E THICAL S CHOOL L EADERSHIP

The values of the school leader and the school determine how ethics is practised in schools. The school leader´s values count in the leadership of the processes of the whole school community: a school leader´s values should reflect the laws and norms on the institution on the one hand and, on the other hand, they should be subjected to critical evaluation, possibly conducted by professional, autonomous school leaders themselves. Värri (2002) remarks that if there is a contradiction between personal values and the values of the community, a school leader needs to balance between the institutionally set values. Johnson (2008) is sceptical of giving a list of ethical rules for school leaders and recommends instead an analysis of values, which is typical of school leaders in Finland. (Värri 2002; Kuukka 2009, 86-87: 104.)

It is obvious that leaders´ ethics or ethical ways of thinking become visible in the processes of communication and meeting with other people in the everyday school life. Ethics that strives for the equality of all people on the basis of human rights and where everybody is respected with dignity often demands negotiations between all partners. In education a dialogue between all the partners can be established only if there is a respect for all human beings as equal participants.

These values are in the heart of ethics in school practice. The relationship of participants has to be open for conversation and negotiation which, of course, is a prerequisite for a dialogue. Education that can be negotiated between the partners in the processes is based on the ideas of one of the most distinguished educational philosophers of the 20^th century, Martin Buber (1878-1965).

The basic ideas of Buber´s ethics are in dialogue and meeting with the other person. These form the basis of Martin Buber´s dialogical ethics and pedagogies that are explained e.g. by Värri (2004, 15). According to Buber´s philosophy, when people meet each other there are two possibilities in treating the other:

either it is I-Thou or I –It. This relationship is based on the equality of and respect for the other person as an equal partner. These concept pairs and their meanings are used, according to Värri (2004, 16) in connection with the world and the actual being of persons in it. However, educational relationship between a child and an adult and therapeutic relationships are special cases and not purely of the

51 type I-Thou. In an educational relationship I-It it is treated and dominated by the other person (as e.g. an educator or teacher decides about suitable education or a therapist a cure). The adult is a mirror for a growing child and sets the limits for the right and wrong. This adult and child relationship is necessary for a child to grow up and become a person. The ideal educational relationship between a child and an adult is based on respect, care and love. According to Värri (2004), a child needs to be educated for growing up and being part of the community of other people where knowing the ethics of I-Thou is essential. This means according to Värri (ibid.) that in I-Thou I can accept you as you are. (Värri 2004, 17.) Everyday school life serves as an example of a context where meaning building can be practised. According to Värri (2008) the philosophy of meeting with the other person is ethically based on a responsibility of helping the other as a companion with empathy and compassion. People become persons via the relationship with other people and the world. All real being is crossing the borders of I and meeting with the other subjects in the life world. (Värri 2008, 331.)

In Värri´s philosophical reasoning it was already said that meeting the other people with respect and open communication is a prerequisite for a dialogue.

Dialogical approach is not a method; it is an ethical attitude that can be chosen consciously. Listening is needed for a genuine dialogue. Värri (2008) remarks that the role of education in society is twofold: helping the individual to become able to reach for a good life and the society to develop towards democracy. (Värri 2008, 342-344.)

Varto (2004, 23) criticises the aim in education of obtaining better results with more effective methods and means as typical of the official educational ideologies of the postmodern economic and political era. Varto sees these as relics of the rational thinking. The problem, according to Varto, is that education has gone far from its history and traditional values and forgotten its real issues and purposes e.g. discussions on a good life. According to him we seem to get a lot of ´want-to-be-value-free´ ideologies from psychology or business life delivered to education by consultants who are telling a lot of nonsense on e.g.

development of skills in accordance with methodological requirements and standards set for work life. Varto also mentions ´entrepreneurship´ towards each other and the environment in the search for a good life.

On the other hand, the philosophical view of education by Rauhala (2005) emphasises ethical responsibilities that people have towards each other and the environment in their search for a good life. Rauhala (ibid.) criticises the culture of seeing people as individuals and thinks that, instead, people should strive for clarifying their own values of living with the other people. From this point of view we would need education that researchers (Skinnari & Syväoja 2007) call eternal pedagogy which means that people need to be taught to search for a good life and make wise choices with a view to not only financial benefits but also ecological points of views (Lehtovaara 2007, 608).

How is ethical leadership to be understood with the change discussed before?

My experience of and insight into education is that we seem to have lost the

52

genuine meaning of change in education. We need more time for building relationships with a dialogical approach and for negotiating what is meaningful education. We need more time for building educational partnerships.

Since everyday school life is a series of new situations where there are no right or wrong answers dialogical ethics could be used for learning to listen to each other. According to Talib & Lipponen (2008, 236-237) in situations where people of different cultural backgrounds do not necessarily understand what the other person tries to say, learning through listening to different voices could be a valuable method of gaining an understanding. Despite being different it is possible to learn how to find compromises and act even when no mutual dialogue with shared meanings is established. The kind of learning of ethics in practice could open new possibilities for e.g. intercultural education in schools which in turn can be connected with the increasing of mutual intercultural understanding and communication in Europe according to the EU recommendation given for teacher education almost three decades ago. Behind intercultural competence which relies on the values of justice, equality and mutual respect, lies a philosophy, according to which a person´s attitudes, knowing and skills are intertwined in the thinking and behaviour (Kuukka 2009, 180-182).

Furman (2003) defines participation in the processes of the community as a moral responsibility of a pedagogue. Furman´s idea is interesting because the emphasis is on the ethics of the community instead of an individual. The idea of meaning-building in this type of pedagogical leadership is in the processes of the community. The ethics of a community is built on understanding the processes of communication. The meaning of ethical wellbeing is based on good communication and relationships between people.

For school leadership this would not only imply arranging time and place for communication, but what is more important, ethical leadership would also demand personal participation in the processes. Involvement in action with one’s own values is more time-consuming but more effective pedagogical leadership of ethics than telling what is right or wrong. And what is more important, this type of pedagogical school leadership seems quite contradictory to what dynamic leaders of today are often expected to do at school. As many heads of schools that are also perhaps in charge of several schools are expected to accomplish more administrative tasks, they also complain that there is hardly any time left for pedagogical leadership. Without an insight into the daily basis of work and life at school, however, a lot of potential to develop the community will be lost.

Having time for participation and communication, and taking care of relationships in the community are the essence in good pedagogical leadership at school.

53