Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

THE ETHICS OF TEACHING ED 169X INSTRUCTORS: Eamonn Callan Office: Cubberley 224 Tel.

: (650) 723-8317 e-mail: ecallan@stanford Office hours: by appointment Rob Kunzman Office: Cubberley 30 Tel.: (650) 368-2129 e-mail: kunzman@stanford Office hours: by appointment

The purpose of this course is to help students to prepare for the ethical proble ms they will routinely confront in their professional lives. Addressing these p roblems adequately is as important to teaching well as keeping control in a clas sroom or maintaining knowledge of subject matter. Much more than unreflective g oodwill or familiarity with a code of professional conduct is needed if teachers are to be equal to the moral challenges their work will pose. Teachers require moral sensitivities and understanding that will develop haphazardly or not at a ll without some systematic study in the applied ethics of teaching. This course is an opportunity to begin that study. By the end of the course, students shou ld have a command of the basic skills of ethical reasoning, a familiarity with t he most important ethical concepts that apply to their work, and an ability to a pply these skills and concepts in the analysis of case studies. The course is organized around a set of interlocked ethical themes that impinge on teachers lives. These themes will be explored primarily through the analysis o f case studies. Moral philosophy will be introduced only to the extent that it can help us to understand more deeply the morally relevant features of the cases we study. Required readings comprise Kenneth Strike and Jonas Soltis, The Ethi cs of Teaching, 3nd ed. (New York: Teachers College Press, 1997), as well as a s hort reader that will be available in the University Bookstore. Information on assignments will be available on the first day of the class. Regular attendance and a willingness to participate in class discussion are requ ired. Students will be assessed on the basis of two case-study assignments and two critiques of drafts of other students work. Each assignment must focus on a t heme in Units 2, 3, and 4. Students must not submit both assignments on themes in a single unit. 1. Ethical Responsibility in Teaching (April 9, April 16) The concept of ethics (or morality) has be distinguished from custom, law, and s elf-interest if teachers are to be clear about what morality requires or permits . But the special moral obligations that teachers have to their students must a lso be understood in the particular context of their professional identity. Pro fessional ethics, whether in medicine, law, or teaching depend on a special fiduc iary relationship between the professional and the specific category of people fo r whose sake the profession is constituted. In teaching, the relevant category is the students a teacher is entrusted to teach. Ethical theory will be briefl y introduced as a resource in helping us to understand the special character of teachers fiduciary obligations to students. Required reading: Strike and Soltis, The Ethics of Teaching, chs. 1 and 2; Ken neth Strike, The Legal and Moral Responsibilities of Teachers; Onora O Neill, A Sim plified Account of Kantian Ethics 2. Freedom and Authority in Schools (April 23 and April 30) A range of issues pertaining to the liberty of teachers and students will be the

focus of this unit. Freedom of speech and academic freedom are fundamental mor al principles in democratic societies. They impinge on teachers' lives in contr oversies about censorship within schools, the control of hate speech among stude nts, and the right of teachers (and students) to express morally or politically unpopular views. The liberties at issue here are not unlimited, and teachers mu st be sensitive to the moral considerations that mark those limits. One critica l area where such sensitivity is needed is in balancing the freedom and authorit y that teachers claim in order to act on the basis of their own expert judgment and the demands of students and parents for a voice in educational decisions tha t will affect them. The conscientious judgment of students and their parents ma y conflict with the professional judgment of teachers on matters such as placeme nt, retention, discipline and curriculum. What are the proper limits to the tea cher's authority when such conflicts arise? How can such conflicts be adjudicat ed in a morally responsible manner? Required reading: Strike and Soltis, The Ethics of Teaching, ch. 3; John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, ch. 2. 3. Equality and Difference (May 7, May 14) The principle that all human beings are equally entitled to our consideration an d respect is fundamental to ethics. But so too is the fair accommodation of dif ferences. How are do we distinguish between the equal and the unequal treatment that justice requires from one situation to another? Teachers are rightly expe cted to ensure a learning environment that is genuinely hospitable to all studen ts, regardless of culture or gender, and including those who are mentally or phy sically disabled. How can anyone be fair in responding to such diverse and con flicting needs? Furthermore, fairness will sometimes appear to conflict with th e ideal of compassion and also with considerations of efficiency. How should te achers respond to such conflicts? Required Reading: Strike and Soltis, chs. 4 and 5; Elizabeth Chamberlain and Bar bara Houston, School Sexual Harassment Policies: the Need for Both Justice and Ca re ; Lawrence Blum, Race, Community, and Moral Education ; Naomi Zack, An Autobiograph ical View of Mixed Race and Deracination ; 4. Indoctrination and the Teaching of Values (May 21, June 3) Teachers are necessarily engaged in the process of moral education at least to t he extent that their conduct in the school (and outside) sets a moral example. But if teachers exert moral influence on their students, how is this to be done in an educationally defensible way? Should teachers shy away from discussion of moral controversies with students? If teachers engage in discussion, should th ey disclose their own views to students or try to remain neutral? How are teac hers to avoid the evil of indoctrination? Martha Nussbaum,; William Hare, Open-Mindedness in Moral Education: Three Contemp orary Approaches ; Cultivating Humanity, ch. 4