Charles L.

Gordon
Critical Response 3 Mailbox 4008
Case 24 – The Justice of Uniforms
Case Summary

In response to the request of a group of parents, Mrs. Parker, principal at a Christian Elementary
School, initiated a process to introduce school uniforms. The process followed rules set by the Ministry
of Education. A uniform committee was struck to consider 5 companies using 4 specific criteria. After
reviewing comments and concerns raised in a public meeting, the School Council nominated one of five
companies to provide uniforms. Ms Demarco, a teacher, and the Grade 8 students questioned the
choice of company. According to their research, the company seemed to be affiliated with sweatshop
production. After disobeying the principal’s instruction not to include information about the company’s
possible affiliation with sweatshops in any communication with parents, Mrs. Demarco was tasked by
the Superintendent to write a letter of apology to the parents and accept a transfer to another school.
The censure of the teacher backfires. Parents and members of the school council circulate a petition to
get rid of the principal and keep Mrs. Demarco. At a special meeting, with close to 200 members of the
school community, the principal and superintendent recognized that the majority of attendees
questioned the administration’s competence and even the decision to have uniforms.

In this paper, I will explore the main values conflict and give the possible conscious and
subconscious beliefs of Mrs. Demarco. I will describe and justify a possible solution based on the value
of putting students first. Finally, I will pose a key question I am interested in thinking about based on the
case and readings.

Nuts & Bolts

Having worked in senior management positions, I’m definitely not a fan of insubordination.
Insubordination should never be tolerate or appeased. Bad behavior often starts small and will
invariably escalate. Left unchecked, it will erode an administrator’s credibility and the respect of staff.
Some might say that the insubordination of Mrs. Demarco should be celebrated. It’s a David and Goliath
story. After all sweat shops are evil. Yet, in order for the teacher to satisfy her personal crusade against
evil, she has violated her service to her superiors and to her students.

There is nothing wrong with Mrs. Demarco’s following her personal conviction. However, she
seems not to have taken into account the context or her contractual obligation to the organizational
structure, procedures and protocols. I’ll come back to the teacher, but first let me look at the principal’s
actions in light of the value of putting student’s first.

The principal’s ethical system is fueled by adherence to protocol laid out in the Education Act.
She is what Blythe Clinchy would call the separate knower. The principal places a high value on
detached, impersonal assessment of her mission to bring uniforms to the school. She takes an
adversarial approach to the concerns of the teachers and grade 8 students. You hear it in her response
to the grade 8 studies as she responds, “Why are you asking stupid questions?” The principal’s
knowledge model screams, “there’s a right and wrong way.”

In her zeal meet the arbitrary deadline of having the uniforms in by September, the principal
seems to alienate, large blocks of teachers and students. With each interaction with students and staff,

1|Page
 Charles L. Gordon
Critical Response 3 Mailbox 4008
Case 24 – The Justice of Uniforms
she fails to hear them out or show flexibility in her approach. The principle erects an unscalable wall
consisting of her own arguments. She does not step into the role of a connected knower. The case does
not reveal any of the participants displaying the markers of the connected knower. Specifically, with the
principal, there is no searching for pieces of truth in what the student and Mrs. Demarco are saying
about the company. Instead, the principal goes contrary to them. It’s her way or the highway. After all,
she states the lawyers have already taken care of it.

Blythe Clinchy writes, “The connected knower believes that in order to understand what a
person is saying one must adopt the person’s own terms and refrain from judgment.” He continues, “the
connected knower takes a personal approach even to an impersonal thing…” Had the principal laid aside
her impersonal connection to the people within the process, I believe that the firestorm could have
been avoided. The case tells us that “the body language of the teachers indicated that they were not
happy with the principal’s approach and tone.”

The teacher at the center of the storm, Mrs. Demarco, is energized by her personal conviction.
She is known for her commitment to social justice and activism. The teacher seems to believe and
recognize that there are circumstances that can never be covered by any rule, protocol or procedure.
Mrs. Demarco seems to be guided by an ethical system that rest on personal conviction about the rights
of children and the Christian message of equality for all children. However, should her choices be driven
by personal conviction or by the rule or principle of putting student’s first?

The case lactates with evidence that the principal’s decisions are guided by the Education Act.
The Ontario Education Acts states its purpose as follows:

Purpose of education
(2)   The purpose of education is to provide students with the opportunity to realize their
potential and develop into highly skilled, knowledgeable, caring citizens who contribute
to their society.

By adhering to the law, the principal, therefore, has made major decisions that by default put students
first. The teacher, although well intentioned, does not.

Based on evidence in the case, it’s possible to conclude that Mrs. Demarco conscious belief that
the principal’s approach and tone is wrong is driving her actions. The conflict is being driven by her
aversion to the principal’s seemingly rational and detached process.

Therefore, I think the teacher’s conscious belief is getting in the way of putting students first.
The principle, in her meeting with the grade 8 students, points this out when she states, “stop this
inquiry…and continue with the prescribed curriculum of the Ministry!” The principal is right to suggest
that the information about the company’s involvement with sweatshops is questionable. The case
seems to suggest that Mrs. Demarco and the grade 8 students are running with information gained from
the internet and possibly from a source that lacks credibility.

2|Page
 Charles L. Gordon
Critical Response 3 Mailbox 4008
Case 24 – The Justice of Uniforms

Solution & Question

Any solution should be framed with the question “What will the effects be on students?” I
believe that the teacher should have complied with the administration and quietly transferred to
another school in order to put students first. First, Mrs. Demarco should follow her faith and submit to
authority. Titus 3:1 states, “Remind the believers to submit to the government and its officers. They
should be obedient, always ready to do what is good.” Therefore, regardless of her personal convictions
she is accountable to the authority of the principal. Second, her actions have muddied and politicized
the environment of the school with her own truths that going with the company is an act of injustice.
She has failed to her the principal’s truth that “the Board’s lawyers are including a clause in the contract
to satisfy such concerns.” As such her students have now made a significant detour if not derailment
from the prescribed curriculum path.

What would I do if the administration of a school was implementing an unsound pedagogical

practice in the classroom? Would I be silent and carry water for the administration or would I resort to
violent confrontation? Given that I am no fan of insubordination and my natural bent towards being
optimistic, I would frame by actions as “How can I make it work for my students?”

3|Page