The National Education Association Code of Ethics: Guiding Principles for Educators

Teaching is a profession built on trust and responsibility. Educators hold a unique position, shaping the lives of students during their formative years. They serve as role models, mentors, and guides, influencing not only academic growth but also the development of ethical and social values. Recognizing the profound impact educators have, the National Education Association (NEA) and other organizations have established codes of ethics to provide a framework for professional conduct. These codes offer guidance on navigating complex situations, fostering ethical decision-making, and maintaining public trust in the education system.

The Importance of an Educator Code of Ethics

An educator code of ethics is essential for several reasons:

Guiding Professional Conduct: Teacher ethics provide crucial guidance that shapes professional conduct and develops public trust in educators.
Serving as Role Models: Educators serve as role models for students in their crucial developmental years and have the ability to profoundly impact their students’ lives, both in positive and negative ways.
Developing Public Trust: Teacher ethics provide crucial guidance that shapes professional conduct and develops public trust in educators.
Promoting Ethical Decision-Making: The NEA code of ethics helps educators navigate complex situations and make sound judgments, ensuring they act in the best interests of their students and the profession.
Creating a Safe and Supportive Learning Environment: Educators expose students to new ideas, craft safe classrooms for students to support each other as they grow and learn, and encourage students to respond to each other with kindness and understanding.
Upholding the Integrity of the Profession: By adhering to ethical standards, educators maintain the integrity of the teaching profession and demonstrate their commitment to excellence.

Historical Context: Evolution of Ethical Codes

Elements of ethics codes for teachers have existed in some form for over a hundred years although they did not always align with today’s values around equal treatment. In the 1800s through early 1900s, there were extensive restrictions targeting female teachers for anything perceived as less-than-virtuous private behavior. Women often had to agree to not participate in drinking, smoking, gambling or dancing. Even more egregious social policing were bans and punishments for female teachers who chose to marry or get pregnant. In some cases, these rules even extended to extremely specifics rules on behavior. One example from 1872 noted that teachers in an Illinois one-room schoolhouse in Knox County should “spend the remaining time reading the Bible or other good book” after spending ten hours in school; additionally, the teacher coded strictly enforced a policy where “women teachers who marry or engage in unseemly conduct will be dismissed” (Marquardt Blystone, 2014). These rules were expanded and updated in 1915 and reflected no progress in understanding educators as competent adults with full lives outside the classroom. The origins of such prohibitions were in upholding what was seen at the time as necessary moral authority to instruct students; however, there is a deep double standard embedded in these rules for women. It essentially crafted, “a two-tiered system of employment in education, one in which women did the bulk of the teaching under the supervision of an increasingly authoritative cadre of male administrators” (Smith, 2022). This is what Tyack referred to as the “pedagogical harem” (1974). The rules were less about setting a standard for ethical behavior as they were about controlling women’s bodies and dictating what was perceived as “moral” in that community. Over time, the teacher ethics landscape has continued to develop and shifted focus away from enforcing traditional morals and disproportionately impacting women, towards upholding the dignity of all persons.

While earlier iterations of these codes amounted to little more than a set of rules to abide by, they eventually fell out of fashion as educational landscapes moved beyond one-room schoolhouses and small districts with individual oversight to larger public schools and statewide educational expectations. With more governmental oversight, more modern expectations of educators also evolved. As the teaching profession became more formalized in the late 19th century, there was a growing recognition of the need for standards of professional conduct. The National Education Association (NEA) played a significant role during this time. In 1899, the NEA adopted its first Code of Ethics, outlining principles and standards for teachers’ professional behavior.

Key Principles of Ethical Codes for Educators

While specific codes may vary slightly, several core principles are commonly emphasized:

Integrity: Educators should maintain honesty, fairness, and transparency in all their professional dealings.
Respect for Students: Educators must treat all students with dignity, respect, and understanding, regardless of their background, abilities, or beliefs.
Confidentiality: Educators are entrusted with sensitive information about students and must maintain confidentiality, disclosing it only when required by law or when the student's well-being is at risk.
Professional Competence: Educators should continuously strive to improve their knowledge and skills, staying up-to-date with best practices in education.
Responsible Use of Technology: The professional educator considers the impact of consuming, creating, distributing, and communicating information through all technologies. MCEE Section V, A, 1: Using social media responsibly, transparently, and primarily for purposes of teaching and learning per school and district policy.
Avoiding Conflicts of Interest: Educators must avoid situations where their personal interests could compromise their professional judgment or create an unfair advantage for certain students.

Ethical Praxis and the Ethic of Care

It is important to examine ethical codes of behavior as separate from one’s values or personal judgments (Strike & Soltis, 2009). Current ethical codes reflect a shift in how the role of a teacher is constructed in society. During the 1960s and the 1970s teachers were viewed as a “neutral chairman” and then this shifted in the 1980s where the educator’s values were viewed as a figure to align with for students (Bergem, 1990, p. 1). While some ethical behaviors in the classroom are easy to identify (teachers should not strike their students) others are what Krishnamoorthy and Tolbert describe as “mucky” (2022) and less clearly defined. At times, for instance an educator’s ethical commitment to intellectual investigation may introduce texts that are not embraced by close-minded parents. Is this an ethical violation due to the mismatch between familial norms and the diversity, equity and inclusion work educators know is important? To complicate this more, another societal expectation is for teachers to be role models for students. Does this mean to extend to all parts of the educator’s life. There are not always clear choices to be made and as Krishnamoorthy and Tolbert point out, educator expectations need to “shift away from colonial and masculinist binaries that produce particular moralistic orientations as “right” or “wrong” (2022, p. 1047). Educators often must make ethical decisions in the classroom that shape how students read the world. Selecting the literature students read, particular teaching approaches to apply, and which moments in history to highlight and how such moments will all shape how students read the world and place themselves within it. These choices may be considered ethical considerations as well as political ones. This is what Krishnamoorthy and Tolbert call an “ethical praxis, even a form of conscientization” (2022, p. Another ethical practice in schools to consider is the “ethic of care.” As suggested by Colnerud (2006), one discussion emerging during these shifts from early rules setting as ethics and later guiding principles is the “relationship between an ethic of care and ethics based on principles of justice” and the ways “in which benefits and burdens are distributed” (p. 368). Schools are often considered the location where students grow into caring adults and learn not just the content concepts introduced to them, but also ways of being in the world and how to interact with each other. Teachers find that they must, “balance justice and care in their ethical choices and one could say that they are forced to organise care and distribute it justly. Conversely, they must ensure that justice is meted out caringly” (Colnerud, 2006, p. Nel Nodding (1929-2022) was an American educator, scholar, and feminist theorist. She is best known for her work on the ethic of care. She continued to refine her theories late in life and was reflective of her practice. Researcher, Nel Noddings instructs her readers that this ethic of caring is presented through a relational ethic in that it is “tightly tied to experience because all its deliberations focus on the human beings involved in the situation under consideration and their relations to each other” (1994, p. 173). Noddings also notes that this caring and emotional labor is often characterized as feminine labor. This framework for understanding the role of an educator reinforces long held beliefs that schools should be responsible for the growth of students into contributing and thoughtful members of the citizenry. As Noddings indicates, this work if truly embraced changes how schools function and emphasizes dialog and changes, “almost every aspect of schooling: the current hierarchical structure of management, the rigid mode of allocating time, the kinds of relationships encouraged, the size of schools and classes, the goals of instruction, modes of evaluation, patterns of interaction, selection of content” (1994, p. 175). Noddings concludes her key paper on this topic by noting that society does not really want to solve this problem, “as there is too much at stake, too much to be lost by those already in positions of power” (1994, p.179). Maxine Greene (1917-2014) was an American teacher and theorist. She centered much of her work on the gendered work of teaching and the role of women in the field. She also was an advocate and spoke often on the work of the “social imagination” allowing one to imagine a different future to work toward for social justice. This early work by theorists to encourage a well-intentioned “ethic of care” and the societal expectation for education to solve all social ills has crafted an untenable situation for educators and in particular one for those educators that embrace a nurturing classroom identity. This is not to say that this should not be a goal of educators, but in recent years educators have been demonized, de-professionalized, and dismissed while also having increased expectations laid at their feet. This is not a new problem. The risk of burnout and personal stress as a result of increased emotional labor by educators that support an ethic of care in their classrooms is high (VanSlyke-Briggs, 2010). In a National Education Association survey conducted in 2022, it found that, “90 percent of members say feeling burned out is a serious problem, with 67 percent saying it’s very serious” (Walker, 2022).

Examples of Ethical Dilemmas

Ethical dilemmas can arise in various situations. Here are a few examples:

A teacher changes the grade on a student’s exam after learning that the student was feeling ill the day of the exam.
A teacher has their own daughter in her class.
A student has told the teacher that they don’t have a ride home and it is raining.
During a recent snow day, the school administration decided that teachers should instruct digitally using their Google Classroom rather than having just a day off.
An educator’s ethical commitment to intellectual investigation may introduce texts that are not embraced by close-minded parents. Is this an ethical violation due to the mismatch between familial norms and the diversity, equity and inclusion work educators know is important?

State and Organizational Codes of Ethics: Examples

New York State: In New York State a Code of Ethics for educators was established by the State Standards and Practices Board in June of 2002 and voted into effect by the Board of Regents in July of the same year. This came after a call for an ethics code development in 1998 as part of a teaching reform initiative outlined by The State Board of Regents. The current code was developed in partnership and collaboration with teachers, school administrators, higher education representatives, public members and even a teacher education student as members of a 28 person Standards Board. After a draft of the code was completed, it was reviewed by the Board of Regents and sent out for public comment. The Code of Ethics is comprised of 6 Principles which are designed to include new developments and scenarios in education. This code cannot be used as a basis for discipline by an employer. Instead, there is a different mechanism for that process. The New York State Education Department also has guidance on Educator Integrity including The Office of School Personnel Review and Accountability (OSPRA) which investigates allegations concerning the moral character of those who hold New York State teaching certificates. Any person may file a written complaint with the department.
AAE Code of Ethics: This AAE Code of Ethics for Educators was developedby the distinguished AAE Advisory Board and by the Executive Committee of AAE.It contains four basic principles relating to the rights of students and educators.

The Model Code of Ethics for Educators (MCEE)

Now enters probably the single most valuable document of our time, an all-encompassing philosophy for embracing the highest standards of what it means to be an ethical educator: the Model Code of Ethics for Educators (MCEE), developed under the leadership of the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC). “The purpose of the Model Code of Ethics for Educators (MCEE) is to serve as a shared ethical guide for future and current educators faced with the complexities of P-12 education. The code establishes principles for ethical best practice, mindfulness, self-reflection, and decision-making, setting the groundwork for self-regulation and self-accountability. Although pre- and in-service training on both are essential, the differences between a “code of conduct” and a “code of ethics” are vast. Codes of conduct like the Code of Professional Practice and Conduct for Pennsylvania teachers are specific mandates and prohibitions that govern educator actions. A code of ethics is a set of principles that guide professional decision making, not necessarily issues of “right or wrong” (more shades of grey) nor defined in exact terms of law or policies.

Ethical Conduct toward Students

The professional educator accepts personal responsibility for teaching students character qualities that will help them evaluate the consequences of and accept the responsibility for their actions and choices. We strongly affirm parents as the primary moral educators of their children. Nevertheless, we believe all educators are obligated to help foster civic virtues such as integrity, diligence, responsibility, cooperation, loyalty, fidelity, and respect-for the law, for human life, for others, and for self. The professional educator, in accepting his or her position of public trust, measures success not only by the progress of each student toward realization of his or her personal potential, but also as a citizen of the greater community of the republic.

The professional educator deals considerately and justly with each student, and seeks to resolve problems, including discipline, according to law and school policy.
The professional educator does not intentionally expose the student to disparagement.
The professional educator does not reveal confidential information concerning students, unless required by law.
The professional educator makes a constructive effort to protect the student from conditions detrimental to learning, health, or safety.
The professional educator endeavors to present facts without distortion, bias, or personal prejudice.

Ethical Conduct toward Practices and Performance

The professional educator assumes responsibility and accountability for his or her performance and continually strives to demonstrate competence. The professional educator endeavors to maintain the dignity of the profession by respecting and obeying the law, and by demonstrating personal integrity.

Read also: Eligibility for National Awards

The professional educator applies for, accepts, or assigns a position or a responsibility on the basis of professional qualifications, and adheres to the terms of a contract or appointment.
The professional educator maintains sound mental health, physical stamina, and social prudence necessary to perform the duties of any professional assignment.
The professional educator continues professional growth.
The professional educator complies with written local school policies and applicable laws and regulations that are not in conflict with this code of ethics.
The professional educator does not intentionally misrepresent official policies of the school or educational organizations, and clearly distinguishes those views from his or her own personal opinions.
The professional educator honestly accounts for all funds committed to his or her charge.
The professional educator does not use institutional or professional privileges for personal or partisan advantage.

Ethical Conduct toward Professional Colleagues

The professional educator, in exemplifying ethical relations with colleagues, accords just and equitable treatment to all members of the profession.

The professional educator does not reveal confidential information concerning colleagues unless required by law.
The professional educator does not willfully make false statements about a colleague or the school system.
The professional educator does not interfere with a colleague's freedom of choice, and works to eliminate coercion that forces educators to support actions and ideologies that violate individual professional integrity.

Ethical Conduct toward Parents and Community

The professional educator pledges to protect public sovereignty over public education and private control of private education. The professional educator recognizes that quality education is the common goal of the public, boards of education, and educators, and that a cooperative effort is essential among these groups to attain that goal.

The professional educator makes concerted efforts to communicate to parents all information that should be revealed in the interest of the student.
The professional educator endeavors to understand and respect the values and traditions of the diverse cultures represented in the community and in his or her classroom.
The educator, believing in the worth and dignity of each human being, recognizes the supreme importance of the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, and the nurture of democratic principles. Essential to these goals is the protection of freedom to learn and to teach and the guarantee of equal educational opportunity for all. The educator recognizes the magnitude of the responsibility inherent in the teaching process. The desire for the respect and confidence of one’s colleagues, of students, of parents, and of the members of the community provides the incentive to attain and maintain the highest possible degree of ethical conduct. The educator strives to help each student realize his or her potential as a worthy and effective member of society.

tags: #national #education #association #code #of #ethics