Ethics in the superintendency: the actions of malfeasance by a few superintendents undermine the credibility of honest, hard-working educators

School Administrator, Sept, 2004 by Priscilla Pardini

One of the newest, the commercialization of public education, is particularly troubling, says Clarence G. Oliver, dean emeritus of the school of education at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Okla. He describes this as a policy area "where officials are beginning to fall into a trap." A strong opponent of commercialization in public schools, Oliver likens it to a school "selling its soul."

To be sure, it may not be illegal to enter into a contract with, say, a soft drink or fast food company that wants exclusive rights to sell its product in the school cafeteria. "But is it unethical?" asks Oliver, who teaches a course titled "Legal, Political and Ethical Issues in Educational Administration" to graduate students. "That's a judgment call. If it causes undue influence [on] and potential damage to students, I'd say it is."

Oliver knows plenty of school leaders disagree with him. In their opinion, these leaders feel vindicated by the good they can do with the money that flows from such contracts. "For them, the money becomes the value, rather than the health of the students," says Oliver, author of "Ethical Behavior--An Administrator's Guide: Ethics and Values in School Administration," a publication he wrote in 2002 for the Cooperative Council for Oklahoma School Administration.

Still, advances in technology have ushered in other ethical challenges. School administrators are getting in trouble for the private use of school district cell phones or for using e-mail with school board members to circumvent open meeting laws. "They may seem like very minor issues and may not ever be detected ... but it's still unethical," says Oliver.

NCLB Pressure

As the university experts on ethics point out, with school administrators being held accountable for better student performance, it is student outcomes, as measured by standardized test scores, that are increasingly testing the ethical mettle of today's educators. "For the first time ever, the federal government has mandated that people achieve," says Rebore, the St. Louis University professor. "When you want it badly enough, maybe you're faced with the ethical decision of whether or not to cook the test scores."

In Washington, the state school superintendent's office is investigating nearly two dozen reports of improperly administered standardized tests, according to The News Tribune of Tacoma. The newspaper, noting that some state legislators want closer monitoring of the state's testing program, quoted one elected representative, Gigi Talcott, as saying, "I would like to believe that every classroom teacher, every politician and every car salesman is honest. But I know that's not the case."

A study by the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas at Austin determined schools that increased their accountability ratings by the Texas Education Agency between 1998 and 1999 tended to exempt more special education students from state standardized tests than schools with no rating changes or a decline in ratings. Although the report did not draw a causal relationship between the exemption rates and accountability scores, it concluded "only a careful examination of the situation at each school can give a clearer picture of how appropriate exemptions are for individual students."