Learning Task Two: The Ethics Assignment Option A

Itoro Ruth, 30036794

EDUC 525: Ethics and The Law

University of Calgary
 The Hypothetical Scenario

You are a grade 7 first-year teacher. A student named Bart Simpson in your class

consistently comes to school without a lunch or snacks ever since the beginning of the school

year and it is November. While there is a lunch program at the school, recent budget cuts have

reduced the food available, and the student is still hungry, so you started buying food for him to

eat. It began as supplementary snacks, but when the student was still hungry, you started

buying enough food to be considered as a meal. The student accesses the breakfast and lunch

program, and the extra food you bought, and you have noticed that the student is much more

available for learning. Other students in the class have begun to ask for extra food as well,

saying that your food is better than the lunch program’s. Buying enough food for the whole class

would have an enormous impact on your income. What do you do?

Applying the Nine-Step Framework

1. Compile information about the case to be clear about the factual information.

The facts of the case are outlined above.

2. Consider the various participants.

The participants are: the teachers, students, parents, and administrative staff; should

this case involve neglect, a school counselor, psychologist, and Child and Family Services

may need to be involved.

3. Identify and define the ethical problem to gain conceptual clarity.

The ethical problems at play are that dignity and respect of circumstances conflict with

treating students without prejudice. Section 1 of the ATA code (2019a) states that students

must be treated fairly without prejudice against socioeconomic background, while Section 4

states that teachers must “treat students with dignity and respect and [be] considerate of

their circumstances” (n.p.). The circumstance of one student coming to school hungry is
 leading the teacher to buy food for him; however, giving one student food and not others

brings into question equality and fairness for all, without prejudice. Furthermore, section 19

of the code states that “the teacher does not engage in activities which adversely affect the

quality of the teacher’s professional service” (n.p.). Feeding many students every day is

causing the teacher financial distress, so it is crossing a professional boundary, and

ultimately the teacher’s fundamental duty is to educate, not feed students. Yet, section 2 of

the code discusses the importance of diagnosing educational needs, and clearly Bart does

better when he is fed.

4. Identify some options beyond doing/not doing a particular action.

Some actionable options are: allow students to brainstorm ideas to solve the problem,

apply to various community programs such as Meals on Wheels or a food bank, inform the

school administration about the problem so they can proffer a solution, or educate class

about the difference between needs and wants to assess whether students are hungry or

just wanting preferred snacks. The teacher should be sensitive to not divulge personal

financial information, or any action that could otherize Bart.

5. Do a theoretical analysis of your options.

Virtue Approach. Virtue Ethics “relates to predispositions of the person’s character

which have developed over time and resulted in. . . exemplifying virtuous character” (Donlevy &

Walker, 2010, n.p.) This explains why the teacher purchased the food to begin with. A virtuous

teacher would not deny other students based on presumed-economic welfare. Virtue ethics is

concerned with phronesis, or practical wisdom: “[concerning] all the pre-existing elements, the

contextual factors, and the consequences to [everyone affected by] the decision.” (Donlevy &

Walker, 2010, n.p.) As a new teacher, the decision lacked this wisdom due to the teacher

neglecting the pre-existing elements to other students affected. According to Donlevy & Walker

(2010) there exists four classic/cardinal, virtues: “prudence (wisdom), justice (fairness), fortitude

(courage), and temperance (self-control).” (n.p.) While it could be argued that acquiescence to
students’ desire to have food would lack the latter tenet, the initial virtue was concerned with

fairness; that is, giving food. Creating a virtuous environment would be paramount since, as

Bode (1937) notes, “[e]very aspect of a school is, in some sense, involved in teaching values, a

point too little appreciated and too often forgotten.” (as cited in Bullough Jr., 2011, p. 26)

“Teachers have the right to expect standards of pupil behavior necessary for maintaining

an optimal learning environment and have the responsibility to use reasonable methods to

achieve such standards.” (Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2019b, n.p.). Consequently, the

teacher has a duty to provide the hungry student with extra food, as doing so enables him to

achieve the expected standards of pupil behavior, regardless of the resulting-economic impact.

This maxim is upheld within the ATA’s regulatory framework, and is a moral code that must be

adhered to, meaning the teacher has acted morally - or virtuously, for this teacher - in providing

the food to the hungry student.

Postmodernist Approach. The postmodernist approach suggests that ethics are

ambiguous and one cannot make an ethical decision until presented with an ethical dilemma

(Donlevy, 2019). Furthermore, postmodernism asserts that taking a moral stance means to take

responsibility for the Other: in this case, Bart. Ultimately, the teacher is empathizing with Bart,

acting as a care-giver, and reacting where he is unable to due to potential financial strains. This

theory argues that “[acting] on the assumption that the well-being of the Other [human] is a

precious thing calling for my effort” (Hugman, 2003, p.1027). Therefore, the teacher’s

compassionate interjection to Bart’s suffering was morally necessary. The teacher assumes an

existential moral stance in providing a solution to Bart’s situation rather than expecting the

school administration to fix the problem (Walker & Donlevy, 2006).

Deontological Approach. The deontological perspective asserts that one’s ethical

conduct is determined by following moral and social codes, regardless of the consequences

(Walker & Donlevy, 2006). Ethical conduct is, as Kant claims, universalizable, so every action

that someone takes in a situation must always be taken in similar situations. This phenomenon
is called the categorical imperative, as Kant describes, “[one must a]ct only on that maxim

whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (1785, p. 21).

Ultimately, there is no arbitrary area, the moral code is either being followed or disrupted.

However, issues arise as the other students seek out this same treatment. The teacher

is not aware if these students are experiencing the same kind of needs as Bart, thus making the

grounds of morality unclear. This parallels with the Golden Condition, wherein Kant claims that

humans are an ends within themselves, and should not be treated as a means to an ends

(Walker & Donlevy, 2006); in other words, treat others with the same level of dignity and respect

as you would expect in return. Therefore the teacher is abiding by the golden condition and

following section 4 in the ATA code by “[treating] pupils with dignity and respect [and being]

considerate of their circumstances”

Comparing the different schools of thoughts. Virtue ethics and post-modernism are

interconnected as they both affirm that an individual decision is based on one’s positionality and

are premised under assessing situations and reacting morally. Both schools of thought suggest

that a person’s behaviour is determined by situational and personable values respectively. The

decision for this ethical dilemma would lead to the same conclusion based on both schools, but

with different processes to arrive at that conclusion. In contrast, the deontological perspective

asserts that one’s ethical goodness is determined by following moral code irrespective of the

consequences on oneself.

6. Consider your role as a teacher and considerations that relate specifically to teaching.

In the profession of teaching in Alberta, there is a duty of care that educators must practice.

Educators can not teach their students if basic human needs are unmet; students may not be

able to learn the curriculum if they are hungry. Therefore, teachers can provide snacks for their

students in order to maintain an optimal learning environment.

7. Educate yourself as time permits

At this point, the teacher has now been providing food for nearly four months. In the

interest of time, teachers could begin by meeting Bart’s parents or guardians as soon as

possible to discuss the situation and find out more. We must determine that Bart was not being

neglected or abused at home to rule out a call to Child and Family Services. Next, the teacher

would contact administration and determine if there are funds available. Furthermore, the

teacher could reach out and apply to community programs.

8. Make the decision

Gathering the funds to feed the entire classroom would be an economic and time-

constraining stressor on the educator. In section 10 of the Declaration of Rights and

Responsibilities (ATA, 2019b), it states that “teachers, collectively and collegially, have the right

to: be members of the organization representing their professional, economic, and contractual

concerns” (n.p.). Therefore, given this analysis, we collectively decided to implement the Post-

Modernist approach and would continue to provide the child with nutritious snacks with the

intention of using funds from elsewhere. It is essential to always prioritize the student’s well

being, and as school boards have this priority as well, the teacher must speak up to get

appropriate funding.

9. Decide how to evaluate and follow up on your decision.

Following the decision, a follow-up meeting with parents, teachers and administration will

take place to assess the effectiveness of the solution. Steps will be taken toward accessing

fundraising, whether it be from the government, a local restaurant, or a non-profit community

program.
 References

Alberta Teachers’ Association. (2019a). Code of Professional Conduct. Retrieved from

https://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/Publications/Teachers-as-

Professionals/IM-4E%20Code%20of%20Professional%20Conduct.pdf

Alberta Teachers’ Association. (2019b). Declaration of Rights and Responsibilities for Teachers.

Retrieved from

https://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/Publications/Teachers-as-

Professionals/IM-5E%20Declaration%20of%20Rights.pdf

Donlevy, J.K., & Walker, K.W. (2010). Working through ethics in education: Two plays and ethical

analysis. Netherlands: Sense Publications. Retrieved from

https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/277365/viewContent/3627228/View

Donlevy, J. K. (2019, October 15). EDUC 525 ethics and the law [PowerPoint presentation]. Retrieved

from https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/277365/Home

Hugman, R. (2003). Professional Values and Ethics in Social Work: Reconsidering Postmodernism?

British Journal of Social Work, 33(8), 1025-1041. Retrieved from

https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/10.1093/bjsw/33.8.1025

Kant, I. (1785). Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (T. K. Abbott, Trans.). Minerola,

New York: Dover Publications, Inc.

Walker K. W., & Donlevy, J. K. (2006). Beyond relativism to ethical decision-making. Journal of School

Leadership, 16(3), 216–239.

https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/doi/pdf/10.1177/105268460601600301