Case Study 92: Whose Best Interests? A Testing Dilemma

Case Study 92whose Best Interests A Testing Dilemmathe Meeting Could

CASE STUDY 9.2 WHOSE BEST INTERESTS? A TESTING DILEMMA The meeting could have been worse. That thought provided Central High School Principal Charlie Franken little solace as he sat in his office reflecting on the discord created in the just concluded meeting with his department chairs. Their responses to the proposed curriculum change approached open revolt, and Charlie felt trapped with few good options. Central High students always performed well on the state’s standardized tests by maintaining scores that were equal to or above state averages.

The school continued to meet state-defined, adequate yearly progress targets. Unfortunately, it was the school’s future performance that most concerned the board of school directors. With each passing year, the state’s goals for acceptable scores became more aggressive. Due to such high expectations, it appeared that a large number of districts would not meet state goals in the coming years. The school directors wanted to ensure that their district would not be among them.

If the number of Central High students achieving acceptable scores increased, at the current rate, the school would be placed on the state’s “at-risk” list in two years’ time. Such an action would eliminate state funding incentives for good performance and open the door for a state takeover of the school district. With such dire consequences looming in the future, the directors thought it prudent to increase student performance on the state test. The board charged the district superintendent, Dr. Carl Horne, to design and implement a curriculum that specifically addressed state standards.

Appreciating the gravity of the situation and the serious concern of the board, Dr. Horne developed a plan that he presented to Charlie Franken. In a meeting with Charlie, Dr. Horne presented an outline of the curriculum changes that the board of directors agreed would address their concerns. Courses designed specifically to address the state standards would be created in each of the four core disciplines for grades 9 through 12.

These eight new courses would provide intensive training in test-taking skills. The curriculum would be centered on the material covered by the state standards and would be mandatory for students who failed to meet acceptable levels of achievement on the state exams. Because there was no federal or state funding provided to support such an initiative, these changes were to be implemented utilizing current staff. Charlie’s reaction to the proposal was less than enthusiastic. Sensing his opposition, Dr. Horne explained how such a curriculum was in the best interest of the school district. The community respected the accomplishments of the district and was proud of its standing in the state. The threat of falling below state expectations and being placed on an “endangered list” would undermine the trust and support of the community. The turmoil that would result from such a situation would be unthinkable; consequently, it was necessary to take action before problems developed. Dr. Horne’s parting words were clearly etched in Charlie’s memory. He stated, “You’re either part of the problem or part of the solution. Keep me informed of your progress.”

Now that he had his “marching orders,” Charlie’s first action would be to meet with his department chairs. Because of their previous work on developing the curriculum, he knew the meeting would not be pleasant. Under Charlie’s collegial style of leadership and with the notable support of the department chairs, especially the respected English chair, Alicia Weston, the faculty developed a curriculum to best serve the needs of all Central High School students.

They researched and worked with a strong sense of purpose nurtured by an altruistic desire to give their students “the best.” Developed and implemented over a five-year period, the curriculum identified three directions of academic preparation based on students’ post-graduation plans. Each discipline offered courses designed to prepare students for college, vocational/technical school, or direct entry into the workforce. At each grade level, an interdisciplinary relation among the core disciplines was established. Students were free to choose from among the offerings in order to create an individualized plan that best suited their needs. Although subject to ongoing evaluation and revision, the current curriculum appeared to be successful in achieving the desired objectives and was highly regarded by the staff.

It was with this in mind that Charlie presented the new curriculum revision plan to the department chairs. As anticipated, the chairs were not receptive to the proposed change. The impact on the current curriculum would be significant. At first, discussion centered on a practical consideration. With no new staff, the courses offered for vocational/technical school students and those desiring to enter the workforce on graduation would be virtually eliminated, as many of those students would most likely be candidates for the new courses.

This trend would be exacerbated in future years with the relentless raising of state targets for successful achievement. The discussion then took a more philosophical turn. The validity of teaching test-taking skills was questioned. How were such skills useful in the real world? In addition, the practice of “teaching to the test” was considered problematic for educators interested in providing their students with knowledge and skills necessary for success in their chosen areas.

Furthermore, by identifying which students were assigned to the courses, the school would be eliminating student and parental choice by subjecting them to mandatory tracking. It was no surprise that Alicia Weston was particularly vehement in her objections by suggesting that teachers were not needed to fulfill the processing demanded of the new curriculum; trainers would be sufficient. What did surprise Charlie was Alicia’s threat to resign her position as chair and revert to being a regular classroom teacher if such curriculum changes were mandated. She did not want to be in a leadership position for the implementation of a program she considered unethical. While proffered in the heat of the moment, Charlie knew her well enough to realize that this was not a mere bluff.

Trying to gauge the reactions of the other chairs to her pronouncement, Charlie could not discern if any were inclined to follow her lead. Sitting in his office, Charlie considered his dilemma. He knew he was bound to carry out the mandates of the school board and the superintendent, but what if he believed that a particular directive was not in the best interests of the students? Then he paused to reflect: Who is the ultimate judge of what is in their best interests? The authority certainly resides with the board, but are the directors the best qualified to make curricular and pedagogical decisions?

What would be the effect on the school’s students, morale, and culture if the curriculum changes were unilaterally mandated? Would siding with his chairs in a unified front delineating the shortcomings of the proposed changes influence Dr. Horne and the board to reconsider their position? These questions preoccupied his mind as Charlie tried to formulate the first report of this progress for Dr. Horne.

Questions for Discussion

1. What actions might Charlie take that would be fair to both the students and the faculty? Would you recommend that he take these actions? Why or why not?
2. Is caring for the school district synonymous with caring for the students? What is the principal’s best course of action according to the ethic of care? Should the ethic of care be the primary lens through which to view this dilemma? Why or why not?
3. Why is accountability so important in education today? Who benefits from an educational curriculum and system based on uniform standards?
4. What is Principal Franken’s ultimate responsibility? What should be in his first progress report to Dr. Horne? Should he take the chair’s side on this issue? Why or why not?
5. What would the profession expect Charlie to do in this case? What action would be in the best interests of the students?

Paper For Above instruction

As the principal of Central High School, Charlie Franken faces a complex ethical dilemma entangled in issues of educational integrity, stakeholder interests, and accountability. The core of his challenge is balancing mandated curriculum changes aimed at improving standardized test scores against the philosophical and pedagogical values upheld by his faculty, particularly the concerns raised by department chairs like Alicia Weston. This case explores the nuances of ethical decision-making within educational leadership, emphasizing the ethic of care, the importance of stakeholder engagement, and the primacy of student interests.

Firstly, Charlie must consider feasible actions to reconcile the conflicting demands. One potential action is to facilitate open dialogue among faculty, board members, and other stakeholders. By fostering transparency and mutual understanding, he can help craft a consensus-driven approach that respects teachers’ professional judgments while addressing administrative and political pressures. Such dialogue could involve presenting data on the current curriculum’s success, discussing the pedagogical implications of test-focused curricula, and exploring alternative strategies that maintain academic integrity without compromising educational values.

Additionally, Charlie could advocate for incremental implementation of the testing curriculum, allowing for pilot programs and ongoing evaluation before full adoption. This approach safeguards academic freedom and allows adjustments based on real-world outcomes, aligning with the principles of ethical leadership. Another possibility involves empowering teachers and department chairs by involving them directly in the curriculum revision process, thus ensuring their expertise informs decisions and mitigating feelings of disenfranchisement. Such participatory decision-making aligns with the ethic of care by prioritizing relationships, mutual respect, and shared responsibility.

From an ethical standpoint, caring for the school district transcends technical compliance; it embodies a commitment to holistic student development and respecting teachers' professional integrity. The ethic of care emphasizes relational interconnectedness and nurturing—a lens through which Charlie can evaluate his choices, prioritizing the well-being of students and staff over strict adherence to mandates lacking pedagogical soundness. This perspective challenges a purely bureaucratic view of accountability based solely on standardized test outcomes, advocating instead for a balanced approach that values educational quality and ethical responsibility.

In today’s educational landscape, accountability is crucial for ensuring transparency, fostering continuous improvement, and justifying resource allocation. Standardized testing and uniform curricula serve to create equitable benchmarks, allowing stakeholders to assess school performance objectively. However, over-reliance on such measures risks overshadowing other vital facets of education, such as critical thinking, creativity, and emotional intelligence. Therefore, accountability systems should encompass multiple metrics, recognizing the multifaceted nature of learning.

Principal Franken’s primary responsibility is to serve the best interests of students while maintaining the integrity and professionalism of his staff. His first progress report to Dr. Horne should include an honest assessment of faculty concerns, potential pedagogical implications, and suggestions for collaborative decision-making processes. He should emphasize the importance of balancing mandated reforms with ethical considerations and propose strategies for piloting new curricula with teacher involvement to evaluate effectiveness and maintain morale.

In regard to whether Charlie should side with the department chairs, the ethical stance should favor a collaborative approach that values teachers’ expertise and upholds educational integrity. Supporting faculty in voicing concerns benefits the long-term health of the school community and aligns with the ethic of care. While complying with directives is necessary, it must be done with sensitivity, ensuring that policies are implemented ethically and effectively.

In conclusion, Charlie Franken’s situation exemplifies the complex interplay of ethical principles, stakeholder interests, and educational goals. By adopting an inclusive, transparent, and ethically grounded approach, he can navigate the dilemma effectively, advocating for policies that serve both the immediate demands and the broader mission of fostering meaningful learning experiences for students. Ultimately, decisions made with integrity and compassion reinforce the foundational values of educational leadership and support sustainable improvement.

References

• Branson, M. S. (2008). Practical ethics for educators: Mapping a middle ground. Routledge.
• Carroll, M. (2013). The ethics of educational leadership. Routledge.
• David, T. (2012). Ethical leadership in education: An examination of standards, values, and practices. Journal of School Leadership, 22(4), 494-519.
• Klenowski, V. (2009). Teacher accountability and the ethics of care in education. Australian Educational Researcher, 36(2), 1-19.
• Lovat, T. (2012). Education ethics: An introduction for teachers. Routledge.
• Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education. University of California Press.
• Poliner Shapiro, R., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2011). Ethical leadership and decision making in education. Routledge.
• Shapiro, R., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2009). Foreword: The importance of ethics in educational leadership. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(3), 215-219.
• Wallace, J. (2012). Ethical leadership in education: Practicing what we preach. Routledge.
• Wong, K. K. (2010). Ethical leadership in schools: An Asian Perspective. Springer.