Teaching is science and art, magic and faith. On one hand, a responsible teacher will prepare themselves to be the best possible educator a student has ever encountered, by engaging in years of training and practice. On the other hand, a teacher must possess hope beyond hope that all the years of practice and training does not result in ruining the future of a student. One way to mitigate the mix of fears and positive aspiration, is the adherence to four principles by which an educator must guide themselves. The ethics of the principles of Content Knowledge and Proficiency, Classroom Environment, Interpersonal Relationships, and Curriculum Development and Teaching are the components of teaching that create positive teaching and learning environments. Notwithstanding, each principle must be weighed against the long- standing philosophies proposed by Kant, the complicated simplicity of utilitarianism, and the resolution of virtue and care.
Content knowledge and proficiency:
Teaching is as much smoke and mirrors as it is scientific method. An educator should never reach a point in their career at which point they believe they have learned all there is to know about pedagogy, discipline specific information, or the ways in which research about student development evolves.
Classroom Environment:
For many children, school is the safest space in their lives. It is a space where they should be free to take educational and social risk. It is a space that should be purposefully designed in a measured way. Every item in the classroom should have an educational or social purpose, that takes the individuality of the students into account, as much as the community the individual students will create with their teacher. The teacher recognizes that there will sometimes be behavioral interruptions, and assesses their classroom layout, their joy, their transitions, as well as seating to determine ways to minimize such interruptions.
Interpersonal Relationships:
When a teacher undertakes the job of introspection in a metacognitive manner, is willing to be authentic, and when appropriate, vulnerable, they are able to take personal responsibility for the success of their students. That is, it becomes personal and creates an investment. The excellent teacher is not afraid to take risks, and seeks feedback as a means of constructing a better toolbox with which to aid students. This teacher is culturally competent as it relates to their students and their fellow faculty and staff. They are listeners and they are willing to learn from anyone. This teacher is consistently introspective, and not paralyzed by fear, but propelled by the promise of bettering a life.
Curriculum Development and Teaching:
An excellent educator is one who carefully plans lessons and learning units. The excellent educator collects data in varied ways to ensure all facets of child learning and development are attended to and accounted for as lesson plans, learning groups, formative and summative assessments are constructed. Mastery of skills and content is the overall objective, but never at the expense of the spirit of the student. The astute educator is knowledgeable about federal, state, and district standards, and integrates building-specific needs into the curriculum development. Goals created are specific, time-bound, achievable, and measurable.
Kantian Theory:
Kant synthesizes the ideas of “right and wrong” as a product of the human mind. He concludes that one is most at peace with one’s self if one acquiesces to the constructs of the mind. As it relates to content knowledge and proficiency, an ethical teacher would be most discomforted in lack of knowledge and academic prowess, were they deemed unable to provide knowledge to students. The refusal or inability to increase one’s repertoire of knowledge, therefore, would go directly against the construct that would influence a teacher to be a life-long learner (Cavallar, 2014). Problematic in Kantian theory, however, especially as it relates to education, is the belief that one can be self-taught. This dilemma begs the question, if one can be self-taught, is it necessary for an educator to labor in school to receive a certificate validating self-driven education? Furthermore, if one can be self-taught, is the current model of education, not necessarily that in which there are models and practice, actually produce individuals who are practiced in the ways of thinking and knowing (Moran, 2009)? One would have to conclude that Kant’s beliefs to the educator and student is that one of the obligations of education is to provide both mirror and window to teachers and students. Education must mirror their identities in ways that respects their individuality, but must urge them forward toward the discomfort of being unsure of one’s knowledge as it is measured against the knowledge of another. That is, neither teacher nor student should become comfortable in their knowledge. The moment they are comfortable is the signal that more learning is to come (Surprenant, 2010).
Utilitarianism:
If utilitarianism is extracted from its normative use as a means to determine whether a decision provides the most good for the most people, one can further interrogate the job of an educator, in a utilitarian sense, by asking how teacher training and practice provides the most good for the most people, including the teacher. Teachers become most proficient in their practice when they have the opportunity to receive in-the-moment feedback, directly related to their classroom and personality, not related to a generalized idea of how teaching should look (Frankham and Hiett, 2011). A teacher cannot learn to properly care for students if they did not receive adequate care while training. Furthermore, a truly utilitarian frame of reference would argue that all teachers should receive instruction in special-needs education, as no child is a cookie-cutter child, and as there is an understanding that improvement, even incrementally, for those with the most challenges, will result in improvement for those who are considered typically abled. Therefore, in addition to in-the-moment coaching, the greatest good for the greatest amount would require all teachers to be proficient in teaching children with the greatest challenges (Lewin, 2104). This understanding is what underpins the final analysis of the principles. A teacher should always be guided by a spirit of care, regardless of the position and ability of the student, and regardless of the mastery of the teacher.
Virtue/Care Ethics:
Teachers are often asked to behave as if all things are always equal. They are expected to implement rules and directives to students, as if all lives presented had the same challenges or lack of challenges. Sadly, teachers often do not recognize the chasm between theoretical education, and education in practice, until it is too late. It is at that time they are required to live what they believe, for better or worse, or simply follow a dictate that ignores the idiosyncrasies of students. Virtue, or care ethics requires a commitment to what is best, not what is most comfortable (Chang and Bai, 2016). Teaching is as much healing as it is an exercise in willing to be wounded in order to help heal others. One teaches because one remembers when one did not know. One becomes an educator to open doors, while recognizing it is always at the discretion of the student to open said door (Silverman, 2012).
Ethic of Critique:
The ethic of critique posits that “(R)ather than accepting the ethic of those in power, these scholars challenge the status quo by seeking an ethic that will deal with inconsistencies, formulate the hard questions, and debate and challenge the issues.” Therefore, three ancillary principles to a teacher’s code of ethics are:
-
Be aware of one’s epistemological bias.
-
Create a Personal Board of Directors not connected to one’s employment site.
-
Impact is greater than intent.
The Ethic of Critique requests that one believes in the possibility of fallibility. It asks that one becomes settled in a decision only after one can be assured that all possible permutations of a decision have been considered, and all pertinent information has been uncovered. It asks that one’s personal truth be present, but not so present as to overwhelm the presence of other truths that may conflict due to perspective. Finally, the ethic of critique requires a silencing of the noise of definitive consensus, for often, consensus appears where many refuse to press a little further toward the possibility of ambiguity, as ambiguity is the persistent reminder of one’s mortality. An educator must be ever aware of what Jesse Williams reminded the world, “Just because we’re magical, doesn’t mean we aren’t real.”
Epistemological Bias:
In confronting educational cases that challenge moral leanings, it is impossible to always anticipate which decision will be best, and which thread of logical or moral leanings should always be viewed as applicable. The impossibility does not make the requirement of making a decision void, however. What educators are able to accomplish, however, is the study of the correlation between practices and the contexts, both historical and social, in which they are used (Tobin and Jaggar, 2013). That is, how does one’s belief in the normative nature of one’s own culture, inform decision-making processes that may present cultural beliefs in conflict with one’s own? Insomuch as one understands there may exist a conflict, how does one create space for the opposing view, given the application of the opposing view may be more appropriate?
Personal Board of Directors:
Palmer (2009) asserts the importance of a circle of individuals to which you are accountable for personal progress. These groups have boundaries of influence, and are safe spaces “for the soul (pg. 73)” where an individual may explore possibilities of decisions without negative consequence. The Personal Board of Directors (PBD), would be such a space, involving professionals or loved ones not attached to one’s place of employment, as a healthy distance may provide necessary perspective. The PBD need not be in the same time zone in order to work effectively. They need only be “intentional about its process” in order to “have a deeper, more life-giving impact (pg. 75).” An excellent educator needs a PBD as a resource of how differing contexts may approach similar dilemmas, and achieve satisfactory conclusions. An educator, like a student, cannot imagine realities that are never presented, and will assume their problems place them in a space of isolation, with few options. Engaging a PBD of professionals from different geographical areas, and some from different professions creates a landscape of options from which one may choose, for the benefit of students.
Impact vs. Intent:
Educators are blamed for much of what is awry in schools, but are seldom given the praise when successes occur. “(t)he culture as well as the decision-making processes of controllers (in this case, educators) are driven by large penalties for mistakes (Zsambok and Klein, 2014pg. 83). Therefore, teachers are often making decisions based on what they hope the outcome will be, and not being given the time to critically question how the outcome will impact children in the long-run. More time on task sounds wonderful for a failing school where children’s reading and math levels are subpar. However, when more time on task means children are in school up to 10 hours a day, with recess or physical education never being required, the intent matters little, face of the impact (Frankenberg et al, 2012). “Reason is nothing but reckoning (Zsambok and Klein, 2014, pg. 19). It is vital, therefore, that educators take critical inventory of how decisions will impact families. The Iroquois Nation believes, “In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation…even if it requires having skin as thick as a bark of pine.” School’s dependence on specific, measurable, time-bound, and realistic goals are often connected to data points with variable influence, dependent on the goals of the individuals in charge at the time. If all decisions are made quantitatively, and seldom qualitatively, students and their futures are reduced to numbers and plots on a graph, rather than indelible prints in history. Educators can never revel in the relative simplicity of playing a proverbial numbers game. They must always see the faces of the children as they choose a course of action. Therefore, the ethic most necessary to tend to the futures of children and professionals, is one which emphasizes the long-term care of the parties involved.
Ethic of Care:
Shapiro and Stefkovich (2011) cite feminist scholars as those who spearheaded the deconstruction of ethics from an “often patriarchal, ethic of justice in our society by turning to the ethic of care for moral decision making.” Moral decision making entails an understanding of one’s role in society as individual and as part of a community. An educator cares for the needs of students, but can only do so in balance if they care for themselves as well. A proper care ethic integrates individuality and communion (Silverman, 2012).
The analysis of care stipulates an accentuation of:
-
Differentiating the import of affect or intellect in decision-making
-
Creating a unicultural understanding of care without invisibilising the diversity of cultures
-
Using one’s personal story as reference, not obstacle.
Differentiating the import of affect or intellect in decision-making:
Many believe objectivity should be the goal in making educational decisions. Following that logic, the expectation is that educators should create policies and procedures in a generalized fashion, in order to appear as equal opportunity as possible. However, equality should never be the goal of education. Equality should be the objective of the criminal justice system. Equity should be the objective of education. Equality treats everyone the same, regardless of age, color, creed, and other identifiers. Were this ideology followed in justice, one could conclude there would be no need for a Black Lives Matter Movement. Equity, however, requires one to provide for individuals what they specifically need to receive opportunities to minimize previously disparate outcomes present due to bias (Rabin and Smith, 2013, pgs. 174-176).
Creating a unicultural understanding of care without invisibilising the diversity of cultures:
Care entails creating a unifying narrative. The understanding is that all people need touch. All people need to be heard and deemed as worthy of respect and love. Zembylas (2013) emphasizes the pressures of an ethic of care within a plurastic society. Educators, families, and students must at once accept the existence of ideas justice and the responsibility of a citizen, while recognizing the ways in which their embodiment of “other” may put them at odds with the cultural definitions of justice and citizenship. For example, schools with a high undocumented immigrant population contend with caring for their standing as a public institution receiving public funds and allying with federal, state, and local ordinances, and the requirement of humanity to never turn one’s back on those in need of assistance, specifically innocent children, especially when our resources can create positive possibilities.
Using one’s personal story as reference, not obstacle:
One’s story is central to the ways in which one imagines options in making decisions. The metacognitive processes involved in retelling, dissecting, and incorporating one’s own story must include a psychological and emotional apparatus that enables the inclusion of other ways of being, thinking, and living (Palmer, 2009, pg. 80). Rabin (2013) unravels the essentials of self-awareness and self-knowledge. As an educator, one must identify spaces in their practice where their past, perhaps as a student, intersects with their present as an educator. That story must include aspects of their identity, as well as the specific context of their educational process. As educators examine their personal stories, they must also disavow the tendency to passively react as if all events are equal, and all events are similar. The personal story taps into humanity, and therefore choice.
Ethic of the Profession:
If teachers are to encourage learning, they must also be continually learning. Being in a room of individuals, whose desire is to hone their skills is absolutely refreshing. One’s vocabulary and understanding of how language informs perception, begins to expand in ways impossible, if one is alone. As teachers learn in community and are able to identify their strengths and areas of improvement, they are better able to recognize what students require to thrive.
Educators label children yearly for the purpose of fair and appropriate education, as is deserved by every child; and, if fair means giving a child what that specific child needs, how do labels assist in the process of educating? How many children are improperly labeled, due to an educator’s lack of will to do more than is expected? In many public schools, students are referred for special education services, when they would benefit from a teacher slightly modifying delivery or instruction.
When discussing Special Education services, educators often discuss the benefits, and the best-case scenarios of those who have been properly served. What is often taken for granted is the fact that these schools, and these programs were built on a system that is innately separate and very unequal. A more realistic approach, considering time and fiscal constraints of volunteers, as coaching is usually a volunteer position, would be to request the presence of school-based coaches in special education professional developments held in the building, which can only occur when educators are held accountable for continually learning. Parents would take the responsibility of informing the coaches, and advocating for their children in a proactive manner. For some, this would mean volunteering their time during practices and games. For others, this would mean meeting with the coach to provide literature and insight. All students, in some way, shape, or form, require teachers to do more and to be more than the professional may usually call them to be and do. As with any other arena, knowledge is power. Therefore, the two main principles of Ethic of the Profession are:
-
Excellent educators are life-long learners
-
Differentiation is the rule, never the exception.
An excellent educator is one who carefully plans lessons and learning units. The excellent educator collects data in varied ways to ensure all facets of child learning and development are attended to and accounted for as lesson plans, learning groups, formative and summative assessments are constructed. Mastery of skills and content is the overall objective, but never at the expense of the spirit of the student. The astute educator is knowledgeable about federal, state, and district standards, and integrates building-specific needs into the curriculum development. Goals created are specific, time-bound, achievable, and measurable.
Chi and Wylie (2014) discuss learning continuums as an understanding of the fluidity with which all humans learn, and how learning strengths in one domain are not necessarily reflected as strengths in other domains. Haelermans et al (2015) supports the idea of all teachers learning to differentiate their learning, even for students who have seemed to master the skills and contents in more “normative” ways, as ambiguity, struggle, and the triumph of the zone of proximal development can be actualized in all students, and teachers, in a positive way.
References
American Educational Research Association. (2011). Code of ethics. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 145-146. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11410403. Retrieved from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.weraonline.org/resource/resmgr/a_general/aera.pdf
Association of American Educators (AAE). (n.d.). Code of ethics for educators. Retrieved from http://www.aaeteachers.org/index.php/about-us/aae-code-of-ethics
Cavallar, G. (2014). Sources of kant’s cosmopolitanism: Basedow, rousseau, and cosmopolitan education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 33(4), 369-389. Retrieved from http://cupdx.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.cupdx.idm.oclc.org/docview/1651863100?accountid=10248
Chang, D., & Bai, H. (2016). Self-with-other in teacher practice: A case study through care, aristotelian virtue, and buddhist ethics. Ethics and Education,11(1), 17-28. Retrieved from http://cupdx.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.cupdx.idm.oclc.org/docview/1826537175?accountid=10248
Frankenberg, E., Siegel‐Hawley, G., Wang, J., & Orfield, G. (2012). Choice without equity: Charter school segregation and the need for civil rights standards.
Frankham, J., & Hiett, S. (2011). The master’s in teaching and learning: Expanding utilitarianism in the continuing professional development of teachers in england. Journal of Education Policy, 26(6), 803-818. Retrieved from http://cupdx.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.cupdx.idm.oclc.org/docview/964184378?accountid=10248
Haelermans, C., Ghysels, J., & Prince, F. (2015). Increasing performance by differentiated teaching? Experimental evidence of the student benefits of digital differentiation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1161-1174.
Lewin, D. (2014). What’s the use of ethical philosophy? the role of ethical theory in special educational needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(4), 536-547. Retrieved from http://cupdx.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.cupdx.idm.oclc.org/docview/1651862828?accountid=10248
Moran, K. A. (2009). Can kant have an account of moral education? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 43(4), 471-484. Retrieved from http://cupdx.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.cupdx.idm.oclc.org/docview/61825073?accountid=10248
National Association of Special Education Teachers. (2007). Code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.naset.org/2444.0.html
National Education Association. (n.d.). Code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/30442.htm
Palmer, P. J. (2009). A hidden wholeness: The journey toward an undivided life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rabin, C. (2013). Care through authenticity: Teacher preparation for an ethic of care in an age of accountability. Educational Forum, 77(3), 242-255. Retrieved from http://cupdx.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.cupdx.idm.oclc.org/docview/1509085543?accountid=10248
Rabin, C., & Smith, G. (2013). Teaching care ethics: Conceptual understandings and stories for learning. Journal of Moral Education, 42(2), 164-176. Retrieved from http://cupdx.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.cupdx.idm.oclc.org/docview/1509083316?accountid=10248
Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2011). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Silverman, M. (2012). Virtue ethics, care ethics, and “the good life of teaching”.Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 11(2), 96-122. Retrieved from http://cupdx.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.cupdx.idm.oclc.org/docview/1312422191?accountid=10248
Surprenant, C. W. (2010). Kant’s contribution to moral education: The relevance of catechistics. Journal of Moral Education, 39(2), 165-174. Retrieved from http://cupdx.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.cupdx.idm.oclc.org/docview/742869151?accountid=10248
Teacher Standards & Practices Commission. (n.d.) The ethical educator and professional practices. Retrieved from https://www.oregon.gov/tspc/Documents/Ethical_Educator_Brochure.pdf
Tobin, T. W. and Jaggar, A. M. (2013), Naturalizing Moral Justification: Rethinking the Method of Moral Epistemology. Metaphilosophy, 44: 409–439. doi:10.1111/meta.12050
Zembylas, M. (2010). The ethic of care in globalized societies: Implications for citizenship education. Ethics and Education, 5(3), 233-245. Retrieved from http://cupdx.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.cupdx.idm.oclc.org/docview/851225824?accountid=10248
Zsambok, C. E., & Klein, G. (2014). Naturalistic decision making. Psychology Press.
