Ethics for School Administration
Student: Dr. Freda Doster
This course provided an introduction to the ethical obligations of educational administrators as professional educators in the state of Georgia, and provided a forum for discussion and critical analysis of practical ethical issues that are likely to arise during an educator's tenure. Topics covered in the course included Georgia laws concerning ethical obligations for government employees generally, and educators specifically. The following is a group response to a case scenario presented in class. This assignment was completed with the assistance of class members Tom Bledsoe and Dan Sarago.
Group 1: Tom Bledsoe, Freda Doster, Dan Sarago
Assignment A:
1. What do you think the legislature was trying to prevent when it passed O.C.G.A. 45-10-1?
2. What are the potential consequences for a government employee in Georgia who violates a provision of the Code of Ethics for Government Service?
3. What should be the proper reaction of a school principal who discovers that the most effective teacher in the sixth grade has regularly been skipping required professional development sessions? The principal knows that the teacher has been very effective at helping the school�s lowest-achieving students make substantial improvements in their standardized test scores since before the principal even entered the field of education. The principal further knows that the teacher in question has a notoriously low tolerance for officialdom, and if pressed on this issue, may transfer to a school district near the teacher�s new house in the country.
RESPONSE
It appears that the legislature�s intent for the passage of O.C.G.A. 45-10-1 was to win the confidence of its constituents and to insure that by embracing a Code of Ethics an enforceable set of clearly defined rules of morality were in place. O.C.G.A. 45-10-1 consists of ten regulations declaring allegiance to the �highest moral principles� (God) and country, opposing subversion, promoting the Protestant Work Ethic, decrying bribery and nepotism, condemning efforts to make illegal deals, defining and censuring conflicts of interest, prohibiting use of insider knowledge for personal benefit, encouraging whistle-blowing, and promising to abide by this code as a public trust. In essence, the legislature�s aim is to prevent immoral behavior and to ensure that government employees perform their duties in a manner that is professional, efficient, and fair within the boundaries of the highest moral principles and law.
Should a government official in Georgia violate a provision of the Code of Ethics for Government Service, the consequences are clearly outlined in O.C.G.A. 45-10-4 and state that the government official would be subject to a hearing which would be called by the Governor. Subsequent to the hearing, if the violation was found to be supported by evidence, the official would be removed from office and the office declared vacant. This provision was evidenced recently when Charles Walker, state senator from Augusta, learned, not only can one who violates the Code of Ethics face criminal charges, he/she can be removed from office by the Governor and the vacancy filled in a manner as required by Georgia law.
The scenario put before us addresses a teacher�s refusal to attend professional development sessions and the principal�s responsibility in terms of what is outlined in the Code of Ethics for Educators. A cursory review of 505-6-.01 The Code of Ethics for Educators would indicate that the teacher is in violation, minimally, of Standard 4: Misrepresentation or Falsification as it pertains to �An educator should exemplify honesty and integrity in the course of professional practice� whereby Item 1 forbids �falsifying, misrepresenting, omitting or erroneously reporting professional qualifications, criminal history, college or staff development credit and/or degrees, academic award, and employment history when applying for employment and/or certification or when recommending an individual for employment, promotion or certification�. However, a closer examination of this standard indicates that there would only be a violation of this standard if the teacher is claiming credit for the professional development sessions for the purposes of employment or recertification. That information is unclear in the scenario put before us.
However, what was clear was the violation of Standard 8: Abandonment of Contract Item 2 which states �willfully refusing to perform the services required by a contract�. While the teacher obviously has excellent teaching abilities as evidenced by the data provided, there are other duties and responsibilities required of educators (one of which is professional development). In addition, this professional development is a requirement for continued certification. Regardless of the teacher�s past success as an educator, they are expected to perform the duties and responsibilities put before them. Despite, the fear that the teacher may choose to transfer if confronted, the principal has a responsibility to work with the teacher under the guidelines of the Georgia Teacher Evaluation Program under the area of Georgia Teacher Duties and Responsibilities Instrument Section A2 to correct this deficiency.
The duties of the principal are clearly defined in this document. The principal must first complete the following steps: 1) the principal must hold a conference with the teacher concerning the unsatisfactory performance; 2) the principal must keep written documentation of each incident which serves as a basis for the unsatisfactory rating; and 3) the principal must notify the teacher in writing that their performance has been unsatisfactory.
If these steps have been followed and the teacher still refuses to comply with the duties and responsibilities put before them, the principal would then mark the teacher �unsatisfactory� on the Georgia Teacher Evaluation Program Form under Georgia Teacher Duties and Responsibilities Instrument Section A2 for the following reasons: 1) the teacher has failed to perform a duty or responsibility which is part of the employee�s job description and local board of education policies and 2) the teacher has had an opportunity for remediation, has failed to remediate the conduct which was the subject of the GTDRI deficiency and has received notification of the subsequent deficiency.
If the principal has made every effort to remediate the situation and has begun the process for termination, they find it necessary to report their findings to the next level (perhaps, the associate superintendent). If the situation is not corrected, those in authority may take it to the Professional Standards Board and consequences of findings against the teacher may range from revocation of the teaching certificate to lesser consequences such as suspension of the certificate, a reprimand , a warning, and/or monitoring by the PSC in conjunction with the employing system.
References
Code of Ethics for Government Service (O.C.G.A. 45-10-1). http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=45-10-1 and http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=45-10-4
Code of Ethics for Georgia Educators (505-6-.01). http://www.gapsc.com
Georgia Teacher Evaluation Program Manual (2005). Georgia Department of Education.