Facilitator Script for "Ethics In Action"

Warm-Up: Values Auction (5 minutes)

Time: 0:00 – 0:05

Teacher: "Welcome, everyone! I’m delighted to have you here as we explore how ethical reasoning can strengthen our school communities. To kick us off, we’re going to play a quick Values Auction. You each have a set of ‘fake’ currency. In a moment, you’ll bid on the professional values you care about most. Ready?"

1. Distribute Values Auction Warm-Up Materials and play upbeat background music if possible.
2. Teacher: "You have three minutes to bid on at least three values. Spend your currency wisely—only the highest bids will ‘win’ each item."
3. Circulate, observe bids, and keep time.
4. When time is up:
   • Teacher: "Alright, hands down on your bids! Let’s see which values topped the list. Who bid highest on ‘Integrity’? What about ‘Equity’?"
   • Briefly note the top three values on chart paper or slide.
5. Debrief:
   • Teacher: "Why do you think these values rose to the top? How might they guide your decisions as educational leaders?"
   • Solicit 2–3 responses.

Speaker Transition: "Thank you all—those values will thread through our session today."

Introduction & Framework Overview (10 minutes)

Time: 0:05 – 0:15

1. Advance to Slide 1 of the Ethical Reasoning Slide Deck.
2. Teacher: "Here are our session objectives and agenda. By the end of the hour, you’ll understand three ethical frameworks, analyze real-world scenarios, and practice decision-making strategies."
3. Advance to Slide 2:
   • Teacher: "First, let’s define our frameworks: utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. You’ll find deeper explanations in the Ethics Framework Reading Handout."
4. For each framework:
   • Utilitarianism: "This focuses on the greatest good for the greatest number. In schools, that might mean policy changes that lift achievement for most learners."
   • Deontology: "Here, we follow moral rules—like fairness—no matter the outcome. Imagine a code of conduct that applies equally to every staff member."
   • Virtue Ethics: "This centers on character—qualities like honesty, courage, and compassion. A leader models these virtues daily."
5. Teacher: "Any quick questions about these frameworks?" (Pause for 1–2 responses.)

Speaker Transition: "Great—let’s see how these play out in real scenarios."

Case Study Videos & Discussion (10 minutes)

Time: 0:15 – 0:25

1. Slide 3: Teacher: "We’ll watch a short clip now. Pay attention to who’s affected and which frameworks might apply."
2. Play the first segment from Case Study Videos (2–3 minutes).
3. Pause video and advance to Guided Discussion slide.
4. Teacher: "Let’s discuss. What ethical issues did you notice?"
   • Prompt 1: "Who are the stakeholders, and what are their interests?"
   • Prompt 2: "Which framework seems to fit this scenario, and why?"
   • Follow-Up: "Can anyone suggest an alternative action that aligns better with one of the frameworks?"
5. Invite 3–4 participants to share briefly (20–30 seconds each).

Speaker Transition: "Thank you—those insights set us up nicely for hands-on practice."

Worksheet Activity & Roleplay (15 minutes)

Time: 0:25 – 0:40

1. Distribute Ethical Dilemmas Worksheet.
2. Teacher: "Turn to a partner. You each have two scenarios to analyze on the worksheet. First, decide which framework you’d use and why. Then, we’ll role-play."
3. Set timer: 5 minutes for analysis.
4. Teacher circulates, listening in, and offers guiding questions: "What assumptions are you making? How might each stakeholder respond?"
5. After 5 minutes:
   • Teacher: "Now, choose one scenario to role-play. One of you takes the leader role, the other a stakeholder. You have three minutes. Ready, set, go!"
6. After role-play, ask:
   • Teacher: "What felt challenging about that decision? What did you learn about applying your framework in practice?"
7. Repeat with a second pair if time allows.

Speaker Transition: "Well done—let’s check our understanding with a quick quiz."

Quiz Assessment (5 minutes)

Time: 0:40 – 0:45

1. Teacher: "Please complete the Ethical Reasoning Quiz. It’s formative, so relax and do your best."
2. Distribute quiz and set timer for 5 minutes.
3. Collect responses and note to score later with the Answer Key for Assessments.

Speaker Transition: "Thank you! Now let’s look ahead to how you’ll apply these skills."

Project Introduction & Rubric (10 minutes)

Time: 0:45 – 0:55

1. Teacher: "After this session, you’ll choose a school policy or case for deeper analysis—see the Ethics Project Guidelines."
2. Advance to project slide and review main tasks:
   • Identify a real policy or scenario
   • Apply one or more frameworks
   • Make a justified recommendation
3. Teacher: "You’ll be evaluated using this Ethical Reasoning Rubric, which assesses clarity of reasoning, stakeholder analysis, and alignment with ethical frameworks."
4. Teacher: "Any questions about the project or rubric?" (Pause for 1–2 clarifications.)

Speaker Transition: "Finally, let’s reflect personally on our commitment to ethics."

Cool-Down Reflection (5 minutes)

Time: 0:55 – 1:00

1. Teacher: "Take out the Reflection Cool-Down Prompts. Choose one prompt and write a short action step you’ll take this week as an ethical leader."
2. Provide 2–3 minutes of silent writing.
3. Invite volunteers: "Who would like to share their action step?" (Up to 3 shares.)
4. Teacher: "Thank you for sharing. Your commitment is what turns reasoning into action."
5. Close: "Thank you all for your engagement today. I look forward to seeing how you carry these ideas into your leadership. Please reach out with any questions or for follow-up resources. Have a great day!"

Ethical Dilemmas Worksheet

For each scenario below, analyze the situation using ethical reasoning frameworks. Answer all questions, leaving space for your responses.

Scenario 1: Budget Allocation Conflict

Your school has received limited funds and must choose between updating technology for classrooms or expanding support services for students with special needs. Both initiatives are important, but you can only fully fund one project this year.

1. Who are the stakeholders and what are their main interests?

1. What is the key ethical dilemma in this scenario?

1. Which ethical framework (utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics) best applies to this situation? Explain your choice.

1. Based on your chosen framework, what course of action would you recommend? How does it address the stakeholders’ interests?

Scenario 2: Academic Honesty Dilemma

A teacher discovers that several students cheated on a major exam. The school’s policy mandates automatic failure and a meeting with parents, but the students explain they were under extreme personal stress and plead for leniency.

1. Who are the stakeholders and what are their main interests?

1. What is the key ethical dilemma in this scenario?

1. Which ethical framework (utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics) best applies to this situation? Explain your choice.

1. Based on your chosen framework, what course of action would you recommend? How does it address the stakeholders’ interests?

Scenario 3: Vendor Partnership Ethics

The district office is negotiating a contract with a technology vendor. You learn that a colleague on the approval committee has a personal relationship with the vendor’s sales representative. The colleague insists there is no conflict of interest.

1. Who are the stakeholders and what are their main interests?

1. What is the key ethical dilemma in this scenario?

1. Which ethical framework (utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics) best applies to this situation? Explain your choice.

1. Based on your chosen framework, what course of action would you recommend? How does it address the stakeholders’ interests?

Reflection

How will you integrate ethical reasoning frameworks into your daily leadership practice to ensure integrity and trust in your school community?

Ethics Framework Reading Handout

This handout provides concise overviews of three core ethical reasoning frameworks. Use these descriptions, pros and cons, and examples to deepen your understanding.

1. Utilitarianism

Definition:
A consequentialist approach that judges actions by their outcomes. The most ethical choice is the one that produces the greatest good (happiness, well-being) for the greatest number of people.

Key Question:
Which option maximizes overall benefits and minimizes harm?

Pros:

• Emphasizes practical results and efficiency.
• Encourages consideration of all stakeholders’ welfare.
• Facilitates cost–benefit analyses in decision making.

Cons:

• Can overlook rights of minorities or individuals.
• Risk of justifying harm to a few for the benefit of many.
• Difficult to measure and compare different kinds of good.

Education Example:
A district must choose between funding a literacy program that benefits most students or a specialized autism intervention that helps a few. A utilitarian leader would compare the overall gains in achievement and well-being to decide which investment yields the greatest net benefit.

2. Deontology

Definition:
A duty-based approach that focuses on adherence to moral rules, principles, or professional codes, regardless of outcomes.

Key Question:
Which action aligns with our ethical duties, rights, or professional standards?

Pros:

• Protects individual rights and maintains consistent standards.
• Offers clear guidelines based on rules or codes of conduct.
• Minimizes bias by applying principles uniformly.

Cons:

• May produce outcomes that seem impractical or counterproductive.
• Can create conflicts when two duties clash (e.g., honesty vs. confidentiality).
• Less adaptable to complex, context-specific situations.

Education Example:
A teacher discovers exam cheating. The school policy (duty) requires reporting and a failing grade. A deontological leader enforces the rule uniformly, even if some students plead extenuating circumstances, to uphold fairness and integrity.

3. Virtue Ethics

Definition:
A character-based approach that emphasizes cultivating moral virtues (e.g., honesty, courage, compassion) in oneself and others.

Key Question:
What would a person of strong moral character do in this situation?

Pros:

• Promotes moral growth and integrity over time.
• Encourages role modeling and leadership by example.
• Flexible, allowing for nuanced judgments based on character.

Cons:

• Lacks clear decision rules for specific dilemmas.
• Different cultures or individuals may value different virtues.
• Can be subjective—what seems “virtuous” may vary across contexts.

Education Example:
A principal faces community pressure to discipline a high-achieving athlete who violated a rule. A virtue ethics approach guides the leader to act with fairness and courage—deciding in a way that models integrity and builds trust, even if it means challenging community expectations.

Applying These Frameworks

1. Identify the stakeholders and context.
2. Select the framework(s) that best address your key ethical concerns.
3. Analyze possible actions through that lens.
4. Decide on a course of action that aligns with your ethical priorities and school values.

For deeper scenarios and practice, refer to the activities and worksheets in this session, and consider how each framework influences your leadership decisions.

Guided Ethical Discussion

Overview

Purpose: Facilitate an in-depth, collaborative discussion that helps participants apply ethical frameworks, analyze stakeholder impacts, and refine decision-making strategies.

Time: 10–12 minutes (adjustable)

Materials:

• Case Study Videos (selected clip)
• Ethical Dilemmas Worksheet
• Ethics Framework Reading Handout
• Flip chart or whiteboard (for note-taking)

Group Configuration:
Divide participants into groups of 3–4. Assign one recorder and one spokesperson per group.

Discussion Steps

1. Watch & Note (2 minutes)

• Play the selected segment from the Case Study Videos.
• Ask participants to jot down:
  • The core ethical dilemma.
  • Key stakeholders and their interests.

2. Small-Group Analysis (5 minutes)

In your group, discuss the following prompts. The recorder should capture main ideas on chart paper or digital notes.

1. Defining the Dilemma
   • What is the central conflict?
   • Which values (e.g., integrity, equity) are at stake?
2. Stakeholder Mapping
   • Who are the affected parties (students, staff, families, community)?
   • How might each stakeholder be helped or harmed by different choices?
3. Framework Application
   • Utilitarianism: What action would maximize overall good?
   • Deontology: Which rule or duty must be upheld, regardless of outcome?
   • Virtue Ethics: What would a leader with strong moral character choose?
4. Alternative Solutions
   • Propose at least two courses of action.
   • For each, briefly note pros and cons using one of the frameworks above.

3. Whole-Group Share-Out (3–5 minutes)

• Each group’s spokesperson has 1 minute to share:
  1. Their characterization of the dilemma and top stakeholder concerns.
  2. The framework they found most illuminating and why.
  3. One alternative action they generated and its potential impact.

4. Facilitator Follow-Ups

• If time allows, probe deeper:
  • “How would you balance minority rights if a utilitarian decision disadvantages a small group?”
  • “What happens when two duties conflict—how would you arbitrate?”
  • “Which personal or professional values auctioned at the start guide your choice most strongly?”

Reflection & Next Steps

• Invite participants to connect today’s discussion to their own contexts:
  • “Recall a real dilemma you’ve faced—how might you apply these insights differently?”
  • “What’s one actionable step you’ll take this week to strengthen ethical decision making in your school?”
• Encourage participants to capture their reflection in writing or on the back of the Ethical Dilemmas Worksheet, then post/share with a colleague for accountability.

Tip: Refer back to the Ethics Framework Reading Handout for quick refreshers on each lens as you implement your action steps.

Values Auction Warm-Up Materials

Purpose: Help participants surface and prioritize their core professional values before diving into ethical frameworks.

Materials for Each Participant:

• 10 “bid cards,” each representing $10 of fake currency (total $100).
• A list of 10 values (see below).
• Auction paddle or number card to signal bids (optional).

Values List (each up for auction):

1. Integrity
2. Equity
3. Transparency
4. Empathy
5. Accountability
6. Collaboration
7. Innovation
8. Respect
9. Professionalism
10. Inclusivity

Auction Rules (5 minutes total):

1. Display all 10 values where everyone can see them (projected or on chart paper).
2. Explain that each value will be auctioned in turn. Participants may bid using their bid cards in increments of $10.
3. For each value:
   • Announce the starting price ($10).
   • Call for bids (participants raise bid cards).
   • Continue until no higher bids appear.
   • Award the value to the highest bidder; they place one used bid card on the value’s display to record their win.
4. Participants must spend at least $30 and can spend at most $80, ensuring hard choices.

Debrief and Discussion (2–3 minutes):

• Ask: “Which top three values did you win? Why were they most important to you?”
• Note the most-won values on chart paper or slide.
• Prompt: “How might these values guide your decisions as educational leaders?”

Facilitator Tips:

• Encourage quick bidding to keep pace.
• Circulate to help participants manage their remaining bid cards.
• Use the debrief to connect auctioned values to later ethical frameworks (e.g., integrity links to deontology, equity to utilitarianism).

Ethics Roleplay Game Kit

Purpose: Provide a structured, low-stakes role-play experience that lets participants practice applying ethical frameworks in realistic school leadership dilemmas.

Materials (per group of 3–4)

• Role-play scenario cards (printed or projected)
• Character description cards (one per role)
• Framework reference sheet (brief reminder of utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics)
• Timer or stopwatch
• Note-taking sheet or flip-chart and markers

Setup & Instructions (15 minutes total)

1. Form groups of 3–4 participants.
2. Distribute one scenario card and matching character cards to each group.
3. Review roles (2 minutes): Each group reads their scenario and character descriptions. Assign one person per role; extras can observe or serve as ‘ethics coach.’
4. Preparation (3 minutes): Participants discuss their character’s perspective and decide on a key objective for the role-play (e.g., principal wants to maintain trust; teacher seeks fairness).
5. Role-Play (3 minutes): Enact the scenario, staying in character. Focus on listening to stakeholder concerns and articulating your ethical reasoning.
6. Debrief (5 minutes): Use the prompts below to guide reflection and connect to frameworks.

Scenario & Character Cards (Examples)

Scenario 1: Budget Allocation Conflict

• Context: You must choose between upgrading classroom technology (benefits many) or expanding special-needs support services (benefits fewer).
• Roles:
  • Principal (advocates for broad impact)
  • Special-Ed Coordinator (champions equity for vulnerable students)
  • Finance Officer (concerned with legal mandates and budget rules)

Scenario 2: Academic Honesty Dilemma

• Context: Several students cheated on a high-stakes exam. Policy mandates failure; students plead extreme stress.
• Roles:
  • Teacher (upholds integrity and policy)
  • Student Representative (asks for compassion and support)
  • Assistant Principal (balances fairness with well-being)

Scenario 3: Vendor Partnership Ethics

• Context: A committee member has a personal relationship with a vendor representative. Conflict of interest is in question.
• Roles:
  • District Procurement Officer (ensures transparent process)
  • Committee Member (defends their impartiality)
  • Vendor Rep (eager to close the deal ethically)

Scenario 4: Sensitive Personnel Issue

• Context: A respected teacher is accused of favoritism toward their child’s friends. Community pressure mounts for discipline.
• Roles:
  • Human Resources Director (follows policy on staff conduct)
  • Accused Teacher (insists on fairness but admits poor judgment)
  • Parent Leader (demands accountability and transparency)

(Feel free to rotate or combine roles based on group size.)

Debrief Prompts

1. Stakeholder Impact: Which stakeholder voices were most compelling or marginalized?
2. Framework Lens: Which ethical framework did you apply?
   • Utilitarianism: Focus on greatest good?
   • Deontology: Which rule/duty guided your choice?
   • Virtue Ethics: What virtues (e.g., honesty, compassion) shaped your approach?
3. Tension & Trade-offs: What conflicts emerged between values or rules? How did you address them?
4. Real-World Application: How would you adapt this conversation when back in your school context?

Tip for Facilitators: Circulate during role-plays to observe how participants handle tension. During debrief, highlight moments where participants shifted frameworks or deepened stakeholder empathy.

Answer Key for Assessments

This key provides correct answers and scoring rubrics for the Ethical Reasoning Quiz and Ethical Scenarios Test.

Section 1: Ethical Reasoning Quiz (Total = 10 points)

Scoring guide:

• Questions 1–3: 1 point each for correct answer.
• Questions 4–5: 2 points each (1 point for identifying a valid idea, 1 point for clear application).

Question 1 (1 point)

Prompt: Which ethical framework focuses on outcomes and the greatest good for the greatest number?

Correct Answer: A. Utilitarianism
Rationale: Utilitarianism is a consequentialist approach that evaluates actions by their overall benefits and harms.

Question 2 (1 point)

Prompt: Under deontological ethics, decisions are guided primarily by which of the following?

Correct Answer: A. Rules and duties
Rationale: Deontology is a duty-based approach, emphasizing adherence to moral rules or professional codes regardless of outcomes.

Question 3 (1 point)

Prompt: Virtue ethics emphasizes the development of what in decision-making?

Correct Answer: B. Moral character
Rationale: Virtue ethics centers on cultivating virtues (e.g., honesty, compassion) and moral character traits that guide actions.

Question 4 (2 points)

Prompt: Briefly describe one potential limitation of applying utilitarian reasoning in educational leadership settings.

Sample Response:
"A utilitarian approach might marginalize a small group of students if sacrificing their needs serves the majority, undermining equity and individual rights. For example, cutting specialized support to fund a program benefitting most students could harm vulnerable learners."

Scoring Rubric:

• 1 point for identifying a valid limitation (e.g., overlooks minority rights, hard to measure well-being).
• 1 point for explaining the limitation in an educational context.

Question 5 (2 points)

Prompt: Identify a personal or professional value you would prioritize as an educational leader and explain how it aligns with either deontology or virtue ethics.

Sample Response:
"I prioritize integrity. From a deontological perspective, integrity means following ethical rules and policies consistently—ensuring fairness and trust in every decision. This duty-based approach prevents favoritism and promotes transparency."

Scoring Rubric:

• 0.5 point for clearly stating a value.
• 0.5 point for correctly linking it to deontology or virtue ethics.
• 1 point for explaining how the value aligns with that framework.

Section 2: Ethical Scenarios Test (Total = 60 points)

Each scenario is scored out of 20 points, using the rubric below:

Scoring Rubric per Scenario (20 points):

• Stakeholder Analysis: 5 points
  (Identify all key stakeholders and accurately describe their interests.)
• Framework Application: 5 points
  (Apply utilitarianism, deontology, and/or virtue ethics correctly.)
• Trade-Offs & Tensions: 5 points
  (Discuss conflicts or limitations and weigh competing priorities.)
• Recommendation & Justification: 5 points
  (Provide a clear, ethically justified action aligned with frameworks.)

Scenario 1: Budget Allocation Conflict (20 points)

Model Points to Cover:

1. Stakeholders (5 pts):
   • Students with special needs (equity, legal rights)
   • General student body (access to technology)
   • Teachers and support staff
   • Parents and community
   • District leadership (budgetary responsibility)
2. Frameworks (5 pts):
   • Utilitarian: Compare net benefits—broad tech upgrade vs. targeted support.
   • Deontology: Duty to serve legally mandated special education rights.
   • Virtue Ethics: Character virtues (e.g., compassion for vulnerable students).
3. Trade-Offs (5 pts):
   • Majority benefit vs. protection of minority rights.
   • Efficiency gains vs. moral obligation to support those in greatest need.
4. Recommendation (5 pts):
   • Example: Allocate majority to tech but set aside mandated minimum for special needs, or vice versa based on mission.
   • Justification: Balances greatest good while upholding legal duty and compassion.

Scenario 2: Academic Honesty and Compassion (20 points)

Model Points to Cover:

1. Stakeholders (5 pts):
   • Students who cheated (academic record, well-being)
   • Teacher and exam integrity (fairness)
   • Parents/families (concerns over stress and outcomes)
   • School administration (policy enforcement)
   • Peers and community (trust in standards)
2. Frameworks (5 pts):
   • Virtue Ethics: Compassion and forgiveness vs. maintaining integrity.
   • Deontology: Strict enforcement of academic honesty policy.
   • Optionally, Utilitarian: Consider overall school climate and deterrent effect.
3. Trade-Offs (5 pts):
   • Compassion vs. consistency in rule application.
   • Student well-being vs. upholding standards.
4. Recommendation (5 pts):
   • Example: Apply policy but offer supportive interventions (counseling, retake) to balance fairness and care.
   • Justification: Honors duty to integrity while modeling compassion.

Scenario 3: Vendor Partnership and Conflict of Interest (20 points)

Model Points to Cover:

1. Stakeholders (5 pts):
   • Vendor and sales representative
   • Committee member with conflict
   • District procurement office (transparency)
   • Taxpayers and community (trust)
2. Frameworks (5 pts):
   • Deontology: Duty to fairness, transparency, and conflict‐of‐interest policies.
   • Utilitarian: Long-term trust and best contract outcome for district.
   • Virtue Ethics: Integrity and honesty in personal conduct.
3. Trade-Offs (5 pts):
   • Maintaining relationships vs. enforcing impartial process.
   • Short-term convenience vs. long-term trust.
4. Recommendation (5 pts):
   • Example: Request recusal of conflicted member, disclose relationship publicly, reassess bids.
   • Justification: Upholds duty to fairness, preserves trust, and models integrity.

Total possible points across all activities: 70.

Use this key to guide consistent, transparent scoring and to facilitate participant reflection on ethical reasoning best practices.

Ethics Project Guidelines

Purpose: Extend learning from the one-hour session into a deeper, real-world application. This project tasks you with analyzing a school policy or case through ethical frameworks and crafting actionable recommendations.

Project Options (Choose One)

1. Policy Review
   • Select an existing school or district policy (e.g., discipline, budget allocation, admission).
   • Analyze the policy’s ethical implications using utilitarianism, deontology, and/or virtue ethics.
   • Recommend revisions or implementation strategies to better align with ethical priorities.
2. Case Analysis
   • Identify a recent or historical school leadership dilemma (e.g., academic honesty, vendor conflicts, personnel issues).
   • Map stakeholders, apply ethical frameworks, and evaluate alternative courses of action.
   • Propose a well-justified decision and an action plan for next steps.

Deliverables

1. Written Report (3–5 pages)
   • Title page with name, role, and project type
   • Executive summary (1 paragraph)
   • Stakeholder analysis and context
   • Framework application and trade-offs discussion
   • Recommended course of action and implementation steps
   • Reflection: personal leadership insights and next steps
2. Presentation (5–7 minutes)
   • Slide deck (5–7 slides) summarizing key findings and recommendations
   • Be prepared for 2–3 minutes of Q&A
3. Reflection Journal (1 page)
   • Describe how you’ll integrate ethical reasoning into your daily practice
   • Identify one concrete action you’ll take in the next month

Timeline & Milestones

Adjust timeline as needed for your context.

Submission Details

• Upload all materials (report, slide deck, reflection) to your LMS or email them to the facilitator.
• File naming convention: LastName_ProjectType_Date (e.g., Smith_PolicyReview_2023-09-15).
• Deadline: [Insert date—typically 2–4 weeks after session].

Evaluation Criteria

Your project will be assessed using the Ethical Reasoning Rubric. Key criteria include:

• Clarity of Analysis: Clear description of context, stakeholders, and ethical dilemma.
• Framework Application: Accurate use of utilitarianism, deontology, and/or virtue ethics.
• Insight & Trade-Offs: Thoughtful discussion of tensions and trade-offs.
• Actionable Recommendations: Feasible, ethically grounded proposals.
• Reflection & Growth: Evidence of personal learning and commitment to ethical leadership.

Tip: Refer back to the session materials—Ethics Framework Reading Handout, Ethical Dilemmas Worksheet, and Answer Key for Assessments—as you work through your project.

Ethical Reasoning Rubric

This rubric applies to both the Ethics Project and the Ethical Scenarios Test, evaluating five key criteria on a 4-point scale.

Values Auction Warm-Up

Purpose: Quickly surface and prioritize core professional values to set the tone for ethical reasoning.

Facilitator Guide Summary:

• Use the Values Auction Warm-Up Materials to run a 5-minute auction.
• Participants bid with “fake” currency on values like Integrity, Equity, Transparency, Empathy, and others.
• Ensure each participant spends between $30 and $80 to promote difficult trade-offs.
• After the auction, debrief the top three values:
  • Ask why these values were prioritized.
  • Link selected values to ethical frameworks (e.g., Integrity → Deontology; Equity → Utilitarianism).
• Transition into the session by highlighting how these values will guide ethical decision making throughout the activities.

Reflection Cool-Down Prompts

As we close our session, choose one prompt below and spend 2–3 minutes writing your response. Consider how you’ll put ethical reasoning into action in your role.

1. Personal Commitment:
   What is one specific action you will take this week to model ethical leadership in your school?
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. Framework Application:
   Which ethical framework (utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics) will you draw on most in your next leadership decision, and why?
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. Stakeholder Focus:
   Identify a key stakeholder group in your context whose needs you will prioritize ethically. How will you ensure their interests are considered?
   
   
   
   
   
   
4. Value Alignment:
   Reflect on the values you prioritized during the Values Auction. How will those values guide your daily decisions and interactions?
   
   
   
   
   
   
5. Next Steps for Growth:
   What resources or supports do you need to strengthen your capacity for ethical decision making, and how will you access them?