Search results

Kevin P. Brady is currently an associate professor in the Department of Leadership, Policy, Adult, and Higher Education at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North Carolina. Previously, Dr. Brady was an assistant professor in the Department of Educational and Community Programs at the City University of New York-Queens College. His current research interests include legal and educational policy issues involving student discipline, including zero tolerance discipline policies and the viability of school–police partnerships. Additionally, Dr. Brady's recent scholarship has examined issues relating to student and teacher free speech and expression, special education law, school finance, and educational technology issues involving today's school leaders. Dr. Brady's peer-reviewed scholarship appears in a wide array of leading educational law, policy, and technology-based journals including, the Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, Children's Legal Rights Journal, Distance Education, Education and the Law, Education and Urban Society, Journal of Education Finance, Journal of Interactive Online Learning, Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, Journal of School Leadership, International Journal of Educational Reform, NASSP Bulletin, Review of Research in Education, and West's Education Law Reporter.

The topic of ethics and ethical behavior has existed for centuries. Many disciplines (e.g., medicine, law, educational leadership, law enforcement, etc.,) believe that Socrates was the first philosopher to delve into the issue of ethics. As society has evolved, the questions and concerns that involve ethics and ethical behavior have grown more difficult to address. Ethical standards have become both more complex and scrutinized by the public than at any other time in history. Therefore, leadership personnel across an array of disciplines must carry out tasks assigned to them while the rules and laws constantly change and their freedom to perform the necessary tasks becomes obstructed. For example, citizens expect educators in public schools, correctional facilities, and law enforcement officials to operate in an efficient and professional manner without expressing personal views and emotions. To accomplish this, these professions must have a strict and unwavering adherence to a code of ethics, a code of conduct, remain ethical, a commitment to issues of equity and excellence, and conduct themselves accordingly at all times, both on and off duty. The law enforcement code of ethics and the police code of conduct represent the basis for ethical behavior in law enforcement. The same applies to educational leadership and correctional education. However, these codes simply constitute words. For them to be effective, leaders in these professions must not only believe in the codes but also follow them and display conduct that supports them. Thus, these leaders must live the code.

Law enforcement ethics training has focused traditionally on the development of moral character (see, e.g., Josephson, 2009). This approach is based on the idea that offices imbued with the proper moral values will do the right thing regardless of the circumstances or situational pressures. While good character is clearly important, there is no reliable evidence to support the theory that dispositional qualities are responsible for individual differences in moral behavior. Indeed, contrary to the tenets of virtue ethics, circumstances seem to be the most important factor influencing a person's moral conduct (Doris & Murphy, 2007; Ross & Nisbett, 1991). Any explanation aimed at better understanding the ethical failures of law enforcement must look beyond mere character-based explanations. This chapter explores the developmental, social, and psychological factors that can contribute to immoral behavior. The author concludes with a review of strategies for creating a culture of ethical behavior.

During its 230 year prison history, the United States has advocated various – and sometimes conflicting – purposes for incarceration. Each justification has rested on the tenets of some prevailing theory of human behavior (Akers & Sellers, 2008; Jones, 2008), which attempts to answer two recurring themes: why do some people commit crimes while others do not, and how should the criminal justice system, including the correctional system, respond to such behavior (Siegel, 2003; Winfree & Abadisky, 2010; Vito, Maahs, & Holmes, 2011). This chapter offers an overview of the general tenets of what is considered morally imperative when determining “right” from “wrong”; the four key criminological perspectives of crime, as well as the ontological assumptions, either explicit or implicit, within each hypothesis. Next, the authors discuss how these assumptions dictate society's response to crime and, more specifically, the type of punishment, rehabilitative efforts, or educational opportunities offered to those who violate society's laws (Bohn & Vogel, 2011). The chapter concludes with a discussion of the types of educational programs and therapies that have demonstrated the most promise at reducing crime and recidivism, as well as suggestions for improving current correctional practices.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibit schools from discriminating against otherwise qualified individuals with disabilities because of their impairments. The major difference between the two statutes is that the former applies only to recipients of federal funds, whereas the latter extends protections to those in the private sector. Otherwise qualified individuals with disabilities are those who have physical or mental impairments, which substantially limit one or more of their major life activities, a record of such impairments, or are regarded as having such impairments but who are capable of meeting all of a program's requirements in spite of their disabilities. In this chapter, the authors review the statutes' various requirements as they apply to both students and employees in the school setting. Specifically, using numerous court cases as examples, the chapter outlines the reasonable accommodations schools must provide to extend the benefits of their programs to individuals with disabilities in terms of providing services or employment. Furthermore, the chapter discusses the limitations on the types of accommodations schools must provide when doing so would place an excessive financial or administrative burden on the school board.