Introduction
Some schools have been accused of increasing their performance scores through un-enrolling underperforming students during the assessment time. After the assessment is over, the students are re-enrolled. The purpose of carrying out these actions is to enable the institutions to present higher scores to state and federal organizations. In this article, the actions of those who are responsible for removing these students from the attendance roles are compared to the perspectives of egoism and utilitarianism. To evaluate what was done, the article would look at whether the schools’ actions were based on the students’ best interests.
Main body
Utilitarianism and egoism theories center on the effect of behavior as the key motivator of whether or not that action is moral. Utilitarianism assumes that human actions should be geared towards achieving the best for the benefit of the greatest number of persons (Rachels 91). On the other hand, egoism assumes that a human’s actions should be directed at fulfilling the best for his or her personal interest (Rachels 76).
Based on utilitarianism, the act of un-enrolling underperforming students and then un-enrolling them after the exams is morally wrong. The above actions would only benefit those responsible for the actions. If they present doctored raised reports, the school will receive adequate funds and credentials, unlike the schools that present poor results. The funds would be helpful in improving the schools’ facilities and enhancing the welfare of their employees. However, the above actions are harmful to un-enrolled students. The students are being denied their fundamental rights of being assessed. Regardless of their performance, the students should be given equal chances to evaluate their knowledge.
If those responsible for the above actions upheld Unitarianism views, all the students would have been allowed to undertake their examinations. Because of this, the school results could have been lower. With lower results, the schools would receive less funding and may fail to be accredited. Despite these negative impacts, Unitarianism views would have deemed the approach right because the majority of interests would have been upheld (Rachels 78).
With respect to egoism, the above action of un-enrolling underperforming students is right. The theory advocates for individuals to act in their best interest. By doing so, the interests of the majority are not given priority (Rachels 76). It is apparent that through un-enrolling the underperforming students, the schools received impressive reports. The aim of the above school instructors and any other education is to get impressive examination reports from their students. From egoism perspectives, these instructors should ensure that their actions benefit them first before benefiting any other individuals. Thus, they will do anything possible to ensure that their stakes are attained even if it means breaking the exam regulations to aid the students to pass their exams.
Conclusion
Based on the above analysis, I believe that the above action was morally wrong. The instructors should have allowed all the students to undertake their examinations. I believe that it is the duty of the teachers to ensure that their students pass their examinations as required. Other than un-enrolling the underperforming students, the schools should have encouraged their teachers to offer the students with additional teaching programs. Ultimately, these underperforming students would have been able to pass their exams. In my opinion, schools should come up with decisions based on students’ best interests rather than on the schools’ interests.
Works Cited
Rachels, James. The elements of moral philosophy. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print.