Get Rid of Incompetent Teachers, Any Way You Can!

Duane M. Covrig

University of Akron

Abstract

This case explores one principal's struggle to justify her course of action to "get rid" of an ineffective teacher. It focuses on her justifications as she contemplates her moral actions and some of her tactics. This case touches on many themes: ethical decision making, professionalism, supervision, personnel law, teacher unions and tenure. The teaching notes summarize several uses for this case but focus primarily on the organizational and interpersonal context of professional accountability in educational administration.

The Context and the Case

Hill Middle School is a newly constructed school in a growing suburban district near a large Western U.S. metropolitan area. The district serves families in the middle and lower socioeconomic levels and has a high transience rate. More than half the students are bilingual. While the school and its district are classified as suburban, they are surrounded by both rural and urban images. There are many acres of open fields around the school with abandon tractors and farm equipment. In between these fields are new subdivisions of stucco homes. The district also contains several large (1000+ acre) tracts of arid uncultivated land. However, near the school there are also abandoned buildings with graffiti and gang symbols. The blaring noises of two major freeways can be heard throughout the district giving it an urban feel. Most parents in the district commute to larger cities in the region to work as blue-collar or lower paying white-collar employees. There are some upper middle class families interspersed throughout the district and these families are represented at Hill Middle School .

The school district is recovering from a hotly debated reassignment of a popular principal. The board voted 3-2 for this reassignment. It has been widely rumored that this reassignment was based on the principal's lack of support for several board decisions. Many administrators in the district privately support this principal and view the board's decision as vindictive. They also believe the board is using the principal as an example to remind administrators that the board expects loyalty. Mrs. Kidheart, Hill Middle School 's first principal, did not speak publicly against the board's decision but privately believes the board was not acting in the best interest of children and is disgusted by such political practices.

Mrs. Kidheart is a Caucasian female with 19 years of experience in education even though she is in her early 40s. This is her first year as a middle school principal but she served several years as an elementary principal and five years as an assistant principal in a middle school. Before that she served 10 years as a middle and high school teacher. All her educational work has been in the same district. I was able to interview Mrs. Kidheart one morning in her office during a busy day of phone calls and interruptions. I came to talk to her about her role as a moral leader. In our discussion she shared the following case. Data for this case and her reflections on it are based solely on my interview with her.

Mrs. Kidheart was pleased with her staff. Although the board gave Mrs. Kidheart great discretion in her new position, she personally hired only about five of the more than 35 teachers at the new school. A "negotiated transfer" policy worked out with the union required that teachers with the greatest seniority would be given the first option to transfer to the new school. Many of them took that option. However, for the most part, Mrs. Kidheart felt this worked to her advantage. "I have a highly experienced staff... if you look at the average age. And I am very fortunate, because I basically got the best teachers."

Throughout the interview, Mrs. Kidheart articulated a strong mission of serving children's needs. She also mentioned loyalty a lot. She recounted that when she first started as an administrator the board stressed its need for her loyalty. She gave them loyalty but in more recent years she has become more interested in loyalty to others--fellow administrators, staff and especially students. When interviewed for her current position she told the board "I am ultimately going to be loyal to myself and my own standards." She thinks the board liked her candor and made her Hill Middle School 's first principal because of her deep commitment to students. During my interview with Mrs. Kidheart, she stated several times that she was not afraid to lose her job in the pursuit of children's best interests. However, she acknowledged

In an ideal world, everything we do is based on the best interest of kids. The reason I have not left [this district when I thought administrators and the board were not acting in the best interest of children is because it] is really hard to sit in judgement on people. Even in your own life, even if you aspire to this in every instance, some of the issues are difficult. You have to consider the politics.

Mrs. Kidheart was quick to contrast her philosophy of idealism mixed with political realism with the type of indifferent leadership exhibited by other principals. She explained,

If you don't know personal things about the student and you just look at them as being a bad influence and as a harm, it is easy to get rid of them. And I worked for a principal who said every year, "I want you to get rid of this, this and this kid because they are too much of a problem and I don't want them on my campus." I am thinking, why are they a problem? What are we not doing? I had a problem with that. I left that school. I couldn't do that. I refused to do that.

Mrs. Kidheart seemed to let some personal relationships with staff and students guide her administrative decisions. She worried out-loud about the fact that too many principals did not know personal details about their staff and students. She thought that prevented them from making good decisions. "We live in a throw-away society. We just throw away kids. This kid is no good; let's just trash [him or her], as opposed to going to extremes to try to get them on the right track." She admitted that concern about personal care was waning, not so much because she was callous but because she now realized "that our resources are limited" and other places beyond schools can do more to help some kids. "Schools can't do it all." However, she still felt that too many administrators didn't care.

These value statements contrasted somewhat from her retelling of a case involving an ineffective teacher. Most of the teachers she received in the transfer were serving her students.

However, I did get one [teacher] who was told by his last principal that "you need a fresh start" and "if you stay here I am going to document you until I fire you." This person had been at that school for 17 years and had been a crummy teacher all that time. He had never been documented. He had never been told so by that same principal and then suddenly he kind of went off the deep end. He started having a problem with substance abuse, and that sort of stuff, and a divorce. And his life kind of fell apart. Things that were already bad before became heavily exaggerated. So I get this person here and starting day one I get complaints from students, parents, other staff members.

So here I am beginning to document this teacher. Well, first of all I am very, very angry at [the lack of documentation in the past]. Suddenly it looks like I am picking on this teacher who has never had any documentation. "Why is it that you can't get along with me" [he wondered]. And the whole grievance part of it comes in. Everyone pretty much knows [about his past performance and what is happening in the classroom now]. [But I became amazed] how well protected this teacher is by his contract, and by a practice, past practice. It is very difficult to prove that someone is using [or abusing alcohol]. Even with kids it is difficult. But with adults it is even more impossible.

Throughout our conversation, Mrs. Kidheart was animated in relaying the details of this case and she seemed generally confident about her course of action. However, she was troubled by the fact she could not easily get rid of this teacher and had to use unconventional methods. She continued:

I am doing all I can to push him. Let me tell you about this dilemma. This is something that I thought I would never do. The bottom line for me came with realizing that what the kids were saying [about this teacher] was happening in the classroom. But it doesn't happen while I am in there obviously. Basically he is being very verbally abusive to students, serious verbal abuse! He exhibits real bizarre behavior like falling asleep in class, changing subjects in the middle of a sentence. Just doing real strange things. But [he is] together enough to keep it together when I am standing there or in the classroom.

Mrs. Kidheart reported that she is carefully documenting his every move, daily checking his lesson plans, following up on student complaints and giving him directives for remedying each complaint. However she admitted she is discovering how hard it is to either improve his teaching or get rid of him.

Bottom line, is that he is not nutty enough yet to be taken out of the classroom. Until he does something really bad, like physically assaults someone or something equally bad, I am not going to be able to do anything. I just have to keep documenting.

It throws out the textbook. I think he is harming kids on a daily basis, all kind of kids, kids who were not even the target of his abuse are bothered. I don't think it is a safe place for students. I can say there has been some improvement but mainly because he got a five-day unpaid suspension, which is really serious stuff in the teaching profession. And that was early on in the year. I was after this teacher [from the moment I knew]. The bottom line for him was "I will get you fired, or fire you." Although actually the superintendent does that.

She explained her added workload because of his inability to reform:

I had to go in and model lessons for him and do things like that. I have to show that we are meeting [regularly] about his behavior and that I have requested drug tests be done [when necessary]. But if this was industry he would be fired. There is no way--no way [he would not be fired]! That bothers me! It bothers me very much.

When asked if she would have staff support in his potential firing she said.

The staff recognize the problem. They have come in and told me things about him that I didn't know. But they are not willing to take a stand. There is too much pressure within the union to do that. They are still a part of the teacher's union.

When asked how she felt this was similar to incompetence in other professions, she said

Every profession has incompetence. But there are also standards that need to be met. And [teacher unions] protect even those who don't meet the standards. And unless you really do something totally illegal it is hard to get rid of them.

When asked how she felt about the issue she said:

Well, here is the moral dilemma. I am actively trying to push this teacher over the edge and I never thought I would do that. Here I am saying that I am going to do the things I need to do to get him to do something so that I can get rid of him. That is a hard one. I have to tell you that is a hard one. First of all [it was hard] to admit it to myself that I was going to do that.

When asked how she justified her actions she said.

I have no problem justifying it to myself. He is affecting six classes of 30 kids a day, every day, each year.

I am not unpleasant to him. There is nothing he can point to that I am discriminating against him or any of those kind of things. I have basically said, "this is the standard and you are going to meet this standard or I am going to continue to write you up until this is remedied."

When asked if she thought he would be gone or fired in three months, she hesitated

No, I don't think this will happen... well... I don't know. I did something that might help. [She forms a sinister grin]. I have assigned him the class with all the failing kids to work with. Those are the kids who push his buttons the most. And he is starting to drink more. He comes up to me and starts talking [to me] like I know what he is talking about. Like we're in the middle of a conversation.

When asked about the conflict of this case, she responds:

Well, it still eats me up. Part of that is the female thing of having a real concern for others. I never thought I would go after someone. I never had that negative perspective. The other thing, I never thought the end justified the means, I never believed that. But now I am feeling that way, but I am not real comfortable with that.

Mrs. Kidheart remained convinced that she was doing the responsible thing. But was she? Who was she being responsible to? Are her actions being guided by concern for children or her own concerns? To whom, for what, should she be most accountable?

Teaching Notes

The following sections highlight several uses of this case in courses on ethics, personnel and supervision, and law. A final section uses the case to explore the conflicting roles in professional accountability.

Ethics Course

First, this case can be used in administrative ethics courses to introduce students to the role of reflective thinking in ethical decision-making. This case provides more than the traditional sterile retelling of a case. It attempts to review a situation as it was experienced . It builds on Mrs. Kidheart's perspectives, her explanations and her self-justifications. As such, it attempts to situate the reader in the gripping conflict she feels . Mrs. Kidheart probably did not have all the necessary facts to make her decision and neither does the reader. She was biased, but so is the reader. This is the nature of ethical decision-making. However, there are enough facts given in this case to make sense of the issue. Furthermore, with proper questioning, an instructor can elicit from students a list of additional information students would need to have in order to evaluate Mrs. Kidheart's options.

This case can also be used to introduce students to the moral justifications administrators use to craft their options and decisions. Starratt (1991) suggested frames of care, critique and justice that can be used to examine how administrators can ethically approach a case. A concern about care raises the issues of "care for whom" and when an administrator must care enough to confront. Instructors can also discuss competing cares, which fits into the frame discussed latter in this paper about competing allegiances in professional practice. In the ethics of critique, Mrs. Kidheart's reflexive and reflective abilities can be examined. Kondrat (1999) provides an excellent article about the role of the self in professional social work. His four stages of self-awareness give more concrete application to Starratt's ideas of critique. Kondrat frames the role of the self in professional practice. Finally, instructors can use the ethic of justice to talk about due process and fairness in employment issues.

This case can also be used to clarify for students the components of ethical decision-making outlined in Jones's (1991) seminal work. Jones uses James Rest's work to document how ethical decision-making occurs in organizations. He shows how the nature (intensity) of a case can influence the four stages of moral decision-making. First, students must be morally sensitive to the presence of an ethical issue. Second, they must use the tools of ethics to form judgements and develop moral reasoning and explanations. Third, they must foster a will to act as they think they should. Finally, they need to execute the action, establish the behavior, and then use the results of the action to inform their moral sensitivity and judgement.

This case can also be used for role playing activities in ethics courses. The class can be divided into different roles--students, the ineffective teacher, Mrs. Kidheart, the board, parents and fellow teachers. Each group can report how they feel about what is happening and defend what they think is the morally right direction from their perspective.

Finally, an ethics course could use the case to help students think about their moral "self-talk." How did they learn what to use to craft ethical explanations for their decisions? How do they currently justify those decisions and actions? What are the ethical arguments they create to support or challenge Mrs. Kidheart's actions? Why? The case can also introduce students to the perennial debate on "means verse ends." Mrs. Kidheart was deeply troubled by her realization she was justifying her means by her good ends. She thought she would never do that but now she was. She had regrets. Should she? Many students will experience this same regret. Can good ends justify compromised means? When? Why? Which is more important: doing the right thing or getting the right results? This case allows for a more theoretical discussion of the classical debate between deontology (duty or rights based ethics) and utilitarianism (outcome or good based ethics). Was Mrs. Kidheart acting ethically when she loaded this teacher with difficult students so that he would crack? Wasn't she hurting those students as well as him? What if he really hurt some students. Would she be blamed? Did her long-term goals justify her short-term methods? What is the difference between a blatant immoral disregard for means and a simple opportunistic use of means to further greater goods? What about unexpected ends of immoral means? Is Mrs. Kidheart on a slippery slope toward immoral action if she continues to compromise her means? Are there ways of building check points in our deliberations so that slippery slopes do not become too slippery? Isn't personnel policy and due process part of those checkpoints?

Personnel and Supervision Courses

Second, this case could be used in personnel courses to emphasize the importance of documentation and introduce students to the emotional as well as the mechanical aspects of supervision and firing. Questions in this area could include: What recourse does a new principal have to fire a teacher if there has been no prior documentation of poor performance even though everyone knows such poor performance existed? How can the teacher union be involved to facilitate teacher development or allow teacher termination when necessary? Who else should Mrs. Kidheart involve at the district and site level to avoid any suggestion of discrimination?

This case could also be used in supervision courses to explore the conflicting role of supervisor as a trainer and as an "agent of termination." How much amelioration and professional development should a principal give to an ineffective teacher before considering termination? Should principals let their own personal regard of the teacher influence their choices? What are the benchmarks of supervision Mrs. Kidheart fulfilled and what are ones she should have tried? What recourse should Mrs. Kidheart take at the district level against the teacher's former supervisor? Does she have a duty to make sure that the previous supervisor's negligence is also documented and reported to central administration? How should a supervisor respond to the perceived incompetence of other supervisors?

Law Course

This case would be useful in a law course to explore the nature of due process in firing--both the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Students can be introduced to the tough legal issues related to tenure and termination. Many questions can be developed to launch students into these technical areas of law: Are the actions of Mrs. Kidheart legally problematic? Could she be found legally culpable for any of this teacher's malpractice? Why? What legal role do unions play in hiring and firing? What legal actions can students or parents take toward the termination of this teacher?

Professional Loyalty and Relationship

This case can focus attention on the individual, organizational and societal sources for professional accountability. Many groups demand loyalty from administrators. Fortunately, when fulfilling one group=s demands administrators often fulfill the demands of other groups. However, at times, conflicting demands develop. A teacher's expectations and the board's demands may conflict. This raises the question: "to whom should I be accountable and for what?" Table 1 below outlines the main groups to which administrators are accountable and some of the general claims of each.

Table 1

Administrative Accountability: Accountable to whom for what?

Students should be introduced to the fact that educational loyalty and accountability exist in the larger societal context of professionalism. Sociologists note a steady decline in the public's trust and "blind acceptance" of professional opinions and practices (Brint, 1994; Hafferty and Light, 1995; May, 1996; Sullivan, 1995). Popular culture no longer automatically believes professionals act in the best interest of the public. This is partly a reaction to elitism that has existed in some professions. However, it is also a result of the growing distrust of large organizations, which are often seen as more concerned about survival than customer/client concern. The perception of health maintenance organizations illustrative of this distrust. Many see HMOs as dictating health care practice based on cost-containment rather than on the best interest of patients. In education, a similar distrust exists of public education bureaucracies. The principal or school administrator has the combined misfortune of being a professional educator and an administrator who is perceived as working for one of these "evil" bureaucracies.

Students could discuss how stories of professional misconduct in the press feed this general distrust of professionals. For example, articles about teacher misconduct not only impugns the teaching profession but often the school administration profession. The popular thinking may be: "school administrators were once teachers, and probably incompetent teachers, and now they manage teachers, and obviously they are not doing that very well either. Furthermore, administrators work for large bureaucracies concerned about self-preservation." Understanding these sentiments help introduce students to the crumbling support professionals, specifically educational administrators, receive from society. Accountability concerns must be framed within this realization.

In addition to this societal ethos, there are also institutional forces that frame accountability in education. Social institutions are widespread practices or beliefs that operate within sectors and across sectors in a society. Sociologists currently theorize six major sectors of social institutions: economy, kinship, religion, polity, law, and education (Turner, 1997). Social controls influence individual and organizational action within those sectors and sometimes across sectors. The three general vehicles for social control typically cited in the literature are normative, regulatory, and mimetic (Scott, 1995). Ubiquitous social influences as well as simple social mechanisms constrain behavior. Each of these three forms of control can be evident within the three primary social structures mentioned below (professions, government and organizations). Normative influence is evident in the education profession through the existence of widely held educational codes of ethics. Coercive or regulatory influences are evident in education through state educational and licensure laws. Mimetic influences are less apparent but are still evident in the "taken-for-granted" practices that dominate education.

It is often true that an institutional logic strongly cultivated in one sector (i.e. business) can bleed to other areas (i.e. education and religion). For example, a broad institutionalized logic in the United States is the belief that competition improves quality and open markets improve organizational efficiency and effectiveness. This logic may not be as strong in religion or in the family as in business, but this logic dominates social processes in this culture. As consumers, Americans are accustomed to multiple businesses competing for their allegiance and many view this as a way of improving efficiency, product quality, or customer service. It is understandable why this institutional logic may be viewed as a way to improve accountability in education. Those in favor of vouchers and charter schools see that value. Nevertheless, in the past, education has been more aligned with institutional logics present in the family than in the business market. Current calls for reform may be viewed as calls to use new accountability mechanisms. The simple argument is that bad schools and bad teachers could be removed if market structures were allowed to dominate education. Mrs. Kidheart expresses such logic when she notes that her incompetent teacher would have never survived in industry but would have been fired quickly.

Some are convinced that unregulated market competition fosters destructive forces in education. Teacher unions, like their counterparts in industry, know that owners can use markets to excuse unethical administrative decisions to overwork and squeeze out expensive employees, destroy good jobs and leave communities hurting. Unions and city governments have seen the selfishness of owners to act in their own best interest in the name of quality. Here, calls for professional self-policing and reform have been viewed as a better answer to insuring professional quality than market capitalism (see Sullivan, 1995). Within education, similar appeals are being made that developing professional cultures are better mechanisms for improving professional accountability than market structures (Darling-Hammond, 1990, 1999; Darling-Hammond and Ascher, 1991). Some fear that education has had to change for the worse from a Gemeinschaft institution (family and community orientation) to a Gessellschaft institution (corporate orientation) (see Furman and Merz, 1996).

Societal and institutional influences on educational accountability probably find their most specific manifestations through three specific entities--professional organizations, government agencies and employers. Professional organizations typically use codes of ethics and standards of practice to control behavior and increase accountability. Governments work with professional organizations and colleges to control quality through licensure issues and laws related to professional services. Organizations, as Williamson (1975, 1981) argued, use close supervision and monitoring to better control the opportunistic behavior of employed professionals. Organizations do this not only for efficiency reasons but also for reasons of liability. Higher distrust about the opportunistic behavior of professionals and the heightened need for greater efficiency will inspire organizations toward closer supervision, elevate the emphasis on quality management and increase controls. In principle, these three social structures--professions, employers, and governments-- overlap to provide extensive jurisdiction over professional conduct, both inside and outside of education.

At its core, calls for professional accountability are calls for getting rid of dead wood. These calls are really directed toward these three primary social structures that are viewed as the main instruments by which dead wood is identified and cleared out. However, organizations themselves create practices that develop and keep dead wood around. They may work to limit professional development and thwart professional responsiveness to clients (in this case students and community members). Bad organizational structures, poor political leadership, improper human resource management and the inadequate use of myth and symbols may foster poor teacher performance (Bolman and Deal, 1995). This is where administrators, as both professionals and direct agents of organizational supervision, feel increased pressure for accountability.

In teaching and learning, dead wood is evident in inefficient, unfair and arbitrary classroom management, non-responsive teaching and poor learning. However, the challenge in clearing the dead wood is to do so without creating more problems. In education this is a delicate process. The diversity of teaching styles, the diversity of students and subjects taught, and the varying levels of teacher mastery make it more difficult to maintain standard practice across the whole field of education compared to fields like medicine or engineering where recipe-like protocols are emerging. Expert teaching develops slowly even for the most conscientious professional.

In conclusion, calls for professional accountability arise from a variety of sectors in society. They arise from a mixture of general social and moral concerns, as well as local and organizational interests. In administration, accountability is demanded from multiple groups with varied demands. There are employer demands for supervision and organizational communication. There are professional and state requirements. There are interpersonal demands based on the loyalty one has to self and family versus the loyalty one feels for kids. Local community demands are also present. When someone raises the issue of professional accountability, the response needs to be "Accountability to whom, for what?" This case raises both simple and complex issues about administrator loyalty in an atmosphere of increased emphasis on accountability. Principals must nurture and help their teachers, even ineffective ones, but they must do so while responding to the needs of students, boards, unions, and the wider community. Mrs. Kidheart was living and reacting to these complexities as she tried to deal with this case. She was as much a pawn in the social fabric of accountability, as she was an instrument of change.

References, with added notes

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership . San Francisco : Jossey-Bass. (This is an effective introduction to the structural, human resource, political and symbolic organizational processes that frame administrative practice).

Covrig, D. M. (2000). Professional relations: The multiple communities of professional reform and renewal. Submitted for publication.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Developing a professional model of accountability for our schools , [On-line]. British Columbia Teacher's Federation. Available: http://www.bctf.bc.ca/parents/speeches/darling-hammond.html [2000, June]. (As always, she provides a superb argument about how educational organizations can create internal accountability mechanisms.)

Darling-Hammond, L., & Ascher, C. (1991). Accountability mechanisms in big city school systems , [On-line]. ERIC/CUE Digest No. 71. Available: http://www.ericae.net/db/edo/ED334311.htm [2000, August]. (Presents a concise overview of the ideal types of accountability mechanisms active in education).

Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Teacher Professionalism: Why and How. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Schools as collaborative cultures: Creating the future . London : Falmer Press.

Furman, G., & Merz, C. (1996). Schools and community connections: Applying a sociological framework. In J. G. Cibulka & W. J. Kritek (Eds.), Coordination among schools, families, and communities: Prospects for Educational Reform (pp. 323-347). Albany , NY : State University of New York Press. (The best single article I have read to help students understand the changing identity of schools from servants of community interests and families to servants of corporate cultures focused on creating workers for a global economy.)

Hafferty, F. W. & Light, D. W. (1995). Professional dynamics and the changing nature of medical work. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, (Extra Issue), 132-153. (Reviews the growing forces in health care that are limiting the professional jurisdiction of health care workers.)

Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16 (2), 366-395. (Reviews and then synthesizes the literature on ethical decision making in organizations into a parsimonious model useful for administrators.)

Kondrat, M. E. (1999). Who is the "self" in self-aware: Professional self-awareness from a critical theory perspective. Social Science Review, 73 (4), 451-477. (She describes four phases or stages of self-awareness necessary for successful professional practice.)

May, L. (1996). The socially responsive self : social theory and professional ethics . Chicago : University of Chicago Press. (This is a philosophically and sociologically rich critique of professional relationships.)

Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations . Thousand Oaks , CA : Sage Publications. (This provides an excellent introduction to institutional theory applied to organizational processes.)

Starratt, R. J. (1991). Building an ethical school: A theory for practice in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27 (2), 185-202. (This has a readable and creative perspective for analyzing ethical practices in education using the ethic of care, critique and justice).

Sullivan, W. M. (1995). Work and integrity: the crisis and promise of professionalism in America . New York : HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. (This book argues that the professions can be improved through a revival of the communitarian spirit that existed in the progressive period.)

Turner, J. H. (1997). The institutional order: Economy, kinship, religion, polity, law, and education in evolutionary and comparative perspective . Reading , MA : Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. (This is a lengthy discussion of the social institutions and their processes in society.)

Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications: a study in the economics of internal organization . New York : Free Press.

Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87 , 548-577. (Both of the above two sources outline why certain kinds of structures allow closer control over quality and processes.)

Biographical Statement

Duane M. Covrig is an assistant professor in educational leadership at the University of Akron ( Ohio ). He was an assistant professor in religious ethics before coming to Akron and has taught extensively in health care ethics. He continues to study applied ethics in the professions, institutional theory, and moral leadership.

ERIC Descriptors

Professional Standards

Accountability

Competence

Professional/Ethics