Dispositivo indicador

The closer examination into the relationship between school results and school leadership opened the discussion of new principles of leadership. Thomas Sergiovanni and Robert Starratt (who worked as a graduate assistant for Sergiovanni) are two leading advocates of usage of ethics and/or moral principles in the school administration. Sergiovanni (1986) and Starratt (1991) disseminated their adoption of moral and ethical perspectives to educational school leadership theory in their respective works, Moral Leadership: Getting to the Heart of School Improvement and “Building an Ethical School: A Theory for Practice in Educational Leadership.” The following is further argument of the significance of an ethical lens for school leadership and a more comprehensive understanding of the ethical and/or moral theoretical perspectives proposed by Starratt (1991) and Sergiovanni (1986).

Starratt (1991), a leading expert on ethical school leadership, offers a three-pronged ethical perspective that he believes can better address the problems that arise in the principalship. Starratt (1991) argues for the adoption of three ethical themes—critique, justice, and caring—to school leadership. Starratt’s (1991) argument is twofold: first, he believes since school leaders have a moral responsibility to create ethical schools, then, merging the three ethical themes may better serve that intended moral responsibility.

Starratt asserts that the lens of the ethic of critique reveals to school leaders that the school as an organization “is a source of unethical consequences in the educational process” forcing “administrators to confront the moral issues involved when schools disproportionately benefit some groups in society and fail others” (p. 190). Adding to Starratt’s ethical theme of critique, educational researchers Shapiro, Stefkovich, and Gutierrez (2014) state that the ethic of critique “asks educators to examine and grapple with those possibilities that could enable all children, whatever their backgrounds, to have opportunities to grow, learn, and achieve” (p. 213). The argument by Shapiro and her colleagues for school leaders to be ethical is based on the belief that it can provide school leaders the impetus to identify issues in schools that may be inequitable and take action. In short, the use of the ethic of critique by school leaders allows school leaders to ensure that all students are being served.

The second ethical lens discussed by Starratt (1991) is the ethic of justice. Starratt argues that school leaders using the ethical theme of justice must serve both the community and individual student needs. The ethic of justice shifts from the identification of injustices in schools’ to the action by school leaders in response to the injustice(s). Starratt highlights that a response towards the injustice by a school leader may not be adequate, but it is the undertaking of action towards the recognizable injustice that provides the foundation for the ethic of justice.

According to Starratt the perspective of justice situates school leaders to raise discussions on issues of discipline policies, curriculum, appropriate textbook, multicultural education, and grading and testing. The foundation of this ethic in schools is that the freedom of individual choices is juxtaposed with community choices to create a school culture that values both. Thus, the ethical justice perspective argues for the restructuring of school activities to better serve all students.

The third ethical lens considered by Starratt is the ethic of caring. Starratt believes the use of care by school leaders “postulates a level of caring that honors the dignity of each person and desires to see that person enjoy a fully human life” (p. 195). Starratt calls for the merging of the ethical lenses of justice and caring in order to push school leaders to understand and evaluate how the school as an institution can be a system that disempower some students and move them to transform such issues in his or her school to increase the opportunities for all students. Starratt argues that school leaders who use the perspective of care challenge the “underside” motives— such as racial, sexual, and ethnic stereotypes—disrupting honest interactions between teachers, students, or parents. Hence, Starratt argues that the three ethical themes “complement and enrich each other in a more complete ethic” that enables school leaders to build “a rich and pluriform ethical environment” (p. 198). All in all, the ethical perspectives of critique, justice, and care proposed by Starratt can support school leaders’ implementation of equitable practices that serve marginalized groups—students of color and of low-SES.

Sergiovanni presents the argument for the legitimacy of moral authority in school leadership. According to Sergiovanni the foundational base of school leadership lies in the perceived reality of his or her beliefs, values, and commitments. Sergiovanni argues that professional and moral authority should be the foundation of educational leadership practice.

Sergiovanni suggest that morally based leadership is the kind of leadership “that touches people differently. It taps their emotions, appeals to their values, and responds to their connections with other people” (p. 120). An effective leader, according to Sergiovanni is a leader who is able to persuade—motivating and inspiring—educational stakeholders towards working together for the core purpose of creating a learning community for all students.