Education Ethics and Theories Case

UNIT:
NAME:
DATE:

Education Ethics and Theories
Case Studies
Introduction
Education ethics and theories inform teachers’ decisions and actions in their professional
practice. Education ethics and theories refer to professional guidelines that govern a teacher’s
actions and decisions and set standards between right and wrong (Winch, Oancea, & Orchard,
2015). Ethics seeks to standardize actions and rationalize decisions taken in a professional
practice. Teachers have an obligation to create conducive learning environment that nature
learners’ and enable them achieve their full potential. Ethical standards are a significant resource
that provides guidelines to teaching practice. Teachers require exemplary values and morals to
engage with students and other stakeholders and meet educational objectives (Strike, & Soltis,
2015). Teachers are responsible for what happens around the learning environment and are
charged for any offence that occurs within their span of duty (Falkiner, Thomson, & Day, 2017).
This outlines the importance of teachers understanding the teaching professional in relation to
law. The teachers are then able to rationally defend themselves from criminal charges when
levied against them (Crigger, & Godfrey, 2014). The teacher is therefore required to a bid to
highest ethical standards and assumes responsibility and accountability when practicing teaching.
The following essay discusses two case studies relating to theoretically informed ethical decision
making and duty of care and negligence in the teaching profession practice. The essay will use
professional resources relating to ethics, curriculum and legislation and review scholarly sources
to analyze and put forward arguments.
Case 1: Theoretical informed ethical decision making
The first case study present a scenario where I have to decide between a student’s father
escalation and my original decisions to group his daughter who is a high achiever with a boy
who is a low achiever. The class group had been designed consistent with pedagogical best
practices to ensure effective and all round learning experiences to all students. The groups’
results were impressive as students were engaging and becoming more accommodating. A father
of high achieving student complains that his daughter should not mingle with a low achieving

student in fear that the daughter’s performance is likely to be negatively impacted. The following
is my rational defensive argument to a theoretically informed ethical decision.
First, I will settle down the parent for a discussion to explain the whole issue. The discussing will
involve explaining the objectives of the group work, how they are designed, and the benefits that
students get from the class groups. This will allow me time to let the parent understand my
decision is right and of best interest to all students including his daughter. This means that I will
not change the student group membership but proceed to defend by decision. The case has
ethical significance that I have to decide what is right or wrong to do (Davson-Galle, 2009). This
entails that I have to decide and defend by decision or accept I was wrong to have taken the
decisions when designing class group. The parent feels and thinks that I am wrong to allow his
daughter who is a high achiever to interact and work in the same group with a low performing
student. This view is different to my opinion and professional practice and I have to defend my
ethically informed decision. The situation therefore presents a dilemma. I am faced with two
situations that I have to decide on. On one side, am faced with a situation to go ahead and
explain my decision or give in to parent’s argument and change his daughter group membership.
This situation has two sides, explaining and making parent understand my decision or accepting I
made a wrong decision and agree to change the student from the current group and follow the
parent’s wish. I have to choose between defending professional practice and student’s best
interests and parent’s rights over their students. The father of the student feels that he has right to
who his daughter interact with and that the daughter is too young to know that people that one
surround themselves with have great impact to their success. Therefore the parent feels he has a
duty to protect his student from low performing student who can lower his daughter
performance. This is different to classroom setting and the objective of the school system. The
Australian education system seeks to promote equity and excellence and provide students with
best learning environment (Leibowitz, & Hlengwa, 2017). Therefore, the father’s argument
doesn’t prompt me to change by original position but create a need to consider parents’ rights to
their children in the scenario. Instead of altering my position I will opt to explain and convince
the parent that my decision is right and of best interests to the students.
My decision to group a high performing student and a low achieving student is right. In
accordance to Common Wealth Guidelines, I have a responsibility to make decisions that