Mary Braselton
Director, Associate of Arts in Teaching Program
Midland College
Significant research exists demonstrating how a child develops a sense of morality. One example of certain development happened in August of this year. Eleven-year old Minnesota twins, Nick and Nate, switched places in a hockey tournament charity event. Unbelievably, the twin who took the shot made it and won $50,000. But it was the wrong twin who took the shot. The dad did the right thing and came forward informing contest organizers that the twins switched places and the one whose name was not called had actually made the shot. Case closed? Not exactly. In reviewing a public opinion poll on this issue, the comments were heavily in favor of the twin(s) getting the money anyway. After all, honesty is a relative term, isn't it? Let's examine ethics in light of the Educator's Code of Ethics.
Most people have a personal code of ethics that governs how he or she acts in a social context, and this code normally derives from one's moral development. Some, by virtue of their profession, have a professional code of ethics that outlines how one should conduct himself in a professional context. One's sense of morality should be aligned with one's professional code of ethics since both stem from one's innate sense of appropriate conduct. Ethicists might say moral is moral and immoral is immoral -- for everyone. Otherwise, one's sense of right is eroded to the extent that everything becomes relative. That is the purpose of a code of ethics.
When one does not behave appropriately, he or she is said to have violated a code of ethics. Yet, a code of ethics is not law. It is a list of actions that John Dewey (Dewey, 1908, Ethics) would say one should do. When one chooses not to do the right thing and violates the code, law often comes into play. So social conduct, professional conduct and the law become intertwined.
Let's clap for Nick and Nate's dad for teaching his sons a moral lesson. By coming clean with the deception, he taught his boys an important moral lesson. Sometimes, however, educators are the only ones who can teach children how to do the right thing, so it is imperative that educators have a strong and righteous personal code of ethics.
Educators have a code of ethics, but it was not always so. There was no formal Educator's Code of Ethics in the old days, but as early as 1905, (quoted in Robinson vs. Herbert, 2000; http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/commissioner/), the Texas State Superintendent of Public Schools had the power to remove the teaching certificate of an individual deemed unworthy of teaching. In the ensuing 65 years, controversy after controversy has arisen related to educator behavior, and in 1971, the Texas Legislature formed the Professional Practices Commission and directed it to develop an Educator's Code of Ethics. Subsequent code amendments were made in 1993, 1996, 2002, and most recently, in 2010 when the State Board of Educator Certification (SBEC) responded to the cultural phenomena of social media with additions to the code.
Standards 3.8 and 3.9 of the code specifically address the role of student-teacher relationships and admonish educators to "maintain appropriate professional educator-student relationships and boundaries based on a reasonably prudent educator standard." Standard 3.9 outlines examples of "inappropriate communication with a student or minor, including, but not limited to, electronic communication such as cell phone, text messaging, email, instant messaging, blogging, or other social network communication." This standard goes even further by giving examples of inappropriate behavior that can be considered in a hearing situation should an infraction occur. (19 TAC Chapter 247)
The arguable word in these amendments is the relative nature of the word "appropriate" and that word was argued on the floor of the SBEC meeting in October 2010. Opponents of the change argued that these limitations would unnecessarily inhibit an educator's ability to communicate with his or her students using the technology relevant to the 21st century specifically targeting Facebook, web pages, text messages and cell phones.
Finally, SBEC determined a need for the code has to spell out specific examples of inappropriate behavior for educators, and those elaborations to the code took place effective December 2010. Additionally, on Friday, the definition of the phrase "good moral character" (and other words) found in the Educators Code of Ethics will be debated, determined, and sent to the State Board of Education for a final approval on Nov. 18.
Midland College (Policy No. 01:11:01) has a Code of Ethics, which states that MC personnel are "stewards" of the college environment and all those in it and to "inspire" others to "embrace and practice ethical principles." This policy is a brief bulleted list of principles that affirms that MC personnel are expected to know right from wrong and adhere to high moral and ethical and legal principles.
In case you didn't hear the resolution of the 11-year old twins' lucky shot, the charity event organizers concluded that due to "contractual breaches and legal implications" the boys would not get the $50,000; instead organizers donated $20,000 to youth hockey in Minnesota in the boys' names. Now, there's a personal moral, ethical and legal question solved by doing the right thing instead of the relative thing.
Interested individuals may access the entire Educator's Code of Ethics at the Texas Education Agency website: www.tea.state.tx.us/
This column first appeared in the October 3, 2011 edition of the Midland Reporter-Telegram, and appears here, in its entirety, with the MRT's permission.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar