Lisa Andresen

EDUW695
February 8, 2014
Journal Assignments
Case #1: SD vs CC
Facts:
-SD, a 5th grade student with cognitive disabilities and limited verbal speech abilities, got off the bus at
school and accused another student of stealing her necklace.
-The necklace was made of plastic beads and has no monetary value.
-No one saw the incident take place.
-The incident took place on the school bus on the way to school.
-The student did not report the incident to the bus driver.
-SD went to her classroom para-professional TS, and accused GS of stealing her necklace
-GS is a 5th grade girl with a learning disability accused of stealing a necklace
-GS had two issues with theft last year at school.
-TS approached CC, the para-professional in GSs room to inform her of the situation.
-CC called GS to her locker where she asked her questions regarding the theft.
-GS denied taking the necklace
-CC went through GSs backpack and coat pockets and had her empty her pants pockets.
-The stolen necklace was not found
-CC did not check with any teachers or administrators before searching GSs locker.
-CC often oversteps her boundaries.
-CC informed GSs classroom teacher of the situation after it had taken place.
Ethical Issue:
Did the para-professional CC have the right to search GCs locker?
Arguments:
Pro:
-The para was justified in what she did
-The para should not have to waste the principals time with such trivial issues.
-GS later gave SD her necklace so she had taken it.
-The end justifies the means.
Con:
-The para has a history of overstepping her boundaries
-The para does not have the authority to search students/their possession/their lockers.
-There was no evidence against GS, only the interpreted complaint of a student.
Ethical Decision and why:
No, CC did not have the right to search GSs locker. CC is not in an administrative position and does not
have the authority to search student lockers, even if reasonable suspicion is present, which it was not.
Non-Consequentialist

Case #2: RM vs WA
Facts:
-RM was a teacher at a residential treatment facility for youth ages 10-21
-RM had 20 years of teaching
-RM was terminated for failing to properly supervise students.
-Students were transitioning from an inside classroom to the gym, going through a carport area.
-Two students ran past RM, jumped on the back of a third student and began to beat him.
-RM had been written up several times for insubordination, by AB, the facility principal.
-RM had a rocky relationship with the facility principal, AB, who had called him in for verbal
reprimands
several times in the two weeks leading to this situation
-RM was not the only staff supervising students in this area. Another teacher, KS, was also
transitioning her students from another building to an inside classroom.
-RM did not have a second staff and was out of staff:student ratio, but was told by supervising staff to
transition and another staff would meet them at the door. This staff was called to another student
altercation and did not meet RM and his nine students.
Ethical Issue:
Should RM have been terminated?
Arguments:
Pro: RM should have been terminated.
-RM knew he was out of ratio and should have waited for a second staff.
-When the second staff was not at the door RM should have gone back to his classroom or waited
inside where the ratio is different.
-It was not KSs job to help supervise RMs students and he should not have relied on her presence for
part of the transition.
Con: RM should not have been terminated.
-RM was told by supervising staff to transition.
-RM could have been written up for not following supervisor instruction if he had not transitioned
when told to do so.
-Another teacher, KS, was in the same area with her four students. Combined they were in ratio.
-RM did not know that the two students planned the attack.
Ethical Decision and why:
Deterrence AB wanted to send a message to other staff that she was in charge
Consequentialist

Case #3: PA vs VHS

Facts:
-PA is a senior in HS
-PA has had an IEP since his freshman year his goals have remained the same.
-PA has an IEP with two goals: one regarding attendance and one regarding missing work
-PA had an attendance issues and was reported, with support from Mom, for truancy. Since this
notification, his attendance has been nearly perfect.
-PA struggles with organization and often his missing work is completed, but lost somewhere. He
refuses to redo work when it is missing.
-PAs special education teacher allows Peder to use social media sites for recreation during his
resource rather than see that he does homework.
-PAs mother is upset because Peder has again failed another class.
-PAs mother does not believe his IEP goals are being met because teaching staff does not follow
through, ie: not following his IEP, a legal document.
-PA is not always honest, although he has greatly improved in his regard.
-PA always has an excuse for why he does not have his work in, some are often partially legitimate.
-As a senior, PA should be taking responsibility for himself and his actions.
-PAs mom checked the on-line grading system weekly but often found it difficult to determine if
assignments were missing due to staff not reporting grades in a timely fashion.
-PA has failed two classes in which the teachers did not posting missing work or F grades on a regular
basis.
-PAs mom was told many times that he needed to learn to be responsible for his work when she
would question why he had missing work.
-Part of one goal was that PA write in a daily assignment notebook, teachers were to assist with this.
-Classroom teachers did not check that he wrote assignments in his planner and ultimately he simply
refused to carry it with him.
Ethical Issue:
Is the school following PAs IEP by allowing him to continue to fail classes?
Arguments:
Pro: Yes, they are following the IEP
-It is ultimately the PAs responsibility to see that his work is turned in.
-PA is not willing to do his part toward his goals, by being unwilling to redo work that he misplaced.
Con: No, they did not follow PAs IEP.
-Part of PAs disability is his inability to be organized and his IEP reflects this.
-PA has not been given the support he needs to meet his goals and should be on pass/fail.
-PA is being punished (receiving F grades) for his inability to remain organized.
-PA has made significant progress on his attendance goal.
Ethical Decision and why:
Peders IEP is not being followed. After four years the IEP team has not changed his goals to reflect
growth nor have they followed through with parts of his IEP utilizing planners to help with
organization. Classroom teachers did not follow through with assisting PA with writing in his planner,
as stated in his IEP.
Non- Consequentialist

Case #4: GB vs NCMS

Facts:
-GB in gym class gets dressed much slower than the other students. He is always the last student to
leave the locker room and often arrives after the teacher.
-He is stealing money from the other students, but not enough that it is noticed immediately.
-PE instructor returns to his office during class to get something and catches GB going through another
students locker.
-Upon questioning, GB admits he has been stealing for some time.
-GB is told he will be turned in for theft and will probably be suspended.
-GB breaks down and tells PE that he has been stealing to help support his family.
Ethical Issue:
Should PE turn GB in for theft?
Arguments:
Pro:
-The rules are clear-cut: theft results in suspension or an even greater punishment
-Students are missing money and have a right to know where it went
Con:
-Social services should be contacted anonymously
-PE ensures that GB is no longer left alone in the locker room (eliminates his opportunity to steal)
Ethical Decision and why:
GB should be turned in for theft. PE has mandatory reporting and his own license would be on the line
if he did not report.
Non-Consequentialist

Case #5:
HS and JS vs BF
Facts:
-Two HS teachers cut through the semi-lighted gym and sees that BF has JS on the
floor and is attacking him.
-Staff separates the two students.
-Staff questions the two students.
-BF states that he has been bullied and picked on by the other student and his friends over the course
of the year.
-BF states he saw JS cutting through the gym alone and confronted him 1:1.
-The two exchanged words and JS shoved BF.
-BF attacks JS he is alone and BF has had enough.
Ethical Issue:
Should BF be suspended for fighting?
Arguments:
Pro:
-Yes, rules on physical fighting are clear.
-Being bullied is not an excuse for violence.
-BF was clearly breaking the rules.
Con:
-No, BF is the victim, he was simply defending himself.
Ethical Decision and why:
Yes, BF has broken the school policy on physical violence on school property and must be punished.
Non-Consequentialist

Case #6:
CC vs VHS
Facts:
-HS teacher BB overhears CC talking with another student at their lockers. CC is telling the other girl
that she is pregnant.
-CC is 14 years old
-BB teaches the FACE courses, including Family Living
-BB know the student does not have a very supportive family: low-income single mom with three
younger children.
-CC has been in trouble with the police for minor infractions and is not known for her honesty.
Ethical Issue:
Is BB obligated for reporting the conversation due to mandatory reporting laws?
Arguments:
Pro: Yes, BB should report.
-The student is a minor; BB is obligated based on mandatory reporting laws.
Con: No, BB is not obligated to report.
-BB does not know if CC is actually pregnant.
-BB has only overheard part of the conversation and does not know the full context of what was said.
Ethical Decision and why:
BB is not obligated to report. She does not know if CC is actually pregnant and confiding in her friend
or lying.
Consequentialist