Codes of Ethics and Teachers' Professional Autonomy

• In Event: 64.075 - Moral and Ethical Teaching and Teachings: Revisiting and Recasting Our Own Research for New Audiences

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this contribution is to assess the validity of a criticism of codes of professional ethics that recurs in the scholarly writings—namely, that codes of professional ethics undermine one of the key traits of professionalism: autonomous judgement.

Modes of inquiry

I begin by providing an overview of three roles that codes of ethics typically play in regulating professional life and managing the relationship between a profession and the public it serves: reinforcing public trust, guiding professional conduct, and framing the professional socialization of new members. Then, I review three variations on an argument frequently encountered in the conceptual literature that codes of ethics discourage autonomous professional judgement. Finally, using a qualitative content analysis approach, I assess the validity of this critique by considering it in light of a sample of existing codes of teacher ethics—namely, the 12 codes of ethics that set the standards for the professional conduct of teachers in Canada.

Evidence and results

In my assessment, the answer to the question of whether a code of ethics undermines professional autonomy depends significantly on its specific characteristic. A code of ethics that is poorly conceived, hastily constructed, or presented as if it were an exhaustive account of ethical conduct in teaching can be an obstacle to the development of a genuine professional ethic. Writing an effective code of ethics calls for sensitivity to a multitude of interconnected issues including: the messages conveyed by particular choices of wording; how those messages might be perceived by the practitioners who use the code; and the impact of the content that one chooses to include (and exclude) on the fragile relation of trust between the public and the profession. A code of ethics can be favorable to the exercise and development of autonomous professional judgment, I argue, but only if it meets certain conditions: it must prioritize open and flexible over closed formulations of obligation statements, explicitly encourage teachers to use their critical judgement in the interest of their pupils and the education system and, finally, avoid conveying a lofty but unrealistic image of the teacher or, the opposite, vilifying teachers as corrupt and untrustworthy.

Scholarly significance

The purpose of placing a classic philosophical critique of codes of ethics in dialogue with the content of the Canadian codes of teacher ethics was not to develop a case for why one should be “for” or “against” codes of ethics in teaching. In my view, the value of this exercise is that it leads to a deeper line of questioning about the wording and tone of a code, the selection of content to include and exclude, and the subtle messages that these features of a code convey about professional autonomy.

Author

• Bruce Maxwell, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières