Running head: ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
The Ethical Decision-Making Approach
of an Assistant Principal
Jeffrey M. Oberg
Virginia Commonwealth University
1
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
2
The Ethical Decision-Making Approach of an Assistant Principal
How do leaders make difficult ethical decisions that anger some, yet still stay in favor?
How does a leader inform someone about an ethical decision that will cause that person distress
but still enable the person to come away from the exchange tempered? How does a leader
convince people, or a person, that the ethical decision made was the right thing to do? Political
savvy or charisma could be one answer, experience and/or education could be another. These
questions will be considered as the discipline decision-making process of a high school assistant
principal is analyzed.
Decision-Making and the Preferred Philosophical Framework
In a public high school, the assistant principal is the main disciplinarian. A school
division’s Code of Student Conduct gives the assistant principal this authority. The Code of
Student Conduct is formed from a Utilitarianism perspective. This philosophy’s motto states,
“do the greatest good for the greatest number of people” (Johnson, 2012, p. 154). This
philosophy’s strength lies in its ability to clearly state rules of behavior to thousands of students
across several schools. This concept is used within a school as well, as an assistant principal
must apply the Code to hundreds of students. Additionally, the Utilitarian approach serves this
document well due to its frequent use.
One could argue that an ethical assistant principal would approach educational leadership
from the same Utilitarian philosophy. It would stand to reason that assistant principals follow
the lead of the philosophy behind the formation of the Code of Student Conduct because they
have to make equitable, firm, fair, and consistent decisions for hundreds of students. This finds
the assistant principal vested in this document’s growth. However, sometimes the assistant
principal must be creative within the structure of the Code as instances do arise where undesired
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
3
student conduct does not exactly align with specifications in the Code. Here, the Utilitarian
philosophy’s cookie cutter approach becomes a weakness, and the assistant principal must seek
alternate philosophies.
When an assistant principal faces a situation where creativity within the structure of the
Code must be used, one possible approach could be to consider the principles of Justice as
Fairness. The philosophy behind this concept involves making the same decision for everyone
who falls into this new or different category (Johnson, 2012). Constituents want guaranteed
equal rights, and if the assistant principal applies consistency, the perception will be the fairness
they seek. Used properly, this can be a strength of this philosophy.
However, here again exceptions to the rule become factors in decision-making. Justice as
Fairness also includes helping those who have the greatest need. By definition, special education
students have a greater need, and assistant principals sometimes alter consequences for these
students. Thus, when constituents scrutinize an assistant principal’s decisions, inconsistencies
could be noticed. This exposes a weakness of the philosophy where constituents will disagree
with the assistant principal about the meaning of justice and fairness (Johnson, 2012).
This leads assistant principals to another alternate philosophy of ethical decision-making,
Communitarianism. Johnson (2012) defined Communitarianism as shouldering one’s
responsibilities and seeking the common good. When assistant principals must be creative and
apply exceptions to the rules in the name of justice and fairness, they shoulder their
responsibilities. Yet, when there is a need, the assistant principal can play to the strengths of
Communitarianism and collaborate with others to come up with a creative and fair student
consequence. Likewise, assistant principals seek the common good in respect to the fact that
different students can require different consequences. What matters is that the consequence
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
4
changes the undesired student behavior. However, assistant principals and leadership teams need
to remember to keep an open mind in order to avoid a weakness of Communitarianism where an
exclusive set of values may form and be promoted (Johnson, 2012).
Then, there is the occasion when an assistant principal will use the philosophical
framework of Altruism, or love your neighbor (Johnson, 2012). The love of working with
children could be a reason a person decides to pursue school administration as a profession. The
truest form of Altruism explains helping others whatever the personal cost. This application in
relation to the assistant principal position involves making a decision that benefits the student.
When students know the assistant principal genuinely cares for them, a powerful bond is created.
This is a strength of Altruism (Johnson, 2012).
While it is noble of an assistant principal to love students, assistant principals still err. As
long as the error favors the student, the assistant principal will still be seen as acting in an ethical
manner. However, this could still upset other students, parents, teachers, and staff. This
highlights a negative side of Altruism, the inability to meet everybody’s needs (Johnson, 2012).
This means a decision might not be popular. Thus, the assistant principal must remain confident
in the decision as long as it is made in the best interest of the student.
This leads to the final ethical decision-making framework called Kant’s Categorical
Imperative which is defined as, “Do what’s right no matter what the cost” (Johnson, 2012, p.
158). This philosophy can be viewed from several angles. If the assistant principal’s decision
will cost his or her career, self-preservation will caution the leader from following through with
the decision. If the decision is made no matter the cost to the student, the student’s behavior has
to have been so egregious that the decision is warranted. This philosophical framework finds its
strength in quick, easy, precise, and consistent decision-making.
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
5
However, even the most severe student behaviors require thorough investigation and
serious consideration before a consequence decision is made. When investigation causes debate
and posturing over the correct consequence for a student’s behavior, then one or more of the
other philosophical frameworks are usually considered. Kant’s Categorical Imperative portrays
itself as a “zero tolerance” philosophy. Public Schools do not have “zero tolerance” policies
anymore as there are always exceptions to every rule. These weaknesses find this decisionmaking philosophy used the least.
Assistant principals must make difficult student discipline decisions. To come to these
decisions, many factors must be considered. Discipline decisions are a delicate balance between
rules, regulations, policies, procedures, needs of the student, wants of the parents, sense of right
and wrong by teachers and staff, and the values, ethics, and morals of the assistant principal.
This is why when assistant principals make discipline decisions they cannot rely on just one
philosophical framework. The ethical decision-making approach is multifaceted. If good
leadership requires leaders to use different leadership styles to lead people or organizations
according to the challenges presented, then likewise, good leadership requires leaders to apply
different ethical decision-making philosophies to best fit the situation.
Decision-Making and the Four Ethical Perspectives
Even before an assistant principal receives a discipline referral, he or she must be
knowledgeable about the laws, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. When the time
comes, knowledge of such items will lead to their proper application and a sound decision. This,
as an ethical perspective, is called the ethic of justice (Shapiro & Gross, 2008). When the
assistant principal arrives at a decision, this decision must be supported by the laws, rules,
regulations, policies, and/or procedures of the county, state, or federal government. Most
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
6
certainly, the assistant principal will need to justify the decision to constituents and/or a
supervisor.
When the assistant principal receives a discipline referral, the first consideration involves
discerning the accuracy of the written report. Did this incident actually occur, and did it occur as
it is written? Is the incident written out of emotion? Is the incident described correctly? Is the
incident understood correctly by the assistant principal? These are critical questions that lead the
decision maker to the appropriate decision. This is the first level of ethic of critique (Shapiro &
Gross, 2008).
The next level of ethic of critique involves an analysis of the assistant principal’s
decision. Did the assistant principal appear to know the laws, rules, regulations, policies, and
procedures? Did the assistant principal apply them correctly? The checks and balances concept
inherent within the ethic of critique is a subtle way constituents can respectfully challenge
authority. Some assistant principals might not be comfortable with this scrutiny, but veterans
understand it is necessary in order to show constituents the reasoning behind the decision
(Shapiro & Gross, 2008).
Once an assistant principal’s decision comes from sound law, rules, regulations, policies,
and procedures, there are still more questions to consider before the decision is implemented.
Will this decision help or hurt the student? What message will this decision send to other
students? What will teachers, staff, and constituents imply from this decision? The assistant
principal’s discipline decision is made, with these questions in mind, to change the students’
undesired behaviors. When these questions are considered in order to help an assistant principal
make a discipline decision, the ethic of care is the ethical perspective being used (Shapiro &
Gross, 2008).
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
7
Finally, one of the responsibilities of an assistant principal is reflecting on the
appropriateness of the decisions made. Again, this involves asking a series of questions. Is the
decision on par with the standards of the high school educational leader profession? Would
someone else holding the same position, given the same information, make the same decision?
Can this decision be defended to the supervisor? Even if the answer to all these questions is yes,
is it the right decision for the student? Is it the correct decision for the school or community?
This last decision-making analysis comes from the ethic of profession (Shapiro & Gross, 2008).
Although some assistant principal discipline decisions are standard, none are routine.
Arguably, a constituent will not be as upset about a student discipline decision that results in a
detention. However, a discipline decision involving an out of school suspension increases the
chances that a constituent will debate the decision while also increasing the likelihood of an
appeal. This is why it is important that, during the decision-making process, every philosophical
framework and ethical perspective be considered. Essentially, when an assistant principal makes
a discipline decision, not only must the decision be justified and appropriate, but it must also be
considered in relation to the amount of “turbulence” it may cause (Shapiro & Gross, 2008).
Decision-Making Model
Johnson (2012) describes four decision-making models. The model that most aligns with
the decision-making process a high school assistant principal must employ is Nash’s 12
Questions. In the explanation of Nash’s model, readers will recognize similar questions
addressed earlier in this paper. For example, question one: “Have you defined the problem
accurately?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 256); question two, “How would you define the problem if you
stood on the other side of the fence?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 256); and question three, “How did this
situation occur in the first place?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 256) are acknowledged as considerations in
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
8
the ethic of critique. These questions address accurately assembling facts that could involve
alternate points of view and whether or not a student is responsible for the behavior.
Nash’s fourth question, “To whom and to what do you give your loyalties as a person or
group and as a member of the organization?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 256), expresses the sentiment as
the assistant principal representing the school and the county in the ethic of profession. The
tenth question, “Could you disclose without qualm your decision or action to your boss, your
CEO, the board of directors, your family, or society as a whole?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 257), is also
from the ethic of profession. An assistant principal must be able to justify a disciplinary decision
to supervisors and others in the profession, if need arises.
Question five, “What is your intention in making this decision?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 256),
starts to acknowledge the ethic of care. The intention of the decision is to alter future undesired
student behavior but not in a way that is demeaning or excessive. Question six, “How does this
intention compare with the likely results?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 256), is also from the ethic of care.
Any decision maker must be careful when making decisions, as good intentions do not guarantee
the desired results. Nash’s seventh question, “Whom could your decision or action injure?”
(Johnson, 2012, p. 257), is the last to acknowledge the ethic of care. As stated, is the decision
demeaning or excessive? Does it extend past one student to many students, and if so, is this
positive?
Nash’s eighth question, “Can you engage the affected parties in a discussion of the
problem before you make your decision?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 257), is the only question to come
out of the ethic of justice. Interviewing all parties and giving due process, is a policy and
procedure that assistant principals must follow. This is a legal requirement. The ninth question,
“Are you confident that your position will be as valid over a long period of time as it seems
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
9
now?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 257), returns to the ethic of critique. This involves taking the decision
and scrutinizing it against the test of time. Question eleven, “What is the symbolic potential of
your action if understood? Misunderstood?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 257), combines both ethic of
critique and ethic of profession. It involves analyzing the impact of the assistant principal’s
decision, not only in relation to students and behaviors but, as a professional and representative
of the school and county.
The final question, “Under what conditions would you allow exceptions to your stand?”
(Johnson, 2012, p. 257), defines how an assistant principal maneuvers within all the different
philosophical frameworks, ethical perspectives, and decision-making models to make the best
decision that represents the profession, the school and county, and that lies in the best interest of
the student.
In considering the four models Johnson (2012) presents in his book, Nash’s 12 Questions
is the model that is best for high school assistant principals. This model mirrors most of the
questions already addressed when discussing philosophical frameworks and ethical perspectives
of this position. It is also important to note that, of Nash’s 12 Questions, the majority emanate
from the ethic of critique. This is no mistake, as an assistant principal must always ask
questions, consider facts, and re-evaluate a decision to ensure the best possible decision is made.
The Quality of Decision-Making
One would think that with so many angles to consider and so many questions to answer,
the final decision would be a quality one. However, it is inherently human to make mistakes.
Even the smallest of details can be overlooked, misunderstood, or cause a situation to be
considered in a different light. When multiple people evaluate a situation, the odds favor that the
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
10
decision will be more valid and reliable. This is why it is better to have multiple administrators
consider a student discipline consequence.
As each assistant principal has different levels of education and experience, so too will
the quality of their individual decisions vary. It would stand to reason that an assistant principal
with more education and experience would make a better quality decision and vise-versa.
However, there are exceptions to every rule and some young assistant principals are beyond their
years. Thus, there are some assistant principals, early in their careers, who would be equally as
skilled at the job. However, one thing an assistant principal cannot do is make a decision
without evidence or based on a hunch.
The movie Doubt provides an example. Father Flynn, the parish priest, is confronted by
Sister Aloysius, the school principal, about an inappropriate relationship with one of the male
students. She does not possess any evidence to support this accusation and the boy denies that
anything inappropriate is happening. Yet, she still systematically goes about badgering and lying
to Father Flynn until he finally resigns. In the movie, Sister Aloysius admits that she acted from
her “gut” (Doubt Rudin & Shanley, 2008).
If an assistant principal, or principal, were to take these same actions today, that
educational leader would be relieved of his or her duty. In some county and school hierarchies,
it would be difficult for the assistant principal to administer a poor decision. Checks, balances,
and safeguards are in place to ensure that the assistant principal’s decision is approved before it
is acted upon. It is also standard practice in some county and school hierarchies to assume the
assistant principal’s decisions are quality as long as no one complains about the decisions. Thus,
the quality of any decision is relative to the situation and how thorough each and every fact is
scrutinized.
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
11
Conclusion
This assistant principal thinks he is good at making student disciplinary decisions. He
understands student behaviors, teachers, and the communication process. He also understands
how they all unfold into an interwoven maze of variables that can make decision making
difficult. As a result, the author thoroughly investigates every student referral forming student
discipline decisions from sound laws, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. As an
assistant principal of six years, the author also feels he is skilled at giving constituents difficult
information with the least amount of anguish. However, his view is that of looking at student
discipline as a one-on-one, punitive process.
Now that the author is participating in advanced educational leadership classes, he does
not see student discipline decisions in this light anymore. Student discipline is actually seen as
an integral part of the school culture. Using all the different philosophical frameworks and
ethical perspectives to shape student behavior by forming a quality discipline decision, sends
messages to students, staff, and the community about how the school, and maybe the county, is
going to operate. This new depth of understanding about the complexity and far reaching effects
of the decisions the author makes interpreting the Code of Student Conduct, finds him again
asking questions as if it is his first day on the job. These questions, now philosophical in nature,
drive his participation on Code of Student Conduct revision committees. When the author
becomes a principal, these new behaviors will serve him well to understand the culture of the
building and thus, lead effectively.
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
12
References
Johnson, C. E. (2012). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow (4th
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Rudin, S. (Producer), & Shanley, J. P. (Director). (December 25, 2008). Doubt [Motion picture].
USA: Miramax.
Shapiro, J. P., & Gross, S. J. (2008). Ethical educational leadership in turbulent times:
(re)solving moral dilemmas. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.