and is then caught with the weapon in his or herpossession. Rather than expelling the student in rigid conformity as some zerotolerance policies dictate, would it not make more sense to have the option ofpraising the student for being a Good Samaritan and explain to him/her theimportance of reporting such matters? Granted, this task of teaching responsi-bility is challenging at the best of times and requires vigilance. However, byfocusing on the formation of personal responsibility as a priority, there is greatpotential here for educators to grow both personally and professionally and forstudents to share responsibility for their own development.


212




What Are Best Interests?

The concept of best interests is well represented in legal jurisprudence. In suchcases, usually involving custody, child labor and compulsory education, courtsoften refer to the ‘best interests of the child’ (Goldstein et al., 1979a, 1979b,1996). It is the legal standard used by courts in determining issues of childcustody, child support and visitation (or access, as it is called in some jurisdic-tions) in regard to the child or children’s parents or legal guardians (WikipediaDictionary, 2004).

In determining the best interests of the child, courts generally order variousinvestigations to be undertaken by social workers, psychologists and otherexperts to determine living conditions of the child and his/her custodial andnon-custodial parents. While parents may often request visitation or custody tofit their own interests, the overriding consideration is how the child will benefitfrom interacting with these parents. Historically, courts have allowed childrensome capability to make decisions in regard to their own welfare. However, inthe absence of the maturity to make decisions, adults who care for thesechildren have been ultimately responsible.

Stability of the child’s life, links with the community, and a stable homeenvironment by the proposed custodial parents are some of the issues courtsconsider in deciding the outcome of custody and visitation proceedings. Morespecifically, in determining best interests, courts often consider: the age andgender of the child; the mental and physical health of the child; mental andphysical health of the parents; lifestyle and other social factors of the parents;emotional ties between the parents and the child; ability of the parents toprovide the child with food, shelter, clothing and medical care; establishedliving pattern for the child concerning school, home, community and religiousinstitutions; the quality of schooling; and the child’s preference (WikipediaDictionary, 2004).

Walker (1998: 288) cites Canadian Supreme Court cases that use ‘the bestinterests of children test’ as applied to child custody cases where the child’ssafety and well being are balanced with the value of the family unit. However,Walker found that even within the court system, ‘best interests’ was determinedby a variety of factors beyond age, physical and emotional constitution, and therelationship that the child has with parents with little agreement as to whatconstitutes the ‘best interests of children’.

Stefkovich et al. (2002) in an analysis of court cases and articles in lawreviews and education journals revealed no specific definitions of best interestsbeyond those mentioned above. In addition, the context in which the term wasused varied greatly. For example, Nettleton School District v. Owens (1997), a caseinvolving the influence of alcohol on a teacher’s professional conduct, based itsdecision on the ‘best interests of students’. In Jergeson v. Board of Trustees (1970),the President of the Board of Education based a teacher’s dismissal on a‘philosophy and practice of education’ that ‘is detrimental to the best interests


213




of the high school students’. Other court decisions referred to the best interestsof students, but did not define the term. Instead, it was generally used as part ofa larger argument and not the focus of the case itself.

A content analysis of over 60 law review articles using this term (bestinterests of the student) or a variation of it (for example, best interests ofstudents, best interests of children) revealed no common theme and no shareduse. Instead, these articles focused on a wide variety of educational issues atboth the primary and secondary levels including, among others, students withdisabilities, bilingual education, students’ constitutional rights, student athletes,school choice, children’s rights, local control and student services. In each ofthese articles when ‘best interests’ was used, no explanation of the term wasprovided (Stefkovich et al., 2002).

Indeed, the term ‘best interest’ is often used to support a point being madeby an author with no clear definition of what specifically is in the best interestsof the student and no specific guidance as to what action/decisions are conso-nant with a student’s best interests. Use of the phase, however, generallyimplies great discretion on the part of school officials. For example, Dupre(1996: x), in her comprehensive analysis of students’ constitutional rightswrites: ‘. . . once a society that generally respected the authority of teachers,deferred to their judgment, and trusted them to act in the best interest of schoolchildren . . .’.

Finally, the Stefkovich et al. (2002) research revealed that neither educatorsnor the popular press either defined or commonly used the term ‘best inter-ests.’ In a review of 71 news articles, the term ‘best interest(s) of students’covered over 21 topic areas and was used to justify a wide variety of K-12administrative decisions ranging from special education placement to disciplin-ary sanctions to school consolidation. Similar results were found in analyzingdoctoral dissertations, trade journals and professional academic journals ineducation and related social sciences.

Keith Walker (1998), a Canadian scholar, seems to offer the best advice onthis topic. A former school administrator, Walker wrote his doctoral dissertationon the nature of educational leaders’ ethical decision making and has publishedseveral articles on this topic. His research, which involved extensive interviewswith school principals and superintendents, revealed a number of trends, manyof which support and extend Stefkovich et al.’s (2002) findings.

Walker (1995: 4) identified a widespread but varied commitment to what hetermed as ‘kids’ best interests’. In other words, school leaders see children asprimary stakeholders in schools but use the term ‘best interests’ in a variety ofways. Indeed, these leaders’ ethical decision making was based on a variety offactors in addition to students’ best interests, including the overall well-beingof stakeholders, ‘the preeminence of educational goals,’ and the ‘maximizationof long-term benefits’ (1995: 4). Begley (2004) found similar results in his studyof USA and Canadian principals.


214




The Best Interests Model

Understanding that adults possess a great deal of power in determiningstudents’ best interests and realizing how easy it is to ignore the voices of thosewho literally have the most to lose, it is incumbent upon school leaders to makeethical decisions that truly reflect the needs of students and not their own adultself-interest. This is not always easy. It requires a great deal of self-reflection,open-mindedness, and an understanding that making ethically sound decisionsprofoundly influences others’ lives.

This concept of a student’s best interests is at the center of the ethic of theprofession espoused by Shapiro and Stefkovich (2005), which encompasses theethics of justice, care, and critique and is strongly influenced by community.This conceptualization is not ideological in the sense that it follows any onetheory or particular strand of reasoning. Instead, it is far-reaching, emergingfrom the ethic of the profession and borrowing concepts from the remainingethical paradigms. This eclectic approach is one that, as Starratt points out,enriches educational leaders’ repertoire of skills in dealing with ethical issues.Starratt (1994: 55) describes these interconnections in this way:

Each ethic needs the very strong connections embedded in the other: the ethic ofjustice needs the profound commitment to the dignity of the individual person; theethic of caring needs the larger attention to social order and fairness if it is to avoidan entirely idiosyncratic involvement in social policy; the ethic of critique requiresan ethic of caring if it is to avoid the cynical and depressing ravings of the habitualmalcontent; the ethic of justice requires the profound social analysis of the ethic ofcritique in order to move beyond the naïve fine-tuning of social arrangements in asocial system with inequities built into the very structures by which justice issupposed to be measured.

This model for guiding educational leaders to make decisions in the student’sbest interests, consists of three broadly-conceived elements: rights, responsi-bility, and respect. What follows is a discussion of these components as depictedin Figure 1 below.

Rights

Rights are essential to determining a student’s best interests. These include:rights granted to all human beings as articulated by philosophers past andpresent; universal rights recognized by the United Nations, particularly thoseacknowledged under its Convention on the Rights of the Child; and rightsguaranteed by law, specifically those enumerated under the US Constitution’sBill of Rights. In addition, this model recognizes the existence of certain funda-mental rights as universal despite the fact that some countries such as the U.S.have not recognized them (Bitensky, 1992; Levesque, 1996).

The United Nations has, on several occasions, acknowledged the humanrights of children. While they do not expressly define the term, ‘in the best


215




interests of students’, they do refer to the ‘rights of a child’. The Universal Decla-ration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the UnitedNations in 1948, refers to children. Article 26 and Article 29 of the UniversalDeclaration are particularly helpful in more clearly articulating how to servethe ‘best interests of students’ (Universal Declaration, p. 5).

Furthermore, the Convention on the Rights of the Child identifies the basichuman rights of children who without discrimination, ‘have the right tosurvival, to develop to the fullest, be protected from harmful influences, abuseand exploitation, and to participate fully in family, cultural and social life’(Convention on the Rights of the Child, p. 1). Standards set by healthcare,education, and legal, civil and social services protect these rights.

Rights characterized as fundamental under the US Constitution includefreedom of religion, free speech, privacy, due process and freedom fromunlawful discrimination. On numerous occasions, the US Supreme Court hasrecognized that students are entitled to these basic rights but that such rightsare limited in the school context (Rossow and Stefkovich, 2005, 2006). Inaddition to these rights, the ‘best interests’ model includes a right to dignity andprotection from humiliation. It also includes two rights that are not recognized


216

Figure 1

BEST INTERESTS OFTHE STUDENT

engrossment

RESPONSIBILITYPresence, Equity, Duty,

Teachable moments, Sense ofCommunity, Rationality, Growth,

Receptive attention and

Commitment to finding commonground

RESPECTEquality and Equity, Self-respect,

Tolerance, Acceptance offrailties, Appreciation andcelebration of diversity,

Equality

RIGHTSUniversal Rights, Education asa fundamental right, freedom

from bodily harm, freedomfrom humiliation, Dignity,

Source: Stefkovich (2005).




as fundamental for students under the US Constitution. These are the right toan education and the right to be free from bodily harm, which includes corporalpunishment.

Concerning the first, the US Supreme Court has stated that education is animportant governmental interest but not a fundamental right (Plyler v. Doe,1982). Although state constitutional language differs regarding the provision ofeducation, the constitution of every US state grants citizens some rights to aneducation (Bitensky, 1992; Lynch, 1998; Ozar, 1986; Thro, 1988, 1998) but onlya handful see this right as fundamental (Heise, 1995; Walsh, 1993).

As to the second, the Supreme Court has maintained that the US Constitutiondoes not protect students from corporal punishment. While the constitution’sEighth Amendment protects inmates in prisons, it does not apply to studentsin schools (Ingraham, 1977). As with education, the US The Supreme Court hasleft this issue up to the states to decide. More than half the US states (29 out of50) have passed laws prohibiting corporal punishment. And, even without theintervention of lawmakers, many school districts have passed policies protect-ing and affirming these rights (Rossow and Stefkovich, 2005).

Despite the fact the these rights are not uniformly viewed as fundamental inthe USA, they have been recognized by other groups such as the United NationsUniversal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Convention onthe Rights of the Child. The best interests model maintains, therefore, that allthe rights mentioned above are universal and fundamental to the conceptionof a student’s best interests.

Responsibility

Individuals have rights, but these rights are not unfettered. Indeed, theoristspast and present from many differing perspectives consider rights to be in-complete if viewed without consideration of accompanying responsibilities.Attention to moral responsibility is both implied in early Greek texts and laterin Aristotle, who many have recognized as the first to explicitly articulate atheory of moral responsibility (Eshelman, 2004). In Book Seven of hisNicomachean Ethics (1989), Aristotle explains that persons who are capable ofmaking decisions are moral agents and therefore are responsible and worthy ofbeing praised or blamed.

While the best interests model does not subscribe to a utilitarian approach toethics, it does recognize merit in Mill’s (1978: 73) declaration that ‘Everyone whoreceives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact ofliving in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observea certain line of conduct toward the rest’. For our purposes, Rousseau (1967: 34)conveys a more appropriate portrayal of responsibility from this observation:

From this we must understand that what generalizes the will is not so much thenumber of voices as the common interest which unites them; for, under this system,


217




each necessarily submits to the conditions which he imposes on others—asadmirable union of interest and justice, which gives to the deliberations of thecommunity a spirit of equity . . . the social compact establishes among the citizenssuch an equality that they all pledge themselves under the same conditions andought all to enjoy the same rights.

Kant’s moral imperative implies a sense of responsibility when it refers to anindividual’s duty (Kant, 1966). Influenced by Locke, Rousseau and Kant,contemporary scholars have connected ethical decision making with theresponsibility one has in making moral choices. For example, Rawls (1999)believes that one should make moral decisions based on issues of fairness andequality. For him, a moral decision is one that rational persons would make notknowing where they stand in a hypothetical dilemma. Herein, the just decisionis one that is fair regardless of the person’s social status. Kohlberg (1987) speaksof conscience as principled responsibility, one of the highest levels on hishierarchy of moral stages. Concepts of rationality and choice also underlie thebasis behind Kohlberg’s (1981) theory of democratic schools and ThomasLickona’s (1991) concept of students as moral philosophers.

Thus, while students may have the right to free speech, they also have theduty to exercise this right responsibly (Bethel v. Fraser, 1986; Diamond, 1981;Yudof, 1998, 1995). Herein lies the legal distinction of never shouting fire incrowded movie theater (when, of course, there is no fire). Therefore, whilenon-violent protests are clearly a student’s right (given the appropriate time,place and manner), under the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech,bullying and harassing other students is not. Recognizing that conflicts can, anddo, exist between individual rights and group rights, this tension greatly dimin-ishes when viewed through such a rights/responsibilities lens.

The ethic of justice provides an excellent foundation for discussions ofresponsibility. However, it does not exclusively control this topic. Responsibilityis also an important component of the ethic of care and adds a critical dimen-sion to this discussion. In this sense, the best interests model comports with thatof Gilligan (1982) who notes the complementary nature of rights and responsi-bilities. For her, rights center on issues of equality and fairness, while responsi-bility emphasizes equity. ‘While the ethic of rights is a manifestation of equalrespect, balancing the claims of other and self, the ethic of responsibility restson an understanding that gives rise to compassion and care’ (1982: 164– 5).

Noddings (2002: 149) gives us some insight into this issue in her discussionof the Golden Rule: ‘Do unto others as you would have others do unto you’. Anumber of philosophers steeped in the ethic of justice see this rule as moralresponsibility. On the other hand, Noddings questions this statement as auniversal principle in the context of the ethic of care. ‘Does it mean that weshould treat others exactly as we would like to be treated . . . we believe thatpeople want different outcomes, treasure different values, and express differentneeds’. Thus, for Noddings, context is critical as is ‘receptive attention’ and‘engrossment’.


218




Another approach to this same situation comes from the counselingprofession’s concept of empathy. Unlike sympathy, feeling sorry for another’splight, empathy means the ability to put oneself in another’s shoes. Thisconcept nicely complements and overlaps with our third ‘R’, that of respect.

Respect

Philosophers have long been fascinated by the concept of respect. Discussionof both respect and self-respect arise in a variety of philosophical contexts.These concepts have been applied to ethics across many disciplines. There isno agreement as to a central definition and philosophers conceptualize respectin many ways. To some, it is taught, like responsibility, through the GoldenRule. Others have constructed complicated hierarchies to elucidate the nuancesbetween different kinds of respect (Dillon, 1992).

The concept of respect, however, is most often equated with the work ofImmanuel Kant. Although respect is implied throughout philosophicaltraditions, Kant was the first Western philosopher to place respect for personsas central to moral theory. Kant set forth that: ‘it is morally obligatory to respectevery person as a rational agent’ (Davis, 1993: 211). Central to Kant’s work isthe importance of treating others never simply as a means, but always at thesame time as an end (Kant, 1966).

Dillon (1992: 1) offers respect as ‘most generally, a relation between a subjectand an object, in which the subject responds to the object from a certainperspective in some appropriate way’. Lickona (1991), who follows LawrenceKohlberg’s theory of moral development, views respect as negative obligationsthat we owe each other such as those delineated in the ‘Thou shalt nots’ of theTen Commandments, while responsibility, in contrast, emphasizes positivemandates such as loving thy neighbor. For Lickona, these are two importantmoral values that must be practiced in the classroom.

The best interests model supports Lickona’s view of respect as the corner-stone of ethical behavior, but unlike Lickona it conceptualizes respect as a morepositive, mutual interaction, focusing on the individual. This view of respect ismore akin to Martin Buber’s (1958) concept of the ‘I–thou’ relationship andtheories of other existentialist philosophers such as Romano Guardini (1965)who emphasize the importance of self as well as mutuality. In this respect,Guardini (1965: 119) tells us that:

. . . it is enigmatic and inexhaustible that I am I, that I cannot be forced out of myselfnot even by the most powerful enemy, but only by myself, and even that notentirely; that I cannot be replaced even by the noblest person; that I am the centerof existence, for I am that, and you are also that, and you yonder . . .

Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot (1999: 9), in her book, Respect, notes that this termhas been portrayed as hierarchical, often associated with expressions of‘esteem, approbation or submission’. For example, someone may be due respect


219




because of his or her age, position, or accomplishments or we respect insti-tutions such as the government or symbols such as the flag. In contrast,Lightfoot’s (1999: 9–10) approach to respect emphasizes ways in which it creates‘symmetry, empathy, and connection in all kinds of relationships, even those,such as teacher and student, doctor and patient, commonly seen as unequal’.

Like Lightfoot, this best interests model envisions respect as mutuality. Itinvolves treating all students with respect but also expecting students to treatothers in the same manner. Here, the emphasis is upon equity as well asequality, tolerance, self-respect (which includes an acceptance of one’s own aswell as others’ frailties), an appreciation and celebration of diversity, and acommitment to finding common ground in an increasingly multicultural,pluralistic society.

Conclusion

Educational leaders frequently justify their actions as in the best interests ofthe student (Shapiro and Stefkovich, 2005, Stefkovich, 2006). However, in someforms, ‘best interests of students’ is more organizational or policy-relatedrhetoric than a genuine regard for student well-being, for example, as in thecase of zero tolerance policies. A genuine regard for a student’s best interestsemerges as a major influence on principal leadership practices in two ways.First, a large body of research shows that principal valuation processes areheavily oriented towards rational consequentialist orientations grounded in aconcern for the well-being of students. Second, research on how principalsrespond when confronted with ethical dilemmas suggests that the best interestsof students figures prominently as a meta-organizer and ultimate influence onthese administrators’ decision making.

Thus, recognizing that the term best interests is not clear and may be usedas a ‘good ethic’ at times and, at other times, as a justification for adult behaviorthat is not so ethical, this article explored alternate ways ethical school leader-ship in the best interests of students is conceptualized. The educational leader-ship literature on this topic emerges from several foundational perspectivesincluding philosophy, psychology, critical theory, and case law. We differenti-ated perspectives grounded solely in theory from those based on research andpractical field applications. We also presented the findings of extant researchon the valuation processes of school principals and their ethical leadershippractices with a particular focus on their explicit or implicit interpretations ofthe meaning of ‘best interests of students’.

Finally, this article proposed a model that may serve as a guide for makingethical decisions in the best interests of the student. The model consists of threeelements: rights, responsibility, and respect. Relying on context, this conceptu-alization takes into account students’ voices, and begins with the assumptionthat school officials will engage in active inquiry and self-reflection in order tomake decisions that are truly in the best interests of the student rather than


220




self-serving or merely expedient. It is our hope that the research we presentedand the model proposed provides a basis for both scholars and practitioners tobetter understand the concept of best interests and to use this approach in waysthat truly serve the best interests of the student.

Note

1. This discussion of students’ best interests as well as the best interests model aretaken from the book, Best Interests of the Student: Applying Ethical Constructs to LegalCases in Education (Stefkovich, 2006).

References

Aristotle (1989) Nicomachean Ethics, trans. M. Ostwald. New York: MacMillanPublishing Company.

Barth, R.S. (1990) Improving Schools From Within. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Beck, C. (1999) ‘Values, Leadership and School Renewal’, in P.T. Begley and P. Leonard

(eds) The Values of Educational Administration, pp. 223–321. London : Falmer Press.Beck, L.G. (1994) Reclaiming Educational Administration as a Caring Profession. New

York: Teachers College Press.Beck, L. and Murphy, J. (1994) Ethics in Educational Leadership Programs: An Expanding

Role. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Beckner, W. (2004) Ethics for Educational Leaders. Boston: Pearson.Begley, P.T. (1988) ‘The Influence of Personal Beliefs and Values on Principals’

Adoption and Use of Computers in Schools’. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.

Begley, P.T. (1996) ‘Cognitive Perspectives on Values in Administration: A Quest forCoherence and Relevance’, Educational Administration Quarterly 32(3): 403–26.

Begley, P.T. (2004) ‘Understanding Valuation Processes: Exploring the Linkage BetweenMotivation and Action’, International Studies in Educational Administration 32(2): 4–17.

Begley, P.T. (2006) ‘Self-knowledge, Capacity and Sensitivity: Prerequisites to AuthenticLeadership by School Principals’, Journal of Educational Administration. 44(6): 570–89.

Begley, P.T. and Johansson, O. (1998) ‘The Values of School Administration:Preferences, Ethics and Conflicts’, The Journal of School Leadership 8(4): 399–422.

Bitensky, S. (1992) ‘Theoretical Foundations for a Right to Education Under the U.S.Constitution: A Beginning to the End of the National Education Crisis’, NorthwesternUniversity Law Review 86(3): 550–642.

Buber, M. (1958) I and Thou, trans. R.G. Smith. New York: Scribner.Coombs, C.P. (2004) ‘Developing Reflective Habits of Mind’, Values and Ethics in

Educational Administration 1 (4): 1–8.Davis, N. (1993) ‘Contemporary Deontology’, in P. Singer (ed.) A Companion to Ethics,

pp. 205–18. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Diamond, S. (1981) ‘The First Amendment and the Public Schools: The Case Against

Judicial Intervention’, Texas Law Review 59(3): 477–528.Dillon, R. (1992) ‘Respect and Care: Toward Moral Integration’, Canadian Journal of

Philosophy 22(1): 105–31.Dupre, A. (1996) ‘Should Students Have Constitutional Rights? Keeping Order in the

Public Schools’, George Washington Law Review 65(1): 49–105.Eshelman, A. (2004) ‘Moral Responsibility’. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/

entries/moral-responsibility/ (accessed 7 December 2004).Evers, C.W. and Lakomski, G. (1991) Knowing Educational Administration. Toronto:

Pergamon Press.


221




Foster, W. (1999) ‘Administrative Science, the Postmodern, and Community’, inP.T. Begley (ed.) Values and Educational Leadership, pp 97–113. Albany, NY: SUNYPress.

Frankena, W.K. (1973) Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Furman, G. (2003) ‘Moral Leadership and the Ethic of Community’, Values and Ethics in

Educational Administration 2(1): 1–8.Gilligan, C. (1982) In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Goldstein, J., Freud, A. and Solnit, A. (1979a) Beyond the Best Interests of the Child, 2nd

edn. New York: Free Press.Goldstein, J., Freud, A. and Solnit, A. (1979b) Before the Best Interests of the Child. New

York: Free Press.Goldstein, J., Solnit, A., Goldstein, S. and Freud, A. (1996) The Best Interests of the Child:

The Least Detrimental Alternative. New York: Free Press.Griggs, R.F. (2003) ‘Applying Military Leadership Principles in the Development of

Educational Leaders’. Unpublished master’s research paper, The Pennsylvania StateUniversity, University Park, PA.

Grogan, M. and Smith, F. (1999) ‘A Feminist Perspective of Women Superintendents’Approaches to Moral Dilemmas’, in P. Begley (ed.) Values and Educational Leadership,pp. 273–88. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Gross, S. and Shapiro, J. (2004) ‘Using Multiple Ethical Paradigms and TurbulenceTheory in Response to Administrative Dilemmas’, International Studies in EducationalAdministration 32(2): 47–62.

Guardini, R.G. (1965) The World and the Person, trans. S. Lange. Chicago, IL: HenryRegency Company.

Heise, M. (1995) ‘State Constitutions, School Finance Litigation, and the “Third Wave”:From Equity to Adequacy’, Temple Law Review 68(3): 1151–76.

Hodgkinson, C. (1978) Towards a Philosophy of Administration. Oxford: Blackwell.Hodgkinson, C. (1996) Administrative Philosophy. Oxford: Elsevier-Pergamon.Johansson, O. (2003) ‘School Leadership as a Democratic Arena’, in P.T. Begley and

O. Johansson (eds) The Ethical Dimensions of School Leadership, pp. 201–19.Dortrecht: Kluwer Press.

Johansson, O. and Bredeson, P. (1990) ‘Value Orchestration by the Policy Communityfor the Learning Community—Reality or Myth’, in P.T. Begley (ed.) Values andEducational Leadership, pp. 51–72. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Kant, I. (1966) The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Ethics, trans.O. Manthey-Zorn. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Kohlberg, L. (1981) The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea ofJustice, Vol. 1. San Francisco,CA: Harper and Row.

Kohlberg, L. (1987) ‘Conscience as Principled Responsibility: On the Philosophy ofStage Six’, in G. Zecha and P. Weintgartner (eds) Conscience: An InterdisciplinaryApproach, pp. 3–25. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Langlois, L. (2004) ‘Responding Ethically: Complex Decision-making by School DistrictSuperintendents’, International Studies in Educational Administration 32(2): 78–93

Langlois, L. and Begley, P. (2005) Mapping Out Literature and Research on Ethics andValuation. University Park, PA: Willower Center for the Study of Leadership andEthics, Penn State University.

Lapointe, C., Godin, J. and Langlois, L. (2005) ‘Educational Leadership in OfficialLinguistic Minority Settings: Searching for a Relevant Theory’, Journal of SchoolLeadership 15(2): 143–58.

Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (1999) Respect: An Exploration. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.Leithwood, K.A. and Steinbach, R. (1995) Expert Problem Solving. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. and Steinbach, R. (1999) ‘Transformational Leadership as a


222




Place to Begin’, in Changing Leadership for Changing Times, pp. 3—20. Buckingham:Open University Press.

Leonard, P. (1999) ‘Examining Educational Purposes and Underlying Value Orientationsin Schools’, in P.T. Begley (ed.) Values and Educational Leadership, pp. 217–235.Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Levesque, R. (1996) ‘International Children’s Rights: Can They Make a Difference inAmerican Family Policy?’, American Psychologist 51: 1251–4.

Lickona, T. (1991) Educating for Character: How Our Schools Can Teach Respect andResponsibility. New York: Bantam Books.

Lynch, T. (1998) ‘Note, Education as a Fundamental Right: Challenging the SupremeCourt’s Jurisprudence’, Hofstra Law Review 26(4): 953–73.

Maxcy, S.J. (2001) ‘Educational Leadership and Management of Knowing: TheAesthetics of Coherentism’, Journal of Educational Administration 39(6): 573–88.

Mill, J.S. (1978) On Liberty. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Nash, R.J. (1996) Real World Ethics: Frameworks for Educators and Human Service

Professionals. New York: Teachers College Press.Noddings, N. (1984) Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Noddings, N. (2002) Educating Moral People: A Caring Alternative to Character Education.

New York: Teachers College Press.Noddings, N. (2003) Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education, 2nd

edn. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Norberg, K. (2004) ‘Constitutive Values and Daily Practice in a Swedish School’, Values

and Ethics of Educational Administration 1(3): 1–8.Ozar, T. (1986) ‘Rights: What They Are and Where They Come From’, in P. Werhane

(ed.) Philosophical Issues in Human Rights: Theories and Applications, pp. 9–10. NewYork: McGraw-Hill College.

Rawls, J. (1999) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of HarvardUniversity Press.

Richmon, M.J. (2004) ‘Values In Educational Administration: Them’s Fighting Words!’,International Journal of Leadership in Education 7(4): 339–56.

Roche, K (1999) ‘Moral and Ethical Dilemmas in Catholic School Settings’, in P.T Begley(ed.) Values and Educational Leadership, pp. 255–272. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Rossow, L.F. and Stefkovich, J.A. (2005) Education Law: Cases and Materials. Durham,NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Rossow, L.F. and Stefkovich, J.A. (2006) Search and Seizure in the Public Schools, 3rd edn.Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.

Rousseau, J.J. (1967) The Social Contract and Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1992) Moral Leadership: Getting to the Heart of School Improvement. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shapiro, J. and Stefkovich, J.A. (2005) Ethical Leadership and Decision Making inEducation, 2nd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Soltis, J. and Zubay, B. (2005) Creating the Ethical School: A Book of Case Studies. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Starratt, R.J. (1994) Building an Ethical School. London: Falmer Press.Starratt, R. J. (2004) Ethical Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Stefkovich, J.A. (2006) Best Interests of the Student: Applying Ethical Constructs to Legal

Cases in Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Stefkovich, J.A., O’Brien, G.M. and Moore, J. (2002) ‘School Leaders’ Ethical Decision

Making and the “Best Interests of Students”’. Paper presented at the 7th AnnualValues and Leadership Conference, Toronto, Canada.


223




Stefkovich, J. and Shapiro, J (2003) ‘Deconstructing Communities: Educational Leadersand Their Ethical Decision-making Processes’, in P.T. Begley and O. Johansson (eds)The Ethical Dimensions of School Leadership, pp. 89–106. Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicPress.

Strike, K.A., Haller, E.J. and Soltis, J.F. (1988) The Ethics of School Administration. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Sun, J.P. (2004) ‘Understanding the Impact of Perceived Leadership Styles on TeacherCommitment’, International Studies in Educational Administration 32(2): 18–31.

Thro, W. (1988) ‘Note, To Render Them Safe: The Analysis of State ConstitutionalProvisions in Public School Finance Reform Litigation’, Virginia Law Review 69: 1641–42.

Thro, W. (1998) ‘A New Approach to State Constitutional Analysis in School FinanceLitigation’, Journal of Law and Policy 48: 525–40.

Walker, A. (2003) ‘Developing Cross-cultural Perspectives on Education andCommunity’, in P.T. Begley and O. Johansson (eds) The Ethical Dimensions of SchoolLeadership, pp. 145–160. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

Walker, A. and Dimmock, C. (1999) ‘A Cross-cultural Approach to the Study ofEducational Leadership: An Emerging Framework’, Journal of School Leadership 9(4):321–48.

Walker, K. (1995) ‘The Kids’ Best Interests’, The Canadian School Executive 15(5): 2–8.Walker, K. (1998) ‘Jurisprudential and Ethical Perspectives on “The Best Interests of

Children”’, Interchange 29(3): 283–304.Walker, K. and Shakotko, D. (1999) ‘The Canadian Superintendency: Value-based

Challenges and Pressures’, in P.T. Begley (ed.) Values and Educational Leadership,pp. 289–313. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Walsh, T.J. (1993) ‘Education as a Fundamental Right Under the United StatesConstitution’, Williamette Law Review 26: 279–96.

Wang, T. (2002) ‘Cultural Dissonance and Adaptation: A Study of Chinese ImmigrantTeachers Coping with Cultural Differences in Toronto Schools’. Unpublished doctoralthesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.

Willower, D.J. (1999) ‘Values and Valuation: A Naturalistic Inquiry’, in P.T. Begley (ed.)Values and Educational Leadership, pp. 121–38. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Yudof, M. (1995) ‘Tinker Tailored: Good Faith, Civility, and Student Expression’,St. John’s Law Review 69: 365–77.

Yudof, M. (1998) ‘Personal Speech and Government Expression’, Case Western ReserveLaw Review 38: 671.

Zaretsky, L. (2004) ‘Reaction to Policymakers’ Perceptions of Social Justice Training forLeadership’, Journal of School Leadership 14(4): 564–72.

Biographical notes

JACQUELINE STEFKOVICH is Department Head of Educational Policy Studies atPennsylvania State University and the author of two books on ethics and educationaldecision making.

PAUL T. BEGLEY is Professor of Educational Leaderhip at Pennsylvania State Universityand Executive Director of the Willow Center for the Study of Leadership and Ethics ofthe UCEA.

Correspondence to:

PAUL T. BEGLEY, Department of Education Policy Studies, Pennsylvania StateUniversity, University Park, PA, USA. [email: [email protected]]


224




educational management administration & leadershipweb.macam.ac.il/~sifriaoh/25938.pdf ·...

Documents