Running head: LEARNING TASK TWO: CONNECTING WITH STUDENTS 1

Learning Task Two: Connecting with Students

Aman Bal | Bhupinderjit Chana | Jana Khampheng | Yvonne Hoang

Dr. Dennis Parsons | EDUC 525: Law and Ethics | L02

LEARNING TASK TWO: CONNECTING WITH STUDENTS 2

We agree with Max’s claim that the school and the university had shown an ethical lapse

in judgement. We also believe that Derrick had made an ethical lapse by not properly

communicating his intentions and situation to the Principal and the university. While we believe

that the university should have made better judgements after knowing what was going on, we do

not believe that the institution should be responsible for ethical screening of B.Ed candidates.

Ethics cannot be measured in a person until placed in a scenario where their actions demonstrates

unethical behaviour. Thus, the university cannot be responsible for screening or controlling a

person’s morals and values prior to acceptance. The school should have also made better ethical

judgements regarding Derrick’s behaviour towards Max, as there have been multiple witnesses

to their conversations outside of school. This should have prompted caution and further ethical

questioning of Derrick’s intentions.

Derrick showed a lapse in judgment by failing to draw a line between connecting with

students and his role as a professional. While connecting with students is a necessity for

instructors, or those who are training to become one, Derrick did not think of how inappropriate

his conversations were with the students. Connecting with students effectively did not entail him

to share parts of his personal life, yet Derrick did not think of the possible consequences in

sharing his past drug use with Max (Parsons, 2017a).

He failed to maintain his position as a role-model through communicating with Max by

exchanging contact information to speak beyond school-related issues. Derrick failed in this

aspect to talk to his partner teacher or a person that is more capable of helping Max with her

troubles in her personal life. He was responsible to her, but not for her.

In relativist ethics, “decision-making is determined by the culture, the community, the

past experiences of the decision-maker, by some group in power that makes the rules, or simply
LEARNING TASK TWO: CONNECTING WITH STUDENTS 3

by what works in the circumstances or the situation at hand” (Donlevy, & Walker, 2010, p. 21-

22). In this case, Derrick did not follow this school of ethics by failing to think about the greater

community that he is a part of when following his course of actions. He jeopardized his role as a

mentor, and did not consider his association with the university in which he was assigned to.

In virtue ethics, “practical wisdom comes with experience... with being able to choose

amongst various possible decisions with a broad understanding of the multifaceted and broad

meaning of the decision to those affected including the self” (Donlevy, & Walker, 2010, p. 17).

Derrick does not have practical wisdom that is necessary for this profession, as “he decided to

apply for the teacher education program at VW University” simply because he wanted

“something different” (Parsons, 2017a, p.1) aside from partying and drinking. The culmination

of his actions resulted in Max herself failing to view Derrick as a professional.

The principal showed an ethical lapse of judgement in this situation. As Derrick was

Max’s teacher, he was put into a position of power and authority. It was the principal's job to

enforce that no boundaries were crossed between teacher and student. Derrick and Max were

seen many times outside of the school talking. Knowing this, the principal praised Derrick for

“turning Max around” (Parsons, 2017a, p.1). The principal had an ethical responsibility to

discern right from wrong, and it is clear that a close personal relationship between teacher and

student is wrong. The principal should of approached the situation from an deontological

approach, which would have to been to do the right thing regardless of consequences (Parsons,

2017b) If the principal talked with Derrick, and enforced a strict professional relationship

between teachers and students, then initially Max’s grades and attendance might not have

improved however, she would also not be put in the situation where after the breakup she was

failing classes and missing school. Furthermore, in all situations students and teachers must
LEARNING TASK TWO: CONNECTING WITH STUDENTS 4

maintain a strict professional relationship for student safety, regardless if individuals believe a

more personal relationship would be beneficial.

An argument may be made for why the principal did not intervene by using postmodern

ethics. Postmodern ethics argues that the human condition is so ambiguous that one cannot

determine what ethical values apply (Parsons, 2017b). Max was initially doing very well in

school in response to her connection to her student teacher. Both individuals started a personal

relationship after Derrick finished teaching at the school. However, this is still an ethical lapse

because Derrick was in a position of power over Max in school. Therefore, it was the principal’s

duty to ensure that there are boundaries established between teachers and students.

We believe that the university should not be held responsible nor introduce an ethical

screening processes. The Herald argues that the university should screen for ethical character.

Virtue ethics states that the ethical character of an individual cannot be judged, for there is no list

of standards (Donlevy, & Walker, 2010). Screening would result in judging the B.Ed candidates

on a list of presumed criteria that is subjective to the screener. Therefore, the university would

not be able to provide consistent or reliable screening. In this sense, they would not be able to

“screen” for ethical charter at all.

Based on the foundations of postmodern and virtue ethics, the university would not be

able to predict or prevent Derrick’s actions as well as the outcomes. There was a lapse of

judgement on the university’s part. The supervisor choose Max’s adulthood over her relationship

to Derrick as a student. We believe for the professionalism of Derrick’s career, the university’s

reputation, and Max’s vulnerability in relation to a person of trust, the university supervisor

should have advised Derrick to be cautious in the relationships he establishes with students. In

summary, the university should not be responsible for screening of B.Ed candidates prior to
LEARNING TASK TWO: CONNECTING WITH STUDENTS 5

situations, however, if the situation is prevailing, the university should advise students as

required.

We are cautious about Max’s claims as she was in a vulnerable position at the time,

assuming that Max felt lost and wanted to blame anyone who could have potentially prevented

her from going through this experience. We cannot assume that Max was acting virtuously and

wanted protection for all future students from unethical student teachers, as the Herald is the one

raising the issue of ethics screening with the university and not Max herself. Max is also

displaying emotional instability and is therefore unlikely to be executing practical wisdom. It is

also unlikely that Max is acting out of deontological ethics, as she is occupied with the

righteousness of the consequences that occurred from her situation. Had the situation not taken a

turn and brought her such disastrous consequences, Max would not have blamed the school nor

the university for their lack of action. It is also difficult to assume that Max is acting out of

utilitarianism as it is unclear which population she is acting in favour of. Her argument and

situation is isolated to a specific scenario that cannot be screened for ethics prior to the

occurrence of the consequences. This crosses into the argument for postmodern ethics, as the

human condition is too ambiguous to prematurely scan for ethical values. Thus, it would be

questionable if Max’s claims are ethical in and of itself.

In conclusion, we believe that the school and the university had made a lapse of

judgement in this scenario. Both institutions should have made better ethical judgements and

taken action while being aware of the relationship between Derrick and Max. However, we do

not believe that the university should be responsible for the screening of B.Ed candidates due to

the ambiguity of human characteristics and specificness of scenarios.

LEARNING TASK TWO: CONNECTING WITH STUDENTS 6

References:

Donlevy, J. K., & Walker, K. D. (2010). Working through Ethics in Education: Two Plays and
Ethical Analysis. Retrieved November 1, 2017, from
https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/193826/viewContent/2638112/View

Parsons, D. (2017a). Connecting With Students [PDF]. Calgary: University of Calgary. Retrieved
November 1, 2017, from
https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/193826/viewContent/2669416/View

Parsons, D. (2017b). Ethics and the Law [PPT]. Calgary: University of Calgary. Retrieved
November 1, 2017, from
https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/193826/viewContent/2700411/View
LEARNING TASK TWO: CONNECTING WITH STUDENTS 7