Ethical Considerations in Teaching Self-Determination: Challenges in Rural Special Education

The development of self-determination skills in students with disabilitics is a priority in special education. Its importance is particularly significant for students who are attcnding schools in rural areas. Instruction in self -determination also raises important ethical questions. Using a model developed by Bredberg and Davidson (1999), four foundational elements in ethics are explored with reference to selfdetermination: justice, respect for cconomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence. Considerations for providing instruction in these skills are highlighted and the challengcs of doing so in a rural setting are addressed. Ethical; Considerations in Teaching Self-Determination: Challenges in Rural Special Education' Self-determination is a core concern in special education. It encompasses a set of skills and behaviors that have 'been characterized as self-regulatory, goaloriented, and independent (Karvonen, Test, Wood, Browder, & Algozzine, 2004). Its importance has been affirmed in research, in practice, and in the number of articles published on this subject. Smith, Polloway, Smith and Patton (2007) recently addressed this topic by exploring the limited attention given to the connection between what are deemed ethical teaching practices and the focus on self-determination. This paper expands and focuses this work on the unique challenges in providing special education in rural settings. The research literature commonly identifIes four key component of self-determination: the ability to act autonomously; the capacity to self-regulate behaviors; the ability to act in an empowered way; and the ability to act in a self-realizing manner (Palmer & Wehmeyer, 1998; Stancliffe, Abery, Springborg, & Elkin, 2000; Wehmeyer, Field, Doren, & Mason, 2004; Wehmeyer, Kelchner, & Richards 1996). Collectively these behaviors or skills enhance one's ability to make choices in one's best interests. Research has confIrmed that many persons with disabilities lack key skills in this area (e.g., Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003). Instruction in self-determination has parallel ethical implications as well. While all persons who have professional or personal relationships with individuals with disabilities have a responsibility to uphold and encourage self-determination, special education teachers have a unique role. If they do not real ize that instruction should be initiated early in a student's educational career and subsequently should become an integral part of a student's transition services, the implications can be significant (Smith et al., 2007). Considerations of self-determination instruction, and the potentially ethical aspects of this instruction, are also important to consider within the context of the school and community settings in which instruction takes place. In this regard, addressing specifIc ethical issues that may impact successful educational practice in this domain that relate to rural settings is critical. Defining rural is the United States is a difficult task due to its complexity; that is, no single attribute can characterize all rural places. The most commonly used definition is the U.S. Census Bureau classification. other defInitions include metropolitan status codes, urban-rural continuum codes, metro-centric locale codes, urban-centric locale codes, and core-based statistical areas (Rural Policy Research Institute, 2006). All of these definitions generally classify rural places based on population size and density, level of urbanization, and adjacency relationship to an urbanized area (Rural Policy Research Institute, 2006). However, each definition applies these characteristics differently, which may result in contradictory results, and have serious implications for the challenges faced by many rural schools. Further, at the federal level different agencies use different definitions depending on the 30 Rural Special Education Quarterly 2008 27( 1 /2) intended purpose. For example, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) describes three systems for classifying rural schools and districts: rural-urban continuum codes, metropolitan status codes, and locale codes. NCES also uses metropolitan status codes and locale codes to classify rural schools and districts (Arnold et al., 2007). Given the complexities of definitional issues, the discussion in this paper utilizes the term "rural" in its common sense use rather than according to specific definitions. The purpose of this article is to examine selfdetermination and the related ethical issues in the context of rural special education. First, the article addresses the impact of self-determination on the lives of individuals with disabilities. Second, it considers how to determine what is ethical in teaching self-determination by using a four-prong test. Third, attention is focused on key issues related to self-determination instructional programs that are particularly relevant to educational practice in rural settings. The article concludes with a discussion of issues that rural teachers must address when dealing with self-determination instruction in an ethical manner. Self-Determination for Persons with Disabilities A growing research base has identified important aspects of self-determination in the lives of individuals with disabilities and has related it to educational practices. Several studies identify key aspects of selfdetermination. Wehmeyer and Palmer (2003) studied the impact of self-determination on the lives of 94 students with disabilities (in the categories learning disabilities or mental retardation) three years after they graduated from high school. At graduation, they had the students complete an initial survey in which they collected self-determination data, and they then followed up with the students after one and three years. They reported at follow up that students with higher levels of self-determination at graduation were more financially independent (e.g., able to maintain a checkbook, able to pay for groceries) and also were able to access jobs which allowed them to secure benefits like sick leave, medical insurance, and vacation (Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003). Another aspect of self-determination was explored by Palmer and Wehmeyer (1998) when they evaluated the impact of hopelessness on self-determination in a study of 429 students with cognitive disabilities who ranged in age from 10 to 19. They found that those who were identified with mental retardation had the highest hopelessness scores and that they were least empowered. Palmer and Wehmeyer noted several reasons why it was more likely that these particular students had the lowest scores including the lack of choice they had to exercise in their lives and their restricted learning environment (mostly in selfcontained classrooms). Stancliffe et al. (2000) examined self-determination and personal control levels in the decision-making of persons with mental retardation in residential facilities as related to the type of guardian that each person had been appointed. As the researchers pointed out, one key characteristic of self-determination is the ability to exert control over one's own life. The respondents either had a conservator or guardian or they had been making their own decisions. Persons without a court-appointed conservator or a guardian exerted the most control over their own l ives. Those with a court -appointed conservator were next in terms of exerting control in their lives. Those with guardians expressed the lowest levels of control. The authors also noted the level of disability had less effect on self-determination of personal control than did the type of guardianship. Self-determination is an important skill that persons with disabilities must acquire. Thus, a persuasive argument can be made for the importance of selfdetermination training and education for persons with disabilities (Smith et al., 2007). An important issue then becomes how to make ethical choices concerning the nature of instruction in self-determination. Ethical Model for Teaching SelfDetermination Determining how to measure ethical behavior in any context is a difficult task. Greer (1988) examined the multiple ways to look at ethics as applied to special education. For example, in the fi rst way, some individuals use an ethical construct that is based on the notion that there is a universal law. A second way to make ethical arguments is to look at ethics as a moral code. A third way is to base them on relationships with people, that is, the primary focus should be on putting people first, and not treating a person as a means to an end. Paul, French, and Cranston-Gingras (2001) specifically discussed ethics and special education. They noted that it is vital to realize that ethics must not only be discussed but that special educators need to come to a firm understanding that ethics involve responsibility and responsible decision making. Consistent with Smith et al. (2007), the concept of ethics is considered herein within the context of a fourprong test to assess what is or is not ethical. These four prongs of justice, respect for autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence are foundational elements when making an ethical argument (Bredberg &Davidson, 1999). Justice refers to "fairness" and concerns the assumpt ion tha t one group wi l l no t be e i ther advantaged or disadvantaged relative to another group. Respect for autonomy refers to a respect for the independent personhood of another. Beneficence refers to working for the benefit of another (e.g., working for Rural Special Education Quarterly 2008 27(1/2) 31 the benefit of another student). Non-maleficence refers to not causing harm to another person. When self-determination instruction is considered within the framework of Bredberg and Davidson (1999), the initial issue (or prong, in their terms) is justice. Is it fair to not teach and help students to become self-determined? Consistent with the extant research (e.g., Myers & Eisenman, 2005; Palmer & Wehmeyer, 1998 Stancliffe et. al, 2000; Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003; Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1998), the acquisition of self-determination skills can improve adult life outcomes (e.g., salary, benefits, and quality of life). Bredberg and Davidson (1999) concluded that "a child's right to participate in schooling was not subject to qualification or differentiation. It was not earned, nor was it bestowed as an act of charity. It was objectively, a right, situated in the child's person. The teacher did not regard the child's placement as within a hierarchy, educational entitlement; she worked at realizing an entitlement" (p. 6). The second prong is respect for autonomy. Selfdetermination instruction enables persons to exercise more control of their lives. This often creates challenges for teachers because, as Bredberg and Davidson (1999) noted "teachers were not unaware of the potential conflicts :between their recognition of students ' autonomy and concerns for their best interests. . . They recognized the obligation of responsible adults to make decisions in children's interest, even if those decisions went against the immediate wishes of the child" (p. 7). Thus, while the decision to teach self-determination may be made by a responsible adult, the outcome of the instruction should enable individuals to make future choices for themselves (Smith et al., 2007). Bredberg and Davidson (1999) indicated that benefIcence (the third prong) was a primary ethical principle governing the act ions of teachers of individuals with disabilities. They noted that "the obligation to choose the best course of action to serve the child's best interest is not . . . an individual disposition but a mandate to be shared by everyone involved with a child's care and which demands the achievement of consensus among them" (p. 5). Not only does self-determination improve the likelihood of being treated more equally in society, it also enhances other adult outcomes (Smith et al., 2007). The fourth prong, non-maleficence, addresses whether or not teaching self-determination does. no harm. Snilansky (1997) noted that a critical principle is to ensure that no harm comes to the individual for whom instruction is being provided. Because research indicates that self -determination improves life outcomes, it follows that failing to teach these skills can not only cause harm, but may also increase the probability of injustice, potentially leading to being denied or losing personal freedom (Smith et al., 2007). Instructional Challenges in the Context of Rural Special Education General Considerations What is the status of self-determination as an instructional priority? Karvonen et al. (2004) reported that 75% of teachers at the middle and secondary levels rated self-determination skills as important, while only 55% confirmed that those goals actually were reflected in IEPs. When Wehmeyer and Schwartz (1998) examined 895 IEPs, they found that none included selfdetermination skills in transition goals. Additionally, Mason, Field, and Sawilowsky (2004) polled teachers and administrators and found that only 8% reported satisfactorily addressing self-determination goals with students in their IEPs. These discouraging data are of concern given the ethical and programmatic arguments that can be posited that teachers should include self-determination ski l ls with in the curr iculum for s tuden ts wi th disabilities. The absence of self-determination goals may be due to the fact that teachers receive limited preparation concerning on how and when to assess and these skills and what should be included in the curriculum (Smith et al., 2007). A key concern, therefore , is how teachers learn to make se lf determination a focus of instructional. Wehmeyer (2002) summarized the skills and knowledge needed as follows: learning to set personal goals; learning to solve problems that may prevent a person from reaching goals; making good choices consistent with interests and preferences; learning to participate in decisions that impact life; learning to self-advocate; learning to create a plan to achieve goals; and learning to self-regulate daily actions. Wehmeyer (2002) identifIed age -appropriate activities to guide the curriculum for persons with disabilities. Key skills can be infused into the curriculum in the early elementary grades through activities that provide opportunities for choice making, allowing the child to exert control. At the upper elementary and middle school levels, he encouraged decision making as the added component of analyzing options and the benefits and drawbacks of each choice. Students should also be encouraged to set personal and educational goals and take steps to achieve those goals. In high school, students should make day-to-day decisions and set their own academic and post-school goals. one key aspect to be stressed is the connection between daily activities and long-term outcomes. Factors that have been noted in successful programs are: teachers making sure students made informed choices; students being given a range of options; and teachers occasionally disagreeing with their choices—forcing the students to think for themselves (Smith et al., 2007). A critical area is student participation in planning 32 Ravel Special Education Quarterly 2008 27(1/2) (Karvonen et al., 2004). Toward this end, Bassett and Lehman (2002) developed a resource that provides teachers with ways to include students in a variety of conferences that affect their lives and require key selfdetermination skills. These practical ideas focus on student-led conferences, student-centered planning sessions, and student-directed meetings. Myers and Eisenman (2005) explored the concept of student-led IEP meetings. In order for a student to lead her own meeting she must: have a clear idea of what she wants in life; take responsibility for educational and life choices; and serve as an advocate for herself. Clearly the idea of having a student-led IEP is in line with the ethical arguments being raised for self determination instruction. If students are unable to represent their ideas or use poor judgment, however the team must ensure that the meeting does not result in detr iment to the chi ld. The goal is to provide opportunities for students to become more selfdetermined, not simply given freedoms that they are unable to manage (Myers & Eisenman, 2005; Smith et al., 2007). An often overlooked area in the discussion on selfdetermination instruction is assessment. A number of informal instruments have been developed that teachers can use to identify skill areas (see Clark, Patton, & Moulton, 2000). Noting that a comprehensive assessment of transition needs should be conducted in the early stages of the transition process, Clark and Patton (2006) included self-determination as a major domain in their Transition Planning Inventory to ensure that this important area was not overlooked during assessment and planning.