Directions Read The Case Scenario As Identified Below Guided

Directionsreadthe Case Scenario As Identified Below Guided By Your

Read the case scenario as identified below. Guided by your understanding, use the National Education Association Code of Ethics (NEA), NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct and Statement of Commitment, the Mississippi Educator Code of Ethics Standard of Conduct, and the INTASC Model Core Standards to identify the standard violated, the offense committed, and the ethical violations. Scenario 1: Mrs. Anna Lee Davis does not want her student Joel to be the highest honor awardee recognized at the assembly program. Instead, she prefers that the award and honoree be Leonard. To ensure that Leonard will get the highest honor award, Mrs. Davis did not base her decision on the use of any type of assessment, students’ grades or skills that identified the students learning and development. She simply based her decision on her admiration for Leonard. Mrs. Davis was not aware of Joel abilities.

She gave Joel low grades in music recitation and in performance tasks. Joel felt like he was never challenged, appreciated, or fit in the school environment. Do you think Mrs. Davis was ethical in her behavior? Is it right for Mrs. Davis to give Joel low grades just to make Leonard the awardee? Identify and explain what violations Mrs. Davis committed according to NEA, NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct, MS Educator Code of Ethics Standards and Conduct, and the INTASC Model Core Standards. Identify and explain in detail how this act may have been a violation according to each of the ethical codes. Remember, this assignment is valued at 50 points. It is not considered a short answer assignment. Information must be detailed. You need to review each of the codes and identify the standard(s) or violation (s) that is related to the act in the scenario. You must also explain the information in a scholarly fashion. Do not assume that your reader has any knowledge of the contents of the information. Check your assignment for spelling, grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure prior to submission. Use the Student Resources to complete this assignment.

Paper For Above instruction

The scenario involving Mrs. Anna Lee Davis raises significant ethical concerns rooted in professional standards and ethical guidelines established by various educational organizations. Mrs. Davis's decision to manipulate student grades based on personal admiration rather than objective assessment contravenes multiple ethical standards across the NEA Code of Ethics, NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct, Mississippi Educator Code of Ethics, and the INTASC Model Core Standards. This paper will systematically analyze the violations in relation to these standards, illustrating how Mrs. Davis’s actions undermine professional integrity, fairness, and the integrity of educational assessments.

Analysis of Ethical Violations According to Educational Standards

First, the NEA Code of Ethics emphasizes the importance of fairness, honesty, and integrity in professional conduct. Specifically, Standard II states that educators should promote fairness and respect among students. Mrs. Davis’s decision to award lower grades to Joel, not based on his actual performance but on her personal preference, directly violates this standard. Such conduct compromises the fairness of grading practices and fosters an environment of bias and unfair treatment. Furthermore, the NEA emphasizes that teachers should not allow personal values or biases to interfere with student assessment and evaluation, which Mrs. Davis clearly violated by basing her decision on admiration rather than student performance (NEA, 2014).

In relation to the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct, standard III "To Promote Healthy, respectful, and supportive relationships with children, families, and colleagues," underscores the importance of integrity and honesty in interactions. Mrs. Davis’s actions undermine these principles, as her manipulation of grades for favoritism damages the trustworthiness essential for educator-student relationships and corrupts the educational environment. Moreover, falsifying grades obstructs the genuine assessment of students' abilities, which is contrary to the core tenet of honesty that NAEYC advocates (NAEYC, 2020).

The Mississippi Educator Code of Ethics emphasizes that teachers must demonstrate fairness, honesty, and integrity, and avoid unjustified discrimination or favoritism. Specifically, Standard I highlights the obligation to treat all students equally and evaluate their performance truthfully and objectively (Mississippi Department of Education, 2016). Mrs. Davis’s act of giving Joel low grades intentionally to elevate Leonard’s chances of receiving the award violates this standard critically, as it constitutes a form of bias and manipulative grading, which undermines the integrity of student assessments.

Furthermore, the INTASC Model Core Standards, particularly Standard #2: "Learner Development," and Standard #3: "Learning Differences," focus on providing equitable learning opportunities and assessments based on evidence of student performance. Mrs. Davis’s practice contradicts these standards by not basing her decisions on actual student learning or achievement. Instead, she overlooked Joel’s abilities, depriving him of a fair assessment and valuable recognition. This form of unethical conduct diminishes the credibility of the teacher’s role in fostering an equitable learning environment.

Impacts of Mrs. Davis’s Actions

By manipulating grades without regard to student performance, Mrs. Davis compromised the educational integrity and objectivity essential for fostering a fair academic environment. Joel’s feelings of neglect and lack of recognition likely diminished his motivation and self-esteem, adversely affecting his learning experience. Additionally, such biased grading practices erode trust between teachers and students, undermine the educational system’s credibility, and set a precedent for unethical conduct that can ripple through academic institutions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Mrs. Davis’s actions are profoundly unethical when evaluated against the standards and codes set forth by the NEA, NAEYC, Mississippi Educator Code of Ethics, and INTASC Model Core Standards. Her decision to grade Joel unfairly to favor Leonard violates principles of fairness, honesty, and integrity central to professional educational ethics. Teachers bear the responsibility to uphold these standards by ensuring their actions foster equitable, honest, and ethically sound practices. Upholding these standards is essential to maintaining the integrity of the educational profession, supporting student development, and cultivating trust within academic communities.

References

• National Education Association. (2014). Code of Ethics of the Education Profession. Retrieved from https://www.nea.org
• National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2020). Code of Ethical Conduct and Statement of Commitment. Retrieved from https://www.naeyc.org
• Mississippi Department of Education. (2016). Mississippi Educator Code of Ethics. Jackson, MS: MDE.
• International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). (2013). INTASC Model Core Teaching Standards. Retrieved from https://www.ictr.org
• Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
• Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. Jossey-Bass.
• Loughran, J. (2011). Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. Routledge.
• Lazarus, S., & Cohen, J. (2004). Moral and Ethical Issues in Education. The Journal of Educational Thought, 21(3), 151–177.
• Berry, A., & Loughran, J. (2018). Pedagogical Content Knowledge. In Teaching and Teacher Education (pp. 154-169). Elsevier.
• Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The Flat World and Education: How America's Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future. Teachers College Press.