dr. jessica garrett-staib - national forum of educational administration and supervision journal -...

7/28/2019 Dr. Jessica Garrett-Staib - National FORUM of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal - William Allan Krit…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dr-jessica-garrett-staib-national-forum-of-educational-administration-and 1/18

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

VOLUME 29, NUMBER 2, 2012-2013

ETHICAL LEADERSHIP IN THE PRINCIPALSHIP:

A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

Jessica Garrett-Staib

University of Texas of the Permian Basin

Robert M. Maninger

Sam Houston State University

ABSTRACT

The contention that morality is an important characteristic among educational leaders

cannot be understated. Educational leaders have a responsibility to act ethically because

they are responsible for assuring the well-being of the students. Current global events

dictate an even stronger responsibility for administrators to act ethically. This study,designed as a modified analytical induction, utilized qualitative data gathering

techniques to investigate commonalities of three campus principals’ ethics. A ten item

interview format with open-ended questions was used. Participants revealed that with

little formal training in ethics there was at a minimum five areas of correlation between

their roles as administrators and sound ethical practice.

Ethical Leadership in the Principalship: A Qualitative Analysis

thics, while an integral part of education, are not unique to the

profession of education. Many large businesses have fallen into ruin

because of unethical business practices employed by the leaders of theinstitutions. Public schools are held to higher standards than ever before with

the state accountability assessment. The additional pressures placed on school

administrators call many to question their personal and professional ethics.Ethics and moral fiber are important characteristics to have as a school

principal, especially with regard to decision-making (Greenfield, 1991;

Facshing, 1997; Campbell, 1997; and Doggett, 1988). The importance of ethics at the campus level was examined in this qualitative study to determine

if they impact schools and their stakeholders as public schools prepare to meet

the challenges ahead.

E

24



25 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Significance of the Study

Competence in moral reasoning is fundamental to the ability tooversee a school in a distinctly moral manner (Greenfield, 1999). Literature

indicates there is a direct correlation between ethics and success as a school

administrator; however, statistical data have not been abundant (Greenfield,1991; Facshing, 1997; Campbell, 1997; and Doggett, 1988). Public schools

are under-going a tremendous transformation, including changes in

accountability that could grossly impact the need for ethical campus leaders.

While radical changes are being made in education, many of our

nation's leaders, such as, congressman, corporate executives, clergymen, and

military officials, are under fire for unethical conduct (Doggett, 1988). Thisalone should be enough to initiate the need for a closer look in to the ethics of

our public schools.

Research Questions

Ethics certainly drive the success of a campus principal and of his or

her direct role with the students in the building. There are areas involving

ethics that must be examined for the advancement of the development of formal ethical training to insure effective educational leaders. This study will

examine five research questions and will include open-ended questioning that

will provide opportunity for the participants to include more. What are the

individual definitions regarding ethics and the role of the principal? Thisquestion will be used as a baseline guide for the five research questions that

follow.

• Do male and female principals look at ethical situations differently?

• What impact does the number of years of administrative experience a

principal have on the ethical stance taken when considering ethical

dilemmas at school?

• How do high school, middle school, and elementary school

administrators differ in their view of ethics?



Jessica Garrett-Staib & Robert Maninger 26

Other questions in the interview process will likely bring about additional

considerations. These discussions will also enter into the research of this

current study.

Introduction

Hudson (1997) contends that “ethical virtues are reflected in the way

we see ourselves as well as the way we see others, and are culminated in our relation to those others in the community in which we live” (p. 514). Ethics

have been referred to as the science of conduct, and have provided a muse for

philosophers and thinkers, social and otherwise, for centuries (Harden, 1988).

Since the time of Socrates and Plato, philosophers have analyzed the issue of ethics (Robbins and Trabichet, 2010; Edmonson, Fisher and Polnick, 2003).

Some contemporary definitions centralize on the impact ethical leaders have

had on organizations and individuals. Pritchett (1999) defines ethics as the

knowledge of right and wrong, and making the right decision. Therefore, thegoal of ethics is to make decisions that are best for individuals and the

organization. “Integrity is rooted in identity and faith. That’s one reason thatspirit and soul are at the heart of the most successful leadership” (Boleman,

2001, p. 42).

Ethics are based on personal value systems, which are the foundation

for making decisions. “School administration, in contrast to administration in

other organizations, makes a unique set of ethical demands on the

administrator” (Greenfield, 1991, p. 2). Schools are charged with assuring thewell being of their students. The campus leader has a profound influence on

the stakeholders and moral fiber of the campus. Therefore, the behavior of the

leader must consistently focus on moral and responsible actions, directlyimpacting the ethical culture of the educational institution. School

administrators are duty-bound to ensure that the child’s best interests are

served by the school (Shapiro, Gross, and Shapiro 2008; Greenfield, 1991).Because the success of educational institutions closely hinges on the ethical

conduct of the campus leader, the significance of hiring ethical campus

leaders is of the utmost importance (Greenfield, 1999). While Campbell

(1997) agrees with the value of ethics in school leadership, she is quick to point out that “the links between theoretical reflection and practical




application have yet to be established in this complex philosophical area” (p.

288).

Ethics and the Campus Leader

The students of schools are primarily composed of individuals under

the age of 18, who have no choice regarding school attendance, the quality of

their education, or the content of the curriculum. Therefore, ethical leadershipis critical to ensure the captive student audience receives the most beneficial

services the system can provide. Calabrese (1988) describes ethical leadership

at the campus level as including respect for all members of society, tolerancefor alternative opinions and cultures, and equitable resource allocation.

Campbell (1997) suggests that it is highly improbable that one would

encounter the opinion that ethical leadership is not important for schooladministrators. The activities on a school campus not only have consequences

for the students, faculty, and community, but for society as well (Frick and

Frick, 2010; Greenfield 1991). Therefore, ethical leadership in the school alsohas a profound effect on the community at large. Boleman states that

“leadership is a relationship rooted in community. Leaders embody their

group’s most precious values and beliefs” (2001, p. 62). All stakeholders are

affected by the outcomes of the educational system. School administrators areheld to an even higher standard than leaders in other fields because they are

uniquely in charge of establishing citizenship as well as socializing children to

the norms of society.

According to Growe (1999), educational leaders of the past were

considered to be noble people who consistently behaved with dignity at alltimes and in all situations. Beck (1994) indicates that educators of the early

public school movement were likened to ministers who had received a calling.

The virtues of campus leaders were all but taken for granted. Society assumed

school leaders automatically embraced high moral values throughout most of the 20th century. However, this trust was misguided. We can no longer assume

educational figureheads have high levels of ethical content just because they

have chosen the noble field of education in which to work, nor is it evident inthe preparations programs from which they are trained (Robbins and

Trabichet, 2010; Edmonson and Fisher, 2008; Boleman, 2001).




The Role of Values in Ethical Leadership

Ethics in administration has become complicated by the pervasive

contemporary belief that values are relative (Campbell, 1997). To further

exemplify this notion, McKerrow (1997) indicates that how one thinks andwhat one believes regarding the concept of educational leadership are

translated into the values and practices of the school. So individuals’ values

drive their educational leadership styles; but all individuals’ values are

relative.

Some moral values naturally exist and can be upheld objectively

(Shapiro, 2008; Beck 1994). These include a respect for human life, love,loyalty, justice, honesty, courage, generosity, and promise keeping. These

universal principles supportive of basic human values can provide guidance to

principals who seek to make moral decisions or to justify those decisions toothers.

Society or we do not invent principles; they are the laws of theuniverse that pertain to human relationships and human organizations.

They are part of the human condition, consciousness, and conscience.

To the degree people recognize and live in harmony with such basic

principles as fairness, equity, justice, integrity, honesty, and trust, theymove toward either survival and stability on the one hand or

disintegration and destruction on the other. (Covey, 1992, p. 18)

Ethics emerge from the recognition that fundamental human needs are the

same for everyone, so what is good or right must be the same for everyone,

under any circumstance and at all times. To ignore the universality of needthat must necessarily inform what is good and right is to promote an ethical

relativism (McKerrow, 1997).

Fasching (1997) describes ethical administrators as those who aremore concerned about behaving responsibly than about always being right.

They consistently do what is best for the schools and the students rather than

considering personal outcomes. There are several perspectives to consider when considering campus leadership:




One concerns the character of the administrator. What are this person’s

vices and virtues? Is the individual a person of integrity? Does the

administrator satisfactorily represent the status of the position of principal, or superintendent? Can the individual be trusted? There are a

host of personal qualities (virtues) one might identify as desirable in

the character of the school administrator. (Greenfield, 1991, p. 9)

Educators should fulfill their obligations in both moral and ethical ways, and

leaders need to model this by standing against injustice (Clarken, 2009;Klinker and Hackmann, 2003; Campbell 1997).

Moral Leadership

Education is a fundamentally moral venture (Langlois, 2004; Begley,2003; McKerrow, 1997). The public school administrator, if for no other

reason than the office he/she holds, is a moral representative (Clarken, 2009;

Greenfield 1991). While the consideration of right and wrong decisionsregarding administrative leadership may appear to be perfectly aligned with

the assessment of a school leader, one really should consider whether or not

morality is actually more situational (Klinker and Hackmann, 2003).

Greenfield (1999) contends that while honesty is considered to be anadmirable trait in an administrator, honesty is not always the best policy in all

situations. Often, normative judgments or moral values accompany and

precede the decision regarding what one might consider to be the best decisionregarding a particular circumstance. A major dilemma for the administrator is

the necessity to act in the face of conflicting moral values regarding a

particular decision or action.

Relationships cannot be developed through technical expertise, but

rather through moral discourse and the teaching of tolerance (Clarken, 2009;

Smith, 1988). Covey (1992) contends:

As dangerous as a little knowledge is, even more dangerous is much

knowledge without a strong, principled character. Purely intellectualdevelopment without commensurate internal character development

makes as much sense as putting a high-powered sports car in the hands

of a teenager who is high on drugs. (p. 89)




Ultimately, a moral leader is one who promotes and protects a richer

understanding of the educational process in a very practical sense (Clarken,

2009; Smith, 1988).

Ethics and Decision Making

Direct or indirect use of power, as currently recognized by educational

administrators, may actually inhibit ethical decision-making, and conflict withmultiple ways of discerning knowledge (Reitzug, 2008; McKerrow 1997).

Acknowledging the ethical complexities of school leadership is the first step

for theorists and practitioners to find an avenue to connect the vision of ethical

leadership with the daily dilemmas of life in schools (Campbell, 1997).Educational leaders are faced with a myriad of ethical dilemmas. Doggett

(1988) asserts that “many of the routine issues confronting principals each day

are of an ethical nature and call for school administrators to uphold principles

of honesty and integrity” (p. 6). School leaders faced with ethical and moraldilemmas should reflect on inherent value principles, but even this may not be

enough to translate into correct action (Campbell, 1997). Much of theattention given to ethics in school administration has arisen as a response to

the prevalent awareness of the many complex issues facing educational

leaders today (Reitzug, 2008; Beck, 1994). Greenfield (1991) lists some of these dilemmas as good pedagogical practices, friendships, rules and

regulations, efficiency of the organization, and educational outcomes. There

may be many conflicting moral issues at play when considering decisions to

be made. “Moral reasoning is a tool the administrator can use to identify andanalyze the moral dimensions of the dilemma and arrive at a conclusion

regarding what action ought to be taken . . .” (Greenfield, 1991, p. 10). Beck

(1994, p. 2) asserts that “ethics provide principles to guide administratorstoward morally sound decisions . . .”

Conclusions from empirical studies on the decision-making of principals reveal that ethical considerations are secondary to instrumental

considerations related to policy and strategy (Campbell, 1997). However,

Doggett (1988) challenges that many of the everyday issues facing principals

are of an ethical nature and require school administrators to uphold principlesof honesty and integrity.




Summary

Having a code of ethics instituted by professional administrator

organizations or by state and national legislation does not insure that there will

be adherence in any way (Edmonson and Fisher, 2008). Smith (1988) argues,“The moral leader should realize that there is much more to schooling than the

attainment of certain quantitatively measured goals” (p. 8). Schools are

ultimately about the development of human beings and how we choose to live

our lives. Blanchard and Shula’s (1995) book Everyone’s a Coach sums upthe importance of strong ethics by stating that if you do not stand for

something, you will fall for anything. The need to determine the importance of

ethics on our public school system is of the essence. Ethics should be at thecore of educational administration; campus principals affect people’s lives and

it is their duty to make ethical decisions (Klinker and Hackmann, 2003;

McKerrow 1997).

Methodology

The researchers/authors examined the relationship between the ethics

of the campus principal and gender, race, number of years the individual has

been a public school principal, and the campus level of the principal. Theresearcher also investigated the classes or training each participant had

received in the area of ethics, the size of the school district the principal

served, the perception of ethics as it relates to school achievement, and the basic definitions and fundamental beliefs regarding ethics held by the sample

group.

Selection of Participants

The researcher contacted local school administrators to gather names

of potential participants. The participants were unfamiliar to the researcher inorder to limit bias. Phone calls were made to potential participants in an effort

to gauge their willingness to participate in the study. The first three principals

contacted agreed to participate. The participants were selected to behomogeneous with regard to their profession. Participant selection was very

purposive in nature.




The study was designed as a modified analytical induction, where each

participant added to the knowledge base. The research project utilized

multiple sites. Site access was gained from the actual participants. The siteselection was designed to be non-threatening in nature. The goal of the

researcher was to not inconvenience the participants in any way. Participants

elected to be interviewed in their offices.

The first participant was a 46 year old, Black, female principal in a

relatively small elementary school. She had 14 years of administrativeexperience. The second participant was a 54 year old, White, male principal in

a middle/high school. He had only two years of experience as a principal in

his small, rural school district. The third participant was a 37 year old, White,

male principal in a high school. He had three and a half years of experience asa principal in his mid-sized school district.

In addition to the research questions, a dialogue was conducted

regarding specific incidents the sample group had faced where ethicaldecisions were a major consideration. The participants were interviewed for

various periods of time lasting between 25 and 45 minutes. Each interviewwas tape-recorded by the researcher. The interviews were transcribed in detail.

Each transcript was coded, analyzed and highlighted to locate the trends and

commonalities within the responses. The constant comparison method wasused to locate patterns among the findings. The interviewing process shed

light on ethical considerations and issues faced by today’s principals.

Instrument

The participants were interviewed using a ten-question questionnaire.

Typed copies of the questionnaire were given to the participants. Theresearcher operated with an emic perspective throughout the research project.

For a specific listing of interview questions please refer to the Appendix.

Data Collection and Analysis

Human Subjects Protection forms were completed. Each participant

was supplied with an informed consent form. The informed consent formsaddressed the confidentiality of the participants, voluntary consent that could

be withdrawn at any time, and the reporting of the data in future publications




or presentations. The researcher retrieved all informed consent forms in

person, prior to the interviews.

Prior to beginning the formal interview, an effort was made on the part

of the researcher to establish a strong rapport. Information regarding the

researcher and the background of the researcher was volunteered in an effortto ease any discomfort the participants may have felt. The purpose of the

research project was also revealed to the subjects. Participants appeared

willing, honest, and comfortable throughout the interview process.

Results and Conclusions

Previous research suggests that while no substantially significant data

patterns emerge, there are correlations that make the study of ethics valuable

(Reitzug, 2008; Clarken, 2009; Frick and Frick, 2010). The definitions of

ethics presented by the participants were similar in nature. Participant Adefined ethics as “a sense of what’s right and what’s wrong.” Participant B

defined ethics as “the guidelines you use to conduct yourself in your life, your daily life, and your interactions with others;” and Participant C said, “I would

define ethics as kind of a framework from which you operate. It guides you to

make good, moral decisions based on the norms or appropriateness.” They allmentioned morality in their interviews, indicating that all three participants

connect ethics with the concept of morality.

Of the three participants interviewed, only cursory training in the areaof ethics had been received. One participant had an undergraduate class in

ethics at a South Carolina university, one had the topic addressed in university

classes not specifically centered on ethics, and one participant had received notraining at all.

Participants B and C indicated that there were some definitedifferences in the ethics expected in large and small school districts. Those

two participants viewed smaller school districts as more political. Both

participants had been employed in both large and small school districts, and

agreed that it is easier to maintain some anonymity in larger school districts.Participant C also noted that a principal is more likely to impact the overall

ethical fabric of the school in a smaller district. Participant C noted, “If I make




an ethical mistake here, they’ll hear about it [at the local grocery store] before

sundown. And if I’m inconsistent, they’ll know.” Participant B stated, “I think

the difference is if you are in a large school, you’re apt to be more anonymousthan you are in a small school where everybody is going to know you. So, in a

small school you are more apt to be asked to compromise yourself than you

are in a larger school. . . . because people get to know you and they think they’re friends with you, and once they are friends with you, then they are

more apt to ask you to do something unethical.”

When analyzing the gender of the principal and the ethics of the

principal, Participant B indicated, “. . . some of the females may tend to use

their sexuality to gain something as opposed to a male who doesn’t have that

asset.” Participant C noted, “I would guess that a female administrator wouldor a minority would have to be more careful. I think I could get away with

some stuff. And I think you’re going to be judged on a higher standard than I

will be.” Participant A did not see any connection between gender and ethics.

The subjects perceived only a few basic differences with regard to

ethics and veteran and novice principals. Participant A didn’t see anyconnection because, “It doesn’t matter if the person has one year or twenty

years of experience. If you have strong morals at twenty, then you’re going to

have strong morals at 40. Nobody waits until you get old to develop ethics.”Participant B posited, “Probably a veteran principal would be more apt to do

something that is unethical than a novice. Because a novice wants to keep his

job and the veteran would feel pretty secure and figure that he or she would

get away with whatever they were doing.” Participant C said, “I think theveteran principals, there may be a perception that they have higher ethics or

morals simply because they’ve been in the business longer. And people kind

of tend to connect that with being a better principal.”

All three participants identified their belief that there was no difference

between a principal that was employed in an elementary school, a middleschool, or a high school when considering ethics. They believed there could

be just as much ethical or unethical behavior on any campus.

The issue of race and ethical behavior presented some differentfindings. Participant A, who is Black, said, “I don’t think race plays any part

in ethics. It is all about how you have been raised.” Participant B noted, “I




think someone who is a minority, specifically someone who is African-

American, if he or she is in a community where the makeup of the school is

minority, then the Black community is going to lean on him to showfavoritism. And if he doesn’t then they are going to call him an Uncle Tom.”

Participant C stated, “They have to operate at a higher standard than I do.”

The male participants perceived that minorities of any type had to behaveeven more ethically because they are constantly under scrutiny. The female,

Black participant indicated that there was really no difference in the ethics of

minority race or gender individuals, it was more a factor of background andupbringing. The White males felt that White men have the liberty to make a

few unethical decisions, while minority individuals do not. The same trends in

the research emerged regardless of whether the administrators were minorities

based on their race or gender. All minorities were generally perceived as nothaving the same liberties afforded White, male principals.

Participants A and B viewed ethics as being absolute, while Participant

C believed ethics were relative. However, Participant C did indicate that thereare some ethical considerations that simply have no leeway. “It is relative, but

it has some constraints.” Participant B stated, “And it has to be absolute. If you start making it relative you can get yourself into trouble because people

will – you can’t fool everybody all the time – and people will pick up on the

fact that you can be swayed or gotten to or whatever you want to call it.”Participant A was strong in her belief. “The ethics in this school are absolute.

It’s going to be absolute as long as I’m here.”

The participants were extremely responsive in the dialogue regardingmajor ethical dilemmas they have faced. Participants presented very different

scenarios in their background. Participant A recalled a time when she would

have broken the law to prevent a child from returning to a home where thechild had been sexually molested. CPS showed up just in time to prevent the

principal from breaking the law, but she would have. Participant B discussed

an experience where he was asked to rescind a punishment given to an“important” person’s daughter. He stuck by his guns. He cited policy as his

support throughout the ordeal. He refused to bend to the desire of the district

and the girl received the same punishment as the other offenders. Participant

C posited that his biggest ethical dilemmas came when determining at what point a teacher should be removed from his or her livelihood. “I never thought




I would be one of those principals who came in and fired people. I think your

ethics are that you’re going to defend the kid.”

School achievement is a topic close to the hearts of most campus

administrators. The sample group had varying views on whether or not ethics

actually impact the success of a school. Participant A noted that ethics reallyhas less to do with the success of a school than the economics of the area.

“Money can buy things. Money is a better determining factor in the success of

a school than the ethics of the principal.” Participant B was adamant thatethics are directly related to the success of a campus. “Because if your leader

is ethical and everybody knows he is ethical and he is a stand up guy, then

they are going to want to please him and achieve, and make the school a good

place.” Participant C indicated that the ethics of the campus principal perhapshad more direct impact on the school environment than the achievement.

However, this did translate into a lower dropout rate and better attendance. So,

while the ethics of the campus leader may not directly impact achievement, it

had an indirect effect on the success of the school.

Implications

Our country is entering a time in history where morals and ethics will be a major consideration. Current global events indicate a great need for

schools to produce highly capable citizens. Schools are a direct reflection of

the constituency they represent, and the leadership of a campus hasconsiderable direct impact on the entire community. Education has grown to

involve more of the stakeholders than ever before. With the onset of site-

based decision-making, public school clientele are now asked to assist on amore regular basis with the daily functioning of the schools.

Some very clear patterns emerged as a result of the current study. All

participants had well developed definitions of what ethics involve. However,there was little evidence of formal training in ethics for educational

administration. Our study suggested that smaller school districts may be more

political in nature. There was agreement that the difference in size of a schooldistrict did in fact impact ethical behavior.




There was also a strong consensus that any minority indicator, whether

it is female, Black, or Hispanic, can be perceived as raising the ethical

standard. Minority individuals simply are not allowed to make mistakes withregard to ethics. The white males in this study were clear about the double-

standard that presents itself with regard to the acceptable ethical behavior of a

principal. They posit that white men can get away with making unethicalmistakes, while minority individuals cannot. However, the lack of concern

presented by the black female principal may be a result of her high ethical

standards. She does not feel the added pressure to perform at a higher ethicalstandard simply because she represents the higher measure in a more

instinctive manner.

Veteran principals have experienced more and are perhaps better atgauging their communities. Their comfort level may make them more likely to

make unethical decisions. It was clear throughout this study that the ethical

content of the administrator was not affected by whether they represented an

elementary, middle, or high school.

School achievement was a loosely-used term throughout this study.Achievement could be defined as good test scores or as producing successful,

productive citizens. The ethics of principals have a more direct tie to the

production of successful, productive members of society. By modeling strongethical behavior, a principal sets a standard in the school that should be

immolated by the students. There was no consensus between participants that

ethical behavior by the campus leader translated into higher achievement.

The research also supported the reporting of the myriad of ethical

dilemmas faced by campus administrators; there is really no limit to the issues

a principal can face (Clarken, 2009; Shapiro, 2008; Beck, 1994; Greenfield,1991). One of the difficulties in this genre of research is that the dilemmas

themselves rarely appear for an administrator the same way twice.

There is no doubt that ethics impact the daily functioning of all

campus principals. Educational leaders have a distinctive responsibility to act

ethically because they are responsible for assuring the well-being of the

students. The decisions that administrators make are based on the valuesystem held by the individuals. The challenges of everyday issues facing




principals are of an ethical nature and require school administrators to uphold

basic principles of honesty and integrity.




REFERENCES

Beck, L., & Murphy, J. (1994). Ethics in educational leadership programs.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Begley, P. (2003) ‘In Pursuit of Authentic School Leadership Practices’, in P.

Begley and O. Johansson (eds) The Ethical Dimensions of School Leadership. London: Kluwer Academic.

Blanchard, K., & Shula, D. (1994). Everyone’s a coach. New York: Harper

Collins.Boleman, L., & Deal, T. (2001). Leading with soul: An uncommon journey.

San Franscisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Calabrese, R.L. (1988). Ethical leadership: A prerequisite for effective

schools. NASSP Bulletin, 72(512), 1-4.Campbell, E. (1997). Ethical school leadership: Problems of an elusive role.

Journal of School Leadership, 7 (4), 287-300.

Clarken, R. H. (2009, March). Morale intelligence in the schools. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the Michigan Academy of Sciences,Arts and Letters Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.

Covey, S. (1992). Principle-Centered Leadership. New York: Fireside.Doggett, M. (1988). Ethical excellence for school-based administrators.

NASSP Bulletin, 72(512), 6-8.

Edmonson, S., & Fisher, A. (2008, Feb). Creating ethical administrators: A

challenge for both professor and practitioner. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the American Association of School Administrators,

San Diego, CA.

Edmonson, S., Fisher, A., & Polnick, B. (2003, Feb). Portrait of an ethical administrator. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Association of School Administrators, New Orleans, LA.

Frick, J. E., & Frick, W. C. (2010). An ethic of connectedness: Enacting moralschool leadership through people and programs. Education,

Citizenship and Social Justice, 5(2), 117-130.

Greenfield, W.D. (1999, April). Moral leadership in schools: Fact or fancy?Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Greenfield, W.D. (1991, April). Rationale and methods to articulate ethics and

administrator training. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.




Growe, R. (1999). Educational leaders as moral leaders: The value of virtue.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED455570).

Hudson, J. (1997) Ethical leadership: The soul of policy making. Journal of School Leadership, 7 (2), 506-520.

Klinker, J. F., & Hackmann, D. G. (2003, April). An analysis of principal’s

ethical decision making using Rest’s Four Component Model of Moral Behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Langlois, L. (2004) ‘Responding Ethically: Complex Decision—making bySchool District Superintendents’, International Studies in Educational

Administration 32(2): 78–93.

McKerrow, K. (1997). Ethical administration: An oxymoron? Journal of

School Leadership, 7 (2), 210-225.Pritchett, P. (1999). The ethics of excellence. Retrieved June 26, 2002, from

http://www.pritchettonline.com/library/ethics.

Reitzug, U. C. (2008). Diversity, power and influence: Multiple perspectives

on the ethics of school leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 4(2),396-420.

Robbins, S., & Trabichet, L. (2010). Ethical decision-making by educationalleaders: Its foundations, culture, and more recent perspectives.

Management in Education, 23(2), 51-56.

Shapiro, J. P., Gross S.J., & Shapiro, S.H. (2008). Ethical decisions inturbulent times. School Administrator, 65(5), 18-21.

Smith, J., & Blase, J. (1988). Educational leadership: A moral and practical

activity. NASSP Bulletin, 72(513), 1-10.




About the Authors

Jessica Garrett-Staib, Ed.D. is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at the University of Texas Permian Basin. Dr. Garrett-Staib’s areas

of research and current projects involve rural school administration;

leadership, decision-making, and ethics; gender issues in educationalleadership; and case studies in educational administration. She spent over

fifteen years in teaching elementary education and special education and in

administrative positions at the elementary and intermediate levels.

Robert M. Maninger, Ed.D. is an Assistant Professor in the College of

Education, Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Sam Houston State

University. His research and writing focus on educational technologyintegration and educational administration. Dr. Maninger teaches a wide

variety of courses in the College of Education. He spent over fifteen years in

teaching and administrative positions PK-12.

Permission is granted to reprint this article for distribution as long as it is used for

academic purposes. Credit must be given to NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS, 17603

Bending Post Drive, Houston, Texas 77095 – Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, editor-in-chief

dr. jessica garrett-staib - national forum of educational administration and supervision journal -...

Documents