When Is It Just to Exercise Authority in a School?

Ethics and Professional Standards in School Leadership

By Héctor Navedo, Ed. D.

Published November 5, 2026

Leer este ensayo en español · All essays and articles

A student survey reaches the principal's desk. The findings are uncomfortable. Some students believe that expressing disagreement can get them into trouble. In five days, the school must report to its board.

The principal proposes checking the data before releasing the findings. The analyst notes that participation was incomplete. Some comments could also identify the students who responded. Both concerns deserve attention. Meanwhile, students are still waiting for a response.

What should the school do?

Publishing everything could expose people. It could also encourage conclusions that the information cannot support. Withholding it indefinitely would leave an educational concern unanswered. Waiting has consequences, too.

This case is hypothetical. Its difficulty raises a question at the heart of school leadership: what makes a decision that affects other people ethically defensible?

I argue that exercising authority is ethically defensible when a decision serves a justifiable educational purpose, imposes burdens that are necessary and proportionate in light of the alternatives, and remains open to review and repair. Following a rule, gaining support, or presenting good results is not enough to establish this. Decision-makers must explain what they protect, who bears the burdens, and how they will address the consequences left unresolved.

What the Role Requires Us to Justify

Standard 2 of the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL) connects professional practice with integrity, fairness, transparency, trust, and responsibility for each student. It addresses decisions, relationships, and the management of resources (National Policy Board for Educational Administration [NPBEA], 2015, p. 10).

This framework guides judgment. Specific legal duties must be checked in the relevant jurisdiction.

Responsibility for each student means that an inconvenient voice cannot simply be dismissed to protect the school's image. It also requires protection when making a student's experience public could expose that student.

I propose beginning with equal consideration. No person loses their standing as a participant whose views deserve consideration because an opinion is uncomfortable, achievement is low, or a group has little representation. This does not give students, teachers, and leaders identical roles. Leaders retain duties of protection and specialized judgment. Because they hold powers that others do not, they must answer for how they use them.

A leader's concern about reputation does not, by itself, carry the same weight as the risk of exposing a student.

When two educational duties conflict, equal consideration alone does not determine which should take priority. I propose examining the severity of potential harm, whether it can be repaired, who is exposed, and less restrictive alternatives. A concrete safety threat may demand immediate priority. A restriction on participation also needs a limited scope and review. The judgment must explain why one duty is being deferred and how it will be addressed later, rather than treating the conflict as resolved.

Four Questions for Examining a Decision

A discussion can become confused when people are answering different questions. Some defend the intention. Others question the data. Someone asks about resources. Students describe how they were treated.

Four questions help separate these concerns:

1. Is the decision ethically defensible? Can its educational purpose and burdens be justified in light of the alternatives?
2. What does the available information support? What do we know? What remains uncertain? Which conclusions would go beyond the data?
3. Can the response be sustained? Are the time, support, authority, and capacity available to deliver what is announced?
4. What do people experience when they receive the response? Can they gain access, disagree, obtain an answer, and identify consequences missing from the report?

These questions organize the essay's argument. They are not a validated instrument. They do not automatically produce the right decision.

1. Can It Be Justified to Those Who Bear Its Consequences?

A reason open to public scrutiny can be understood and questioned. To be ethically defensible, it must also serve a justifiable educational purpose. It must explain why the burdens are necessary and proportionate in light of the alternatives.

In our case, protecting student identities is a substantive reason to withhold certain material. Keeping the school from appearing to have difficulties calls for a different examination.

We should ask:

• Whom, or what educational function, does withholding the information protect?
• Could a less restrictive approach provide that protection?
• How long is the restriction needed?
• Who can challenge it, and how will it be reviewed?

Deliberation needs limits. Asking everyone about everything can add work for those who already have less time and voice.

One objection is that school leaders cannot make every decision depend on the agreement of those who challenge it. They must protect others, apply rules, and resolve conflicts even when disagreement persists. The objection is reasonable. Listening does not grant a veto or require accepting every proposal. It does require distinguishing disagreement from conduct that causes harm, explaining that distinction, and allowing its application to be reviewed. When a risk demands immediate action, protection may precede consultation. The urgency must be justified. Explanation, review, and repair, where appropriate, remain responsibilities to fulfill.

Research helps us recognize these tensions. Fernandes (2026) examines the complexity of ethical judgment. St-Vincent et al. (2026) study ethical problems described by school leaders in New Zealand. Hlongwane and Bhengu (2025) show tensions among stated care, policies, and practices in South African schools. These contributions help us ask better questions. They do not offer a universal solution for every school.

2. What Do We Really Know?

Counting survey responses correctly does not resolve every limitation. The meaning of the questions, participation, the scope of the conclusions, and the risk of identification require separate checks.

An incomplete survey may justify further inquiry and listening. It may still be unable to establish how widespread a problem is or who is individually responsible.

The principal could separate two decisions: which findings to release and which educational response to authorize while verification continues.

Assume that the board has the authority to make that distinction. It could consider a provisional response based on educational reasons and an initial consultation with appropriate protections. It would not need to release data still awaiting verification. The community would receive a clear account of the decision and the review's progress. Withholding identifiable material would not justify a misleading public account.

At the end of the five days, the school could report to the board on the survey's scope and limitations, the concern that needs attention, and the protections adopted. It would include only findings that could justifiably be presented without identifying students, in line with applicable duties. If verification remains incomplete, it would explain what is missing, who will be responsible, and on what date the decision will be reviewed. The deadline requires accountability. It does not turn incomplete data into firm conclusions or justify postponing every educational response.

The same caution should apply to favorable findings. A demand for verification loses credibility when it appears only because the data are uncomfortable.

Public pressures complicate these choices. Evans et al. (2026) examine superintendents' perspectives on communication and misinformation. Kahne et al. (2025) analyze associations between political conflict and support for democratic education. These studies help place professional judgment in a context of pressure. They do not justify equating student criticism with misinformation. Nor do they establish political conflict as the cause of every school's difficulties.

3. Can We Deliver What We Announce?

Opening a channel for participation seems like a simple response. Its value depends on what people can do through it and who can sustain it.

Before seeking an additional contact person, the school should examine whether adults can respond better through existing channels. Additional access would be justified only if it addresses concerns those channels cannot yet handle adequately.

In the hypothetical case, assume that the usual channels depend on the team whose response is being questioned. They do not offer regular access to another authorized person. That difference could justify a provisional arrangement. The school would need to identify the time required, the work displaced, communication supports, and the limits of confidentiality.

Review may also involve a conflict of interest. If a leader's conduct is being questioned, that person should not have sole control over receiving, interpreting, and closing the complaint. Another authorized person or body with no direct responsibility for the events could take part. If none exists within the school, it should acknowledge that limit and explore a relevant external route, such as an oversight body or a complaints process available in its context. Its authority, accessibility, and safeguards would need to be checked before it is offered. This does not establish a universal legal duty or justify promising independence where none exists.

Without that capacity, announcing availability would create an expectation the school cannot meet.

Limited resources present another serious objection. Time devoted to this arrangement may reduce other support students also need. Its justification therefore requires weighing that burden against viable alternatives, including improving existing channels. A limited trial would need to specify what it can address, which matters require another route, and under what conditions it will be adjusted or closed. Invoking participation would not be enough to displace other needs without examining them.

Who bears the risk of disagreement also matters. Davidovitz (2026) examines perspectives from teachers in Israeli public schools. The study distinguishes experiences of shared risk, uncertain support, and consequences borne personally. Applying that question to our case extends the argument. What protection does a person have when pointing out a discrepancy makes those in authority uncomfortable?

4. What Changes for Students?

Imagine that students now clarify their concern.

They can speak. The problem is that adults immediately interpret their disagreements as disrespect.

Another channel would not, by itself, resolve that experience. The team would need to review how it listens and responds.

One concrete practice would be to check what was understood before evaluating a proposal. Adults would then give reasons and later explain what changes or stays the same. This practice seeks to give practical meaning to the interpersonal and social-emotional responsibilities in PSEL 2e.

Now suppose that a student explains that the deadline for input comes before the student's group can meet. An adult had interpreted the delay as a lack of commitment.

Correcting that interpretation would be a start. If the judgment cost the student an opportunity to participate, the adult would also need to address that consequence and agree on how to restore the opportunity. Improving the next conversation would leave the earlier one unresolved.

Andersson et al. (2026) and Burkeland and Jones (2026) help us examine habits, adult control, and routines that shape participation. Harðardóttir et al. (2026) add student perspectives on student councils, uneven knowledge of their selection processes, and the need for follow-up. Nelson et al. (2025) examine relationships among teachers' perceptions of fairness, expectations of leadership roles, and commitment.

These studies use different designs and examine different contexts. Their findings should not be combined into proof that a specific procedure works. They do help us ask whether participation offers a genuine chance to influence decisions, including how the problem is defined.

If People Like an Initiative, Has Their Experience Improved?

A favorable assessment deserves attention. Its meaning depends on what was assessed and who responded.

In a feasibility test of SpeakOut with Advocatr in a rural school, Vincent et al. (2026) did not detect statistically significant changes in the student outcomes tested. In the follow-up questionnaire, the two teachers who delivered the curriculum rated it favorably. Their responses provide information about their implementation experience. Given their number and role, they do not represent the staff as a whole or replace students' perspectives.

School engagement showed a negative estimated change: d = −0.48; p = .055 (Table 4). The small sample and lack of a comparison group prevent attributing that change to the program or concluding that it caused harm. Finding time to respond also emerged as an implementation difficulty.

This contrast requires us to distinguish favorable assessments, feasibility, and student improvement. None can stand in for the others. Calling the result “almost significant” would give it a strength the analysis does not establish. Nor should the lack of statistical significance be taken as proof that nothing changed.

Reviewing Progress Without Turning Ethics into a Score

The school needs to examine what happens after it decides. I propose four areas for follow-up:

• Effective access: reported barriers and support still needed.
• Responses to concerns: matters addressed, reasons offered, and corrections to adults' interpretations.
• Changes in practice: actions changed and experiences voluntarily shared by the people affected.
• Costs and risks: exposure, added workload, reported fear, or participation concentrated among the same voices.

The school should also examine whether its formats, schedules, and supports allow participation by those who did not use the initial channels. They should not have to justify their silence.

Offering everyone the same channel may preserve unequal access. Depending on the context, the school should consider language and accessibility support, workable schedules, and alternatives to public participation. A group's silence does not authorize others to speak for it or demonstrate agreement. When examining who can participate, the school must avoid breakdowns of data or examples that could identify students from small groups. Equity requires addressing those barriers without creating new exposure.

Students could voluntarily review a summary with appropriate privacy protections. They could question its interpretations and omissions. Leaders would need to respond before deciding whether to continue, adjust, or close the arrangement. If an issue requires further inquiry, they should identify who will address it and when.

More responses, silence, or observed changes do not, by themselves, demonstrate trust or establish the arrangement's causal effects. If a channel operates administratively while relevant concerns remain unanswered, the problem is still open.

Authority After the Explanation

A school can provide a correct explanation and leave a need unmet. It can acknowledge an error without restoring a lost opportunity. It can listen respectfully while maintaining a burden it has not justified.

Responsibility continues after the report.

An incorrect count requires a correction to the audience that received it. Improper disclosure calls for the relevant procedures, steps to limit harm, and a review of the practice that allowed it. When an initiative ends, its unresolved matters need an authorized person or channel to receive them.

Ethical leadership requires defensible reasons, the capacity to act on them, and a willingness to reconsider one's own treatment of others when their experiences call it into question.

As a decision is brought to a close, one question should remain open: what does the school still owe to those who will live with its consequences?

A Note on Scope

This narrative and argumentative essay draws on twelve references. The case and proposed practices are constructions of the essay. Qualitative studies are situated in particular contexts. Associations do not establish causation. The scope and settings of the studies limit generalization. The proposal has not been empirically validated.

The twelve references bring together a professional standard and research on ethical judgment, participation, trust, organizational justice, public pressures, and implementation. They are used to examine problems relevant to the argument, not to estimate a common effect. This selection is neither a systematic review nor an exhaustive account of available research. The proposed actions express the essay's normative judgment. The cited studies do not collectively demonstrate their effectiveness.

References

Andersson, E., Jerdborg, S., & Langelotz, L. (2026). Democracy at work? Rethinking student participation in school improvement. Journal of Educational Change. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-026-09569-0

Burkeland, I., & Jones, M.-A. (2026). Daring to lead for student voice and participation in Norwegian schools. Journal of Educational Change, 27(2), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-026-09551-w

Davidovitz, M. (2026). Who incurs the risk? Trust as a mechanism of policy enactment in schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432261493424

Evans, M. P., Malin, J. R., & White, R. S. (2026). Superintendent communication strategies in an era of misinformation. AERA Open, 12, Article 23328584261489201. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584261489201

Fernandes, V. (2026). Unravelling the complexity of ethical leadership and decision making in educational contexts. Administrative Sciences, 16(6), Article 290. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci16060290

Harðardóttir, E., Guðjohnsen, R. Þ., Hansen, P. R., Ouakrim-Soivio, N., Mustola, M., Hiljanen, M., Lau, J., Poulsen, F. B., & Jormfeldt, J. (2026). Student councils in the Nordic region: From policy promises to meaningful participatory practices. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.6646

Hlongwane, C. B., & Bhengu, T. T. (2025). Ethical leadership in schools: A qualitative case study of perspectives from six South African principals. Issues in Educational Research, 35(1), 199–219. https://www.iier.org.au/iier35/hlongwane.pdf

Kahne, J., Rogers, J., & Kwako, A. (2025). The new politics of education and the pursuit of a diverse democracy. AERA Open, 11, Article 23328584241311819. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584241311819

National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional standards for educational leaders 2015. https://www.npbea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Professional-Standards-for-Educational-Leaders_2015.pdf

Nelson, J. L., Ahn, J., & Hegtvedt, K. A. (2025). Fair across the board? Relating teacher commitment to teachers’ perceptions of principal versus assistant principal leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 61(1), 104–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X241300623

St-Vincent, L.-A., Kearney, A., & Fortier, M.-P. (2026). Responding to diverse students’ needs in New Zealand schools: Ethical problem-solving approaches used by school principals. McGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l’éducation de McGill, 60(3), 202–223. https://doi.org/10.26443/mje/rsem.v60i3.10184

Vincent, C. G., Gau, J., Girvan, E., Inglish, J., McClure, H., Svanks, R., & Reiley, D. (2026). Blending student engagement and voice with staff training in restorative practices: Findings from the feasibility test of the SpeakOut with Advocatr program. Improving Schools, 28(2), 522–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/13654802261419882

How to cite this essay — American Psychological Association (APA), 7th edition

Navedo, H. (2026, November 5). When is it just to exercise authority in a school? Ethics and professional standards in school leadership. Leading with Vision: Shaping the Future of Global Education. https://www.hectornavedoaponte.com/when-is-it-just-to-exercise-authority-in-a-school