17 Responses

1. Thanks to all of you for sharing your ethical dilemma with the Ropu. They are all tricky, complex and multi layered issues and consequently probably have taken a bit of your time and thinking. I greatly appreciated your honesty and willingness to share an issue for which there wasn’t an easy answer for. Well done. Grant

   Log in to Reply

2. Mōrena everyone

   My ethical Dilemma

   To give a little context…. This has been something ongoing from term 4 last year and now into term 1 of this year. I have taken the role of acting DP this year which has meant I am now working with this department but also missed a lot of what went on last year as I was not in the role. This is both a good and a bad things as a fresh perspective and fresh voice has been valuable but also hard for me to piece together all of what has happened last year.

   A departments I look after has a teacher who works and communicates in a very different way to the rest of the department. They at times are not aware of how they communicate and this has caused issues with student/ whanau complaints and also within the department. At the end of last year it reached a point where it all came to a head and created some huge fractures. Ultimately one of the staff left at the end of the year.

   Currently the group I am working with is the dept HOD who needs to take more of a leadership role in running the dept, the teacher who is needing to work on their professional relationships and communication style and a new teacher to the dept who I need to ensure has a positive start.

   So far this year we also had a short term reliever who filled the gap between the departing staff member and the new teacher. This also added another component as they brought in their own personal view of the situation. At the time they were hired it was un known that they already new about this department conflict and also had their own agenda with it. That created a second issue for me that needed to be managed.

   My approach has been working with an outside provider who specialises in conflict resolution however the staff member at the root of these issues is not engaging with them. It is working well for the HOD as they feel well supported and we are putting in place some strategies to support their leadership which is already having a positive impact. However due to the break down last year most of the trust has been lost and because this other teacher is not engaging with the outside provider the HOD at times is frustrated.

   My relationship with the other staff member is positive and they feel good about having a fresh person involved and have come around to wanting to sort this out and set up a strong dept moving forward. They have also committed to ensuring the new incoming staff member is welcomed and feels supported which has been really positive. They have been receptive in honest conversation and have taken on feedback from me which has been a step in the right direction however I am working towards this process being able to happen within the dept so it becomes self sustaining.

   When looking through the ethical decision making model getting the facts has been a hard one for me due to the majority of this occurring before I had any involvement. However through building my own relationships with these staff members I have been able to get what I need to help make progress. This almost needed to be done before I could recognise the nature of the issue as it provided clarity around this.

   In terms of making decisions testing and acting there have been many parts to this situation from the leadership challenges the HOD has needed to work on whilst maintaining their mana, Professional standards being met by the other teacher involved along with the reliever who came in and ensuring a safe and productive work space for our new teacher. All of these factors also need to involve ensuring that staff wellbeing remains in the best place possible through working on these.

   So far things are going well. The new staff member is enjoying their time and working well in their space. They feel supported and have thoroughly enjoyed their transition to our school. The HOD is working well with stepping up more in their leadership whilst being supported by myself and the outside provider. The other teacher involved has made positive steps in addressing the main issue at hand with the department but we are still working on a long term shift in ensuring this remains consistent and creating some awareness around how they interact with both staff and students.

   When reflecting on this it is not a short term fix as there were so many aspects to this situation. However I have found that having a process to work through does give me confidence in what I am doing and that I am considering each part of the situation as well as each individual within it.

   1

   Log in to Reply

3. Kia ora koutou,

   This is a fairly complex ethical dilemma, so I’ll try and break it down clearly.

   As a newly appointed DP in charge of Year 11 I was asked to attend a meeting with our SENCO, Year 11 Dean, CAHMS worker, Year 11 student and her parents. The items on the agenda of the meeting were;
   -The students lack of attendance
   -The students lack of engagement with Teacher Aides
   -To discuss the outcome of the recent CAHMS assessment of the student and how the school could continue to provide support for the student given her recent diagnosis of ADHD and very low cognitive ability.

   The student had a long history of being disengaged at school and the family had often made excuses for her lack of attendance or poor behaviour at school.

   The meeting went fairly well and some clear strategies were laid out to try and help the student succeed, although the parents were often very dismissive when points were raised about poor decisions or behaviour from their daughter. They instead wanted to focus on what strategies the school could put in place to help their daughter. Towards the end of the meeting the student made a comment about a teacher aide and alluded to an inappropriate comment the teacher aide had made about the behaviour of the students mother. The mother misunderstood what the child was trying to say and dismissed her as she thought the comments were directed at the mothers behaviour towards teachers in the past.

   Following the meeting I sent an email to all members of the meeting (except the student). Key points were;
   1. Asking the parents to work with their daughter to set some clear goals for the rest of the year (focusing on attendance and engagement with teacher aides, not making excuses to leave class etc)
   2. Some clarity around subject choice changes
   3. Important changes in behaviour the student needed to take in order to experience success
   4. Requesting a copy of the CHAMS report from the parents so we could further improve strategies for helping this student.

   In reply to this email the Mother came back and thanked us for the meeting, dismissed any acceptance of her daughter not making the right decisions and said they would send through the report. She also said that following the meeting her daughter had told her more about the conversation she’d had with the Teacher Aide and that the teacher aide had said “Your mother’s got a big mouth”.

   She also said that the timing of that comment is what led to her daughter trying to take her own life.

   The mother requested an apology from the teacher aide.

   Given this information I first spoke with the SENCO. She gave a glowing character reference of the TA in question.

   I spoke again with the student and got a detailed statement from her. She gave me some direct quotes from the teacher aide but never quoted her as saying “your mother has a big mouth”.

   I interviewed three other students who were there, none heard the TA use these words.

   I interviewed the TA and she denies saying those words and instead told me she said “No, you can’t go and see Mr Meade right now, you need to come to class, I’ll take you to see him at the end of the period. I know your mother is coming in for a meeting and I know she won’t be happy if she knows you missed class”. The student ignored these instructions and came to see me (I obviously had no idea she’d completely ignored the TA instructions).

   Given these conversations (and written statements) I emailed Mum back and told her I think there’d been a break down of communication. The witnesses, the daughter herself and the TA never made any mention of the original quote Mum sent through. I acknowledged there had definitely been a relationship breakdown and we could look at a restorative.

   The Mother replied saying she didn’t appreciate her daughter being pressured to change her story but welcomed a restorative.

   Given the huge weight of the claim that the TA’s comment caused the student to attempt suicide, the TA declined the invitation of a restorative. The Dean and SENCO also supported this decision given their experience with the parents and their tendency to deflect responsibility and blame the school in the past.

   Believe it or not, this is actually the short version of events.

   RECOGNISE THE NATURE OF THE ISSUE
   I feel the issue is very complex but feel I’ve looked at it from many angles to try and gain an understanding of all members.

   GET THE FACTS
   The goal of the interviews and statement gathering from the TA and students, as well as character reference from the SENCO were all key steps in getting the facts.

   EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
   I was originally hoping to hold a restorative. Although I didn’t feel the TA had said what she was accused of and definitely didn’t believe she was responsible for the suicide attempt, I did feel there had been a relationship breakdown and thought it was appropriate to look to mend that. My discussions with the SENCO and Dean prior to meeting with the TA helped me see the dilemma from a perspective of well-being for the TA. I spoke with the TA, outlined what had been said and asked if she would be open to participating in a restorative. I also told her I would not accept her answer on the spot and wanted her to think about it first. I caught up with her the following week and she told me she wasn’t comfortable with a restorative.

   MAKE A DECISION
   The decision is to decline the restorative and instead ensure the TA and student no longer work together.

   TEST IT
   Not sure exactly how to complete this step given the scenario

   ACT
   The decision has been made not to hold a restorative. The scenario is so fresh I have not yet shared it with the family. I will do so very soon endeavouring to do it in a way that keeps the mana of the student and the TA in tact

   REFLECT
   Watch this space…

   1

   Log in to Reply

4. Kia ora koutou, apologies for the delay. This dilemma came up in Term 1, previously our learning assistants were working one on one with students in their designated classroom this learning assistant would leave the classroom for random breaks (not following her schedule) she would also leave her student at 2pm to start cleaning when she was meant to start cleaning at 2:30pm. The issue was addressed with her by our tumuaki but has continued. In Term 2, we moved all of our ORS students into one classroom “Takiwaatanga” with all learning assistants in the same space. The issue has come up again and now the other learning assistants and the kaiako are feeling frustrated with this learning assistant who is not following the schedule.

   Ethical Principles:
   *Responsibility and Accountability: Learning Assistants have a responsibility to be present and fulfill their assigned duties to support students and teachers effectively. Repeatedly failing to do so demonstrates a lack of accountability.
   *Fairness and Equity: Her absence has created an unfair burden on the teacher and other learning assistants in the room who have had to manage without expected support, it has also had an impact on students who are missing out on the assistance they need.
   *Professionalism and Integrity: Her consistent lateness or absence from assigned areas undermines professional standards and the integrity of the support system within the kura.
   *Respect for Others: Not being where they should be shows a lack of respect for the time and effort of teachers, students, and the overall functioning of the kura.

   Different Perspectives:
   *The Learning Assistant: There might be underlying reasons for their lateness or absence. These could range from personal challenges to a lack of clarity regarding their schedule or responsibilities. They might not fully understand the impact of their actions.
   *The Teachers: They may feel frustrated by the lack of consistent support, which could impact their teaching effectiveness and increase their workload. They might perceive a lack of commitment from the Learning Assistant.
   *The Students: Students who rely on the Learning Assistant’s support may be disadvantaged by their absence, potentially hindering their learning and progress.
   *Other Learning Assistants: They might feel it’s unfair if one colleague isn’t meeting expectations, especially if it indirectly impacts their own workload or perceptions of the team.
   *The Kura Leadership (including myself as an Associate Principal): We have a responsibility to ensure a functional and supportive learning environment for all students and staff. This includes addressing performance issues fairly and consistently.

   Potential Consequences:
   *Negative Impact on Student Learning: Students may not receive the timely support they need, hindering their academic progress and well-being.
   Increased Teacher Workload and Stress: Teachers may have to compensate for the lack of Learning Assistant support, leading to burnout and decreased effectiveness.
   *Erosion of Team Morale: Other staff members may become resentful if the issue is not addressed, impacting the overall team dynamic.
   *Compromised Trust: Trust between the Learning Assistant, teachers, students, and leadership can be eroded.
   *Inefficient Use of Resources: The kura’s resources are not being utilized effectively if a paid staff member is not consistently fulfilling their duties.
   *Setting a Poor Precedent: Ignoring the issue could signal that such behavior is acceptable, potentially leading to similar issues with other staff members.

   Discussions with colleagues at school about this dilemma:
   I have discussed this issue with the lead learning assistant and my tumuaki.
   – The lead learning assistant asked me to give her a clear timetable with times and places she needs to be. She also asked that this be displayed in the staffroom and in the takiwaatanga space. The lead learning assistant also noted that this learning assistant is currently attached to one of our more difficult students and that perhaps shuffling this student to another learning assistant would help. She also asked me to consider allowing the learning assistant to have a later lunch (2pm) so that she could start cleaning early if she wanted to.

   – Our tumuaki reminded me of this learning assistants health issue with seisures and suggested that perhaps her health issues were impacting on her memory. He agreed with a simple timetable placed where she is able to check and see it. He also suggested keeping her schedule the same everyday. He felt an informal hui with gentle reminders would be best for now.

   My approach – this began in Week 2, we are currently in Week 4.
   *New clear schedule, shared with all learning assistants, staff and displayed in staffroom and takiwaatanga space.
   *Informal Meeting with the Learning Assistant: We had an informal meeting where I shared with her, her new timetable and new priority student. I asked her how she felt about having a later lunch break so she can start cleaning earlier if she wanted to, she was happy with this. I also emphasised that she needs to make sure she where she is scheduled to be or is informing myself (teacher) and/or the lead learning assistant that she is going somewhere else.
   *Monitoring Plan: Each day I have been checking in with the lead learning assistant on this learning assistants performance. She has noted significant improvement.
   *Escalate if Necessary: If there is no significant improvement despite support and clear expectations, I will follow the kura’s performance management policies, which may include formal warnings and disciplinary action.
   *Consult with SLT: I informed the SLT and tumuaki of the plan above.

   1

   Log in to Reply

5. Hi everyone, Sorry for my late reply to this post.
   Ethical Reflection: Navigating a Relationship Challenge

   My ethical dilemma is with a teacher who is well-planned and organised but struggles to build relationships with students and whānau. She does not even see that the students and their families are unhappy and there have been a number of complaints about her and her manner with the students. She has come from overseas and has found it harder with the multiple levels and learning needs in her classroom so students are either bored or find the work really hard and would rather work with the learning assistant than with the teacher. She also asks the learning assistant to work with any students who have extra learning or behaviour needs. Families frequently request moves from her class, and despite feedback, the teacher is often resistant to change or she can’t see that there is a problem – or that the problem is always the students, she is not very quick to reflect on her own teaching. Cultural misunderstandings and deficit thinking appear to be contributing factors. it is hard because on paper she is organised, well prepared etc but as a person students and whanau struggle with her.

   Drawing on the Ethical Decision-Making Model, I recognise the need to gather full information, consult with others, and evaluate options carefully. From the Tū Rangatira framework, leadership must be grounded in Mana Mokopuna (placing learners at the heart) and Mana Tangata (nurturing strong relationships). I must act as a Kaitiaki (guardian) to protect the well-being of all learners while also maintaining the mana of the teacher.

   The Harvard guide on Ethical Leadership highlights that ethical leadership must be guided by respect, accountability, honesty, service, and community. It has also been reinforced in all of the readings and information the importance of stepping into discomfort with integrity rather than avoiding it. The problem will not go away on it’s own and while it is an uncomfortable conversation it needs to be addressed otherwise the situation will only get worse.

   At this stage, our senior leadership team is gathering student voice to gain greater insight into the experiences of all students. We have also developed a plan for Term Two to improve overall student motivation and engagement across the kura.

   In discussion my DP and Principal we have started to put some of these steps in place:

   Gather robust evidence: Student voice, whānau feedback, and structured classroom observations. (started this already and feedback has been interesting from the students).

   Engage in a mana-enhancing conversation: Using appreciative inquiry to affirm strengths before addressing relational gaps. When this conversation happens we need to put steps into place to make sure that there is accountability for the teacher in question for what she is going to do to improve outcomes for the learners and their whanau.

   Offer professional support: Focused on building culturally responsive practices and relational pedagogy.

   Create a partnership plan: With clear goals, timelines, and support structures, ensuring the teacher feels included and valued.

   Prioritise transparency: Communicate respectfully with whānau about improvement efforts, without breaching confidentiality.

   I’m aim to act ethically, restore strong relationships, and support both teacher development and student success and to keep the mana of the teacher in tack but also the students and their whanau so that they feel supported and validated with their concerns. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated

   2

   Log in to Reply
6. Log in to Reply

7. Herewith my ethical dilemma:
   I run the senior half of our school, and my team is highly productive and motivated, which is hugely rewarding. I’ve discovered it can have its weaknesses. Teacher A is incredibly passionate about their work, which I absolutely respect. They connect with students in a meaningful way and always go above and beyond to ensure that their students are engaged and learning. However, in staff situations/meetings/breaks, their strong emotions and outspoken views sometimes cause tension within the team.

   Teacher A is very vocal about their personal beliefs, especially political ones, and this has led to some uncomfortable moments. One incident involved a meeting I led where, after we moved forward with implementing a management decision (of which I am part of) on a new government initiative, Teacher A sent an email to the entire team, saying that the meeting didn’t allow for freedom of expression. This email came without me having been approached directly first, and it felt like Teacher A was undermining me in front of the team. One team member responded with an email in support of the management decision but also acknowledging the sentiment, the others preferred not to become involved.

   Another situation occurred when we decided to get rid of some old resources that were no longer in use (over 20 years old, and available in an online format). After a PD session (coincidentally the next day) where those resources were praised, Teacher A became upset and even took the discarded materials back out of the skip. They expressed their frustration loudly, and after I tried to resolve the situation afterwards, Teacher A compared the decision to “book burning.” This reaction was particularly difficult to handle because it felt like the issue was being blown out of proportion, and it was undermining team cohesion.

   Then, there was an incident where Teacher A started venting about a politician we had not been discussing (we’ve been careful to avoid politically connected conversations). The conversation got heated and uncomfortable, especially with the Principal present. I tried to diffuse the situation with humour, but I realised that I wasn’t always prepared for how to handle these outbursts.

   These situations created a lot of tension, and I was left feeling unsure about how to manage the situation effectively while still maintaining a healthy team dynamic.

   Analysis:
   I quickly realised that Teacher A’s behaviour, while driven by a genuine passion and conviction, was affecting the team. Teacher A’s emotional responses and personal beliefs often took centre stage in situations where the focus should have been on team decisions and the collective goals we were working toward. It wasn’t just about one incident—it was a pattern of behaviour that, if left unchecked, could have a long-term negative impact on the team’s ability to collaborate effectively.

   The underlying issue seemed to be that Teacher A often didn’t take the time to think things through before reacting. Their strong opinions and emotions sometimes led them to make snap judgments, and instead of discussing concerns directly with me, they opted to air their grievances in ways that caused confusion and disruption within the team.

   I could see how their passionate nature, combined with a lack of consideration for team processes, was creating an environment where others felt uncomfortable speaking up. This led to silence and avoidance of usual topics in the room, rather than open dialogue, which is crucial for a functioning team. I also realised that while I was being affected by these situations, others in the team might have been feeling the same way, but weren’t speaking up for fear of being caught in the crossfire of Teacher A’s reactions.

   Strategies taken to resolve:
   Communicating with the team member – The first step was having a conversation with Teacher A about the email they sent to the team. Instead of letting it fester, I approached the situation directly. I spoke calmly and explained why it was problematic that they had sent an email without speaking to me first. Teacher A was receptive and apologised, admitting that they hadn’t thought things through. This was a positive step, and it confirmed the importance of addressing issues as they arise, before they escalate.

   Communicating with the Principal – Throughout these situations, I kept the Principal in the loop. We discussed the impact of Teacher A’s behaviour and how it was affecting team dynamics. The Principal was supportive, and we agreed that some of the behaviours were undermining my leadership and creating unnecessary friction. Having the Principal’s perspective helped me feel supported and gave me a clearer sense of how to navigate the situation. We both agreed that I needed to set clearer communication guidelines moving forward to ensure that concerns were addressed in a more constructive manner.

   Change in communication protocol – After speaking with Teacher A and the Principal, I realised I needed to be more proactive in setting expectations for communication. I introduced a clearer structure for meetings, ensuring that all team members had the chance to raise concerns beforehand, which allowed us to stay on track and avoid emotional outbursts during the actual meeting. I also made it clear that any concerns or disagreements should be addressed directly with me before being shared with the wider team.

   Redirecting focus – In the face of strong opinions, it was important to remind everyone—including myself—of the bigger picture. I kept steering conversations back to the collective goals of the team. When decisions were made, I worked to ensure that everyone understood the rationale behind them, even if they disagreed. This helped minimise the emotional reactions and allowed us to focus on what was best for the team and the students/community we serve.

   Managing my own reactions – Finally, I worked on managing my own emotional responses. Occasionally, when tensions were high, I realised that my instinct was to jump in and fix things immediately. But I learned that sometimes it’s better to step back and let things cool off. Not every disagreement needs to be addressed on the spot, and sometimes giving everyone—including myself—a bit of space to reflect leads to better outcomes.

   I’ve learned that not every controversial or passionate remark needs to be addressed immediately, but there are moments when it’s important to offer redirection, especially if it’s derailing the conversation or creating unnecessary tension. The key, for me, is finding that balance and making sure that the team remains focussed on what we’re trying to achieve together, without stifling individuality.

   It’s been a challenge, but I’ve grown as a leader in the process. Setting clear communication guidelines, addressing concerns directly, and reminding the team of our shared purpose has helped maintain a healthy team dynamic.

   1

   Log in to Reply

   1. This is a great reflection thanks for sharing I think we can all relate to something similar to this.

      Log in to Reply

8. Last year, during our 5-day school trip to Wellington with the Year 9-10 class, we encountered a challenging situation on the evening of day 3. Three boys threw food and plastic bottles out of their hotel window, hitting a pedestrian and a man’s car. Thankfully, the hotel receptionist managed to calm both parties, and no charges were pressed. Our camp letters clearly stated that misbehaving students would be sent home at their parents’ expense. However, with limited flight availability and the impracticality of having a staff member spend a whole day at the airport, we consulted with the principal and decided to keep the boys with us for the final day. They were not allowed to participate in the fun activities like ziplining, a mall visit, and arcade games, and instead, sat with a staff member. As the incident occurred after 9pm, we informed the parents the next morning to avoid unnecessary worry. Upon returning to school, the boys were barred from the next EOTC event and required to write a letter of apology to the hotel. The form teacher documented the incident and our actions for future reference.

   • Ethical Framework
   We considered the potential outcomes of different actions. Sending the boys home immediately could have caused logistical challenges and additional stress for both staff and students. By keeping them with the group but excluding them from activities, we balanced the need for discipline with practicality. The consequence was a learning opportunity for the boys without disrupting the entire trip.

   • Decision-Making Process:
   Gather Information: We assessed the situation, including the severity of the boys’ actions and the logistical challenges of sending them home immediately.
   Consider Perspectives: We considered the perspectives of the hotel staff, the affected pedestrian and driver, the students and their parents. The decision to inform parents the next morning took into account their potential worry and inability to act from afar.
   Evaluate Options: We weighed the options of immediate dismissal versus keeping the boys with the group under supervision. The chosen option ensured safety and supervision while still holding the boys accountable.
   Make a Decision: The decision to exclude the boys from activities but keep them with the group was a balanced approach, considering both the policy and practical constraints.
   Reflect on Values: The decision aligned with values of responsibility, safety and learning from mistakes, emphasising both accountability and empathy.

   • Potential Consequences:
   Positive: The boys learned about the consequences of their actions and the importance of respecting rules. The group remained intact, minimising disruption to the trip.
   Negative: There might be perceptions of inconsistency in policy enforcement, which could be addressed by clearly communicating the reasoning behind the decision.

   • Ethical Principles and School Policies:
   The situation highlighted the need for flexibility in applying policies while maintaining fairness and safety. It may be beneficial to review the school’s EOTC policies to include provisions for handling such incidents, ensuring clarity and consistency in future situations.

   2

   Log in to Reply

9. As the Head of the Mathematics Department at Aorere College and a leader in the South Auckland Cluster of Mathematics teachers and HODs, I encountered an ethical dilemma when a Year 13 student was denied entry into the Calculus course by their teacher. The teacher, supported by a colleague, justified this decision based on the student’s underperformance in Year 12, arguing that they were unlikely to succeed and that their presence might slow down the class. However, the student personally approached me and shared that their previous struggles were due to personal circumstances rather than a lack of ability or effort. They expressed a strong commitment to succeeding in Calculus, emphasising that it was critical to their career pathway. This situation raised an ethical question: Should a student be excluded from an academic opportunity based solely on past performance, despite their commitment to improvement? To analyse this dilemma, I considered different perspectives and the potential consequences of the decision. From the student’s perspective, they believed they had the capability and motivation to succeed with proper support, and being denied entry would negatively impact their future career prospects, potentially leading to discouragement and disengagement. From the teacher’s perspective, they wanted to ensure that students in the class were prepared for the rigorous demands of Level 3 Calculus, were concerned about classroom management and overall class progress, and viewed past performance as an indicator of future success. Key ethical and educational principles also had to be considered, such as equity vs. academic standards, where I questioned whether past struggles should determine future opportunities, or whether students should be given a chance to prove themselves, and growth mindset vs. fixed mindset, debating whether students should be encouraged to challenge themselves or be filtered out based on previous results. Another critical factor was the right to learn, asking whether access to education should be limited based on past results or if students should have the opportunity to improve. There were also potential negative consequences of denying entry, such as the student missing out on their career pathway due to a single decision, demotivation of other students facing similar challenges, and the reinforcement of a fixed mindset culture in the department rather than encouraging resilience and growth. To ensure that my decision was fair and well-informed, I took several steps. I consulted with stakeholders, meeting with the student to understand their motivation and challenges, discussing with the teachers to hear their concerns and clarify their rationale for exclusion, and reviewing school policies on subject entry criteria to ensure consistency. I gathered information by examining the student’s academic records and their potential for improvement, seeking insights from pastoral care and support teams regarding the student’s personal circumstances, and exploring possible support structures such as additional tutoring and monitoring. As I host the South Auckland Cluster of Mathematics teachers and HODs, I also used this platform to discuss this case without revealing specific details, seeking insights on how other schools manage similar subject entry dilemmas. The discussion provided perspectives on best practices, which informed my approach to ensuring fairness and equity in decision-making. To ensure fairness and transparency, I facilitated a meeting with both teachers and the student to discuss possible solutions collaboratively, emphasised that subject entry should not be based solely on past performance but should consider student agency and commitment, and developed an individualised learning plan for the student, including additional support and progress monitoring. I documented my ethical analysis and decision-making process to share in the school’s strategic leadership forum, seeking feedback on how other departents handle similar dilemmas, balancing academic expectations with student-centered decision-making, and best practices for ensuring equity in subject selection. Ultimately, the student was given the opportunity to take Year 13 Calculus, with a structured support system in place. This decision upheld both academic integrity and equity, ensuring that the student was not unfairly disadvantaged due to past hardships. Reflecting on the outcome, it was what I intended—to provide the student with an opportunity while maintaining academic integrity. However, next time, I would ensure that subject entry discussions happen earlier in the year so that students and teachers are aligned before course selection is finalised. Additionally, I would advocate for a clearer and more transparent subject entry policy that balances performance with individual student circumstances. One unexpected consequence was the discomfort felt by the teachers involved, who initially saw my decision as undermining their professional judgment. In the future, I would engage teachers earlier in the process, ensuring that their perspectives are heard and that decisions are made collaboratively to foster a shared sense of responsibility. This experience reinforced the importance of transparent, student-focused decision-making. By leveraging collaboration within the South Auckland Cluster, I was able to validate my approach and ensure consistency with regional best practices. As school leaders, we must navigate academic policies while considering individual student needs, ensuring that decisions are made fairly, consistently, and with student success at the center.

   1

   Log in to Reply

10. Here is the ethical dilemma I have chosen to address as we are attending school camp next week so this has been addressed fairly recently.

    We have a student at our school who was born a male but identifies as a female. This year this student and their parents have made the decision to change pronouns to she/her and their name to a female name. This was communicated with the students teacher and the leadership team and from the start of 2025 was introduced by her new name and pronouns. Children and teachers were all very accepting of this and there were very few questions around this. My ethical dilemma arises as it is school camp year. The parents of this child are very set on their child being treated as a female and therefore being able to share a bunk room and shower/toilet facilities with the other female students. The parent took it upon herself to start asking other parents if they would mind if her child slept in the same bunk room as them which has then caused some ‘talk’ among other parents. The parents have been very clear that if their child is not allowed to be with the girls during camp that the child will not be attending.

    It is important to consider all viewpoints and perspectives in this situation and ensure that every student is accepted for who they are but at the same time we need to ensure the safety of every child. We want every child to feel included and experience school camp. We need to ensure that the decision we make aligns with our school policies and procedures and that we have discussed all potential consequences and options to ensure all stakeholders are heard and valued.
    We met as an executive leadership team to problem solve some solutions and then met with the classroom teacher to gain perspective. We shared our ideas with all teachers attending school camp and further problems were solved. We did research into gender equality and read into a range of policies and procedures. We had discussions with our presiding member on the board around the solutions/ideas that we as a leadership team had come up with to ensure all students have equal opportunities and gender equality. We met with the parents to ensure all voices were being heard. We reached out to the MOE to seek advice on how they would suggest we approach the matter and discussed the solutions that we had come up with. We ensured that the board of trustees was kept up to date with the communication and conversations with the MOE and the leadership team. We then took this to a board meeting to further discuss. After hearing everyone’s points of view and clarifying/working through different scenarios we were able to come up with a plan that would ensure all students have equal opportunities, fostering inclusive environments. As an executive leadership team we then met with the parents to discuss the ideas we had come up with and allow the parents time to ask any questions or make any comments – it is important that we work together to make sure everyone involved is happy with the final decision. Our school policies align with our solution. We created a plan to ensure the consistency of messages.

    The plan/pathway we put in place is as follows:
    We are guided by our policies, and our policies are clear about the need for inclusion and student safety. We must ensure that all learners can access EOTC (camp!) as far as possible.
    We mustn’t disclose information about individual students in order to protect their privacy.
    A mixed bunk room is needed due to numbers of students attending camp – this bunk room has two areas – carefully select the students and parent helpers for the mixed bunk room
    Seek the consent of the parents and students in the mixed bunk room
    Communicate the existence of the mixed bunk room to parent helpers
    Prepare a statement which can be used in the event that questions arise about the mixed bunk room

    Staff, Board of Trustees, student and parents are all happy and accepting of the outcome and this has ensured that the mana of this child remains intact and that every child is able to experience camp and have equal opportunities.

    1

    Log in to Reply

    1. We have a student at our kura who was born female but identifies as male. We have had issues crop up with inter school sports events and even our own school sport events (cross country, athletics, swimming) where some kaiako believe this student should be participating as a female. This student has not attended camp yet, but it will be coming soon! Your post has inspired me to do as you have done! Discuss as SLT, look into policies, research gender equality, look into our policies and procedures and discuss these with BOT or presiding member.

       1

       Log in to Reply

       1. Hi Margaret, thank you for your reply. Please feel free to reach out if you would like me to unpack the steps we took further with you. All the best for working through this at your kura.

          Log in to Reply

11. Thanks for sharing Susan and Keely. Your interesting situations certainly resonate with me. I don’t have a ‘live’ ethical situation a play at the moment so have drawn on a previous example I’ve encountered. Here’s my example – excuse its lengthiness.

    Dilemma
    One of the heads of faculty (HOF) who I support and who uplines to me received multiple complaints about an experienced teacher (Teacher X) in their faculty raising concerns with Teacher X’s performance in the classroom. Recent work assigned to students was of sub-optimal standard, Teacher X was arriving late to class, exhibiting signs of being stressed that culminated one day in Teacher X lashing out verbally to the class in a manner that was very explicit and totally, utterly unacceptable (like really gross and uncalled for). Parents were aghast and rightly furious with the situation and emails and voicemails quickly came in with caregivers voicing concern with comments that ranged from ‘please explain’ through to ‘should we go to the press / teaching council etc. with this’ or demanding their child move classes. Further, our principal was away on sabbatical at the time and although another of our DP’s was acting principal at the time they were really busy with their new responsibilities and still acclimatizing to the demands of that position – hence the responsibility to handle this situation even-handedly sat with me.

    Further Context …
    Teacher X has a quite demanding middle leadership position in addition to their teaching duties. Many of the functions they oversee in this capacity are essential to our school, involve being well organised, proactive and precise. The point in the school year when this transgression took place was a very busy and demanding time in the school year for them with this position demanding a lot. The role they have is not one many others can step in to do at the drop of a hat and it has exacting processes that must be followed, as if they are not, or if certain actions expected of the role are not taken right when they are supposed to be, the consequences for the school can be quite pronounced. The point here is that their middle leadership role was specific and demanding at certain peak times of the year. Teacher X had, before I joined the school, apparently similarly lashed out verbally and it seemed that this was a result of similar pressures at the same time of the year or similar making them ‘boil over’. This was not know to me prior to having to step in to conflict resolve in the above scenario but became apparent fairly early on when I stepped in to investigate and mediate the situation. Additionally, Teacher X, who has diagnosed mild Asperger’s (which is normally not an issue or even noticeable), had recently started new medication for this and it was later revealed was encountering some challenges in their personal life outside of school that needed to be taken into consideration. Teacher X was somewhat known for ‘digging their heels in’ and refusing to take ownership of errors or their part to play in such situations which added another interesting layer of complexity to the situation. Though not themselves a gossip, Teacher X was in a faculty with tendencies to engage in rumour-mill type behaviour.

    Main ethical considerations were:
    Students Well-being
    Ensuring a safe learning environment – acting on legitimate parental concerns
    Teacher X’s own wellbeing
    Support a HOF who has majorly upset by the whole situation
    Following a fair and logical process of mediation, natural justice – keeping myself safe by doing so
    … there could even be others I’m missing here too.

    Analysis / Steps Taken
    Recognising the immediacy and potentially how pear shaped this situation could go, I immediately moved to clear a good deal of my schedule. I tried to calculate a rough estimate of what likely needed to be done to resolve the situation, with whom, in roughly what order, and over what time period. This was a bit ‘back of an envelope’ style but did help me get myself ready and organised.

    I then brought the situation in all the detail I had in these initial stages to the attention of the acting principal (and subsequently ensured they were regularly updated also). This included meeting with the HOF and the acting principal early on to write down all facts in full, clear detail and formulate a plan considering the severity of the situation. These first two steps happened within roughly an hour or my receiving word of the incident from the HOF.

    Right after this I acknowledged all parent email or voicemail complaints with return emails and phone calls. I assured each parent in turn that the matter was being dealt with and taken seriously, and that a process to investigate and resolve the situation at hand had been instigated which started with the remaining lessons for Teacher X with the class in question for the week the incident occurred being covered by another teacher. The next lesson was not until the afternoon of the next day providing enough time to meet with Teacher X to inform them of my decision.

    Next, I met with Teacher X and their HOF. I made sure to be clear about why I had called the meeting then listened closely to hear a full and frank account of matters from Teacher X and the HOF’s point of view. I acknowledged where they were coming from that their behaviour had been the result of stress piling up which spilled over as it had and a range of other work and external factors. I then made it clear that, be that as it may, we are duty bound as educators to manage our pressures and stresses and that they should not be taken out on students – the verbal eruption was over a minor issue in a lesson and was ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back’ so to speak but was something that could result in placing one’s career in jeopardy such was its egregious nature. I had Teacher X write down their perspective so that no details were missed and that things were made clear by putting them in writing.

    In the same meeting, I informed Teacher X that until the school could reasonably assure parents and students that students would not be yelled at inappropriately, that work assigned would improve, promptness to lessons improve, and a calmer and more convivial classroom atmosphere could be assured that they would not be teaching the class. I earmarked that this would be for the remainder of the school week (it was a Tuesday and there we two more lessons that week). This was to provide distance and time to work through supporting all parties and properly mediating the situation. Although initially not happy with this, once Teacher X understood that parents were livid and threatening going to the media or the teacher’s council etc., which I explained to them, they accepted this course of action and understood the need for a temporary distance from the situation. I assured Teacher X we were interested in helping them feel supported and empowered to avoid such incidents whilst also duty bound to ensure student wellbeing.

    Separately, I then met with each of the students most affected by the verbal tirade one-by-one and they each wrote statements about what happened. I already knew a lot of what they divulged so had deemed it not necessary to gather this before my initial meeting with Teacher X and their HOF. I explained to the students (a white lie I admit) that Teacher X had several important meetings coming up (not entirely untrue given their middle leadership role) and was ‘coincidently’ not likely to teach them again until the following week. They seemed to appreciate this.

    A follow up meeting with Teacher X and their HOF was held, relevant details shared from students shared with Teacher X to reflect upon, and then a return to class plan was devised and agreed to. Teacher X agreed to attend an external counselling session on basic anger management strategies, completed professional reading on managing a demanding classroom and wrote written reflections on this, and observed another colleague with a very challenging class when they would normally have the class they were suspended from. They enlisted help from wider whanau to ease some of the external demands that were falling on them and found a way to re-engage with regular exercise which, alongside their new medication and ensuring they took time to eat throughout the day, really helped improve their overall health and disposition. These measures and this initial turnaround took place during the remainder of the week when they were not teaching the class where the incident had taken place. Teacher X voluntarily suggested that they make an apology to the class when they returned.

    Before the end of the week I then contacted all parents again with updates of these steps taken (though taken discretion not to discuss details that were too personal to share with parents) and that Teacher X would be carefully supported back to lessons and monitored. With these assurances including acknowledging that quite serious steps could be taken if there were any further transgressions from Teacher X parents were reassured, content, and the situation de-escalated.

    The following week Teacher X returned to class. I sat in on their first lesson back completing my own admin at the back of the room but present throughout. Teacher X apologised for their behaviour in the earlier lesson explaining that it was a result of a number of stressors, and this was well received by the students. Their HOF sat in on their second lesson back. On the third lesson back Teacher X was back in sole charge and their HOF checked in from time to time over the following week.

    After a week or so I met with the HOF and a medium / long-term strategy devised and instigated for Teacher X to assure no further blow ups happened. This included looking carefully at what classes they were to have for the coming term and to change what was originally planned to have more variety of courses they were teaching, and a range of student cohorts i.e. not be overloaded with unruly-type classes and lower-level courses on top of stressful middle-leadership responsibilities. We then met with Teacher X to discuss our brainstorming, which Teacher X agreed to along with other simple measures they were to take if ever boiling point was approaching in the future. This really helped Teacher X to feel reassured and supported and they were at peace with their past errors yet determined not to repeat them. Their improved lifestyle choices outside of school were definitely helping too.

    Finally, a week or so on I checked in some of the student most affected by the original outburst and then their parents over the phone. All was going well and continued to right through to the end of the year. I also have regular meetings with the HOF concerned anyway and a perpetual agenda item in our catch ups (purely to monitor Teacher X’s wellbeing out of concern) is to check in on how they’re going. Teacher X is reported as being ‘a changed person’. The relationships of staff involved is in a really good strong place and most importantly the students originally affected received positive pastoral care and have had successful learning outcomes in the course.

    This situation would probably sit somewhere in the middle of the difficulty spectrum (for want of a better way of putting it) in terms of things I have encountered or have seen in schools I been a part of. I chose it because I feel it taught me a great deal about leadership with how active and quick (at times) I had to be, yet very calm and even ‘quiet’ to manage a tricky situation with complex dynamics keeping people’s mana in check whilst still providing care for our students. All the while the situation had the potential to ‘south’ and quickly if each step was not navigated at any stage with care.

    Key for me was getting a clear account of the facts – a ‘clear picture’, listening to all parties (literally being quiet so as to hear and then ask the right questions to induce reflect on a normally quite stubborn staff member’s part), recording all sides of the situation, not being afraid to make a few big calls, and taking the time to step through things right. Reflecting on the whole saga now has made me appreciate the need for composure in leadership and the great responsibility it demands of us to be considered and appraised our own conduct to ensure acceptable resolutions. Further, it shows how quickly a small but very poor action from a teacher can necessitate a lot of mediation from a leader charged with the responsibility of keeping their school a functioning learning environment and a safe place. I have subsequently discussed what played out with the acting principal and principal (upon their return) who thought the matter was well handled and were appreciative. I was certainly relieved when it all came to a close as positively as it did and learnt a great deal from the whole situation.

    1

    Log in to Reply

12. Thanks for sharing Keely, you have put a lot of thought into your dilemma. I hope it goes well for you and your team. It is never easy and it is hard to predict where these difficult conversation will go.

    Here is my ethical dilemma which I worked through last week, a bit of a story to begin with…
    Learning Assistant Dilemma – “Miscommunication Mayhem”
    This ethical dilemma began when learning assistant 1 was shadowing our five-year-old Down syndrome student, LA1 was trying to keep her distance hiding from sight (a new strategy she was trying). The Down syndrome child was hiding in amongst the bags, under a towel, not wanting to go back to class. Another learning assistant arrived (LA2) and almost tripped over the girl. LA2 got a fright and looked around seeing no one supporting tried to help. LA1 tried to get LA2’s attention but couldn’t so ended up yelling at her to move away, ‘she had eyes on her’. LA2 was very offended (personality type ‘Protagonist’). This was the start of the mayhem. LA2 defended herself and yelled back at LA1. LA1 (personality type ‘Adventurer’) coward and ran, she did not want confrontation. LA2 was highly offended as her high standards and values had been questioned. Both LAs were very upset and ‘downloaded’ to our Learning Support Coordinator. One crying and the other feeling very angry. Both stating they had done nothing wrong. However both are very upset.
    The LSC shared with me.
    RESPECT I took a day to process what I had heard as both LAs are highly respected, very caring, great at their jobs. Lovely people but have very different personalities. Both were very highly upset by the incident. Emotions were high. I decided to wait a few days and bring up the incident after each of their Professional Growth Cycle conversations (as they had shared with the LSC and were wanting to move on from the incident). GET THE FACTS – When I spoke to LA1 about the incident she voiced how she had tried to get LA2s attention a number of times before she had raised her voice, so therefore she did not understand why LA2 had yelled at her. When I spoke with LA2 she was highly upset because she had been yelled at, (had not heard the other attempts to get her attention) she had defended herself and yelled back.
    I processed what I had learnt and discussed next steps with a colleague. Having recently read ‘Quiet Leadership’ and this ethical module it helped with my next steps – EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS/MAKE A DECISION.
    I tested my plan with a valued colleague. TEST IT. Then I ACTED on it. To bring them together I asked permission from both, which I got. At the meeting the body language showed anger. I had to get them thinking and reflecting so I started with their values, how good they are at their jobs, the strong team we all are (we have 15 LAs at our school). I then talked about how I think it is a miscommunication. I said the purpose of today was not to judge or tell them what to do, it was about sharing each of their stories, clarify and reflect on what happened. Eventually (20 mins)…LA1 apologised and as soon as she did, LA2’s body language relaxed and she accepted the apology, they started to open up and talk. By the end of the conversation they hugged and laughed.
    I REFLECTED with a colleague.
    The ethical decision model and having read Quiet Leadership were very helpful in planning this meeting – it really made me think through my approach. I did a lot of planning and thinking as I really wanted this to have a successful outcome. I knew if I did not address this dilemma it would poison our positive culture within the learning support team and further into the wider school group.

    1

    Log in to Reply

    1. Thanks for sharing your ethical dilemma Susan. I applaud the way you handled the dilemma and resolved the conflict between the LA’s. As you state the positive culture of the LS team is fair too important to be put at risk by this issue. I also applaud how you allowed time to pass so that the heat could pass from the issue and a de-escalation occur over time.

       Log in to Reply

13. So, here goes! This is my ethical dilemma that I chose and the analysis of it. Just a warning that it’s quite long!

    Dilemma
    A teacher is underperforming due to situations within their home life and being overwhelmed. She is sporadic with her attendance and students are left doing ‘free play’ without any direction for large portions of the day. When work is presented to the students it is not of an appropriate level. The teacher has not been meeting deadlines for paperwork. Class staff have reported that the teacher is short tempered with the students and is escalating behaviour within the classroom. She will also leave the site over breaks and be back late from these breaks. The Associate Principal (AP) is a friend of the family and appears reluctant for anyone to approach this teacher about their performance. Concerns raised by the Unit leader overseeing that teacher and the support staff within the classroom are dismissed and procedures are not being followed to address this situation. This has been continuing for over 6 months as the Principal has been reluctant to override the AP.

    Analysis
    There are multiple concerns here; Firstly, that a teacher is underperforming which is impacting on student learning and behaviour. Secondly, it is impacting on the wellbeing of the staff around that teacher. They feel unheard as the problem is not being addressed. Thirdly, the relationship of a senior leader and a classroom teacher is impacting on their ability to follow procedures with regards to an underperforming teacher.

    The dilemma faced is balancing the short-term feelings and empathy of the Associate Principal and the longer-term damage this could cause to the culture of the school. Including the willingness of others to bring forward issues or concerns if they feel they will go unheard. Also, that other teachers become frustrated with ‘nothing being done’ about a teacher who is underperforming. It can foster resentment amongst staff and erode any trust that has previously been established.

    The way to approach this is complex and multifaceted. Leadership teams often work very closely together and need to provide consistent messages and follow procedures. It would not be advantageous to publicly undermine the AP who is the teacher’s friend and direct line leader. However, the current handling of the situation is not only ineffective it is potentially damaging to the school culture. It will inevitably involve important and therefore difficult conversations that will challenge the AP’s thinking. The leadership team and mainly the Principal, must highlight the importance of following procedures when teacher competence is in question. This needs to be balanced with supporting the wellbeing of the teacher in question, the other staff in the unit and the students learning and wellbeing. The emotional connection that the AP has with the teacher is clouding her judgement and stopping them from making a rational, informed and ethical decision as the needs of one are being place over that of many.

    As an AP within a leadership team where this scenario is occurring it would be important to advocate for the students and the staff within the unit affected. There would be a need to be open and honest about the impact the other AP’s relationship is having on managing the situation appropriately. A meeting initially with the Principal to raise these concerns and offer solutions such as changing the direct line leader to ensure impartibility in the process. This would support the other AP to maintain their personal relationship whilst the school can act in the best way for the students in the class. The Principal faces challenges in their decision making. They can allow the AP to continue monitoring the situation even though there is evidence that the teachers behaviour is detrimental to student learning and student and staff wellbeing. Or they must face up to having difficult conversations to protect the integrity of the school culture. A further layer comes if this conversation is not heeded, and action is not taken. In this situation it would be best to put the information and concerns in writing to the Principal as a follow up to the meeting so a record is maintained. If no action is taken, then a follow up conversation would be needed, and potentially elevating it to board level. Before elevating to the board, it would likely be best to contact NZSTA or NZEI regarding their advice in this situation.

    This can result in uncomfortable situation as the Principal and other AP are likely to feel challenged and could make working life difficult for them. This is where a further ethical nature of the dilemma arises – is it better to ignore a situation and take the easy route to avoid discomfort in my job or continue to advocate for the students by continuing to raise concerns. When looking at this from a values-based model where accountability and discipline are held as important, it is key to maintain processes across all staff that uphold these values. If some staff are held to a different set of standards, then the culture of the school will be negatively impacted. It is important that as part of a leadership team, all staff are accountable to the same level. This includes the APs and Principal.

    If we look at the Golden circles – the why we must address this situation, is to maintain a positive culture where all staff feel supported to progress student learning. This I believe is the heart of the matter and therefore ‘what’ and ‘how’ need to be based on achieving this. Therefore, my suggestions moving forward in this scenario would be:

    A leadership discussion to raise the issue with the AP and indicate that the procedure needs to be followed and steps to improve performance need to be made.

    A supportive discussion about who would be the best person to undertake this conversation with the teacher. Acknowledging the AP’s relationship with the teacher and exploring how this is impacting on their ability to manage the situation objectively.

    An informal discussion with the teacher to highlight the concerns being raised within the classroom. This allows for a discussion about how to work on these. Clear goals and deadlines need to be set for when these can be re-evaluated. This must be documented and a copy given to the teacher involved.

    Potentially offering reduced hours / days if things are overwhelming currently until the situation is rectified. Possible signpost for the teacher to any external support they may be able to access such as EAP.

    Talk with those staff who have raised concerns. Note what their concerns are and address how they can manage these in class and set a time to check in about how things are going. This is to give the teacher some space to improve and reduce the venting and gossip rather than sharing valid concerns. Goals for the teacher do not need to be shared, though a timeline for improvement may help staff understand that things are being discussed with the teacher.

    Visibility of leadership checking in on the class team to see how they are going. This could be once a week to talk to people individually or an open invitation to come visit the AP / Principal after school on a set day.

    A clear deadline and adherence to those deadlines for progress to be made. If there is no progress, then a formal meeting inviting the teacher and representative to the meeting. Possible consultation with NZEI and NZSTA again at this point would be useful to gain additional thoughts and processes.

    Adherence to the school policy and procedure regarding complaints enables a solid pathway that can separate actions from emotions.

    Other reflections:

    This situation has a multifaceted ethical component around being able to maintain policy, procedure and discipline fairly and not show favouritism when it is someone we are close to. Being a leader often has a fine line between being friendly and being friends. This does not eliminate leaders from being friends with people they lead. It does, however, require a transparency and consistency between the way all staff are treated. Within the above scenario the AP is unable to treat this staff member the same way they would for a person who was underperforming that they did not have an external relationship with. This is spiraling into a much larger conflict as it has been left unmanaged for a while.

    Within special schools, it is imperative that class teams can work together with honesty, understanding and accountability for the wellbeing of all involved. Staff can face challenging situations with the students on a daily basis and being able to trust that your leadership team are there to support the staff and students can be easily undermined if situations like this occur. It breeds a culture of distrust, feelings of being unheard or disbelieved which leads to frustration and high staff turnover. By dealing with situations such as this in a carefully considered way, in a timely manner, and with consistency following a values-based model, it can provide long term stability and feelings of belonging amongst staff. This investment in people at the heart of the organisation will be of benefit in the long run.

    2

    Log in to Reply