The Ethical Reasoning Paper-AP English Case 2011

8/6/2019 The Ethical Reasoning Paper-AP English Case 2011

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-ethical-reasoning-paper-ap-english-case-2011 1/10

1

Krishna Bista/ELAD 8023 ASU-Jonesboro Campus, 2011

Ethical Reasoning Paper: AP English Crisis

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the "AP English Crisis" case through the

lenses of the Ethical Reasoning Model (ERM).

What is Ethical Reasoning Model?

The ethical reasoning model is a process used to make ethical or moral decisions

by examining all possible solutions. It is reasoning about right and wrong human

conduct. Basically, ethical reasoning allows educators "to assess their own ethical values

and the social context of problems, recognize ethical issues in a variety of settings, think

about how different ethical perspectives might be applied to ethical dilemmas and

consider the ramifications of alternative actions" (Ethical Reasoning Value, 2010, p. 1).

The ethical reasoning model promotes ethical solutions that are based on facts not

necessarily on the preferences of the caregiver or educator (Strike, Haller, & Soltis,

1988). This model has the following eight steps:

1) Identify Facts: Recognize all facts related to the case; avoid inclusion of any

opinions; seek facts to identify the problem.

2) Determine Ethical Issue: Discuss major conflicting values; find the essence of

dilemma in the case.

3) Claimants: They are major players in the case. What do they want? Who will be

affected by the decision?

4) Seek Viable Alternative Solutions: Identify all viable alternative actions.



2

5) Apply Focus Lenses: Resolve the dilemma in the case by applying the lenses and

steps such as the equity lens, the individual rights, the utility lens, and the empathy

lens.

6) Priority Principle: Determine the alternative solution is ethical by applying the

priority principle based of Yes or No responses of each lenses.

7) Squirm Test: Analyze the best alternative answering the following questions: Am I

ready to face the stakeholders, colleagues, and family of this decision without

embracement?

8)

Final Decision: Make final decision based on empirical assessment of the case. Donot make decision based on personal values.

AP English Crisis and Steps of Ethical Reasoning Model

The AP English case was related to Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon in 11 th Grade class

at the Gungho High School. A parent of a student wrote a letter to the principal of the

school demanding to stop using the book because he found the language used in the novel

offensive.

Step 1 Identify Facts

The following facts were related to the AP English case-

(1) Dr. Gonzales is the principal of Gungho High School and a deacon in a church.

(2) Dr. Martinez, parent of Maria, wrote a letter demanding to “Cease and desist from

teaching Toni Morrison’s Song of Solomon ".

(3) The novel is unsuitable for high school students, especially for Maria, his seventeen-

year-old daughter.

(4) Dr. Gonzales skimmed the book, noted an explicit language on page 267.



3

(5) Dr. Gonzales reviewed the AP English curriculum and found the novel on the AP

Board reading list.

(6) Dr. Griffin, English teacher, mentioned that all parents were informed about themes

and courses selected in the AP English course.

(7) Dr. Griffin would not substitute this novel with another work.

(8) Dr. Gonzales called a collaborative meeting that very afternoon with the Dr. Griffin;

Mr. Johnson, the director of the AP program; Dr. Mary Sales, the superintendent of

schools; and Dr. Paul French, the district curriculum director.

Step 2 Determine Ethical Problems/Issues The essence of the dilemma is whether the novel Song of Solomon is appropriate for AP

high school students or not. Some of the major conflicting values in the case are:

(1) Is Song of Solomon an appropriate novel to teach students (minors) in 11 th Grade AP

English class?

(2) Should the school stop teaching the well known fiction based on the idea that parents

find it offensive?

(3) Is the language of Song of Solomon sexually explicit and "filthy" as Dr. Martinez

wrote in the letter?

(4) What is the issue of parental expectations and negative publicity in the community?

(5) Is it ethical to teach Song of Solomon for young adolescent students like Mari?

(6) Do students have the right to read books selected for their standard educational value?

(7) Does the English teacher have the freedom to teach the text book selected by the AP

Board?

Step 3 Claimants



4

The major characters from the case are the claimants. The claimants in the AP English

case consist of those who are involved in and are aware of the situation. In the ethical

reasoning frame, it is essential to identify what these claimants want, and who would be

the most affected by the decision in the case when the decision is made.

Claimants of the AP English Case are:

• Dr. Gonzales, the principal

• Dr. Martinez, father of Maria, who wrote letter to Dr. Gonzales

• Maria, 17-year old daughter of Dr. Martinez, 11th grader in AP English

• Dr. Griffin, AP English teacher

• Mr. Johnson, the director of the AP program

• Dr. Sales, the superintendent of schools

• Dr. French, the district curriculum director

• The School and parents in general

What does each of them want in the AP English case?

Dr. Martinez wanted to “Cease and desist from teaching Toni Morrison’s Song of

Solomon by Friday September 1". He did not want his daughter to learn such material

because the novel was "totally unsuitable" for high school students. However, we do not

know the views of Maria or the other students. Dr. Griffin did not want to substitute the

fiction with another work. Dr. Gonzales wanted to make a fair decision so that students,

teachers and parents would continue a mutually relationship.

Dr. Gonzales, the principal, will be affected most as his decision may affect his

relationship with the students, the parents, the teachers. Eventually the school board

members who directly or indirectly involve in the AP English case.



5

Each of these claimants would probably prefer that the situation be handled

somewhat differently. For example, Dr. Griffin may continue teaching the novel if the

decision is made on her side; otherwise she would be disappointed. Dr. Martinez may be

disappointed and might file a lawsuit if the decision is not in his favor. The students in

the school may be affected. There will be a question as to the AP program itself which

had been a success for the past ten years.

Step 4 Alternative Solutions

The possible alternatives in the AP English case are:

1.

Song of Solomon would be moved from the curriculum and be replaced withanother work of fiction.

2. Dr. Griffin would be dismissed from the job and the school would change the AP

English curriculum.

3. The AP curriculum would not be changed, Dr. Griffin would continue to use the

novel, and Maria Martinez could continue in the class or transfer to a regular

English class with the grade she has presently in AP.

To evaluate these three alternatives, educators and leaders should go through the

lenses of the ethical reasoning model to make sure the decision or alternative is

appropriate, moral, and ethical. There are four lenses to evaluate the decision as ethical.

For the purpose of this case, the third alternative is analyzed through the lenses of

the ethical reasoning frame.

Step 5 Focus on Lenses

The third alternative is judged through each of the following lenses:

Lens 1 – Ethic of Care or Obligation



6

Focusing on the lens of care, it is required to evaluate whether care has been given

to each of the claimants---Dr. Martinez, Dr. Griffin, Dr. Gonzales, Mari, parents,

teachers, and the school.

With a decision of continuing to use the novel, Song of Solomon , it provides

proper care for Dr. Griffin, the principal and the school. For Dr. Martinez, Mari would

could continue in the class or transfer to a regular English class with the grade she has

presently.

In the code of ethics, it is stated that Dr. Gonzales as a care giver should "advise

the school board and implement the board's policies and administrative rules andregulations" (AASA Code, 2007). This alternative confirms the right of Dr. Griffin. The

Handbook of the National Education Association (2011) mentioned the ethics of

profession as "Essential to these goals is the protection of freedom to learn and to teach

and the guarantee of equal educational opportunity for all" (p.421) which applies in the

case of Dr. Griffin and her students. In other words, this alternative has positive impacts

on teaching and learning. Dr. Griffin and her colleagues would further encourage

teaching and expressing their ideas freely without any restriction as this alternative falls

under her professional rights.

The bill of right (1999) mentioned "All students and school staff have a right to

learn and work in school districts, schools and classrooms that have clearly stated and

rigorous academic standards." In this sense, the third alternative gives an ethical

permission for Dr. Gonzales to make a fair decision.

Lens 2: Equitable Treatment



7

Choosing the third alternative, the Principal has treated all claimants equitable.

The English teacher has right to teach AP board selected books. Students also have the

right to learn the materials offered in the school. Maria was given the option either to

continue the same class or to transfer to another class. However, it is not told whether

there is another section of English or not! The case also did not mention the actual

classroom interactions of students regarding Song of Solomon .

Lens 3: Individual Rights

The lens of rights indicates there is no potential violation of the ethical rights of

the members involved in this situation. Each of them have the individual right to takepart in the story. The English teacher, for example, has individual and professional right

to teach and express her thoughts in the class. Her professional code of ethic has

guaranteed her right: "All students and school staff have a right to learn and work in

school districts, schools and classrooms that have clearly stated and rigorous academic

standards (Bill of Rights, 1999). The English teacher has informed the parents of her

students in advance. She has followed the AP board guidelines while teaching the course.

The teacher's guide on AP English Literature and Composition has listed Song of

Solomon as required part on its page 72 (Teacher's Guide, 2008). In that scenario, the

English teacher, her students, and the committee have a right to expect their principal, Dr.

Gonzales, to consider the AP recommendations. Further, the principal has an obligation

to listen suggestions from the teachers and the Committee. Dr. Martinez has right to

know about the education of his daughter. The code of ethic says: "The school

administrator will ensure that parents and other community representatives retain their

right to be heard and their concerns shall be given respectful consideration" (AAEA,



8

2007). Acting professionally, the English teacher has informed all parents, including Dr.

Martinez, about the AP reading materials. On the other hand, the rights of the English

teacher, the students, the principal, and the institution have not been violated by this

alternative. Therefore, under the lens of rights, this alternative is ethical.

Lens 4: Utility: Costs or benefits?

This lens deals with benefits versus costs while making a decision with the best

alternative. Benefit provided by this decision did not result in additional cost for the

people involved in the case. In the AP English case, all claimants will receive equal

treatment. The principal, the English teacher, Maria and other students are not disruptedas a result of this alternative.

Lens 5: Empathy: willing for myself

I am comfortable if this would happen to somebody I know or to myself or my

children because there are valid reasons to agree with this decision. For instance, the

novel was selected by a body of educators, and was given special priority in teaching and

learning multicultural literature. There are not any serious negative impacts on society or

claimants of this case as a result of this decision.

Step 6 The Priority Principal

This lens helps determine the alternative solution is ethical by applying the

priority principle based of “yes” or “no” responses of each lenses.

The priority principle does not come into play in this alternative because an

evaluation of the decision indicated that this action was ethical with regard to every lens.

Under the lenses of care, utility, equitable and rights, the decision seems to have been

supported as ethical. All lenses yielded the results that this is probably an ethical



9

decision. Generally, it is suggested to test other alternatives through each of these lenses

before making a final decision, but in this case I chose the third alternative.

Step 7 Squirm Test

The squirm test checks the reliability of the decision. This test possesses questions

such as: Am I comfortable with this decision? Am I being able to face the stakeholders,

colleagues, and family of this decision without embracement?

I believe this alternative is the best among all. I am not shamed of this decision. I

am fully convinced on my ethical decision, and comfortable with sharing the conclusion.

Step 8 Final Decision

By considering the third alternative as a final decision, it would be a lower risk

alternative. It deals with most ethical behaviors that include the concerns of teachers,

students and parents.

In conclusion, it is important to note that this decision is valid in this case only. It

may not be suitable if other alternatives are considered through the steps of ethical

reasoning frame. Additionally, one must attempt to complete the process of evaluation of

any decision with an open mind understanding. It is important to remember that there

may likely be other courses of actions that are as ethical and possible better alternatives

to the specific situation.



10

References

A Bill of Rights and Responsibilities for Learning (1999). Standards of Conduct,

Standards for Achievement . American Federation of Teachers: Washington, D.C.

American Association of School Administrators (AASA) Statement of Ethics for

Educational Leaders. (2007). Code of Ethics, AASA Governing Board.

Retrieved from

http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=10544&terms=AASA's

Ethical reasoning value (2010). Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Retrieved from www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/pdf/ethicalreasoning.pdf Code of Ethics of the Education Profession (2011). National Education Association

Handbook 2011 .Washington, D.C.: National Education Association of the United

States, 421-423.

Strike, K., Haller, E., & Soltis, J. (1988). The ethics of social administration . New York:

Teachers College, Columbia University.

Teacher's Guide (2008). AP English literature and composition . San Francisco,

California: CollegeBoard. Retrieved from

www.mshogue.com/AP/ap_syllabus_07.pdf

The Ethical Reasoning Paper-AP English Case 2011

Documents

Transcript of The Ethical Reasoning Paper-AP English Case 2011