Previous Lesson

Checkpoints for Ethical Decision Making

An effective educational leader must have at least one if not several strategies for analyzing situations to determine the competing choices. The strategies outlined in this chapter are meant to assist in making ethical decisions. Two strategies are introduced and then used to demonstrate how different ethical dilemmas might be addressed.

There is no definitive answer in a right vs. right dilemma. Instead, the strategies are meant to assist in defining the best possible solution. Each of these strategies has merit for use in solving dilemmas. Educators should consider outlining a review of both of them for easy reference. These strategies include the Nine Checkpoints for Ethical Decision Making developed by Kidder, and the Ethics Check Questions developed by Blanchard and Peale.

Nine Checkpoints

In developing his Nine Checkpoints for Ethical Decision Making, Kidder (2002) described them as a “logical and sequential” process for examining and resolving ethical issues. The checkpoints incorporate multiple theories into a logical progression of steps for the decision maker. They include:

  1. Recognize there is moral issue.
  2. Determine the actor(s).
  3. Gather the relevant facts.
  4. Test for right vs. wrong issues.
  5. Test for right vs. right dilemmas.
  6. Apply the resolution principles.
  7. Investigate the ‘trilemma’ options. A ‘trilemma’ is a term to describe a dilemma where a third option for resolution may appear in complex situations such as the scenario about bullying.
  8. Make the decision.
  9. Revisit and reflect on the decision.

Applying the Checkpoints

DILEMMA Two female students ask for an audience with you. You arrange for them to meet with you later that day. The young women, although at first reluctant to speak, eventually express that they have a bad ‘feeling’ about their 10th grade science teacher and feel extremely uncomfortable in his presence.
Applying the checkpoints Read below for an example of each of the Nine Checkpoints for Ethical Decision Making being applied to the situation above. This is not a crisis decision. However, it is a situation that requires scrutiny, investigation, and resolution.
1. Recognize there is a moral issue This issue is a moral one. The decision clearly is one that defines an issue about the principles of behavior.
2. Determine the actors The students have asked for an audience with the principal. The principal is responsible for dealing with this dilemma as reported. This issue cannot be reassigned given its delicate nature. Even though the principal is female, it may be prudent to involve another school administrator or the school counselor in any interviews that transpire.
3. Gather the relevant facts In this dilemma, it is imperative that the facts are gathered, however, they must be gathered discreetly. Some considerations include the following:

  • What is already known to the principal?
    • There has never been a similar complaint about this teacher, to your knowledge, in the five years that you have known him professionally. However, the principal has never visited the teacher’s personnel file to confirm the absence of such complaints.
  • What will provide further information?
    • The girls are interviewed further, and most likely separate from one another.
    • The teacher is made aware of these allegations and is interviewed as well.
    • Observations could be made via classroom visits for data gathering.
    • Some other students are casually interviewed about the Science class without leading questions implying any of the allegations.
4. Test for right vs. wrong issues While there are moral issues, and there are allegations of illegal behavior, the information gathered through the interviews and observations will help in this regard. Is there wrong doing? Suppose the interviews revealed that the girls were overreacting to the somewhat unique demeanor of this teacher. The teacher is surprised, concerned, and dismayed at the girls’ report. He admits to the principal that he had caught both girls cheating on an assignment and had disciplined them recently. He felt this allegation was a form of student revenge, No other evidence exists.

– OR –

Suppose the interviews reveal that there are several other students who also feel uncomfortable about this teacher’s looks. Suppose two of the students reveal in individual interviews that the teacher in question has touched them inappropriately. The information gathered will determine the right vs. wrong nature of the issue. At this point, if it is determined without doubt, that there are right vs. wrong issues at hand, then a decision can be made at this time about action.
5. Test for right vs. right dilemmas If, based on the information gathered in Step 4, there is clearly a right vs. right dilemma, it can be identified in this case as anyone of these three:

  1. Justice vs. mercy: A clash between what the rules dictate and the need for compassion and empathy.
  2. Truth vs. loyalty: A clash between the facts or reality and the allegiance to other people or ideas.
  3. Individual vs. community: A clash between the interests of an individual or a small group versus those of a larger group or community.
6. Apply the resolution principles The resolution principles applied indicate:

Ends-based thinking – “Do whatever produces the greatest good for the greatest number.”
This resolution would be illustrated by determining that the greatest good for the greatest number involves dismissing the teacher so that similar complaints will not need to be tolerated, since the teacher is one individual, but the school community at large is affected.

Rule-based thinking – “Follow only the principle that you want everyone else to follow.”
This resolution principle would indicate that if I were a parent of these girls, I would insist upon due diligence in the investigation of the allegations. If I were the teacher, I would demand that due diligence was given to determining my innocence in that two students could ruin my career.

Care-based thinking – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
This principle would see a resolution where the female students involved would feel that through honesty, a caring resolution fell in their favor and the teacher was reported and consequences were appropriate to the investigation that followed. It might also see a resolution where in favor of this respected teacher, the caring prevailed in that the gathering of evidence would be determined appropriate.
7. Investigate the ‘trilemma’ options Depending on the information gathered in Step 4, a trilemma option may exist.

Supposing no determination can be made as to physical inappropriateness, the students and teacher would meet together with the principal and counselor and participate in a problem-solving exercise of sharing their realities together. This would in fact honor both sides in this issue and the principal could assist in solving the issue with both parties present.

Supposing a determination is made that there are other students who feel that the teacher is not communicating appropriately with his female students, the teacher can be made aware of the situation and coached through improving it in the future, Oftentimes it may be that the teacher needs to observe other peers, or even be provided with strategies to avoid future confusion.
8. Make the decision This exemplifies how a solution may have been determined and action taken:

In this scenario, the principal determined that the students were uncomfortable with the Science teacher, but the teacher’s action was not in fact inappropriate. Rather, he is inept at dealing with assertive female students.

The principal decided that the situation demanded some low key discussion between the counselor and each individual student to assist the girls in determining when behavior would be deemed to be inappropriate, to counsel them around their responsibilities to ensure the teacher would be comfortable as well during future class sessions.

The principal met again with each girl individually to outline the seriousness of allegations, but also the importance of remaining open and honest in their communications.

In addition, the principal met with the teacher and discussed strategies to avoid similar allegations in the future. The principal recorded notes of the issue, the information gathered and dates and times and stored them for future reference. The teacher involved the union representative in the interviews and she proved to be a great source of information about student and teacher rights. After the individual interviews, it was determined that bringing the students and the teacher together after individual coaching activities was not appropriate. The students were provided with opportunities to move to another teacher’s class. Both declined and the issue was closed.
9. Revisit and reflect on the decision The principal determined that the issue had been controlled and had respected both the students and the teacher. The teacher was deeply hurt by the allegations, but the principal was required to investigate the allegations, given the feelings expressed by the students. The students at no time indicated that these allegations had been fabricated and it was obvious to the counselor and the principal that the students were sincere in expressing their feelings. All had learned a significant lesson. The time invested in the interviews, observations, and counseling had been worth the outcome of the actions of the principal.

Adapted from Kidder, 2002

You may wish to download and print a copy of this exercise for future reference in using the Nine Checkpoints.