Assessment Task 1

EDED11404: Professional Knowledge in Context

Ethan Mann
S0230312

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Part B: Research ................................................................................................................................ 4
Part C: Analysis of Dilemma ............................................................................................................... 6
Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 9
References ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Appendix 1: Part A Transcript of Interview .................................................................................... 11

EDED11404: Professional Knowledge in Context

Introduction
Teaching as a profession is a life chosen to make a difference. As Ayers (1993) states, teaching is not
an instruction and performance job, but rather a range of unorthodox jobs from guiding to nursing
to persuading. Yes, delivery of the curriculum is inevitable, and the conveying of information is
scripted, but teaching is unlimited in the aspects it contains (Ayers, 1993). Through all of these
aspects that make up the teaching profession, many dilemmas and practical conflicts arise, and
teachers become dilemma managers (Lampert, 1985, as cited in Groundwater-Smith, Ewing and Le
Cornu, 2011). Groundwater-Smith et al., (2011) define ethical dilemmas as complex problems
obtaining more than one solution, each with multiple levels of disadvantage for stakeholders
involved. Newman and Pollnitz (2002, p. 3) state that problematic situations will involve competing
beliefs, responsibilities and obligations among staff and families about what is appropriate practice
for young children.
Dilemmas must be resolved, and solutions must be ethical and chosen by extensive reasoning
(Newman and Pollnitz, 2002). The rise of postmodernism has brought a rise of ethical dilemmas
within the profession, as prior to this contemporary condition, teachers had the authority to make
decisions without worry of being challenged. These ethical dilemmas are becoming more common
within the progressively globalising world and have no correct answer. Steel (2015) states that
postmodernism involves stakeholders questioning and challenging previous authority, which makes
ethical dilemmas more prominent in occurrence.
The dilemma being analysed in this report involves Sam taking a stance against Kate who chose to
retention for her twin prep students because she thought they were not ready (See Appendix 1).
Sam used evidence and documentation to eventually persuade Kate into allowing both students to
progress to grade one. In this dilemma, Sam had to judge whether to go against her professional
judgement to meet the wishes of the parent, or take a stand against the parent to do what was right
for the children. Three choices and disadvantages for each were apparent:
1. Repeat both students in prep the following year where Joel may benefit but Mia is held
down unnecessarily which would heavily impact her learning journey.
2. Repeat Joel if necessary and allow Mia to progress to grade one which opposes Kats
decision to keep both back for social reasons to not split them apart.
3. Repeat neither students, and allow them both to go into grade one which opposes Kates
choice and beliefs that the children require the retention.
Dilemmas, such as this one, can be viewed through ethical frameworks such as the Ethical Response
Cycle (ERC), for a systematic and sensitive reasoning into the most ethical and beneficial course of
action to take (Newman and Pollnitz, 2002). It is essential that educators have access to this
framework to analyse and respond to different types of dilemmas.

EDED11404: Professional Knowledge in Context

Part B: Research
The school in which this dilemma occurred is a middle range socio-economical state school on the
Sunshine Coast. Dilemmas can be categorized and classified within the Berlak dilemmas, offering
three sets of dilemmas encountered in the teaching profession control, curriculum and societal.
Some dilemmas are not straightforwardly branded one of these sets, but may filter in to several. This
dilemma has been categorized into the Berlak dilemmas Control set, in which teachers consider and
are responsible for the whole child, versus the intellectual and academic needs of students
(Groundwater-Smith et al., 2011).
Within the whole child versus child as student view of control set ethical dilemmas, teachers obtain a
social responsibility for the children and the resolution of given dilemmas will continually affect that
students life (Groundwater-Smith et al., 2011). This is relevant to Sams dilemma as she considered
the intellectual and academic needs of the child as well as the social development, believing both
students could move to the next grade. This extends from intellectual and academic needs to ensure
the decision is best for all aspects of the whole child or children involved. The Berlak dilemmas
outline the teacher versus child control of operations, as it questions how things are done and
reasons and negotiates with stakeholders involved for an ethical solution and outcome
(Groundwater-Smith et al., 2011). Kate considered and conducted research into contemporary
retention and repeating of years, which is suggested by Department of Education, Training and
Employment (DETE) (n.d.). She claimed her decision for the children and Sam was left with the
responsibility to reason and negotiate the possible outcomes. Groundwater-Smith et al., (2011) also
relay that the control set teacher versus child control of standards looks at final decision making and
the way students will learn. DETE (n.d.) state that the principal does make the final decision
regarding approval of repeating requests, so the responsibility was on her to make an ethical
judgement based on both Kate and Sams claims. An overall look at the benefits of the children was
taken to see how they learn and how they will learn in each respective solution.
Origins of this dilemma have to be considered when viewing it through an ethical framework. DETE
(n.d.) state that when a childs academic outcomes are not at the state wide average for the year
level, one strategy for improvement and intervention targeted by parents is grade repetition or
retention. Joels situation become apparent from his grades and academic outcomes, which Kate
interpreted as unable to move forward without revisiting the prep curriculum. Current research
surrounding retention and repeating grades has shown that it is not directly beneficial for their
academic or social/cognitive development. DETE (n.d.) claim that for some students, the experience
leads to long term social effects, poor mental health and more behavior management complications
and academically, students who repeat are not likely to catch-up rapidly. McGrath (2006) support
these claims, stating that the repetition of a year level instills a form of failure on students. The
social adjustment of students such as Joel, could ultimately have no social benefit of actually
detriment their social skills. DETE (n.d.) state in their repeating factsheet for parents, that school
alone cannot change a students attitudes, behaviours and achievement towards learning. This could
be the situation for Joel, where he simply requires additional measures and support in the classroom
to improve his progress and outcomes.

EDED11404: Professional Knowledge in Context

Jimerson (2004, as cited in McGrath, 2006) claims that there are substantial risks in schools
continuing to repeat students on the basis of outdated research, which could end up constituting
education malpractice. McGrath (2006) develops this claim by stating that repetition could be still
conducted as it is a traditional practice, one that states it is the answer to a childs academic
difficulties. This dilemma has changed over time, as previously teachers may have viewed this
repetition of a grade as necessary for Joel, or even suggested it to a parent themselves, allowing Mia
to be kept back as well. When retention was an easy solution for practitioners, thinking about short
term benefits rather than long term consequences (McGrath, 2006).
The other aspect of social development surrounding this dilemma, is Kates beliefs on separation of
twins in mainstream classes. This dilemma would not nearly be as extensive if Joel could have been
repeated without Mia, allowing her to move up. Sams stance with Kate, was that Joel could possibly
benefit from retention, as he is below average, however repeating Mia would certainly have
detrimental and unnecessary impacts on her learning journey. Tully, Moffitt, Caspi, Taylor, Kiernan
and Andreou (2004) have done explicit research and case studies into the effect of separation on
twins in the early years of schooling. This is pertinent to Sams dilemma as this research was the
basis for Kates conviction that the twins could not be divided so early in their education. Tully et al.
(2004) research pertains to the cognitive, social and emotional development of twins, surrounding
ages 5-7. In their studies, 92% of Australian teachers believed the main benefit that separating twins
at such a young age was to enhance their individual development, also noting that it may lead to
distress and emotional difficulties, being the first considerable amount of time spent apart from
each other (Tully et al., 2004). The overall results to the research revealed that students all in
separate classes did struggle with internalization skills within their learning context (Tully et al.,
2004). Kates claims and beliefs with separating her children were backed up by current research, as
Sam suggested she was well read and knowledgeable on the topic, however did not take into
account the academic implications for her children.

EDED11404: Professional Knowledge in Context

Part C: Analysis of Dilemma

Recognition of Dilemma:
This was recognized as an ethical dilemma when Kate suggested the children be kept back. Sam
realized that this was a situation where solutions and decisions would not benefit everyone involved.
Legal Aspects:
Queensland Government (2015) states that all students enrolled in Queensland state schools have
the right to an allocation of state education. According to Queensland Government (2015) the
responsibilities of retention and repeating grades or semesters belong to the school principal. An
enrolled student can only repeat a year at the grant of a principal (Queensland Government, 2015).
The guidelines provided by Queensland Government (2015) have been created from legislation
written for allocation of state education. Chapter 4 of the Education (General Provisions) Act 2006
(p. 47) state that the principals decision about a students initial remaining allocation must be
made in the way the principal considers appropriate after considering all relevant matters. The
basic allocation for state education is 26 semesters of state education for each student, beginning at
age six and six months (Education (General Provisions) Act 2006).
Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE) (n.d.) has provided guidelines for schools
and principals for repeating a year level. DETE (n.d.) state that principals need to consider whether
grade retention is fully necessary for the educational interests and wellbeing of that child, and
whether there are other strategies and processes that could be put in place to assist the child. The
principals duty is to provide information and guidelines for requesting extra semesters, providing
appropriate documents and applications to submit request, and making final judgement and
decision based on the applications, whether to grant request (Queensland Government, 2015). Sam
stated that her principal was her first mode of contact in recognition of the dilemma. DETE (n.d.)
suggests this process should be a collaboration between parents, classroom teacher and the
principal including other options and strategies. Sam stated she had extensive interviews with all
stakeholders involved, including offering options and other possibilities to Kate. In her dilemma, the
decision making came down to her principal, in deciding whether Kate or Sam provided better
justification to their claims for the children. Sam provided to her principal, relevant evidence and
documentation of academic outcomes, to form an argument against repeating request, in order for
her principal to make necessary decisions based on the whole child or children.
Professional Consideration:
Newman and Pollnitz (2002) state that professional considerations must take into account the
professions core values, code of ethics and policies. Queensland College of Teachers (QCT) (n.d.)
Code of Ethics provides six values that underpin the teaching profession for ethical behaviour and
decision making from practitioners. These values have relevance to dilemmas as they are values of
the professionals involved and reinforce all decisions. Demack (2003) claims that core values are
explicit in behaviour as professionals. Sam has displayed these values through her recognition and
decision making of the dilemma. Integrity is stated as engaging in professional relationships, not only

EDED11404: Professional Knowledge in Context

with colleagues, but parents, students and community members (Queensland College of Teachers,
n.d.). Sam displayed this value in upholding professionalism with Kate, although they disagreed on
the situation. Sam displayed the value responsibility by prioritising the whole child versus the
academic student, and worked collaboratively with stakeholders and colleagues in the best interests
of the children (Queensland College of Teachers, n.d.). Care has been displayed through use of
professional judgement to determine the best outcome for the students wellbeing and learning
(Queensland College of Teachers, n.d.).
Ethical Principles and Theories:
Ethical principles encompass ethical theories as a criteria for relevant judgements and ethical action
(Newman & Pollnitz, 2002). Newman and Pollnitz (2002) define autonomy as being free and able to
make decisions and take action, while being respectful towards other parties. This also involves the
autonomy to protect and represent those who cannot exercise their own autonomy, in this case the
students, who have no voice (Newman & Pollnitz, 2002). Beneficence involves acting for the best
interests for the wellbeing of others involving comparing the degree of good and harm that could
arise from decisions (Newman & Pollnitz, 2002). Sam acted in beneficence, taking action for the
greater good for the greatest amount of people involved which demonstrates an ethical objectivist
perspective. Non-maleficence is about taking action to intercept intentional or unintentional
detriment to others. Sam took action in this way, as she viewed the choice to keep both students
down as a detriment to Mia, who was displaying above average results.
Ethical theories are relevant working through this dilemma, as professionals look to their moral
obligations to stakeholders involved. The ends based theory has specific relevance to this dilemma,
in which professionals make judgements to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of
people (Newman & Pollnitz, 2002). Sam used this theory in her decision making, looking at the
greatest benefits for each child, with each possible solution. Care-based involves the obligation to
make decisions and judgements that are considerate to particular situations and the aspects of the
dilemma. Sam used this theory in her consideration to the parents wish for her children, operating
with respect and sensitivity to the situation. Sam could have taken a rule based approach by stating
that the curriculum is to be taught to year level the students are at, and that they both are achieving
outcomes that would move them up a grade.
Informed Inclination:
Sam used her professional experience and informed inclination to seek out and use her resources in
the dilemma, including principal, learning support, and evidence/documentation of academic
outcomes of both students. Tension arises when opinions and interests conflict between
stakeholders, in Sams case, her own professional belief on the matter and Kates personal opinion
on what is best for the children. This is known as discursive dissonance, in which this tension acutely
sculpts the identity of a teacher as a professional, doing what is best for the students (Danaher,
Coombes, Simpson, Harreveld, & Danaher, 2002). Educators with this dissonance, can become
double agents where they are serving two separate entities (Danaher et al., 2002). Teachers need
to aim for double vision, in which they can realign their individual and institutional values and
interests. This could have affected and clouded a professionals judgement with this dilemma, not

EDED11404: Professional Knowledge in Context

wanting to go against stakeholders, and serving the parents and the students separately. Secret
stories encompass the dilemma influx as teachers communicate the stories and experiences they
have within their classroom (Connelly & Clandinin, 1995). Sam communicated her evidence instead
of offering a cover story, where she could have twisted her secret story to project Joels outcomes
and in-class behaviours as progressing and definitely ready. Instead, she communicated the truth
that he may benefit from repeating but it is not completely necessary.
Negotiation, Judgment and Action:
Negotiations need to be made throughout each phase of the cycle, and judgements and action
become the effect of complex reasoning and justification around the dilemma (Newman & Pollnitz,
2002). Sam negotiated the different options she had in this dilemma, and analysed the degrees of
disadvantage for each. Newman and Pollnitz (2002) claim that the negotiation stage should consider
stakeholders, outcomes and alternate strategies and processes. Sam made judgements for the
stakeholders involved, mainly focussing on the outcomes and benefits for the students involved.
Through justification with evidence and documentation of assessment, outcomes and academic
achievement to develop a sound ethically responsive action which was analysed and supported by
her principal. These judgements also include predictions of outcomes to form an opinion and
offering other negotiated solutions to the stakeholders (Newman & Pollnitz, 2002). Action was made
with conviction as was determined by the negotiation and judgement throughout the ERC. Sams
action was successful in accelerating the students to the next grade, without follow up implications
from Kate.
Documentation and Reflection:
Reflection should be undertaken after taking action and evaluating appropriateness, looking at
outcomes of decisions and action and professional development in dealing with ethical dilemmas
(Newman & Pollnitz, 2002). Reflections made by Sam, were reinforced by Kate the following year,
whereby she thanked Sam for taking a stance against her will, as it worked out very successful and
beneficial for both of her children. Although this personal reflection was completed, Newman and
Pollnitz (2002) also claim that detailed documentation should be recorded and kept surrounding the
processes involved, judgements, proposed solutions and action. Although the school kept
applications and requests from the parent as well as interview information, Sam could have engaged
further with documentation and reflection of her own experience and developments. She had full
conviction she had made the correct decision for the students academic and overall wellbeing, and
although her dilemma was resolved successful, a framework like the ERC would be beneficial for her
when future ethical dilemmas arise.

EDED11404: Professional Knowledge in Context

Conclusion
Behaving ethically is a responsibility of all educators (Groundwater-Smith et al., 2010, p. 40). Being
ethical involves behaving and working in morally appropriate ways and making considerate
judgements (Groundwater-Smith et al., 2010). Sams dilemma was resolved through her professional
judgements and values concerned with the whole child and their wellbeing as well as academic
progression. An ethical response framework can assist teachers in addressing ethical dilemmas and a
process for making critical decisions like the one Sam experienced (Newman & Pollnitz, 2002). The
aim for teachers is that, although dilemmas and ethical complications will arise throughout a
teaching career, practitioners can balance their personal and professional values and knowledge, to
provide for the needs of the students they are working with.

EDED11404: Professional Knowledge in Context

References
Ayers, W. (1993). To Teach: The Journey of a Teacher. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1995). Teachers professional knowledge landscapes: secret,
sacred and cover stories. New York: Teachers College Press.
Danaher, G., Coombes, P., Simpson, J., Harreveld, R., & Danaher, P. (2002). From double agents to
double vision: Marginalisation and potential transformation among three groups of
open and distance teachers. Retrieved from http://libraryresources.cqu.edu.au/cro/protected/eded11404/eded11404_cro930.pdf
Demack, A. (2003). Respect for the law and the system of government as an ethics principle.
Retrieved from http://www.docstoc.com/docs/14867357/Respect-for-the-law-andsystem-of-government-as-an-ethics-principle
Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE). (n.d). Guidelines for Schools - Repeating
a Year Level. Retrieved from http://ppr.det.qld.gov.au/education/management
Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE). (n.d.). Allocation of State Education.
Retrieved from ppr.det.qld.gov.au/education/management/.../Parent%20Factsheet.DOC
Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 (Qld.).
Groundwater-Smith, S., Ewing, R., & Le Cornu, R. (2011). Teaching Challenged and Dilemmas (4th
Ed.). South Melbourne, Victoria: Cengage Learning Australia.
McGrath, H. (2006). To Repeat or Not to Repeat. WORDS: Journal of the Western Australian Primary
Principals Association. Retrieved from
http://www.bounceback.com.au/sites/default/files/To%20Repeat%20or%20Not%20To
%20Repeat%3F_0.pdf
Newman, L., & Pollnitz, L. (2002). Ethics in Action: Introducing the Ethical Response Cycle. Watson,
ACT: Australian Early Childhood Association.
Queensland College of Teachers (QCT) (n.d.). Code of Ethics for Teachers in Queensland. Retrieved
from http://www.qct.edu.au
Queensland Government (2015). Allocation of State Education. Retrieved from
http://ppr.det.qld.gov.au/education/management/Pages/Allocation-of-State-Education
Steel, D. (2015). Professional Knowledge in Context Week 2 [PowerPoint Slides]. Retrieved from
CQUniversity e-courses, EDED11404 Professional Knowledge in Context,
http://moodle.cqu.edu.au
Tully, L. A., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Taylor, A., Kiernan, H., & Andreou, P. (2004). What Effect Does
Classroom Seperation Have on Twins Behaviour, Progress at School, and Reading
Abilities? Twin Research, 7(2), p. 115-124.

Appendix 1: Part A Transcript of Interview

This interview was held as more of a conversation between two professionals, and has been set out
as such with the basic responses in each aspect of the discussion. The names of stakeholders have
been changed to protect anonymity in this matter.
Role of the professional: Sam - Teacher in a prep classroom on Sunshine Coast.
Brief description of Ethical Dilemma: Sam had twin students in her prep classroom in term four, an
above average achieving girl Mia and a below average achieving boy Joel. The twins mother Kate,
wanted to repeat both students in prep the following year, as she felt Joel was not ready for grade
one. Kate felt however that for personal social development reasons, the twins should not be split
up at school, so she opted for retention of both students. Sam believed that neither of the children
required retention, particularly Mia, as it would impact her learning development heavily. In Sams
opinion, Joel probably could have been kept back, but retention was to be avoided unless definitely
necessary. Kate was a business woman, who had read up and was knowledgeable on the topic of
repeating. Sam felt her attachment to prep was more a favour for the play-based style of learning,
rather than thinking the students were not ready for grade one. This became a social development
opinion when she wanted to keep Mia back as well, she was taking into account Joels confidence
and social development.
Stakeholders in Incident: Sam, Kate, learning support and the schools principal were the main
stakeholders involved in the inner workings, however ultimately it was Mia and Joel who were the
main participants.
Choices at the time: The three choices in this matter were:
4. Repeat both students in prep the following year
5. Repeat Joel if necessary and allow Mia to progress to grade one, or
6. Repeat neither students, and allow them both to go into grade one
Reasoning and Resources: Sam used her learning support colleagues, principal, and evidence to
support her opinion that neither of the students should be kept back. Assessment and reporting
data provided evidence on the progress and end of year results from both students. Sams principal
fully supported decisions to take a stance against Kates will for the students, once evidence was
provided as documentation. Learning support provided other perspectives, but similar outcomes, in
that both students had the results and potential to move forward. Sam drew on her personal and
professional philosophy as a teacher, looking at what was in the best interest for both students. She
had seen firsthand their work ethic in class and progression throughout the year, and taken the
stance that both children were capable of moving to grade one.
Avenues taken: Interviews were held between Sam and Kate, Kate and Principal, Principal and Sam,
and all three together to come to some agreement on the matter. Sams principal looked into the
documentation and policy regarding retention. Sam consulted other prep teachers on what avenues
they would take, and opinions on the matter. Kate was difficult to convince, and Sam offered choice
of allowing Joel to repeat but not holding Mia back with him, but Kate did not take the opportunity.
Principal backed Sam up in interviews with Kate, offering alternatives such as see how he goes in
grade one, and if it is a noticeable problem for him then we go from there.

EDED11404: Professional Knowledge in Context

11

Resolution of Dilemma: Throughout a series of interviews and discussions with all stakeholders
involved, Kate stood back and allowed the principal to make the final decision on not repeating the
students. Sam fought hard for the outcome, to ensure that it was in the best interest of both Mia
and Joel. The following year, Kate approached Sam to thank her for taking a stance and fighting
against her will, because moving to grade one was beneficial for both children.
Common Dilemmas: These types of dilemmas are not overly common in ones career, however
parental confrontation can arise on many subjects and topics throughout the year.
Guidance: Sams advice for number one guidance was principal. Making the principal aware of the
situation and dilemma, and providing proper documentation and evidence to back up claims. From
there policy and legislation can be searched for support on the matter.

EDED11404: Professional Knowledge in Context

12