Ethical Codes for School Leaders

States, like organizations, set high standards for education leaders but their codes lack any means of enforcement. 

The ethical framework for school leaders is like a Venn diagram, with students’ best interest at the center, and in the overlapping frames, the ethical codes of professional organizations and, in some jurisdictions, state laws.

The University Council for Education Administration (UCEA) ethical code—akin to the ethical codes of the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and the American Association of School Administrators—has approximately 10 broad principles, such as “valu[ing] and respect[ing] the diversity of person, practice and thought.” The major difference is that the UCEA code focuses on the preparation of education leaders, while the other codes are for the practice of education leaders.

The UCEA code is largely distinct from the other three codes; the commonality is limited to the partial overlap for integrity, reform, and research, while other explicit values, such as the emphasis on diversity, are exclusive to its special mission. But what is missing from all of these ethical codes—arguably another overriding commonality— is a lack of any enforcement mechanism, including sanctions. In contrast, for example, the American Bar Association’s ethical code for the law profession has separate functional categories that each have specific items on an ample basis; differentiated operant verbs, such as “shall” and “may”; comments to clarify the standards and to supplement them with aspirational “shoulds”; an express provision for discipline, and adoption with slight, customized variation at the state level.

Do state laws fill the gap in more detailed coverage and force? My recent systematic analysis, which is published in the fall 2014 issue of the Journal of Law and Education, revealed that 34 states have ethical codes that cover K–12 school leaders, with most but not all of them with clear legal force. Perhaps more significantly, only four—Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and South Dakota—were specific to public school administrators, with the rest covering school leaders within a generic rubric for educators.

Other findings included:

• The legal form of the 34 codes were as follows: legislation, 26; state board of education officially approved policies, 6; and, marginally, guidelines, 2.

• The content of the codes fit into nine identifiable, albeit overlapping, categories: specific to the law, the school board, employees, students, parents and community; equitable environment; character traits; broad behavior, and specific behavior. The majority of the codes addressed in part all these categories except for parent/ community-specific conduct. The most frequent categories were specific educator behaviors and student-specific conduct.

• Content analysis also yielded identifiable subsets for each of the nine categories, with the highest weighted frequencies accorded to protecting student safety; avoiding other discrimination; reporting information honestly; avoiding personal gain; maintaining confidential; exhibiting consistent integrity; maintaining professional relationships with students, and entering and fulfilling contracts.

• About 70 percent of the state codes authorized one or more sanctions for violations, usually suspension or revocation of certificate. The remaining codes were sanctionless.

Members of the UCEA and the other national groups are encouraged to critically examine not only their own codes but also the state codes to determine appropriate breadth and depth of coverage, and extent of enforceability.

For example, should the UCEA code join with the other school leadership codes to expressly include students’ best interests? Should the UCEA code have an organizational enforcing mechanism, and if so, what should the nature and strength of the sanctions be? The resulting research and scholarly consideration reflect on our views and values with regard to human conduct generally and our profession specifically. 

Perry A. Zirkel, university professor of Education and Law (Based on an article in UCEA Review.)