Jeffrey Glanz (glanz@yu.edu) is Professor of Education at the Azrieli Graduate School of Yeshiva University (teaching online from Israel, where he now lives), and is also Head of the MS Program of Educational Administration at Michlala-Jerusalem College. His major interests are instructional supervision, action research, and educational leadership.
Introduction
Insufficient attention and research has been given to aspects related to moral/ethical leadership among school leaders despite the fact that in recent years several researchers have demonstrated the importance of morality and ethics in the work of principals (see, e.g., Hester, 2003; Strike, Haller, & Soltis, 2005). Ethical and moral leadership are viewed as critical for building effective schools and sustaining learning communities (e.g., Starratt, 2003). Without an ethical and moral stance, a leader will lead perfunctorily, without “soul” (Bolman & Deal, 1995).
Closely aligned with research into these moral and ethical dimensions is analysis of fundamental sources of authority for the work of principals in schools. Sergiovanni (1992) characterized administrative or supervisory policies and practices based on one or a combination of four general sources of authority: bureaucratic, personal, professional, and moral. School leaders who most fundamentally rely on hierarchy, rules, and standard operational procedures for their authority to effectively run their schools emphasize the bureaucratic frame. Leaders who base their organizational decisions on a personal frame seek to utilize personality traits such as charisma, as well as techniques related to interpersonal social dynamics. Other school leaders emphasize formal professional codes of behavior rather than bureaucratic or personal sources for their authority. According to Sergiovanni and Starratt (2007), however, school leaders are not as readily cognizant of moral authority as a basis for their authority.
Campbell (1992) found that school leaders are indeed not aware of the moral or ethical aspect of their work. She concluded that principals denied that the challenges they faced on a daily basis were ethical in nature; instead, they attributed their work as being strategic, administrative, professional, political, and, or procedural. Other researchers confirm that leaders do not consider their decisions and actions from an ethical frame (see, e.g., Mahoney, 2006; Starratt, 2004). Ethics is viewed, at best, as a subterranean consideration, but not practically relevant as a source of authority (Sergiovanni, 1992) or as a decision making factor (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2005). More succinctly, extant research indicates that school leaders lack ethical literacy related to their work in school leadership (see, e.g., Begley & Johanson, 2003; Bennis & Rhode, 2006; Cherrington & Cherrington, 2000; Shapiro & Gross, 2007; Stohr Isaacson, 2007).
Fundamentally, I wanted to research the extent to which Jewish day school principals in the U.S. were cognizant of the ethical dimensions of their work as principals.
This article briefly summaries a study that utilized a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire included a variety of challenges or activities that principals perform on a weekly, if not daily, basis. In order to ascertain their awareness of the ethical dimension of their roles, respondents were asked to identify fundamental issues or factors underlying the understanding and resolution of the given scenarios or situations.
Method
The sample, drawn in 2010, was comprised of schools (elementary, middle, and high schools) generated from the nationwide school database of the Institute for Educational Partnerships and Applied Research at Yeshiva University. A total of eighty-two Jewish day school leaders responded to the anonymous two-part questionnaire (this article only reviews findings from part one). I also conducted seven interviews with principals (volunteers) in order to ascertain deeper insights into ethical decision making among principals.
The questionnaire (e-mail me for a copy) was constructed specifically for this study. Scenarios used in the questionnaire are based on lived experiences of school leaders as reflected in the vast literature on the school principalship (thanks to Rabbi Eliezer Rubin, Principal of Kushner Yeshiva High School, for his assistance in constructing some scenarios). Additionally, scenarios reflected a consensus in the literature on ethical and moral school leadership. In other words, each scenario entails a clear moral or ethical issue for school leaders based on case information (not the actual scenarios or cases) found in the literature. The questionnaire was developed to determine the extent to which school leaders can identify or acknowledge the ethical dimensions of each scenario.
Specifically, participants were asked to read 14 short scenarios of varying length, and carefully choose which of 11 fundamental issues (see below) are necessary in understanding and resolving the case as presented in each scenario. They were asked to rank the issues in order of priority (1 being most important, 2 less important, etc.), and were asked to only choose those issues that they deemed most relevant to resolving the scenario. The overarching question each respondent was encouraged to contemplate in completing the questionnaire was, “What are the underlying fundamental issues that will help me understand and resolve the scenario?” Below is an excerpt from the directions:
The overarching question each respondent should ask when reading each scenario is, “What is the underlying fundamental issue(s) that will help me understand and resolve the scenario?”
Fundamental issue(s): Choose among the following 11 issues:
- Administrative (issues related to school standards, procedures, rules, regulations, or bureaucratic requirements in operational management of a school)
- Curricular (issues related to the course of study or learning experiences of students in and out of the school)
- Economic (issues involving fiscal matters)
- Ethical/Moral (issues involving deeply held values or beliefs on how to act and the decisions of right-wrong actions or reflections about the adequacy of values and beliefs)
- Legal (issues involving the law, the courts, and the legal system)
- Pedagogical (issues related to teaching or related activities in the classroom)
- Personal/Interpersonal (issues involving relationships with individuals, as opposed to groups or agencies, as in the sociological dimension)
- Political (issues involving authority to act, decision-making, vested interests, and power relations)
- Professional (issues related to professional norms or codes of behavior)
- Psychological (issues involving personality or intrapersonal dimensions of human thought and behavior)
- Sociological (issues involving relationships with other groups in the school or in the larger community)
Eighty-two school leaders responded to Survey Monkey to complete the questionnaires. Almost half identified themselves as principals and almost 24% as school heads. Among the remaining 27.5%, most were identified as assistant principals. Most respondents were at the high school level with responsibilities for both Judaic and Secular studies. Some (3.8%) participants were neither designated as Judaic or secular, but with “overall’ responsibilities in their schools.
Brief summary of results
The main part of the questionnaire (part one) asked respondents to select among 11 fundamental issues in response to reading 14 cases presented in scenarios. Note that each scenario as explained above dealt most fundamentally with an ethical or moral issue, as reflected in the literature of educational leadership (see, e.g., Kowalski, 2004; Sergiovanni, 2009; Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2005). Given the embedded ethical and moral undertones of each scenario, respondents were expected to identify the “ethical/moral” issue among the first three choices of their selection.
Due to space limitations I cannot review, in detail, findings for each category or scenario. Therefore, a brief summary follows that indicates the degree to which respondents, as educational leaders, were able to identify the ethical/moral issue embedded in a few representative scenarios (readers who would like more complete results please e-mail me).
Scenario #1.
Moshe (Moses) is a student with moderate learning disabilities. To what extent should he be mainstreamed into general educational classrooms?
Main conclusion from Scenario #1: Interestingly, the “pedagogical” choice had the highest percentage of respondents of any category. Although other interesting results can be cited for each scenario, the research summaries that follow will focus only on the top three “most important” selections, highlighting, the “ethical/moral” choice, wherever selected. An overwhelming majority of respondents did not consider the scenario an ethical/moral issue.
Scenario #2.
Sarah is a high needs student who always requests explanations or clarifications from the classroom teacher. The teacher is conflicted: does he neglect the class by responding to the persistent student or does he pay less attention to her questions based on the agreement that she did not follow (i.e., to see him after class).
Main conclusion from Scenario #2: An overwhelming majority of respondents did not consider the scenario an ethical/moral issue.
Scenario #4.
The school principal interrupts classes with PA announcements from time to time.
Main conclusion from Scenario #4: An overwhelming majority of respondents did not consider the scenario an ethical/ moral issue. In fact, this scenario – with significant ethical undertones – ranked lowest among all scenarios in terms of the rankings (see the Discussion section of this article).
Scenario #6.
During a Shabbaton, students in a casual conversation with the teacher share that Joanna has eating disorders. The teacher enjoys a very warm and personal relationship with her students. Understanding her role as an educator, she explains to them the following morning that she must share their suspicions with the school psychologist. The students realize that they should not have confided in her. They tell her that she does not have their permission to share their suspicions with the school administration or the school psychologist.
Main conclusion from Scenario #6: An overwhelming majority of respondents did consider the scenario an ethical/moral issue.
Scenario #9.
A principal punishes a class for the infractions of a few students by keeping them all in detention for one hour after school.
Main conclusion from Scenario #9: An overwhelming majority of respondents did consider the scenario an ethical/moral issue, yet a significant percentage of respondents thought it was an administrative issue as well.
Scenario #10.
The school head of a Jewish day school, a male, prefers a male assistant principal and therefore doesn’t even interview any of the female applicants.
Main conclusion from Scenario #10: An overwhelming majority of respondents did consider the scenario an ethical/moral issue.
Scenario #11.
Some Sefaradi students who attend a predominantly Ashkenazi school complain to the principal, an Ashkenazi, that the school’s curriculum doesn’t offer enough discussion of Sefaradi minhagim and halakhot. Hearing their concerns, he institutes a morning shaharit minyan for Sefaradi students only. Students are still dissatisfied.
Main conclusion from Scenario #11: Less than a majority of respondents considered the scenario an ethical/moral issue.
Scenario #14.
A high school principal hears rumors, albeit from unreliable sources, that he will be asked to step down at the end of the year. He decides to take an offensive move and request that the Board offer him a raise for the following year. In his mind, if he doesn’t get the raise he will resign. In the meanwhile he will put his “ears to the ground” about another principalship elsewhere. 53.8% 55.8% 63.4% 76.9%
Main conclusion from Scenario #14: Although in fourth place, a majority of respondents did consider the scenario an ethical/ moral issue.
Narrative results of interviews
Seidman’s (2006) methodology in regards to interviewing guided this study. Semi-structured interviews were employed because I knew each of the educational leaders interviewed and it was thought such an approach would best facilitate dialogue. The goal was to enhance conversation giving both parties an opportunity to discuss ideas freely (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). The Interview Protocol consisted of several questions geared toward eliciting paragraph length discourse about their background, experiences with leadership challenges and ethics in particular. Some of the more important questions asked included:
12. Can you please tell me, in as much detail as you would like, about the nature of the challenges you face as an educational leader in a Jewish day school?
13. What factors help you make the decisions you make? Please explain and provide an example or two.
14. To what degree do you consider your work ethical or moral? Please explain. 15. What kinds of ethical or moral decisions do you face and how do you deal with them?
16. Do you think other school leaders operate from an ethical/ moral stance? Why or why not?
Two of the interviewees were high school principals of day schools, both of whom did not partake in the questionnaire part of the study. One was a male principal in New Jersey, the other female principal in New York City, both of whom had extensive experience as principals. One interviewee was an experienced elementary school principal who also did not participate in the Survey Monkey process. Three interviewees served as assistant or associate principals in day schools in the NY metropolitan area, all with less experience in administration. The last interviewee, who partook in the Survey Monkey questionnaire, served as a director in a day school.
Interviewees were consistent in their responses to questions about leadership challenges they faced. The following themes emerged from the data:
1. Challenges come from many quarters and are, sometimes, intractable.
2. Leadership is unpredictable and contextual.
3. Leaders utilize a plethora of perspectives in dealing with crises.
4. Personal judgment is the strongest factor in making decisions.
5. Ethical behavior is fundamental to the work of an educational leader.
6. Ethics emerges from an interaction between personal values and community/contextual factors.
7. No one ethical stance is possible.
8. Ethics emerge from a personal, religious basis.
9. Family and religious conviction serves as anchors.
10. Ethics is subterranean and emerges, most often, unconsciously.
11. Jewish day school colleagues are, by in large, genuine, hardworking, and ethical, even though the challenges are difficult and no one answer is always foreseen.
12. Educators, in general, are ethical given the nature of their work and sense of idealism.
13. There is no consensus on what is or should be ethical.
14. It’s impossible to train someone to act ethically.
Discussion and conclusion
Our data do not thoroughly support the lack of ethical literacy supported in the literature review. Although ethical sensitivity may vary from school leader to school leader, these leaders in Jewish schools are grounded in their work, convictions, and sense of ethics. As one high school principal related, “We educators go into the field because we want to help society… to make a difference . . . to teach them right from wrong.” Another leader posited, “A sense of justice guides my actions. I am there to do what is right, honest, fair… treating every teacher with respect and professionalism.” An elementary school principal said, “Ethics forms the core for all my actions…. Why? Because I went into this field to do good.” Almost all of the school leaders who were interviewed were vociferous in their commitment to ethics in leadership. They seemed to echo what some in the field call “principle-centered leadership.” Kaser, Mundry, Stiles, and Loucks-Horsley (2006) explain that “… principle-centered leaders operate in alignment with ‘self-evident, self-validating natural laws.’ These include such basic principles as fairness, equity, justice, honesty, trust, integrity, and service. These principles point the way for leaders” (p. 26). Two interviewees quoted Judaic texts to underscore their sense of ethics. One quoted Deuteronomy 16:20, “You shall relentlessly pursue justice and righteousness,” while another explained the difference between tzedek (justice) and emet (truth). “Emet (truth),” she said, “is when as principal I must make my decision based on school policy… Tzedek (justice), however, is about the morally right thing to do… you can call it ‘ethics’… You can’t go by the letter of the law.”
This major finding stands in sharp contrast to some other published research in the field attributed to Campbell (1992; 1997), Mahoney (2006), and Starratt (2004), among others, all of whom assert or infer that school leaders do not consider ethics the core that drives their actions and decision making.
Certainly, this study reported in this article is limited in size and scope and additional research is needed. Still, respondents and interviewees seemed ethically literate.
Observations and tentative explanations
The work of educational leaders is fraught with tensions, contradictions, and challenges. No unitary plan or single-minded perspective is possible to apply to their work so that seemingly intractable problems are easily resolved. One does not go into education, as noted by several interviewees, expecting equilibrium or nostrums for the challenges encountered. A principal who, as stated in scenario #9, punishes an entire class for the infractions of a few students may rationalize her actions by relying on preestablished school policy or presumed benefits (i.e., lessons) for all involved. Respondents to the scenario in this study correctly identified the ethical/moral issue embedded in the case. One of the associate principals who was interviewed stated that “although the case has ethical overtones… my decision would be to indeed punish the class because I feel I am dutifully and ethically bound to uphold school policy that permits such action. … After all,” she continued, “we are trying to nurture a community of re sponsible citizens, and we all have to care for each other.” Yet another interviewee, hearing the previous response (anonymously of course), reacted strongly in opposition to such “behavior and rationalizations.” “How foolish,” he explained, “to rationalize actions that punish the innocent for a presumed positive effect. … The ends don’t justify the means here. … Now, to me, that’s unethical.”
So while participants of this study were able to discern the importance of ethics in dealing with problems or issues that naturally and inevitably arise, they may differ on which course of action should be taken. Profound differences in point of view are rarely gratuitous. For one person, the issue of punishing the many for the infractions of a few may be fair, even, and just, while for another, such action may be deemed oppressive and unwarranted. This study did not take such a nuanced approach in examining ethical literacy among school leaders. Perhaps, such an investigation is an outgrowth of the present study. In a few other scenarios respondents did not easily spot ethical dilemmas or concerns. For instance, scenario #4 (“The school principal interrupts classes with PA announcements from time to time.”), was considered overwhelmingly an administrative function, not an ethical one. All interviewees concurred with the administrative necessity of PA announcements. One principal said quite emphatically, “I’m the principal and I must make important announcements occasionally… I can’t very well administer a survey requesting input from teachers whether or not my announcement is necessary; it’s my call.” When queried about possible implications or implicit messages sent to teachers and students by PA announcements, most interviewed leaders remained adamant that the issue had little to do with ethics. One assistant principal admitted that “perhaps we don’t respect teachers and students when we barge into their classrooms unannounced, without at least knocking first. . . . Maybe, when we make announcements, we should preface our remarks by saying, like, uh, ‘Forgive the interruption, etc., etc.’” School leaders view ethics from their social situation (Berger & Luckman, 1967), without enough attention to the social situations of others.
Overwhelmingly, though, school leaders in this study demonstrated their “ethical literacy” by identifying many of the scenarios as such as well as ranking “ethics” among the most influential factors for guiding their actions. Participants who were interviewed spoke of issues of equity, equality, honesty, respect, trust, and fairness as important for leading their schools. In conclusion, this study affirms the vitality and import of the work of Jewish day school leaders as they confront the unique challenges in Jewish education. Their moral convictions and ethical principles serve as anchors as they deal with unpredictable and seemingly intractable problems. Their work is at once strategic, administrative, professional, and political. They must remain cognizant of curricular, legal, psychological, economic, sociological, pedagogical, and personal factors that impinge on their efforts. Above all, this research demonstrates that Jewish school leaders who participated in this study do not take for granted the ethical and moral frame that guides their beliefs and actions.
References
Begley, P. T., & Johanson, O. (2003). The ethical dimensions of school leadership. New York: Springer.
Bennis, W., & D. L. Rhode. (2006). Moral leadership: The theory and practice of power, judgment, and policy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Free Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal T. E. (1995). Leading with soul: An uncommon journey. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, E. (1992). Personal morals and organizational ethics: How teachers and principals cope with conflicting values in the context of school cultures. Unpublished dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada.
Campbell, E. (1997). Ethical school leadership: Problems of an elusive role. Journal of School Leadership, 7(3), 287-300.
Cherrington, J. O., & Cherrington, D. S. (2000). Moral leadership and ethical decision making. Provo, UT: CHC Forecast.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Hester, J. P. (2003). Ethical leadership for school administrators and teachers. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc.
Kaser, J., Mundry, S., Stiles, K. E., & Loucks-Horsle, S. (2006). Leading every day: 124 actions for effective leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kowalski, T. J. (2004). Case studies in educational administration (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Mahoney, D. (2006). Ethics and the school administrator: Balancing today’s complex issues. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Seidman, I. E. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2009). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1992). Moral authority and the regeneration of supervision. In C. Glickman (Ed.), Supervision in transition. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sergiovanni, T. J. & Starratt, R. J. (2007). Supervision: A redefinition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Shapiro, J. P. & Gross, S. J. (2007). Ethical leadership in turbulent times: (Re) solving moral dilemmas. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shapiro, J. P. & Stefkovich, J. A. (2005). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Starratt, R. J. (2003). A perspective on ethical educational leadership: An ethics of presence. In F. C. Lunenburg & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Shaping the future: Policy, partnerships and emerging perspectives. Lanham, MD: ScarecrowEducation.
Starratt, R. J. (2004). Ethical Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stohr Isaacson, L. (2007). The principal’s purpose: A practical guide to moral and ethical school leadership. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Strike, K. A., Haller, E. J., & Soltis, J. F. (2005). The ethics of school administration. New York: Teachers College Press.