 |
Teachers Council Code of Ethics Summit
|
Contents
|
| |
Texts of the presentations to the Summit
The Ethical Teacher
Ivan Snook
Emeritus Professor of Education
Massey University
A paper presented at the annual conference of the New Zealand Association for Research in Education, Palmerston North 5th -9th December, 2002
The Ethical Teacher
Teaching is an activity in which ethical issues are central. For one thing, teaching involves close personal relationships: between teachers and students, between one student and another and between one teacher and another. There also important relationships involving parents, Board members, advisors and school administrator. Secondly, teaching occurs in a very tightly controlled and regulated institutional structure in which there are hierarchies of control and rules to be obeyed. Only the prison and the armed forces can approach the school for rigidity of structure. Thirdly, in the school some persons are more knowledgeable than others, have more authority and therefore have the opportunity to influence immature minds in all kinds of ways. The possibility of misuse of power is very real. Finally, the school exists for an ethical purpose: to change people in certain ways. Teaching, then, involves ethics in its aims, its methods and its relationships.
In the 1960's some educational theorists were so struck by the enormity of the teacher's power that they concluded that the school should be done away with altogether (Illich, 1972) or that it should restrict itself to teaching only skills and refrain from trying to change young people in profound ways (Bereiter,1974). The recent increase in home schooling suggests that some think that schools are assuming too much power, and the growth of small religiously based schools suggests that some parents think that the type of influence in state schools is not what they would wish for their children.
There are library shelves of books on the ethics of medicine, nursing, social work and business. There is a growing literature on the ethics of policing and on the media. But teaching, possibly the profession which raises the most ethical issues, is less well served in terms of books focusing on ethical issues which arise in practice. Books on the topic are rare and courses for teachers even rarer.
In recent years a number of excellent books have appeared which do connect ethical theory with practical issues of teaching. Foremost among them are Strike and Soltis (1992),Carr (2000), Strike and Ternasky (1993), Goodlad, Soder and Sirotnik (1990) and Haynes (1998). They stress ethical theory and its application to policy and practice. In my judgment there has been a need, particularly these days when the teacher education curriculum is rather full and focused on practice, for a book which introduces students and teachers to ethics via some of the particular ethical problems faced by teachers in schools.
For this reason I have completed a book called "The Ethical Teacher" with two main characteristics:
- It is focused on issues which arise for teachers in schools and ethical theory is virtually non existent
- I argue a definite position throughout rather than present alternatives. I judged that students and teachers on refresher courses would prefer an argued point of view to bite against rather than a bland presentation of alternatives.
This book is focused ,then, on a number of practical issues relevant to the teacher. My hope is that it will be studied in College and University courses which prepare women and men for teaching. More experienced teachers, too, should find this book useful and may even find it exciting. These teachers will have solved the practical problems of a beginning teacher: they will be able to control a class, mount a reading programme, set up an assessment regime. But they will have come to recognise that many of their real problems and those of their colleagues are basically much more difficult: they involve claims and counter claims about unfairness, discrimination, lack of respect, and even 'harassment.'
There is yet another reason for thinking that the provision of ethical guidance for teachers is particularly timely. One of the distinguishing marks of a profession is its concern with the ethical underpinnings of their work. Over the past hundred years, teaching has struggled to become a fully recognised profession and by the 1980's had made substantial progress including the provision of degree level work for almost all teachers' in New Zealand (for primary and early childhood teachers particularly) in the form of the Bachelor of Education Degree offered by all Colleges of Education in cooperation with their local university.
Since the early 1990's, however, there has been in many countries a transformation of the work of teachers. Whereas the former model of a learned profession stressed the teacher's autonomy and placed a good deal of faith in her professional integrity, the new model stresses centralised control (through a national curriculum in particular) and a demand for the kind of accountability which replaces trust.
A feature of the status of teachers prior to recent "reforms" was that as a professional the teacher had a good deal of autonomy: she was able to determine to some extent the nature of her work, the aims to be achieved as well as considerable freedom in what is taught and how best to teach it. In the model which is replacing this professionalism, the teacher has much less autonomy: the aims of her work are set by outside agencies (including the world of business), the curriculum is minutely prescribed through a national curriculum and the teacher, though still able to make some decisions about methods, is in fact quite constricted. The modern jargon which has the teacher "delivering the curriculum" symbolises this new role. Until recently a teacher would have described herself as "helping children learn" or "fostering children's development or some such phrasing focusing on the child and her development. No self respecting teacher would have seen herself as "delivering a curriculum" any more than a doctor would describe herself as "delivering health care." Someone might deliver bread, milk or groceries. Professionals look after people in accordance with judgments made on the basis of their specialised knowledge.
When teachers are deprived of any say over the aims to be achieved and are expected to function as technicians, ethical concerns fade into the background. The notion of the ethical teacher is meant to draw teachers' work back towards the professional model and to help teachers see themselves engaged in a ethical task in relation to the full development of human persons.
The topics discussed in the book are: the role of the teacher, accountability and teacher assessment and appraisal, rights in education (including the rights of parents, teachers and students), personal relationships in education, privacy and confidentiality in schools, school rules, discipline and punishment, the handling of controversial issues, counselling in schools, research in education and, finally ethics and politic. In this final chapter I argue that many of the so-called reforms of the recent past have made the ethical role of the teacher much more difficult while at the same time denying to her much of the professional status which encourages ethical behaviour.
There is not time here to develop many, much less all, of these topics but I intend to
- set out the basic assumptions on which all the chapters are based
- provide two sections by way of illustration of the themes handled in the book. These are teachers and power, and, teachers and personal relationships.
1.The role of the teacher.
Respect for autonomy.
- A human person has a point of view and various life plans. She has beliefs and values and she wants to lead her life in a particular sort of way. To respect personhood is to recognise that these characteristics should be accepted and respected, even when we disagree with her point of view or her life plan. Thus there are central restraints on the teacher which arise from a fundamental ethical principle namely that every pupil is entitled to have her judgment (even if immature and incomplete) respected by the teacher.
- There is however a difficulty, which will immediately be apparent. The teacher, unlike other adults, has also an obligation to change a student's point of view on many matters and to try to alter, at least to some extent, her lifestyle (eg by encouraging her to give up smoking, take some exercise and watch less television, to say nothing of ceasing to bully her brother or insult her Maori neighbours.) Teachers have, then, conflicting obligations: to respect the learner and her present state of mind, and also to move her towards a more adequate understanding and a more enlightened practice.
- This dilemma, which is present even we are teaching post graduate university students is more intense with younger and more immature learners . Here, teachers feel more entitled to change the child's beliefs, behaviour and values but, by the same token there is a very real danger that they fail to treat her seriously as a person.
How can teachers respect the learner as a person and yet try to change her in fundamental ways? This constitutes the basic ethical dilemma of teaching. In a sense, much of the book will be an attempt to answer this question though, of course, I will not be able to provide easy answers. The teacher, like all professionals, has to struggle constantly with the dilemma. The best I can do is to provide the teacher with the tools for that struggle and an understanding of the dilemma so that it can be "resolved" (however imperfectly) day by day.
Respect for reason.
The ethical teacher, taking into account the student's age and maturity, tries to impart not just the conclusion of processes and arguments but the methods of arriving at the conclusions: not just ways of behaving but an understanding of these ways of behaving and the reasons for them. Thus, guided by teachers who respect her reason, the student gradually learns to use her own reason, to become autonomous, and hence does not have to rely forever on the views of others. This task of handing over full control to the learner may take a long time but it needs to be begun early so that she learns the habit of "thinking for herself."
It is sometimes argued by educational traditionalists that respect for the student's reason is not a requirement of the teaching act (as I have suggested) but simply the end point to be aimed at. Thus, they hold that although teachers should aim to produce autonomous agents, there is no inconsistency in subjecting them to a good deal of control in the process. They have, after all, to learn what is expected and become mature enough to exercise autonomy wisely. On this view, teachers can set people free only by initiating them into the standards of critical thought which are embodied in the disciplines we teach (science, history, mathematics etc.) So, by compulsion in schools, they become free to think for themselves. There is, clearly an important point here but I think that traditionalist tend to overstate it and to ignore the other pole in the debate.
It is true that we set children free by teaching them how to think and the standards of thinking are to be found in the various domains of knowledge. But I would argue that teachers must also respect the student's reason in the process, regardless of the age of the pupil. And this for two reasons:
- Aims are not simply aspirations for some far off state. They have to be embedded in the work of the teacher day by day. It is hard to imagine how a young person would learn to be critical, reflective, or flexible unless she is constantly provided with opportunities to practise being critical, reflective and flexible. They are, after all, attitudes, and not skills. While skills can be taught by demonstration, attitudes have to be 'caught'. This requires teachers who deep down have these attitudes. (This is why you cannot teach someone to think critically simply by giving her exercises in 'critical thought.' This is a common mistake: one hears of lecturers teaching students "how to think" by showing them how to analyse syllogisms and identify fallacies and the like. And yet some of these lecturers are themselves totally uncritical of their own work and of the institution in which they work. All the syllogisms in the world will make no difference to students) Thus it is difficult, some would say impossible, to learn to be autonomous by non autonomous teaching methods.
- Respecting a person's autonomy is an ethical requirement of all relationships. How it is exemplified in particular settings and with particular age groups is a moot point. What we can say in relation to teaching is that we should respect it at any age as much as possible and should work to ensure that the amount of autonomy increases as the child grows to maturity How this is done has to be left to the skill and sensitivity of the teacher.
Teachers and power: in loco parentis?
Despite the changes in society which may have decreased the status of teachers and lessened the respect which young people show towards adults, the teacher retains a good deal of power over students. This needs careful examination since all power relationships are ethically problematic and since the exercise of power can operate against the educational aim of the school. Many adults, reflecting on their school days, say that they were so scared of certain teachers that they could not learn from them and the idea of a teacher bringing about learning by hitting the child for every miss- spelled word flies in the face of all that is known about the conditions of learning.
Most modern teachers avoid such barbarisms but power can be used in other less obvious ways. The teacher can silence a child by embarrassing her before her peers and the principal can reduce a child to tears by picking her out in an assembly and giving her a dressing down in front of the whole school. This is power of such magnitude a person who used it on an adult would prompt a complaint to the Council for Civil Liberties. Thus, it is often assumed that being a child (even a seventeen year old 'child' in Year 12) justifies uses of power which would not be justified in the case of adults. What is it about the teacher-pupil relationship which seems to justify some uses of power which would not normally be permitted?
Two arguments are usually used. One is that the teacher has been given power by a system in which, in the last analysis, she represents or stands in the place of the parent. The traditional term, from the Latin, is in loco parentis: in the place of the parent. But even if this venerable notion is accepted, it does not justify the unrestricted power which teachers sometimes claim.
- For one thing, it raises certain questions about the power of the parent. This power is itself limited by the rights of the child. Thus, for example, if one were to try to justify corporal punishment by a teacher on the grounds that she is in loco parentis, this begs the question of whether parents are entitled to hit their children or whether such punishment is an attack on a child's human dignity Few parents would physically punish young people of 14, 15, or 16 yet until quite recently secondary schools allowed sixteen or seventeen year boys to be caned . (Sometimes even when their parents disapproved). My argument is that the power of the teacher is limited because the power of the parent is limited.
- Any analogy between the role of parent and that of teacher is very tenuous. For one thing, the parent has responsibilities at all times and in many different ways. The teacher assumes responsibility only for a short time and for a specific purpose. In the primary school, responsibility is prolonged throughout the school day, but in secondary schools a teacher deals with a particular pupil for perhaps an hour a day and the pupils may have six or seven different teachers during that day. The idea that each of these teachers is 'a parent' to the child seems absurd.
I myself think that the 'in loco parentis' argument can no longer be sustained. Rather, the parent (under laws passed by the state) delegates to the school and its teachers certain quite limited responsibilities and in the exercise of these responsibilities teachers need a degree of power over the child but it is strictly limited by the rights of the child, the rights of the parent, and the role of the school.
Teachers and personal relationships
Discussion so far has concentrated on the impersonal aspects of teaching. It has often been pointed out that personal relationships are an intimate part of teaching. Unlike other professionals such as lawyers, doctors and accountants, a teacher can rarely hide behind an impersonal role, concealing her personal values, beliefs and attitudes. Locked up with perhaps thirty vigorous and inquisitive young people her every weak spot is well known, her passing moods well noted, her character and personality constantly analysed. Similarly she comes to know her students very closely; their character, personality, beliefs and values are out in the open for the sensitive teacher. In writing of the ethics of teaching, therefore, it is important to consider the more personal side of teaching and the ethics that go with it.
There is, in fact, a growing body of literature which makes the personal absolutely central to the teaching act. Thus, for example, David Hansen has written a book called Exploring the Moral Heart of Teaching. He argues that at the present time, teaching is viewed centrally as either a set of processes focused on means, or a set of outcomes (ends).When seen in terms of processes, teaching is viewed as a job, an occupation or a profession. Seen in terms of outcomes, teaching is viewed as aiming to produce persons who will succeed academically, socially or economically. Hansen, argues that the traditions of teaching, going back to Socrates among the pre-Christian Greeks points the way towards a more enlightened notion: a focus on the teacher as a person and on her interaction with other persons-- students.( Hansen, 2001).
This change of focus leads us to ask rather different questions about teaching from those already discussed:
- What kinds of relationships should there be between teacher and students? Is a personal relationship necessary or is a professional one sufficient?
- What kind of a person should a teacher should be? Are there, for example, certain qualities of mind and heart which teachers should have?
It is clear that some degree of a personal relationship is required of teaachers. Subject matter, cannot be divorced from personal characteristics. In teaching science, for example, a good teacher shares with students her love of the subject, her belief in its importance and her attitude of respect for evidence and concern for truth. These are personal attributes but the subject cannot be adequately taught without sharing them. When people later in life are called upon to name significant teachers in their lives they almost always mention a teacher whose enthusiasm captured their lifelong interest in literature, science or history.
More than that, it can be argued that the teacher is not solely concerned with imparting academic knowledge; she is also charged with forming young people in the values and attitudes necessary for a satisfying life and responsible life in the society and this task involves much more than "teaching" She must also be a pastor, counsellor, substitute parent and mentor. This is particularly true these days when so many children come to school without the support of two parents. In particular it is often argued that a male teacher can to some extent make up for the absence of a father in a boy's upbringing. To do that the male teacher has to go beyond simply teaching subjects with enthusiasm.
What are we to make of these arguments? It seems clearly correct that a teacher has to go beyond an impersonal role and must to a degree model the intellectual virtues (honesty, respect for truth, curiosity) which underlie education
With these exceptions, the major role of teachers is to impart knowledge, develop the mind, promote critical thought, develop each child's autonomy and prepare them intellectually for life in a pluralistic and democratic society. The intellectual aim is prior (though of course, certain emotional qualities go with it) and I would not want to impose on teachers the requirement that they have to have personal relationships of a strong sort. Some because of their own personality might find this task attractive and should be encouraged; it cannot be a requirement on all teachers.
And, of course, it has its dangers. Among these are the danger of favouritism. It is often very difficult to be "a friend" to 25 or 30 children (in the case of an early childhood or primary teacher) much less to some 150 young people (in the case of secondary teachers). A teacher who tries to do so will almost inevitably have to chose which of her charges to develop a friendship with and this can easily interfere with the impartiality which teaching requires.
The other danger is that the friendship lead to the break down of barriers and as a result, lead to a sexual relationship with one or more students. This is a particular problem where the age gap is minimal. For example, a secondary school teacher might be only five years older than her Year 13 student and, unless boundaries are carefully preserved, the "crushes" that figure in literature and anecdote can move into a more serious relationship.
Sexual relationships between professionals and their clients, though not uncommon, are strongly condemned by professional associations and ethical writers. The normal criticism is that such relationships are an abuse of trust.(See, for example, Gonsiorek,1995.) This is because a person consulting a professional (eg a doctor or counsellor) trusts her enough to put herself in a vulnerable position . This trust is betrayed if the professional uses the situation to his or her personal advantage. The unequal nature of the relationship absolutely precludes intimacy, for intimacy requires equality.
Quite clearly sexual relationships with young children are illegal and totally unacceptable whether practised by teachers or others and in the case of teachers a serious abuse of trust is involved. In the case of older students, parents are entitled to believe that the teacher will protect their children from harm and emotional turmoil: they will care for them. They have a legitimate grievance if the teacher herself becomes a possible source of that harm or that turmoil. It would be totally inimical to the role of the school if it were thought that teachers and students met as if they were equally "on the sexual market." The slightest suggestion of that has to be totally ruled out.
When the teaching situation is one of adult to adult (say, a university or college tutor and her mature student) it is difficult to suggest abuse of trust and to rule out any possibility of a sexual or close personal relationship. But the same point can be made as in the case of schools. The whole nature of the enterprise requires that a certain "distance" be preserved to enable the work of education to go on. The enterprise would be seriously compromised if it were seen as a part of the normal courting situation of free adults. Certainly, it is an abuse of trust for a teacher at this level to engage in promiscuous behaviour, since conquests will probably depend less on personal qualities than on the aura of the subject matter which she is charged to impart.
Exceptions in the form of a serious and long term commitment there may be but they ought to be rare and well managed. Other professions such as doctors have a kind of "statute of limitations" to the effect that an emotional relationship may be begun only after several years have elapsed since the professional relationship ended. Such a rule would be particularly appropriate in tertiary teaching because of the power exercised by tertiary teachers (eg. in awarding degrees and entry to professions). Teacher organisations, institutions and individual teachers should work on these issues in order to have firm policies (in the case of institutions) and firm boundaries (in the case of individuals).
This is all we have time for today. I hope that I have whetted your appetite for further exploration of the ethics of teaching. I believe that, particularly at this time, when we hear too much of the technicist teacher, the competent teacher, the skilled teacher, we should remind ourselves that education is essentially a moral enterprise and in that enterprise the ethical teacher has a central role to play.
|
|
