The Profession of Education: Responsibilities, Ethics and Pedagogic Experimentation 

Shannon Kincaid, Ph.D.

Philip Pecorino, Ph.D.

The art of teaching is to teach, to teach well and to teach even better.

Chapter: XI.      Two Case Studies

What follows are two cases study intended to illustrate how ethical considerations can be brought into a situation that involves matters of pedagogy  and a resolution achieved as to a morally acceptable course of conduct.  Both cases deal with quite common situations.  Scenario one (the case of G) involves the assigning of final grades and its relation to the personnel review process for promotion and tenure.  The second scenario (the case of J) deals with an instructor wanting all students to successfully complete the class and achieve the desired learning objectives but knowing that given the situation and the groups of students entering the class not all will. In both cases the basic conceptual framework of professional educators with their sets of responsibilities as individuals and as part of a collective will be employed.  The purpose here is to illustrate the value of a contextual approach and one that rests on notions of the individual and collective professional responsibilities of educators.

Scenario One : The Case of G

In a mid-sized community college (M) in the South it is time to assign final grades.  A newly hired assistant professor (G) is somewhat concerned over the state of affairs that has obtained with several of the classes taught by G.  In the view of G too many of the students in the classes taught by G have earned very poor grades. G is concerned about the possible impact of assigning very low final grades and several failing grades on student satisfaction surveys and student evaluations of G and on enrollment and more importantly how all of that will be perceived by those who will review G for the award of tenure and promotion.

 G teaches in a Humanities department (H).  G has over three years of teaching experience before receiving the appointment at M having taught as a teaching fellow and as an adjunct and as a full time instructor on a substitute line at another college.  G hopes to receive tenure at M and is concerned about the process of review for tenure and promotion at M.  As part of that process G's colleagues will have several types of information available to them including observations of G's teaching by colleagues in H and G's grade distribution reports over the semesters G has taught at M and the results of student evaluations of G. 

It is known to G that educators without the security of tenure who are anxious over review of their performance as educators are prone to assign higher grades.  This is suspected to be the case with adjunct, part time, members of the faculty and with the non-tenured faculty.  G wants to provide accurate assessments and reports on the results of those assessments (grades).  G is concerned about how the grade distribution will be perceived by those reviewing the record of G for the purpose of making decisions with regard to tenure and promotion.  G is also aware that colleagues in H are concerned about enrollments in their discipline and wish to have it well regarded by and subscribed by the student body.

The Analysis

Quality of the work alone or possible consequences to the student 

When assigning grades what would be the morally correct criteria and standards to apply?  What would be the morally correct set of considerations?  Should the grades be based on the quality of the work alone?  Should the social and psychological consequences of the reception of the grade be considered?  Should the educator consider the potential consequences on the performance review of the educator related to the tenure and promotion process ?  

Alan Goldman holds that the assignment of grades by professors is the sort of situation that would support a claim that the norms governing the profession of education would not be the same or derived from those of the more general society. He held that there were norms of conduct for teachers that are not applicable to those outside of the profession and may even be based on interests against those of others not involved in the relationship of teacher to student.  He held that there are norms that are profession specific.  This idea of morality runs counter to the popular views that hold that moral principles need to apply to apply to all rational agents and need to be universalizable.  He thinks that the professional roles require special norms and principles to guide their well-intentioned conduct.  He holds that the role of a professional educator is strongly differentiated.  Goldman found strong differentiation only among parents, teachers and judges.

 A professional role is strongly differentiated if it requires unique principles, or if it requires its norms to be weighted more heavily than they would be against other principles in other contexts. .--- Goldman, Alan. The Moral Foundations of Professional Ethics. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1980. p. 2. 

Goldman held that for educators there are certain fixed norms as education is a profession that is strongly differentiated.  He held that educators have norms such as are related to developing knowledge that appear to governing despite the impact of certain professional practices on others outside of the profession and on society itself.  

the understandably single minded-pursuit of goals central to professional practice and service, goals with great  social value, like health care and economic production.  It is natural for professionals to elevate the primary concerns of their particular  professions to predominant status, even when they are opposed by values equally prominent in our common moral framework.--- Goldman, Alan. The Moral Foundations of Professional Ethics. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1980. p. 292. 

 He expresses concern over this. 

For academics conducting research and teaching the results of their research, he asks “Can professional license or duty to seek and report the truth in such areas override the potential social harm from the findings no matter how disastrous.---.--- Goldman, Alan. The Moral Foundations of Professional Ethics. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1980. p. 287. 

He repeats this concern with regard to grading.  Acknowledging the social and psychological effects of grading on students he notes that the profession of education would hold the academic norm of grading based on quality of work alone. 

that students should be graded on grounds of the quality of their work alone, that factors normally relevant in interactions with other persons, such as the drastic effects of actions on their well-being and life prospects, are to be ignored in grading decisions.  This norm not only reflects the academic purpose of grading, but appears necessary to its social function as well. .--- Goldman, Alan. The Moral Foundations of Professional Ethics. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1980. p. 288. 

What are the factors that are not to be taken into account in grading that Goldman thinks would be considerations if not for the academic norm of quality of work alone?  Fairness itself might become a norm and if fairness were to be taken into account in grading then a number of factors might need to be considered were it not for the purported norm of quality of work alone.  These factors might include effort, prior handicaps and so on.  Such factors as might be thought of a relevant and even essentially so in contexts other than within the profession of education and the teacher-student relationship. 

The more focused and essential concern for Goldman is what would be the foundation or justification for the acceptance of the professional norm against the norms of others outside of the profession.  He finds an answer in the idea of fallibility and the impossibility of strict fairness.  Goldman held that educators can not escape from being fallible and less than omniscient when they consider the assessment of learners and the assignment of grades and thus they can not be consistent and can not be fair in taking into account all that might be relevant and should be considered by an educator who in assigning grades is also producing consequences in the lives of learners that extend beyond the educational institution.  

Considerations of fallibility and consistency also enter directly into the justification of special norms in other professions. Consider the assignment of grades by professors. Since grades not only inform students of the quality of their work, but may drastically affect the future course of their lives, there may appear to be many morally relevant factors other than the quality of their work that enter into proper grading. A major problem with allowing such factors to influence grading, however, is that they cannot be consistently and fairly taken into account, given professors' fallibility and ignorance of the personal situations of many students. It is not simply that students and admissions officers alike expect grades to be assigned on the basis of scholastic achievement, since we can still ask whether such expectations are proper. It is also that, despite the scholastically superfluous function of sorting students for later careers, professors are not in a position to evaluate in a consistent way the moral deserts of students, their material and psychological needs, backgrounds, etc., that might be relevant in the abstract to a moral distribution of career positions. -- Alan H. Goldman, "Authority, Autonomy and Institutional Norms", PERSPECTIVES on the Professions, Vol. 3, No. 1/2, March/June 1983 

Thus Goldman concludes that for educators that follow an academic norm that obliges them to behave in a manner that they would otherwise eschew for concern over the consequences of their actions on others.  They grade based on the quality of the work alone no matter what the negative impact might be on the learners.     

One need not accept that there are such profession specific norms even norms set against norms outside of the profession to accept that the norm with respect to grading ought to be norm of quality only consideration.  This is so because Goldman appears to believe that grading based on the quality of the work alone would at times, perhaps often, produce consequences for the student the consideration of which in circumstances other than education one would be obliged to avoid bringing about for another person.  Assigning poor or low grades might cause psychological and social consequences harmful to the well being of the student and apparently Goldman holds that ordinarily one would avoid producing such results for another .     

Goldman does not consider that the harmful consequences of grading may not be viewed as such from different perspectives.  A poor grade may reduce the self-esteem of a student but a sense of high self esteem without foundation might just as easily be seen as a harm.  There are variety of harms and some might be unavoidable and indeed even necessary for education to occur.  The general norm that we ought not to cause harm to others is not an unrestricted obligation.  It has been argued and shown in chapter eight that it is the unnecessary and avoidable harms that are to be avoided. Learners submit to educators and give consent either directly or indirectly through their guardians to be subject to the educator and subject to instruction trusting that the educator will exercise the fiduciary responsibility to benefit and not to harm the learner, but it is the unnecessary and avoidable harms that are to be avoided.   

Goldman holds that for educators and other professionals that  

morals can be drawn for both the morally minded professional and for the professional moral philosopher. For the former the most fundamental question is whether he should trust to his conscience and ordinary processes of moral reasoning in professional contexts, or whether he should rather adopt certain fixed professional norms in advance and resolve to abide by them. Only after this methodological issue is settled can decision procedure in morally charged contexts proceed. Of course the method for resolving the methodological issue at this level must itself derive from ordinary moral reasoning and more basic moral principle, but this does not necessarily stack the deck against special, middle-level, institutional norms.--- Alan H. Goldman, "Authority, Autonomy and Institutional Norms", PERSPECTIVES on the Professions, Vol. 3, No. 1/2, March/June 1983. 

It has been argued here that there is no need to consider education as being strongly differentiated as a profession and subject to or dependent upon norms specific to education.  A professional educator should, as Goldman expresses it just above, “ trust to his conscience and ordinary processes of moral reasoning in professional contexts,”.  In so doing the educator grades based on the quality of the work because doing so provides benefit to the student as it provides an assessment needed by the learner in order to have a proper and accurate appraisal of progress made and further work needed.  Grading using the norm of quality of the work only does not set the behavior of an educator on norms that are different from or opposed to that of the general society. 

Professional educators working together set the standards for assigning grades.  They do so in a manner that serves the interest of their students as students and particularly as students.  To do otherwise would fail to fulfill the basic responsibility to benefit students and avoid harming them.  Those standards are set in support of the fulfillment of the most basic responsibilities of educators.   Assessment processes and devices and reports would all be set by professional educators in a manner that educates students and supports the learning process.

Quality of the work alone or possible consequences for the educator 

When assigning grades what would be the morally correct criteria and standards to apply?  Should the educator consider the potential consequences on the performance review of the educator related to the tenure and promotion process ?

There can be situations in which the grade distribution of an educator could be used to determine the quality of instruction of that educator and the distribution would be an accurate indicator of that quality.  There are also situations in which this would not be the case.  It is not at all a simple matter to determine in which cases grade distribution is an accurate indicia of quality of instruction.  To do so would require taking several other factors into account.

When faced with colleagues who are conducting a review of the performance of an educator and they are either misusing the grade distribution report or not using it in a manner that is sensitive to the variety of factors that contribute to a grade distribution the instructor being evaluated is faced with what appears to be a difficult decision.  What exactly to do?  There are a number of options.  The instructor can act in what is believed to be a professionally responsible manner and submit grades that are accurate and provide benefit to the students and colleagues who would act responsibly to obtain an accurate assessment of the effectiveness of the teaching and learning that is occurring.  Another option would be to act in a manner that is believed will support the continued employment of the instructor and enrollments in the discipline and the college and submit grades that are inflated above the grades that were earned by students when considering the quality of their work alone.  What other course of action is available as a viable option?  The instructor can raise the issue of the use of grade distributions and attempt to bring about activity amongst the faculty that would redress an improper reliance upon, interpretation of or simplistic use of grade distributions and work with colleagues to develop a more reliable methodology for the consideration of grade distributions in the personnel review process.  There are other options no doubt.  The three above are not all mutually exclusive.  More than one might be attempted over time by educators wanting to act in a manner that is professionally responsible and morally justifiable.

The Resolution

When an educator voluntarily enters the profession and assumes a set of responsibilities and duties as an educator concern for self need be taken into account in the fulfillment of those duties in so far as such concern serves to fulfill the primary responsibilities of an educator in a fiduciary relationship to those served.  Concern for self should not be given such weight as to support a decision to act in a manner that causes the educator to fail to fulfill professional responsibilities and particularly not to act in a manner that causes harm to others.   To inflate grades in consideration of either impact on the student or the educator would be to commit a deception and to cause harm thereby to students who obtain a false appraisal of their situation, achievements and abilities, to colleagues who have a false report on the status of the teaching and learning that is occurring and to society who are poorly informed as to the accomplishments and capacities of the students who will become graduates and offer their grades and degrees as certifications for a variety of positions.  To submit false reports in the form of inflated grades would be to fail to fulfill basic responsibilities of an educator.  Assessment and accurate assessment is an important part of teaching and false assessment reports to not contribute to teaching well.  Thus in so far as an educator desires to reach a decision concerning the morality of grading or more precisely the moral justification for deliberate grade inflation then that educator needs to go no further than to utilize the basic principles guiding the general conduct of human beings and the basic responsibility of an educator in a fiduciary relationship to a student: benefit those served and cause no harm.  This is to say teach and teach well and cause no unnecessary and avoidable harms in teaching. It is therefore morally wrong for a professional educator to assign grades that do not accurately reflect what students have achieved.  It is morally wrong because it fails to serve the educational process that educators are responsible to support and because it causes harms to students, colleagues and society.


This case offers an illustration of a need for the fulfillment of the collective responsibility on the part of faculty to set the general standards for the evaluation of faculty in consideration of tenure and promotion that are not simplistic and to educate members of the faculty performing evaluations as to the standards and how to use them. 

Those faculty who may have submitted inflated grades for fear of repercussions with their performance evaluations might after gaining tenure and promotion experience a need to rectify the situation and may lead the way to ending the improper use of grade distribution reports in the evaluation process at their institution by encouraging faculty to reform the process and develop more accurate measures and additional means to determine the quality of instruction.


What is to be done when an educator is fairly certain that grade distributions will be used in a rather simplistic fashion as an indicator of the effectiveness of instruction?  Inflate the grades to the satisfaction of the students and in the interest of securing a better personnel review?   Assign accurate grades and attempt to explain how any appearance of grades below the norm for the college or department or discipline have resulted from factors other than the quality of instruction urging those performing the professional review to utilize more sophisticated measures and employment of current measures in a manner that is more sensitive to the variety of factors that contribute to the grade distribution?  It should appear as an obvious outcome of the arguments offered above that the professionally responsible and morally correct course of action is the latter.   In some settings this latter course of action, no matter how correct it might be, could result in undesirable consequences for a newly hired instructor.  Nevertheless, unless and until more professional educators insist on raising the level of professional conduct in all areas, and in the personnel review process in particular, situations in which grade distributions are used in an insensitive or inaccurate manner will not diminish.

Scenario Two : The Case of J

This case has been selected not so much because it presents some rather unique or special moral dilemma but because it is so ordinary a situation.  The scenario depicts a set of circumstances that is so common that it might near well already be close to the norm, or fast approaching it, in most colleges and universities in the United States.

It is selected because it involves the entire grouping of professional responsibilities involved in education: individual, collective and institutional.  The fulfillment of the three together make it possible in a situation as is described below for individual educators to fulfill their responsibilities and obligations to their students and their colleagues.

In a college (C) there is a junior faculty member (J) who is a young and untenured assistant professor.  In graduate school J held positions as both a teaching assistant and as a teaching fellow for two years.  In addition J has teaching experience before coming to C as an adjunct instructor at two different colleges while J was completing the dissertation.  Upon receiving the Ph.D. J was given the appointment to the faculty (F) at college C.  J has been at college C for two years.

College C has been supporting a number of initiatives focused on improving the effectiveness of the teaching and learning at the college.  There is a Center for Teaching and Learning (CETL) and much attention has been paid to the importance of faculty F doing pedagogic research to improve the efficacy of instruction.  This expectation is clearly expressed as being on that is in addition to the somewhat normal expectation at College C that members of the faculty F would be doing research and publishing in their academic disciplines.

In addition to the responsibilities for the faculty F for research and publication in both professions each member of the faculty is expected to participate in service to college C and to demonstrate effectiveness in instruction.

The workload (W) for a faculty member at College C is the combination of activities: teaching, college service, research and publication in the academic discipline and research and publication in pedagogy and contribution to the literature of teaching and learning (SOTL).  The teaching load (T) at college C is 24 credit hours each academic year.

J has been taking seriously the basic responsibility to do all that is possible to insure the highest levels of academic achievement for members of the classes that are taught by J. J truly desires for each learner to demonstrate the learning objectives (O) in each class taught by J.   J has an actual feeling of responsibility towards each person in classes with J. 

J is struggling under W to have learners achieve O, but, not all do so.  The classes taught by J are rather large given what J is attempting to accomplish with each learner.  The class size (S) is set at 35 "seats" or learners.  The size alone J finds a problem as it does not permit J to give enough attention to each learner as  J believes, based on J's teaching experiences, is needed.   The curriculum presents J with  a certain amount of material and information that is to be covered and skills to be developed in the classes that are taught by J in the department of J's academic discipline. 

In addition, the learners that J finds in the classes taught by J constitute very heterogeneous groups (H). The classes are diversified in the most common manner for describing classes as being diversified, namely based on the ethnic nature of the learners.  Add to that diversity the further distinctions that can be made based on language differences and cultural differences and religious backgrounds.  These diversities have a relation to instruction in many cases and J is aware of this.  J is also aware of even more important ways in which the learners in the classes taught by J are diverse.  They have different levels of basic communication skills and widely diverse academic experiences and levels of accomplishment.  From research into the SOTL J is also aware that the learners in the classes taught by J have a diversity of learning styles and learning style preferences.   Taking this into account J would like to offer the most effective instruction program possible for the the learners in the classes taught by J but finds it literally to be physically impossible given both S and H.  There is not the time nor the resources available to J given W to meet the needs of the learners in the classes taught by J.  

Submitting final grades each semester that indicate that for too many learners in the classes taught by J there has been too little achievement of the learning outcomes. J wishes to discuss what is to be done about the situation. J wonders that in some way it is J who may be "failing" to provide what is needed by the learners in the classes taught by J.  This young member of the faculty cannot help but think that given more support and resources to work with fewer learners that there would be "better" results such as higher levels of achievements of the learning objectives by the learners in the classes taught by J.  In consideration of addressing this situation  J is concerned about J's employment status and status amongst colleagues in entering into or provoking such discussions.  J finds that J is not alone and that similar concerns are reported by other junior faculty who have become close to J as colleagues at C.

The Analysis

This case presents a situation that exposes the need to address the problems confronted by the individual instructor in terms of the responsibilities of members of the profession of education as individuals towards their students and towards one another and , more importantly, their collective responsibilities.

J is acting most responsibly in conducting an assessment of the effectiveness of the instruction that J has been offering.  J is also acting responsibly in arriving at a determination that more can be and should be done for some of the learners in the classes taught by J but that it is not possible for J to provide for those additional elements given W and S and H.  J is now in the position that as a professional educator J must address in order to teach well and teach even better and fulfill the fiduciary responsibility that J has towards the learners in the classes taught by J.    The morally correct thing for J to do is to bring it about that there are as few learners in the classes taught by J who do not receive what J and the institution can provide to insure that the learners in the classes taught by J achieve O.  What exactly would that be and how does J bring it about?

As a responsible educator J must identify as accurately and clearly as possible the possible remedies for the situation in which some of the learners in the classes taught by J do not receive what J and the institution can provide to insure that the learners in the classes taught by J achieve O.  If there are measures that J can take independent of others then they need be taken by J.  This is the obligations of every instructor.  If there are, however, measures that can be and need to be taken to insure that the learners in the classes taught by J achieve O that can not be taken by J alone then the morally correct course of conduct and the norm for the conduct of professional educators would be to engage colleagues in a collective effort ot alter the circumstances of instruction at C to insure a higher percentage of the learners in the classes taught by J achieve O.     The department in which J is a member should be engaged by J in confirming his assessment of the situation and his diagnosis of the most likely factors leading to the less than desirable outcomes and confirm that they are factors over which J has not the authority to change.   If those confirmations are made then the faculty of the department in which J is a member (D) need to join with J in adducing how those factors might be effectively addressed through an alteration of the circumstances in which instruction is currently being offered.  This analysis would include consideration of a number of factors, including: backgrounds of learners, academic skills, communications skills, mindsets, habits of mind, instructional time (contact hours), class size, student support services, faculty support services and so on.  If faculty D conclude that there are measures that can be and should be taken by the department and the college C that would insure an increase in the efficacy of instruction by J (and may well be for other members of D), the faculty D should bring the matter through the governance process to the attention of the faculty F along with a clear indication of proposed measures to remedy the situation.

The Resolution

If the measures estimated as being needed to remedy the situation so that J can better fulfill the fiduciary responsibilities that J has to the the learners in the classes taught by J involve changes in the size of classes or in the contact hours for instruction or in setting prerequisites for enrollment into the classes then in this case nothing short of the faculty D and F exercising their collective responsibility (CR) would bring about changes in the situation that would support J and possibly the colleagues of J in D being able to improve the efficacy of instruction.    The faculty F of college C are obliged to conduct reviews of the efficacy of instruction and how well they are supporting the achievement of O and the aims of the various instructional programs by learners.  When F find that O is not being achieved it is incumbent upon F to ascertain why it is the case and to take effective action to remedy the situation and improve the efficacy of instruction and improve upon the achievement of O.    D and F must exercise their collective responsibility on behalf of J and J's colleagues and alter the circumstance of instruction.  This would usually mean that F would act through the governance structure of C to effect curricular changes.  When they do then they engage the administration (A) of the college C in accomplishing those measures set out by F as needed to improve the efficacy of instruction which is the professional responsibility of F to realize. 

The college administration has an obligation to effectuate those measures that will improve  improve the efficacy of instruction based on adequate assessment and research.  The administration would have a responsibility to engage the faculty F in the assessment of the situation to confirm what D had presented.  Having no evidence to disconfirm the findings of D and F nor alternatives to have presented during the governance process through which the remedies recommended by D was vetted then the institutional responsibility (IR) of C would be to effectuate the measures that F had approved through governance procedures.

J and D and F can go no further to improve the efficacy of instruction for the learners in the classes taught by J then to have exhausted their opportunities presented by the governance structure of C.   If A refuses to effectuate the measures endorsed by F then the responsibility for the failure of higher numbers of the learners in the classes taught by J to achieve O rests with A and not with J or D or F.  If A accepts the IR to effectuate the remedies and does so then F has the continuing CR to monitor and assess the effectiveness of instruction and , in this case, the effectiveness of the measures taken so that J can improve on the effectiveness of the instruction for the learners in the classes taught by J.

Neither the CR of F or the IR of C is exhausted by the singular act of effectuating the recommended remedies.  There is the continuing IR and CR to monitor and assess and act to continually improve upon the efficacy of instruction.  Neither does the CR of D or the individual responsibility of J end with the act of instituting instructional changes based upon the single set of events.  D and J retain their continuing responsibility to fulfill their obligations to learners and thus to monitor the effectiveness of instruction and take measures to improve upon it.


There are many occasions when someone in the position of J would not pursue the matter of many learners not achieving the desired learning outcomes O in a different manner.   Some might become quickly resigned to accepting the situation as being one over which they have no control and thereby accept that there can not be any improvement in O given W and S and H.  Many instructors will teach "to the middle" and inure themselves to accepting the failure of a significant portion of their students.  The laments are often heard:

"What can I do?"

"If this is what they give me to work with what else can anyone expect?"

"Too many of my students are just not ready to learn.  They are not properly prepared."

 "I am just one instructor, I can not change the way this place operates."

On other occasions a single instructor confronted with the situation faced by J might bring it to the attention of colleagues in the department and then when confronted with the task of presenting the case for changing the institutional situation by proposing measures thought to be effective as remedies that instructor might back off thinking that it was not the responsibility of the single instructor to do what was needed to attempt the change or , even worse, back off the attempt to remediate the situation for fear of negative impact on the instructor's bid for tenure and promotion.

If education is a profession then both individuals within the profession and collectives within the profession as well have responsibilities to monitor, assess and improve the efficacy of instruction.  This is a continuing set of responsibilities borne by mentors, tutors, instructors, departments and faculties. When this is accepted and a collegial model obtains of shared mutual expectations that professionals will adhere to the norms of behavior for professional educators then the situation realized by J would be met with the actions taken by J and D and F at college C.  When the set of individual and collective and institutional responsibilities is clearly set out and accepted by those in the profession of education serving in educational institutions it would become reasonable to expect that the actions taken by J would be encouraged and supported at all levels.


What if the faculty D or F do not act to address the situation faced by J?  Then J attempts to do the best that J can do acknowledging that there can not be any improvement in the present level of achievement of the desired learning outcomes O given W and S and H.  J, as well as D and F, retain their responsibilities to address the factors and as long as D and F fail to do so they fail in their responsibilities but J does not as long as J continues to monitor and assess and report the results to J's colleagues D.

Will J be seen as being somehow deficient as an instructor for admitting that not all learners in the classes taught by J are achieving the learning objectives?  Perhaps but unlikely, as there are few instructors that could not make a similar report. Rather J should be seen as a conscientious member of the profession who is attempting to fulfill the responsibilities of a professional educator in assessing the situation and attempting to remedy it on behalf of the interests on those being served.

The college C has an IR to support the faculty F in their determination of what is required to accomplish the educational mission of C and have students achieving their learning objectives.  without the F exercising their CR the college administration cannot be faulted for failure to fulfill its IR by D or F.  The College may be faulted by outside evaluators for not providing for more effective instruction.   If that were the case then C would need to have F take the actions needed to improve the efficacy of instruction and increase the rate at which learners achieve the O.  It is in the long term interest of C for its administration to insure that the faculty F have effective leadership so that they will fulfill their CR.  All of this is to insure the fulfillment of the fundamental responsibilities that J and D and F have to the students of C.


@copyright 2004 by S. Kincaid and P. Pecorino

Go to next Chapter                                                                      Return to Table of Contents