February 2, 2009 Summary

Tonight’s class started with some usual housekeeping done by Dr. Pope concerning the upcoming Law Presentations and Amanda advertising two upcoming band performances by her band Tattermask. A lot of things that we discussed pertained to ethics (in general), the differences between consequentialists and non-consequentialists, and what Nel Noddings suggests about the “One-Caring Teacher”.

Some notes about ethics:

· Two types of claims: factual and personal. One example of a factual claim is the sky is blue. One example of a personal claim is vanilla ice cream is good (since this is an unproven statement, it can be subject to bias since only one person can make such a claim).
· The term normative applies to what people should or should not do in order to solve an ethical dilemma.
· There are times where one’s personal experience can not serve as grounds for what ethically based decisions teachers often make in dealing with problems such as cheating or plagiarism.
· There has to be publically accepted reasons in order to act to what we should or should not do.

Some notes about consequentialism/non-consequentialism:

· Having positive consequences is often the desired result of all ethical decisions
· Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were two followers of Utilitarianism.
· Some issues related to both consequentialism/non-consequentialism include: One needs to know all of the consequences involved (often based on decision), Giving preferential treatment to another one person or thing over another (this leads to worrying about whether a decision is fair to all or not). Example: Treating childhood cancer. Is it worth the pain and suffering of some to find a cure for others who suffer from a form of a childhood cancer?
· Consequentialism asks one to go against their rational sense or emotion. One way to look at it is that the actions of one benefit the rest of humanity. Here, the question can be asked: what will produce the most good for all?
· Non-consequentialism can be compared to the Golden Rule (do onto others as you want them to do onto you).
· Ways of showing respect : treating everyone equally, accepting all points of view, consider the welfare of others, acknowledging decisions that are made by others.
· Kant argued that what can not be done, can not become Universal Law. Example: Telling a lie
· Kant believed that all humans are on the same level since we are all capable of doing the same thing. Example: lying to protect a friend from being captured by the secret police. He also believed that we all are responsible for our own actions (a non-consequentialist argument).
· Rule Utilitarianism examines which rules apply to which situation, which ruling will make the most people happy. This is also a combination of both consequentialism and non-consequentialism.
· One should only focus on important criteria in making ethically-based decisions. This includes: a student’s performance in class, their social economic status or other possible factors outside of whether we like their families or not.

Some notes about the Nel Noddings reading:

· One large assumption that can be taken from Noddings is that we all are in relations with one another. Another is called motivational displacement or seeing things how the student sees it.
· Our role is to be the one caring for and fostering a student’s growth, being interested in why one responded the way that they did instead of what their answer was (whether they have any interest in the subject or not).
· Students will respond to the subject or class if the teacher shows that they actually do care, thus instilling interest in the student.
· Noddings defined the role of one-care teacher has more than rainbows, clouds, hugs and kisses. Her definition included an understanding of where the student is coming from.
· Good teachers are often shaped by how the good students are to them. This is done thru engaging the class in communication, probing thoughts and feelings about the teacher’s subject matter (which leads to constructivism or building new knowledge).
· Teachers should be open to allowing students to contribute to their learning, having to explain to students the consequences behind their actions, to providing a role model for the students.
· The biggest difficulty is when one party chooses not to accept the caring of the other party, in other words too much giving and not enough receiving.
· Engaging in cooperative practice is another one of Nodding’s beliefs, this does lead to both moral and physical development.Schools can make things easier for teachers in their job performance. However, there is the possibility that misunderstandings can develop thru negative connotations.

Education is a Double-Edged Sword.

As I read these excerpts on education, it seems education is a double-edged sword. On one side, education appears to free the mind as Socrates (through Plato) and Plato suggest. On the other side, education almost appears to be a means of societal control. Even the definition of education seems to imply this inherent control. We defined the purpose of education on our first day of class as the means by which society perpetuates itself and produces the type of person society wants to see or be. This seems to leave little room for independent thought or creativity. I am not suggesting that citizens should be able to go around doing whatever they want but do consider our current education system. Oftentimes, teachers present the same material in the same manner to the students. In some instances, desks are lined up in rows like soldiers in a military. Not much creativity is encouraged in this type of atmosphere. Students are usually encouraged to be creative in art, music, and, at times in class, when they do creative writing. The curriculum leaves little room for exploration.

Gutmann states, “A democratic state, therefore, must take steps to avoid those inequalities that deprive children of educational attainment adequate to participate in the political process.” It seems here that education has nothing to do with liberation but that it exists so that students can become soldiers of society only educated so they can be almost like slaves to the system as opposed to educating children simply because they have a right as human beings to be taught things. Students seem to be only good or valuable in light of what they can offer to society.

This mentality then trickles down to the allocation of resources. Resources should be allocated in accordance with the democratic threshold principle. It isn’t right to say, “Oh, we are going to give this child such and such because he is smarter and we won’t give anything to this other child because he is a waste of resources.” Children should be given equal resources and then additional resources could be further allocated in accordance with their abilities. Even when children exhibit a lesser desire for learning, they should be encouraged. It should not be assumed that they will never achieve something greater. The motivations for distributing these resources stills remains questionable. Children should not be educated simply for what they can contribute to society. They should be educated because they are human beings and deserve the right to be educated. Children should be treated as having intrinsic value and not just as a means to an end i.e. society’s work-horse.

To publish or not to publish

That is the question. I happened to be channel surfing last night and came across a show that some adolescents watch called "One Tree Hill". During the episode, part of the storyline centered around one of the characters who is now a high school English teacher at her alma mater and one of her students who wrote a contraversial essay about a guy she liked and how life has been for the same student so far. Seeing that Haley (the teacher and student newspaper advisor) decided to publish Sam's (the student) well written essay, word got to the principal who demanded a brief meeting with Haley. Giving her a choice, publish and lose your job (fear of parental backlash) OR find another essay to publish, to me this reminded me of what we read for tonight's class about a similiar incident. This, however, gave Haley a difficult choice to make and I believe that she decided to publish the original essay before Sam offered to pull it in order to save her teacher's job.

Chapter 3 of Strike presented a case where a journalism teacher, Mr. Lane, spent some time deciding about whether to not to publish a libelious article about Mr. Waters and Beth, who were both involved in a questionable dilemma. While Eddie, the student, argued about his first amendment right to free speech, Mr. Lane could not decide whether to censor the article or outright reject it in order to prevent a possible libel/slander suit. Cases, like these, are often presented in high schools everywhere and do present a dilemma that each of us can take and bring out the title question "To publish or not to publish?". If I sponsored the student newspaper (which being a Social Studies major, likely won't happen), my only answer to Eddie would be is to ask him to clean up the article before publishing.

Both scenarios do, however, present the same question that each of us have to ask ourselves. What is the right thing to do and is publishing a controversial article/essay worth losing our jobs over? (Sorry for the revision, but there were some typos that I apparently did not catch!)

Blog #1 - Other (related to ethics discussion)

The case of the basketball player plagiarising made me think of a similar case at Lander University when I was an undergraduate student. One of my classmates did not think that the university attendance policies applied to him. He was a member of one of the larger, well-known fraternities on campus and a member of the Rugby Club (team). Lander did not allow students to miss more than 25% of classes without receiving an FA. Every semester he would go to his classes the 1st day to get the syllabus and would not come again unless there was a test. Mondays and Tuesdays he would stay in the library the entire time it was open and read the textbooks assigned to his classes. He had A's in almost every class and his attendance was never questioned until the last semester of his senior year. As a part of the exercise science program, you were required to take a one credit hour exercise elective of your choice. He chose to take Walk/Jog. This class was Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and an hour long. While in class you had to either walk or jog for the hour. You were allowed 7 excused/unexcused absences during the semester. It was an easy A. The only tests given were a test in the first week of class covering cardiovascular activity and a final exam at the end of the semester which consisted of walking/jogging a certain distance in a certain amount of time. He took the first test, showed up about 5 days the entire semester for class, and showed up for the final exam. His time finally ran out because he had chosen the wrong professor to pull this kind of stunt with. She was failing 2 other students in the class for missing more than 7 days of class, so obviously it would not be fair to fail them and not him as well, not to mention that he had also surpassed the amount of absences permitted by the attendance policy of the university. He thought that this was unfair and appealed the grade (FA). He also showed up outraged, in the professors office threatening her several times. He seemed to think that if he had gotten away with missing class all the time in other classes, that he would also be allowed to do that in this class as well. This professor however, kept her stand the entire time. After about 3 weeks of meetings with the board of trustees, and several appeals by the student, it was finally decided that the FA would stand and that he would have to repeat the course to receive his degree. Since he had to re-take the class over the summer, the school allowed him walk during the spring graduation ceremony. He earned his degree, but not without paying a high price. Therefore, I think that the professor should report the basketball player as school policies stated. He would be penalized for the class but in the long run, I think that he would still come out okay as well as learning from his mistake. I think that even though the basketball player plagiarised, the school would still try to work something out to keep him on their basketball team. He would be placed on academic probation (red-shirted) for a season by the NCAA, but would be back on the court the following season. The school would probably try to work something out for him to get the credit and financial aid that he needed, if he was that good of an athlete.

Reading Analysis - The One-Caring as Teacher

We, as teachers, have some responsibility in showing our students not only what we expect of them but also what the world expects of them. By being examples and role models, we can teach them how to be productive and respected citizens in our society today. The teacher's role is of the one-caring accepting the other completely and with respect. When a teacher asks a question she or he is really just happy the student answered and is paying attention to why the student answered the way they did instead of whether or not the answer was right. The students wants to attain competence but not by ridicule and criticism for wrong answers. It’s the teachers role and responsibility to serve as a model and give guidance without being overly critical. This could cause the students to withdraw from discussions in class. Teachers have to help students reach this level of competence and show them what options are out there for them or what doors they have the ability to open. Teachers must teach the students by practicing what they preach as far as ethical ideals are concerned. Also, you can punish a student without an explanation but did they learn anything from that? It’s possible they don’t even know to the full extent what they did wrong. The punishment is not important. What you teach them is what matters so that they can make good informed decisions when it comes time for them to exercise their own ethical judgments. As important as it is for you to be the one-caring teacher, it’s just as important you get the feedback from the students or the ones cared for. If you are constantly giving without a response, then eventually you will give up. In order to have this full circle of the one-caring and the cared-for some have suggested that schools and teaching be changed. One idea that caught my eye was that of teachers keeping the same students for 3 years straight instead of just one. The idea is that the better you know your students, the better you will be able to guide him or her. In some subjects I think that could be possible. For example if you teach a few different levels of a subject then it’s possible you could have a student for more than a year but that would not be true across the board. It seems to me that we as teachers need to be able to provide an atmosphere where students feel free to respond without the fear of being judged and ridiculed out loud. We can not make students respond and participate but we can encourage them to. If they are coming in and sitting at the back of the class, never speaking and never giving the feedback (or taking the “cared-for” role) then we can’t effectively guide them and teach them. So isn’t effective communication with your students the essential element here to begin this cycle?

Class notes from Tuesday, 1/27, Part II

During the second half of class, we discussed Dewey’s article and the first two chapters of the Ethics of Teaching. We discussed how Dewey believed Aristotle to be snobbish and his article was meant to serve as a direct response to Aristotle and an attempt at resolving dualism.

In his article, Dewey acknowledges the growing social division between the learned and the unlearned, and while Aristotle believed this social division of labor occurred naturally, Dewey argued that the division of labor was not the result of natural development but rather the result of social reinforcement – much to the detriment of the lower classes.

Dewey’s reality was marked by the presence of bosses (thinkers) and laborers. Most people at this time were under the assumption that laborers didn’t think, yet Dewey found that pride, dignity, and joy were evident in certain labors.

Dewey’s main concern is that his contemporaries had taken the idea of intelligent action out of work, that is, many laborers had been pigeon-holed into certain occupations without ever receiving the education or broader awareness of other careers that existed. Laborers were trained in the specifics of one job and were given no more education than needed for that job.

Dewey argues that the ability to form one’s own purpose is liberating and any life can be liberal if the person is aware and understands the importance of their particular occupation. Moreover, the only way to arrive at this understanding is to have been given a broad enough background in education in all facets of life to truly make an informed decision & choice of occupations. Thus, one can live a liberal life, proud of their job – even those performing the least popular labors – as long as that choice of occupation was made in an educated and informed manner.

In regards to the “Ethics of Teaching” text, we discussed two cases. The first case was one in which the teacher, Mrs. Jones had called in her student, Johnnie’s father to discuss a recent fight that Johnnie had started. Upon his arrival however, Mrs. Jones noted that Johnnie’s father was drunk and excitable and clearly intended on physically punishing his son. Reacting to the situation, Mrs. Jones, attempting to protect Johnnie from physical abuse, decided to lie to his father and tell him that Johnnie did not actually start the fight. The class debated about whether what Mrs. Jones had done was right. Many agreed that they would opt to protect the student (Johnnie) as well, and that the lie did no harm. In contrast, others argued that the lie perpetuated the cycle of violence – that Johnnie would not learn to behave and control his temper and his father could continue to abuse him. Additionally, Mrs. Jones’ lies could potentially harm her reputation as a teacher. In this case, honesty appeared to be the best policy.

The second case the class discussed was one in which a scholarship athlete, Henry, needed to do well (to get at least a C) on a final paper. His professor, Cynthia, had 48 hours to grade these papers, and upon reading Henry’s, she realized that Henry had clearly plagiarized. Cynthia was at a crossroads because if she followed school protocol and failed Henry, he would lose his scholarship and probably have to leave school. With a sick mother at home, basketball seemed to be Henry’s only chance to make a better life for himself and his family. It seemed that the consequences for Henry’s actions were far greater than the average students’. As the class discussed this situation, some felt that they could not fail Henry simply because it could have a negative impact on the rest of his life. Other classmates felt that they would fail Henry because he was aware of the consequences of his actions before he plagiarized and he should not be held to different standards or receive differential treatment simply because he is an athlete. At the close of class, I think all decided that each of these situations would have to be considered on a case by case basis. It is difficult to look at ethics in a manner of black and white – I think each situation results in a varying shade of gray.

Blog #1- Class Reaction- Hailey Hughes

A concept that I found to be quite interesting was the ethical theories between the consequentialist and the nonconsequentialist. As stated in the book, "Consequentialist ethical theories hold that the rightness or wrongness of an action is to be decided in terms of its consequences" (Pg. 11). Basically, what this says to me is that there are exceptions to the rule. However, when do you decide to make these exceptions? One case study in the book mentioned the athlete who plagiarized on his research paper. The teacher is torn between failing the student and risking his basketball and college career or giving him a second chance. I have been a similar situation myself with a high school student. Not only did he plagiarize his research paper, but he also turned it in a day late. Due to the fact that the student did not use his time wisely when given several days in the computer lab to work on the paper prior to the due date, I felt that the best decision was to give the student what he earned, which was a zero. As a teacher, it is difficult to put your feelings aside when approaching circumstances such as this case study. Would the teacher give all of the other students in the class a second chance? If the answer is no, then the teacher needs to put his or her feelings aside and realize what the student did was wrong and give him the grade that he deserves. After reading, I believe that I would agree with the nonconsequentialist theory, which "emphasizes the principle of equal respect over the principle of benefit maximization" (pg. 16). If the student athlete realizes that he received credit for a plagiarized paper, then he will more than likely plagiarize again. There is a possibility that due to his athletic ability throughout his previous education, his teachers gave him second chances with their consequentialist views. His possible repetitive behavior must stop somewhere, and it is your duty as a teacher to be honest with yourself as well as with your students.