4 Responses

1. Kia ora,
   My ethical dilemma is around how we approach sleeping arrangements for an upcoming school camp of year 5/6 students. Currently we have two transgender students who have expressed that they want to be in the same bunk room as others who identify as the same gender. The school, ministry, NZSTA and the camps have no policies in place around approaching this and the consensus is it is on the school to make the decision.
   Our ‘why’ for this is because we are an inclusive school and want equal opportunities for all, however we also have a wide range of perspectives within our community and need to maintain privacy. No matter which angle we looked at this, we could see push back that could escalate into a vary difficult situation.
   In approaching this dilemma of whether a transgender student (male to female) should sleep in a female bunk room at school camp, I was be guided by the principles of manaakitanga, and whanaungatanga from Tū Rangatira, which also happen to be part of our school values.
   Ethical Framework
   The principal and I considered the consequences/outcomes of different actions. Keeping the child with their identified gender on the trip would potentially create a logistical challenge and added stress for the staff – especially in terms of other families not agreeing with this plan, the potential fall out and privacy issues this also presents.
   Due to the situation, we did not want to exclude or isolate the student by making them sleep alone or in a room that they did not feel comfortable in. We also needed to consider the perspective of the student, whānau and wider whānau and the emotional repercussions of any decision made.
   Decision making process
   Gathering all information:
   To decide on where the school stands and would approach this dilemma, not just in this situation but in others moving forward. The information that we consulted/gathered came from a range of different sources such as policy makers, key stakeholders, support groups/organisations, and the known perspective of members of the community. These included religious organisations who have made opinions known in the past regarding similar situations. This information was also supported by the whānau of the students. All information had to be assessed critically without personal biases or views on the situation.
   Consider perspectives:
   We had considered all potential outcomes that could arise from which ever decision we made. As a school we knew that what ever avenue we went down would create potential issue, so we had to ensure that we had all our bases covered in terms of legal obligations, privacy obligations, etc. and be prepared for any fallout. This also meant that all key stakeholders within the school need to be on the page and ready to respond in the manner we want.
   Evaluate:
   As a school we had to evaluate the repercussions and potential outcomes. Evaluate how we manage said outcomes and weather or not this is a battle worth fighting.
   Potential Consequences:
   Positive outcomes around reputation for inclusion, student wellbeing and accepting diversity
   Negative outcomes could be Media, community, whānau backlash. Reputation of the school could be tarnished, and future camps jeopardised.
   Ethical Principles and School Policies:
   This situation highlighted gaps and a need to overhaul some of our current policy around diversity and inclusive practices. This also highlighted potential issues within our EOTC planning and preparation. All things the school has been working on since this situation came to light.

   Log in to Reply

2. kia ora !

   My ethical scenario I received an email from a concerned a parent of a Year 12 ākonga upset about the type of feedback they received from a Kaiako Matua (HOD) on their assessment. The parent feels the feedback was vague, unhelpful, harsh and very negative and there was no feed forward or opportunity to resubmit for this assessment. This came to me as I am the direct line manager for this Kaiako Matua in our region.
   Firstly, I reviewed the feedback and gathering information on the situation and any evidence/interaction with this ākonga/whānau and kaiako. The feedback was very direct, abrupt and concerns with tone in the email, no opportunity to resubmit and looking at the marking schedule and process also had some inconsistencies that were not following our school policy.
   I followed up with the following people; parent/whanau, Regional Manager (principal), our NZQA led regarding process for marking and the concerned Kaiako Matua.
   1. Acknowledging and responding to the parent/whānau promptly and professionally. Showing empathy and concern regarding the feedback issue. Reiterated our school policy to support ākonga learning and opportunity. I informed them I was undergoing a review and investigation of this matter and would be in touch by the end of the week to give them a timeframe. I avoided any judgment or personal comments about this kaiako – I was neutral and a listener.
   2. Reviewing the evidence – I examined both ākonga/whānau feedback email trials, the kaiako feedback on the assessment, and asked another kaiako to mark this blind and give feedback to ensure it was consistent and confidential from the kaiako in question. I followed up with NZQA and when reviewing we confirmed the Kaiako Matua/ HOD were not following the process and hence the confusion of the marking schedule. The other kaiako who discreetly marked/reviewed this confirmed the similar comments and the ākonga was not meeting the standard yet.
   3. I contacted the Kaiako Matua to inform them that a complaint regarding marking and feedback has been passed onto me and we discussed any issues contributing to this, there was a history of tension. This was a safe space where we freely spoke, acknowledging their expertise in their subject and moved into discussions around our school policy and process on feedback and grades. We agreed to arrange another hui to go over the marking/feedback process the next day.
   4.Follow up hui regarding school feedback, grading process with Kaiako Matua. Within this hui we discussed the differences in process and emphasized the importance of consistent and actionable feedback for student learning and achievement. There was a gap of misunderstanding in completing the marking schedule and opportunities for feedback before the final was to be submitted. A range of collaborative strategies were shared that were actionable to this ākonga in this situation and any future ākonga and making changes to her rōpū process. This ākonga was able to continue their learning and get another opportunity to resubmit. The Kaiako Matua did provide more detail on their original submission and possibly the tone of the feedback was as professional as thought.
   5. Kaiako Matua changed teachers for this ākonga to remove any additional stress/barriers to this ākonga/whānau. They were committed and followed up the new amendments to the marking process within their rōpū and upskilled their kaiako of the new process to ensure consistency.
   6. I followed up with ākonga/whānau with solutions I could offer from working alongside the Kaiako Matua and NZQA person within our school. They were happy to be heard and have a resolution so their daughter could have the opportunity to further submit this assessment. The Kaiako Matua did follow up via email with the whānau with additional feedback also addressing their tone in the email.

   Follow up:
   From this situation highlighted to both me and curriculum/NZQA led the need for professional development for our leaders new and old on the process. We provided more pld on the process of feedback and marking to ensure we were consistent in our approaches to best support Kaiako Matua. I did follow with the Kaiako Matua as I was concerned with some of her behaviours that may be reflective of her wellbeing and provided more support to her. Fortnightly catch ups are set in place for all Kaiako Matua now.

   Log in to Reply

3. I really resonated with your scenario Nicolene, as this is similar to the one that came to mind for me when working through this module! I empathise with the decision you had to make and how you and your team worked through your process!

   My incident was also last year. We had spent two terms fundraising thousands and thousands of dollars to get the whole school over to Stewart Island during the period of a week (Year 1-5 – day trips Mon-Thurs, Year 6 – 1 night stay, Year 7/8 – 3 night stay).
   Our ‘why’ for this trip was for our tamariki to learn about our local area, make connections between what they had learnt about the signing of the treaty – including the location of the signing at Rakiura, learn about ulva island and the environmental projects happening there and for the 70% of our students who are Kai Tahu Māori to foster connections with their whenua. It was a mammoth task and one that was made even more challenging by the fact it was my first year at this school as DP.
   The incident occured on the second day of the Year 7/8 trip – which I was in charge of. One of our Year 7 students was travelling over a day late with one of the day trip groups of Year 1-5 students. This year 7 student had become annoyed by the behaviour of one of the 5 year olds on the trip – he was “being annoying” this student decided to take it upon himself to foot trip this 5 year old more than once – the first couple of times no major incidents but he was warned by staff and parents to move away and to stop his behaviour towards the 5 year old. The last incident was extremely aggressive not just a foot trip but a hit and a shove as well and caused the 5 year old to land on his face and injure himself quite badly (This 5 year old is also in hospital often for stomach surgeries etc). The 5 year olds mum observed the last incident and went to speak to the Year 7 about his behaviour – he was rude and disrespectful to her, swearing and informing her that he didn’t have to listen to her, told her that he child was annoying and then refused to comply with staff instructions when spoken to by them. I then received many calls from multiple staff asking what they should do next.
   Our camp letters also clearly stated that misbehaving students would be sent home at their parents’ expense and this child’s parents had ticked the yes on this box. I consulted with the principal, upon gathering data from all parties (Including the Year 7 who continued to have no remorse for his actions) and it was decided that he would be sent home on the last boat of the day with the teachers he had come over with. His parents were informed immediately and told of the decision to remove him from the EOTC event.

   Ethical Framework
   The principal and I considered the consequences/outcomes of different actions. Keeping the child with us on the trip would have created a logistical challenge and added stress for the staff – especially in terms of consequences for the child’s actions. Due to the number of adults he couldn’t be excluded from activities. We also needed to consider the lack of accountability and remorse shown by the child upon hurting a smaller child, along with the rights of the 5 year old and his mum to a safe and enjoyable trip. We also had to consider the safety of the staff and students on the Year 7/8 trip – if the child continued to be in this headspace what would be the impact on the rest of their trip? If the logistics had been different i.e a different time of day, lack of availability on the boat etc then our decision may have been different.

   Decision-Making Process:

   Gather Information: Information was gathered from all parties who witnessed the event, as well as those impacted by the decision. Time was given to think through the consequences before a final decision was made. The situation was assessed, including the actions of the child, his lack of remorse and the availability of being able to send him home.

   Consider Perspectives: The principal and I considered the perspectives of the injured child, his mum, the student, his parents, the large number of parents who witnessed the incident and our staff. The decision to inform his parents immediately took into account the fact that we come from a small community where many parents witness the behaviour and had the potential to contact parents before we could.

   Evaluate Options: We weighed up options for keeping the Year 7 with the group versus sending him home at the conclusion of the day trip. The option we chose ensure that the child faced immediate consequences for the behaviour displayed and ensured the smooth and safe running of the rest of the Year 7/8 camp.

   Make a Decision: The decision to send the boy home considered the school policy, the agreement signed by both parents and student before attending the trip, our school behaviour guidelines and expectations and the practicality of returning the child home.

   Reflect on Values: The decision aligned with the values of safety, responsibility and learning from mistakes. The emphasis was an accountability for the Year 7 and empathy for the other students, staff and whānau who were impacted by his actions.

   Potential Consequences:
   Positive: The Year 7 faced the consequences of his actions and learned about following guidelines and expectations, especially when you have agreed to these beforehand. The rest of the Year 7/8 camp wasn’t disrupted by the behaviour of one child.
   Negative: The perception of policy enforcement – the decision could have been (and was) perceived as being harsh and unfair by the Year 7 child’s family. This could also be a positive in other views i.e. that the policy was adhered to and consequences were followed through with. The Year 7 child missed out on the learning opportunity of being on camp, this was addressed through discussions around learning from our mistakes and changing our behaviour.

   Ethical Principles and School Policies:
   The situation highlighted the ethical dilemma when applying policies, do we exclude one child to ensure safety and fairness for the other 129? While policies provide a guideline, it is hard to not let emotions cloud our judgement when making decisions.
   I think it is also important that we review our school EOTC policies to ensure we have guidelines for when applying the policies aren’t so clear cut. What would we have done if transport back hadn’t been available, or if it had been late at night etc? The need for consistency is so important, however, at times flexibility is also required!

   Log in to Reply

4. 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.

   Log in to Reply