Codes of ethics and teachers’ professional autonomy: Ethics and Education: Vol 0, No 0

Codes of ethics and teachers’ professional autonomy: Ethics and Education: Vol 0, No 0



Journal
Ethics and Education
Latest Articles

77
Views
0
CrossRef citations
0
Altmetric

Original Articles
Codes of ethics and teachers’ professional autonomy
Marina Schwimmer & Bruce Maxwell
Pages 1-12 | Published online: 15 Feb 2017

Download citation
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2017.1287495


In this article
Abstract
Introduction
The social, regulatory and educational roles of codes of professional ethics
Do codes of ethics undermine professional autonomy?
Discussion and conclusion
Disclosure statement
Funding
References







Full Article
Figures & data
References
Citations

Metrics
Reprints & Permissions
PDF











Abstract


This article considers the value of adopting a code of professional ethics for teachers. After having underlined how a code of ethics stands to benefits a community of educators – namely, by providing a mechanism for regulating autonomy and promoting a shared professional ethic – the article examines the principal arguments against codes of ethics. Three arguments are presented and analyzed in light of the codes of teacher ethics in place elsewhere in Canada. We conclude that a code of ethics must meet three conditions in order for it to be favorable to autonomous judgment rather than blind adhesion to pre-established norms: openness of meaning, space for dissidence, and avoidance of moralistic language.
Keywords: Professional ethics, codes of ethics, design of a code of ethics, teachers: teaching


Introduction

With the international movement towards the professionalization of teaching, codes of ethics have become increasingly common. In more than 50 countries around the world, teacher associations and federations, unions and, in the rare instances where they exist, professional orders of teachers have put in place official codes of teacher ethics (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 2010United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2010. Examples of Codes Taken from Around 50 Different Countries Worldwide. UNESCO toolkit on teacher codes of conduct.http://teachercodes.iiep.unesco.org. [Google Scholar]). Some ethicists and educationalists, however, question the value of codes of ethics, not just in teaching but also in the professions generally (Harris 1994Harris, N. 1994. “Professional Codes and Kantian Duties.” In Ethics and the Professions, edited by R. Chadwick, 104–115. Aldershot: Avebury Publishers. [Google Scholar]; Ladd 1998Ladd, J. 1998. “The Quest for a Code of Ethics: An Intellectual and Moral Confusion.” In Engineering, Ethics and the Environment, edited by P. Vesilund and A. Gunn, 210–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]; Shortt et al. 2012Shortt, D., F. Hallett, D. Spendlove, G. Hardy, and A. Barton. 2012. “Teaching, Morality, and Responsibility: A Structuralist Analysis of a Teachers’ Code of Conduct.” Teaching and Teacher Education 28: 124–131.10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.004[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]; Terhart 1998Terhart, E. 1998. “Formalised Codes of Ethics for Teachers: Between Professional Autonomy and Administrative Control.” European Journal of Education 33 (4): 433–444. [Google Scholar]). For such scholars, codes of ethics appear to undermine one of the key traits of professionalism: autonomous judgement. The aim of this chapter is to assess the validity of this critique of codes of professional ethics 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. We begin the chapter by providing an overview of three roles that codes of ethics typically play in regulating professional life and 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, drawing primarily on John Ladd’s (1998Ladd, J. 1998. “The Quest for a Code of Ethics: An Intellectual and Moral Confusion.” In Engineering, Ethics and the Environment, edited by P. Vesilund and A. Gunn, 210–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]) essay, ‘The quest for a code of professional ethics,’ we present three different arguments that codes of ethics are unfavorable to the exercise and development of autonomous judgement: they encourage a minimalist conception of ethics; they impose a tyranny of the majority; and they embody a sense of distrust. Our aim in placing these philosophical critiques in dialogue with the content of the codes of teacher ethics is not to develop a case for why one should be ‘for’ or ‘against’ codes of ethics in teaching. Rather it is to engage in a deeper line of questioning about the wording and tone of a code, and the selection of content to include and exclude, and the subtle messages that these features of a code convey about professional autonomy. On the basis of our analysis, we conclude that a code of ethics should strive to meet three conditions if it is to be favorable to autonomous judgement: openness of meaning, space for dissidence, and avoidance of moralistic language.

The social, regulatory and educational roles of codes of professional ethics

Ostensibly, codes of ethics exist for at least two interrelated reasons: to reinforce public trust in the profession and guide professional conduct (Abbott 1988Abbott, A. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labour. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]; Banks 2003Banks, S. 2003. “From Oaths to Rulebooks: A Critical Examination of Codes of Ethics for the Social Professions.” European Journal of Social Work 6 (2): 133–144.10.1080/1369145032000144403[Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]). They reinforce public trust by setting forth explicitly and publicly the ethical standards that the public can expect a group of professionals to adhere to in their relations with them. In this sense, a code of ethics is a kind of pact between a group of professionals who provide an important public service such as health care, education, or legal advice (Carr 2000Carr, D. 2000. Professionalism and Ethics in Teaching. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]) and the people who rely on their services. Of course, in order for a code of ethics to provide reliable assurances to the public about the trustworthiness of a profession, the conduct of professionals must be consistent with the code. It is in this sense that codes of ethics are meant to guide or regulate professional conduct. The trustee institution that oversees a code of ethics provides guarantees that members of the profession learn the norms of the profession through formal education, and that they will be held accountable to the standards laid out in the code. In the same way that codes of ethics operate as a standard for defining professional conduct, they are used as a standard for judging professional misconduct and professional bodies generally have a legal obligation to maintain institutional mechanisms that conduct credible disciplinary proceedings and, in cases where a professional’s conduct is found to have been in breach of the code, apply appropriate sanctions (Abbott 1988Abbott, A. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labour. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]).

Scholars sometimes make a distinction between two different ways in which codes of ethics guide professional conduct (see, e.g. Banks [2003Banks, S. 2003. “From Oaths to Rulebooks: A Critical Examination of Codes of Ethics for the Social Professions.” European Journal of Social Work 6 (2): 133–144.10.1080/1369145032000144403[Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]]; Carr [2006Carr, D. 2006. “Professional and Personal Values and Virtues in Education and Teaching.” Oxford Review of Education 32 (2): 171–183.10.1080/03054980600645354[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]]; Forster [2012Forster, J. D. 2012. “Codes of Ethics in Australian Education: Towards a National Perspective.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 37 (9): 1–17.[CrossRef], [Google Scholar]]; Van Nuland [2009Van Nuland, S. 2009. Teacher Codes: Learning from Experience. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar]]). It is mainly a difference in the way that the standards are presented, including the tone of a code, which distinguishes the two types of codes of ethics (Van Nuland 2009Van Nuland, S. 2009. Teacher Codes: Learning from Experience. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar]). Codes that emphasize the ethical principles underlying professionalism and that present explicit rules about what the professional must and must not do in particular circumstances are written in a ‘regulatory’ style. These codes, also sometimes named codes of deontology, generally explicitly state that members can face disciplinary action if the standards outlined in the code are breached (Banks 2003Banks, S. 2003. “From Oaths to Rulebooks: A Critical Examination of Codes of Ethics for the Social Professions.” European Journal of Social Work 6 (2): 133–144.10.1080/1369145032000144403[Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]). Other codes of ethics are said to be ‘aspirational’ because they focus on presenting the broad ideals and values of the profession (for instance, fairness, equality and integrity). As the label suggests, codes written in an aspirational style are meant to positively inspire professionals to try to achieve a certain ideal of professional conduct and do not explicitly position themselves as having a disciplinary function. In her discussion of the distinction between regulatory and aspirational codes, Forster (2012Forster, J. D. 2012. “Codes of Ethics in Australian Education: Towards a National Perspective.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 37 (9): 1–17.[CrossRef], [Google Scholar]) observes that they impose their own specific kind of expectation on the professional. In virtue of their focus on procedures and actions, regulatory codes tend to imply that the professional should prioritize instrumental rationality – that is to say, input-output type thinking concerned with finding the most effective means of achieving a particular goal. In this case, what is expected of the professional is behavior at work that conforms to the codified rules of ethical conduct. By contrast, aspirational codes, which offer more open-ended and flexible frameworks for thinking about professional expectations, appear to be more favorable to the exercise of autonomous judgement. Aspirational codes invite the professional to reflect on what it would mean to embody the ideal of professionalism articulated in the code and continuously strive to realize that ideal.

The distinction between deontological and aspirational codes is useful for seeing the different ways in which codes of ethics can work in subtly different ways, but in reality the two types rarely fall into one category or the other. Often enough, the regulatory and aspirational styles of presenting ethical standards are resorted to in the very same code of ethics (Banks 2003Banks, S. 2003. “From Oaths to Rulebooks: A Critical Examination of Codes of Ethics for the Social Professions.” European Journal of Social Work 6 (2): 133–144.10.1080/1369145032000144403[Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]). To complicate matters further, trustee institutions seldom use consistent labelling for codes of ethics – they are referred to variously as codes of professional conduct, code of professional ethics, ethical standards of the profession, etc. – and the title given to a particular code gives little indication of the style of presentation dominant in the code (Forster 2012Forster, J. D. 2012. “Codes of Ethics in Australian Education: Towards a National Perspective.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 37 (9): 1–17.[CrossRef], [Google Scholar]).

Why not simply use legal frameworks?

Although many countries have legislation that plays a social and regulatory role similar to the one played by codes of ethics, laws that outline professionals’ obligations are, generally speaking, a poor substitute for a code of ethics.

One limitation relates to the level of detail typically found in such legislation. For example, in the Canadian province of Quebec, similar to other provinces in Canada (MacKay, Sutherland, and Pochini 2013MacKay, A. W., L. Sutherland, and K. D. Pochini. 2013. Teachers and the Law: Diverse Roles and New Challenges. 3rd ed. Toronto: Edmond Montgomery Publications. [Google Scholar]), the Education Act contains a set of articles that present the legal duties of teachers as civil servants. The first of these is that teachers have a responsibility ‘to contribute to the intellectual and overall personal development of each student entrusted to their care’ (Education Act of Quebec 2016Education Act of Quebec. 2016. Accessed from the Publications Québec website:http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/I_13_3/I13_3_A.html , Article 22). Unsurprisingly, analogous statements can be found in several Canadian codes of teacher ethics (Gereluk et al. 2016Gereluk, D., C. Martin, B. Maxwell, and T. Norris. 2016. Questioning the classroom: Perspectives on Canadian education. Toronto: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]). However, when one compares Article 22 of the Education Act of Quebec to codes of ethics produced by professional associations, it becomes clear that the legal statement of teachers’ profession obligations contains a fraction of the content normally found in a code of ethics.

It is attractive to think that this limitation could be remedied by simply amending the legislation so that its form, content and level of detail resembles more closely that of a standard code of ethics but this would not solve the more fundamental problem of authorship. In many societies, the recognition of a category of specialized workers as ‘professionals’ goes hand in hand with according those workers a certain right to self-regulation (Abbott 1988Abbott, A. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labour. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]). As mentioned above, a code of ethics constitutes a contract between the profession and society: In exchange for the right to professional autonomy – i.e. the right to exercise the expert skills and specialized knowledge that define competent professional practice with a minimum of interference from outsiders (Carr 2000Carr, D. 2000. Professionalism and Ethics in Teaching. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]; Legault 2006Legault, G. 2006. “Professionalisme avec ou sans profession.” In Questions d’éthique contemporaine, edited by L. Thiaw-Po-Une, 603–625. Paris: Stock. [Google Scholar]) – professionals promise to put their professional skills to use in the best interest of the public and in respect of high standards of ethical conduct (Dubar 2000Dubar, D. 2000. La crise des identités. L’interprétation d’une mutation. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. [Google Scholar]). The code of ethics is the key public statement of that promise. The reason why professional bodies are typically required by law to put a code of ethics into place, educate members in the content of the code, and establish a mechanism for disciplining members found in breach of it, is because the profession itself must establish the ethical norms that govern their work and form the basis of the relationship of trust with society (Legault 2006Legault, G. 2006. “Professionalisme avec ou sans profession.” In Questions d’éthique contemporaine, edited by L. Thiaw-Po-Une, 603–625. Paris: Stock. [Google Scholar]). Legislation cannot replace a code of ethics because legislation is a statement of what the government or society expects of professionals, not what professionals have collectively agreed to expect of themselves.

This tension between professional autonomy and external control is key to understanding debates around the role and the value of a code of ethics in teaching, especially in circumstances where the very idea of teachers even having professional autonomy is doubtful. In actual fact, the regulatory system currently governing teaching and education in many Western countries makes few accommodations to teacher autonomy. Regulatory mechanisms imposed on teachers with little or no right to consultation, input, or consent are many and varied: government exams, performance targets, action plans, and especially ever-changing official policies on such matters as class-sizes, the integration of pupils with learning difficulties into ordinary classes, curriculum, and competency-based teaching and learning.

To illustrate once again with an example from Canada, Article 19 of Quebec’s Education Act recognizes that teachers have a right to professional autonomy with regard to the choice of pedagogical strategies and evaluation methods. The scope of this right has been tested in a number of cases heard by Quebec courts, and the record of court rulings on this point is clear. Judges have consistently prioritized teachers’ legal obligation to respect the dictates their employers over teachers’ right to professional autonomy (Daviault 2002Daviault, P. 2002. “L’autonomie professionnelle des enseignantes et des enseignants et le droit de gérance.” In Développements récents en droit et l’éducation, edited by P. Chagnon, 3–27. Cowansville: Yvon Blais. [Google Scholar]). One case heard by the courts was that of a teacher who refused his school principal’s request to conduct a certain extracurricular activity with his students. The teacher refused because he felt strongly that his pupils were too old for the activity and hence would find it childish. The judge in this case found the teacher guilty of insubordination. According to the judge’s interpretation of the law, the teacher had a legal obligation to obey the orders of the principal in the circumstances and despite the fact that the judge agreed with the teacher that pursuing the activity was not in the best interest of his pupils (Daviault 2002Daviault, P. 2002. “L’autonomie professionnelle des enseignantes et des enseignants et le droit de gérance.” In Développements récents en droit et l’éducation, edited by P. Chagnon, 3–27. Cowansville: Yvon Blais. [Google Scholar]). What this shows is that a teacher’s professional judgement with respect to the best interests of their students never overrides what the State or its agents decide is in the best interests of those same students.

Quebec is the only Canadian province that has no common code of ethics for teachers and it is very hard to say indeed whether the judges’ ruling in the kinds of cases referred to above would have been different if there were a code of teacher ethics in place in Quebec. One thing that is clear is that a code of ethics created and ratified by a professional order of teachers or teachers’ association, in particular if it contains sections relevant to a case, is generally taken into account by judges when they arbitrate cases where a teachers’ professional conduct is at stake. For example, the courts did consider the local code of ethics of the province of Alberta in the case of Lynden Dorval, a secondary-level math teacher from the city of Edmonton who was dismissed for insubordination on the grounds that he refused to implement his school board’s controversial ‘no-zero’ policy. A no-zero policy is a guideline that forbids teachers from assigning the mark of zero even when a student fails to submit work or answers none of the questions on a test (Maxwell and Schwimmer 2016Maxwell, B., and M. Schwimmer. 2016. “Seeking the elusive ethical base of teacher professionalism in Canadian codes of ethics.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 59: 468–480.[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). Ultimately, the Alberta courts found Dorval’s dismissal wrongful (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News 2014Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News. 2014. “‘No-Zero’ Teacher Lynden Dorval Cleared of Unprofessional Conduct.” December 12.http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/no-zero-teacher-lynden-dorval-cleared-of-unprofessional-conduct-1.2871892. [Google Scholar]).

In addition to serving as a legal counter weight, a formal code of ethics would serve as an internal mechanism to intervene in cases of alleged professional misconducts, rather than leaving the question up to judges who generally have no specialized knowledge of education or the education system (Jeffrey et al. 2009Jeffrey, D., G. Deschênes, D. Harvengt, and M.-C. Vachon. 2009. “Le droit et l’éthique dans la profession enseignante.” In Repères pour l’éthique professionnelle des enseignants, edited by F. Jutras and C. Gohier, 75–91. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université du Québec. [Google Scholar]). A committee of peers with extensive practical and professional experience in the field of education would have an opportunity to reflect on the scope and limits of professional autonomy in teaching.

Codes of ethics and teacher education

In addition to operating as a regulatory tool designed to reinforce public trust in the profession and guide professional conduct, a code of teacher ethics can also be of considerable pedagogical interest in the education and professional socialization of teachers.

One widespread view in the scholarly literature is that a central role of ethics education in teacher preparation is to introduce prospective educators to the collective norms of the profession (see, e.g. Campbell [2013Campbell, E. 2013. “Cultivating Moral and Ethical Professional Practice.” In The Moral Work of Teaching and Teacher Education: Preparing and Supporting Practitioners, edited by M. Sanger and R. Osguthorpe, 29–44. New York: Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar]]; Coombs [1998Coombs, J. 1998. “Educational Ethics: Are We on the Right Track?” Educational Theory 48 (4): 555–569.10.1111/edth.1998.48.issue-4[CrossRef], [Google Scholar]]; Strike [1990Strike, K. 1990. “Teaching Ethics to Teachers: What the Curriculum Should Be About.” Teaching and Teacher Education 6 (1): 47–53.10.1016/0742-051X(90)90006-Q[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]]). This view draws on the idea that teaching, like other professions, has its own unique set of ethical concepts and professional values, which define and frame ethically responsible conduct – due process, respect for privacy and dignity, intellectual honesty, integrity, personal achievement – and which are expressed through a range of broadly accepted professional obligations and norms. Hence, for Banks (2003Banks, S. 2003. “From Oaths to Rulebooks: A Critical Examination of Codes of Ethics for the Social Professions.” European Journal of Social Work 6 (2): 133–144.10.1080/1369145032000144403[Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]), the educational value of a code of ethics lies not only in informing students about the collective norms of their future professions but also in initiating them into the common vocabulary that professionals in a particular field use to discuss and debate ethical issues that arise in the workplace.

The positive and constructive roles that a code of ethics is meant to play in professional life are clear: inspire public confidence, guide professional conduct, and introduce new members to the ethical norms of the profession. As noted at the beginning of this chapter, however, some scholars hold a rather more negative view. In order to offer a balanced portrayal of the value and role of codes of ethics in teaching and, in particular, of the way codes of ethics intersect with the issue of teachers’ professional autonomy, we turn in the next section to three arguments against codes of ethics. What these arguments have in common is that each claims that codes of ethics, in one way or another, can stifle the autonomous judgement of professionals.

Do codes of ethics undermine professional autonomy?

In the scholarly writings, a key source of opposition to codes of professional ethics is the prima facie tension between the regulatory role of codes of ethics and a certain philosophical definition of ‘ethics’, which should be reflexive, open-ended and universal (see, e.g. Ricœur [1990Ricœur, P. 1990. Oneself as Another. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]]). The critique has been developed in different ways by different authors but the basic underlying intuition is that the very notion of a code of ethics is something of a contradiction in terms (see .e.g. Banks [2003Banks, S. 2003. “From Oaths to Rulebooks: A Critical Examination of Codes of Ethics for the Social Professions.” European Journal of Social Work 6 (2): 133–144.10.1080/1369145032000144403[Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]]; Cigman [2000Cigman, R. 2000. “Ethical Confidence in Education.” Journal of Philosophy of Education34 (4): 643–657.10.1111/1467-9752.00199[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]]; Forster [2012Forster, J. D. 2012. “Codes of Ethics in Australian Education: Towards a National Perspective.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 37 (9): 1–17.[CrossRef], [Google Scholar]]; Harris [1994Harris, N. 1994. “Professional Codes and Kantian Duties.” In Ethics and the Professions, edited by R. Chadwick, 104–115. Aldershot: Avebury Publishers. [Google Scholar]]; Ladd [1998Ladd, J. 1998. “The Quest for a Code of Ethics: An Intellectual and Moral Confusion.” In Engineering, Ethics and the Environment, edited by P. Vesilund and A. Gunn, 210–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]]; Shortt et al. [2012Shortt, D., F. Hallett, D. Spendlove, G. Hardy, and A. Barton. 2012. “Teaching, Morality, and Responsibility: A Structuralist Analysis of a Teachers’ Code of Conduct.” Teaching and Teacher Education 28: 124–131.10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.004[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]]; Terhart [1998Terhart, E. 1998. “Formalised Codes of Ethics for Teachers: Between Professional Autonomy and Administrative Control.” European Journal of Education 33 (4): 433–444. [Google Scholar]]). A code of professional ethics is essentially a list of predefined rules, established and enforced by a community of professionals about how members should behave. In virtue of this characteristic form and function, a code of ethics can seem specifically designed to discourage autonomous ethical reflection – i.e. reflection about what kinds of conduct genuinely is in the best interest of clients, the profession and public trust in the profession.

John Ladd, the author of The structure of a moral code (1957Ladd, J. 1957. The Structure of a Moral Code: A Philosophical Analysis of Ethical Discourse Applied to the Ethics of the Navaho Indians. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]), a classic work of moral ethnography, and a series of articles on moral relativism published in the 1970s and ‘80s, is recognized as one of the key proponents of this critique. In a widely cited article, ‘The quest for a code of professional ethics: an intellectual and moral confusion’ (1998Ladd, J. 1998. “The Quest for a Code of Ethics: An Intellectual and Moral Confusion.” In Engineering, Ethics and the Environment, edited by P. Vesilund and A. Gunn, 210–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]), Ladd argues that no ethical principle can be established by decree, as is characteristically the case with codes of ethics, because ethical principles must be the result of the individual’s autonomous ethical reflection. To assume that it is possible to impose ethical principles on others, Ladd adds, is tantamount to confusing ethics with policy. Ladd’s (1998Ladd, J. 1998. “The Quest for a Code of Ethics: An Intellectual and Moral Confusion.” In Engineering, Ethics and the Environment, edited by P. Vesilund and A. Gunn, 210–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]) philosophical challenge to the very idea of a code of professional ethics is built on at least three distinguishable arguments. In this section, we consider these arguments in turn.

Ethical minimalism

The first argument is based on the observation that, since codes of ethics often describe a minimalist conception of what the ethical obligations of the professional are, they can lead practitioners to falsely believe that, if they obey the code to the letter, then they will have done their duty. In a similar vein, Harris (1994Harris, N. 1994. “Professional Codes and Kantian Duties.” In Ethics and the Professions, edited by R. Chadwick, 104–115. Aldershot: Avebury Publishers. [Google Scholar]) points out that codes of ethics, when they are overly directive, encourage an attitude of unreflective conformism among professionals and, in this way, work to dilute professionals’ sense of responsibility for their actions. The concern here is that the codification of ethical standards can give the impression that the professional’s ethical responsibility comes down to following the set of pre-established rules laid out in an official code of ethics rather than responding appropriately to individual persons in particular and unique circumstances. In other words, the danger is that codes of ethics might encourage professionals to be more concerned with what the code requires than what is ethically required by the persons and situations they face at work.

In the set Canadian codes of ethics in teaching we analyzed, one example of an obligation statement that seems vulnerable to this argument is the duty not to accept extra remuneration for tutoring one’s own students outside school hours, an obligation which recurs several times in the set (Maxwell and Schwimmer 2016Maxwell, B., and M. Schwimmer. 2016. “Seeking the elusive ethical base of teacher professionalism in Canadian codes of ethics.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 59: 468–480.[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). The reason why such specific interdiction could be seen as stifling ethical reflection, and tacitly endorsing a minimalist ethic, is because it offers no clue as to why the behavior described is unethical. To appreciate the rationale for this rule one needs to reflect: the rule against providing additional tutoring services to one’s own students for money gives an unfair educational advantage to the student whose parents are willing and able to pay for the service. Taking this into account, one can see that a more basic obligation underpins the duty to refuse remuneration for extra tutoring, to treat students fairly and equally. Indeed, we found a statement of this very ethical concern in every single one of the 12 Canadian codes of ethics we analyzed and no other obligation recurred as frequently in the set (Maxwell and Schwimmer 2016Maxwell, B., and M. Schwimmer. 2016. “Seeking the elusive ethical base of teacher professionalism in Canadian codes of ethics.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 59: 468–480.[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]).

Given the choice between the two formulations, clearly, the more open and flexible one has the advantage of enlarging the range of possible situations and ethical concerns that could fall under the rule. Of course, what is gained in terms of openness is lost in terms of precision. Hence it may be thought prudent to include such specific rules of behavior in a code of ethics in order to increase the chances that the standard of professionalism at issue is respected. As Standish (2015Standish, P. 2015. “Knowing in Feeling.” Paper presented at the meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society Annual Meeting. Memphis, TN, March. [Google Scholar]) has suggested, however, the question of how rigid and specific to make the rules that apply to teachers’ work comes down to how much those who make the rules are willing to trust teachers to exercise sound judgement. Ladd’s (1998Ladd, J. 1998. “The Quest for a Code of Ethics: An Intellectual and Moral Confusion.” In Engineering, Ethics and the Environment, edited by P. Vesilund and A. Gunn, 210–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]) and Harris (1994Harris, N. 1994. “Professional Codes and Kantian Duties.” In Ethics and the Professions, edited by R. Chadwick, 104–115. Aldershot: Avebury Publishers. [Google Scholar]) critiques seem important because they draw our attention to a certain irony around the problem of formulating a code of teacher ethics: the more detailed and prescriptive a code is, the more likely it is to discourage the development and exercise of precisely that capacity of ethical reflection that enables teachers to determine, both for themselves and collectively, what the professional values of the teaching require of them in terms of particular actions and decisions in specific contexts.

Tyranny of the majority

A second line of argument put forward by Ladd (1998Ladd, J. 1998. “The Quest for a Code of Ethics: An Intellectual and Moral Confusion.” In Engineering, Ethics and the Environment, edited by P. Vesilund and A. Gunn, 210–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]) is that a code of professional ethics is an excellent example of the phenomenon that John Stuart Mill famously labelled the ‘tyranny of the majority’ (Mill 1859/2011Mill, J. S. 1859/2011. On Liberty. London: Walter Scott. Accessed from the Project Gutenberg EBook Libraryhttps://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm [Google Scholar]). Because codes of ethics involve imposing a particular set of ethical standards on all members of a professional body, they are bound to put a chill on any dissent or critical reconsideration of those standards. Ladd’s idea seems to be that even if the standards are accepted by the majority of the profession and represent a more or less consensual view, this does not in and of itself make them right or beyond criticism. Again, Ladd’s (1998Ladd, J. 1998. “The Quest for a Code of Ethics: An Intellectual and Moral Confusion.” In Engineering, Ethics and the Environment, edited by P. Vesilund and A. Gunn, 210–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]) suggestion is that codes of ethics serve to stifle exactly that capacity which makes ethical progress possible in the profession and allows professionals to detect and correct mistakes about ethical issues when they occur: independent critical judgement. Although it is hard to imagine a code of ethics that does not represent norms of professionalism that would be endorsed by the majority in a profession – if anything, failing to represent a majority view would detract considerably from a code of ethics’ credibility – this does not mean that the proper role of a code of ethics is simply to impose the will of the majority on individual professionals without leaving some space for informed and responsible individual judgement, reflection, and questioning.

Ladd’s concern that codes of ethics operate to encourage passive conformity to the rules and discourage dissent was, to some extent, corroborated by an insidious tendency in the codes of ethics for Canadian teachers we studied to present admonitions to respect specific institutional rules and contractual commitments as ethical obligations of teacher professionalism. Indeed, some of the most strongly recurrent ethical obligations in those codes state, in one way or another, that teachers are required to respect and obey decisions made by workplace superiors or imposed by the government or other institutions involved in the regulation of teachers’ work. For example, the Alberta Teachers’ Association Code of Professional Conduct (2004Alberta Teachers’ Association. 2004. “Code of Professional Conduct.”http://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/Publications/Teachers-as-Professionals/IM-4E%20Code%20of%20Professional%20Conduct.pdf. [Google Scholar]) reminds teachers that they must ‘fulfill contractual obligations to the employer until released by mutual consent or according to law’. Other codes require teachers to ‘maintain a positive relationship’ with the teachers’ association (see, e.g. Northwest Territories Teachers’ Association’s 2012Northwest Territories Teachers’ Association. 2012. “Code of Ethics.”https://www.ece.gov.nt.ca/files/Early-Childhood/handbook/Section%201%20documents/NWTTA%20Code%20of%20Ethics%202012.pdf. [Google Scholar]), demand that they respect decisions made by the union in regard to the management of labor disputes (Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers’ Association 2011Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers’ Association. 2011. “Code of Ethics.”https://www.nlta.nl.ca/files/documents/memos_posters/code_of_ethics.pdf. [Google Scholar]), and forbid teachers from presenting themselves publicly as a representative of the teaching profession, the teachers’ association or teachers generally without first obtaining express consent from the relevant trustee institution (Nova Scotia Teachers Union 2011Nova Scotia Teachers Union. 2011. “Code of Ethics.”http://www.nstu.ca/the-nstu/about-us/about-nstu/code-of-ethics/. [Google Scholar]).

The appearance of requirements such as these in codes of professional ethics is curious. Doing so elides the distinction between, on one hand, teachers’ contractual obligations as employees and their obligations as members of an association of workers and, on the other hand, their obligations as members of a profession. The inclusion of duties which valorize obedience to workplace superiors and subordination to the will of a group as a professional quality do seem to send a message that teachers cannot be trusted to act responsibly in relation to contracts and workplace hierarchies. As the examples from the Canadian codes show, unlike aspirational-type obligations, which elevate a certain ideal of professional practice, and regulative obligations, which communicate minimal deontological norms of professionalism, these corporatist obligations seem to be largely aimed at encouraging docility, obedience, and submission.

Here again, attention to the precise way in which obligations are formulated in a code of ethics can have a mitigating effect. Saying, for example, that teachers have an obligation to remain informed about their contractual, corporate and legal responsibilities would, in our view, be more respectful of professional autonomy than the kinds of pointed reminders to respect specific institutional rules and contractual commitment that occur repeatedly in the Canadian codes of ethics in teaching.

Another promising way to reduce the threat of the tyranny of the majority inherent in a code of ethics would be to systematically include in codes of teacher ethics what could be called a ‘duty to reasonable dissent’. Appearing in approximately one quarter of the 12 codes of ethics we analyzed, this is the obligation to protest conditions that are seriously detrimental to pupils’ educational interests (Maxwell and Schwimmer 2016Maxwell, B., and M. Schwimmer. 2016. “Seeking the elusive ethical base of teacher professionalism in Canadian codes of ethics.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 59: 468–480.[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). Stating explicitly that teachers have the responsibility to exercise their critical judgement in relation to what is asked of them and in relation to what they witness as professionals both opens up a space for critical judgement on the part of teachers and affirms the important role that teachers can play as advocates for pupils and their families within the education system.

Moralistic language

A third significant reservation about codes of professional ethics expressed by Ladd (1998Ladd, J. 1998. “The Quest for a Code of Ethics: An Intellectual and Moral Confusion.” In Engineering, Ethics and the Environment, edited by P. Vesilund and A. Gunn, 210–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]) is that they sometimes seem to have hidden agendas which have less to do with guiding and regulating professional conduct than manipulating opinion. Subtly introduced through the selection of content, language and writing tone, such hidden agendas can serve multiple purposes, which include projecting a positive image of the profession, bolstering professional status, and reinforcing professional identity. Though not necessarily illegitimate in and of themselves, the introduction of such secondary objectives in a code of professional ethics is at best surreptitious and at worst can lend a moralistic or patronizing air to a code of ethics.

In our sense of the term, a code is moralistic when it uses emotionally charged language to promote a saintly ideal of the professional or, at the other end of the spectrum, to depict professionals as inherently corrupt and hence in need of constant surveillance. A good example of this phenomenon can be found in the English code of teacher ethics, which, as Shortt et al. (2012Shortt, D., F. Hallett, D. Spendlove, G. Hardy, and A. Barton. 2012. “Teaching, Morality, and Responsibility: A Structuralist Analysis of a Teachers’ Code of Conduct.” Teaching and Teacher Education 28: 124–131.10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.004[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]) illustrate convincingly, vacillates between presenting a positive image of the teacher as confident and caring and one that denigrates teachers as weak and suspicious. Ladd (1998Ladd, J. 1998. “The Quest for a Code of Ethics: An Intellectual and Moral Confusion.” In Engineering, Ethics and the Environment, edited by P. Vesilund and A. Gunn, 210–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]) too contends that one of the pitfalls of writing a code of professional ethics is the use of bombastic turns of phrase and overblown statements that end up painting an idealized (and hence necessarily unrealistic) portrait of the professional. This way of representing the professional, Ladd (1998Ladd, J. 1998. “The Quest for a Code of Ethics: An Intellectual and Moral Confusion.” In Engineering, Ethics and the Environment, edited by P. Vesilund and A. Gunn, 210–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar], 215) warns, can damage the credibility of a code of ethics, inviting the members of a profession not to take the code of ethics seriously or even see it as worthy of ridicule.

Our content analysis found this dynamic to be apparent in the Canadian codes of ethics in teaching (Maxwell and Schwimmer 2016Maxwell, B., and M. Schwimmer. 2016. “Seeking the elusive ethical base of teacher professionalism in Canadian codes of ethics.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 59: 468–480.[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). For example, several codes of ethics require teachers to behave at all times in ways that will ‘maintain the honour and the dignity of the profession’ (Alberta Teachers’ Association 2004Alberta Teachers’ Association. 2004. “Code of Professional Conduct.”http://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/Publications/Teachers-as-Professionals/IM-4E%20Code%20of%20Professional%20Conduct.pdf. [Google Scholar]). In the absence of at least some qualification about what respecting this obligation might mean or how it ties into the values or principles of ethical teaching practice, statements such as these seem to operate primarily on an emotional level, conjuring up an idealized image meant to inspire the teacher to conform to an certain indeterminate ideal of the morally irreproachable or ‘good’ teacher. Jeffrey (2013Jeffrey, D. 2013. “Profession enseignante: de la moralité exemplaire à l’éthique professionnelle.” Formation et profession 21 (3): 18–29. [Google Scholar]) argues that demands such as this one, which suggests that teachers are required to assume the role of ‘models of morality’ both in their interactions with young people at work and in their private lives after working hours, is quite incompatible with the notion of teaching as a profession. Treating teachers like professionals, Jeffrey (2013Jeffrey, D. 2013. “Profession enseignante: de la moralité exemplaire à l’éthique professionnelle.” Formation et profession 21 (3): 18–29. [Google Scholar]) claims, implies holding them primarily accountable for providing quality educational services within the parameters of educational institutions. For Jeffrey (2013Jeffrey, D. 2013. “Profession enseignante: de la moralité exemplaire à l’éthique professionnelle.” Formation et profession 21 (3): 18–29. [Google Scholar]), demanding that they also possess a ‘virtuous moral character’ is a cultural relic from a bygone era when teachers were not merely expected to act as human service professionals but to instill in the next generation a sense of obedience to a rigid moral and religious code.

In contrast to this ‘idealizing’ image of teachers, certain obligations laid out in the set of Canadian codes of teacher ethics we analysed present a negative image of the teacher as unreliable and suspect. Obligations that fall under this category tend to read like didactic admonitions thought necessary to prevent teachers from misbehaving. For example, the code of teacher ethics for New Brunswick (2011New Brunswick Teachers’ Association. 2011. “Code of Professional Conduct.”http://www.nbta.ca/resources/code_of_ethics/Code_of_Professional_Conduct.pdf. [Google Scholar]) states that it is unethical to ‘exploit the privileged relationship between teacher and pupil’ (1.b) and to ‘knowingly submit false or misleading reports on fellow teachers’ (2.f). The explicit condemnation of such obviously unethical behaviors and attitudes could easily be seen as condescending and sends a clear message that the authors of the code believe that teachers cannot be trusted to act in a responsible, professional manner.

Here again, our analysis revealed that moralistic language in codes of ethics is better understood as a remediable weakness that some codes display but not a general characteristic of codes of professional ethics as a genre. Indeed, we found abundant examples of obligation statements that could be used to replace the condescending, patronizing and moralistic formulations ones. For example, a much less presumptuous and archaic way to present the duty to ‘maintain the honour and dignity of the profession’ would be to simply state that teachers have an obligation to demonstrate professionalism in all their relations with pupils, colleagues and the public. Similarly, in some cases, avoiding the use of the negative form in the statements of ethical obligations would go a long way to making them less patent. For example, ‘members must respect the privileged relationship that exists between teachers and pupils’ and ‘members must demonstrate respect and solidarity with their colleagues’ seem to be much more constructive and autonomy-respecting alternatives to the examples of the negatively formulated duties from the New Brunswick code of teacher ethics cited above.

Discussion and conclusion

Each of the three arguments against codes of ethics that we have considered in this chapter emphasize the role that codes of ethics play in guiding professional conduct and as a source of professional norms while neglecting the other essential roles of codes of ethics we mentioned above: that of operating as a standard for adjudicating accusations of professional misconduct and as a key document in educating future practitioners about the collective norms of the profession they are about to enter. Indeed, as we saw, it was the tension between a particular philosophical view of ethics that conceives of ethics as a free, open and critical activity and the fixed, static and top-down nature of codes of ethics that led Ladd (1998Ladd, J. 1998. “The Quest for a Code of Ethics: An Intellectual and Moral Confusion.” In Engineering, Ethics and the Environment, edited by P. Vesilund and A. Gunn, 210–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]) and like-minded scholars to conclude that codes of ethics run the risk of constraining professional judgement and conveying an image of the profession that is detached from the realities of professional life. In this chapter, we have considered ways in which these critiques could be taken into account in the writing of a code of ethics in order to minimize these risks. We are nevertheless entirely aware that even the most carefully wording of a code of ethics cannot remove them entirely since one never has complete control over how a code will be received.

Furthermore, at the end of this exercise we are left with a certain nagging unease. By arguing that the critiques of codes of ethics we have considered in this chapter should be seen as offering useful guidance about how to avoid common pitfalls in elaborating a code of ethics, we are conscious of the fact that, at the end of the day, we have offered up what Heid (2004Heid, H. 2004. “The Domestication of Critique: Problems of Justifying the Critical in the Context of Educationally Relevant Thought and Action.” Journal of Philosophy of Education38 (3): 323–339.10.1111/jope.2004.38.issue-3[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]) has labelled ‘domesticated critique’ – that is to say, a critique that does little, ultimately, to challenge the status quo. In particular, the criticisms of codes of professional ethics put forward by Ladd (1998Ladd, J. 1998. “The Quest for a Code of Ethics: An Intellectual and Moral Confusion.” In Engineering, Ethics and the Environment, edited by P. Vesilund and A. Gunn, 210–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]), Terhart (1998Terhart, E. 1998. “Formalised Codes of Ethics for Teachers: Between Professional Autonomy and Administrative Control.” European Journal of Education 33 (4): 433–444. [Google Scholar]), and Shortt and colleagues (2012Shortt, D., F. Hallett, D. Spendlove, G. Hardy, and A. Barton. 2012. “Teaching, Morality, and Responsibility: A Structuralist Analysis of a Teachers’ Code of Conduct.” Teaching and Teacher Education 28: 124–131.10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.004[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]) surpass the question of how well or how poorly a code of ethics is formulated but touch on a separate and important issue of how a code of ethics, which purports to offer a more or less comprehensive account of what constitutes professional conduct in the form of a list of ethical obligations, elevates deontology above other, possibly richer ways of conceptualizing how professionals can and should negotiate the ethical demands and complexity of professionals’ work. Even if one were to continue indefinitely to refine a code of ethics in an effort to minimize the impact of the criticisms that are raised against them, a more basic critique would remain: a deontological conception of professionalism is inevitably partial and incomplete. To appreciate this, one need only consider other conceptions of ethical professionalism, such as care ethics (Katz, Noddings, and Strike 1999Katz, M., N. Noddings, and K. Strike, eds. 1999. Justice and Caring: The Search for Common Ground in Education. New York: Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar]), the ethics of hospitality (Ruitenberg 2015Ruitenberg, C. 2015. Unlocking the World: Education in an Ethic of Hospitality. Boulder: Paradigm Publishing. [Google Scholar]), and Higgins (2011Higgins, C. 2011. The Good Life of Teaching. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.10.1002/9781444346534[CrossRef], [Google Scholar]) image of the teacher as the self-cultivated individual. All three ideals go beyond deontology to explore the complex ways of seeing, feeling, and responding to others that give life to teacher professionalism and inform the serious work of developing a professional ethics of teaching.

In response to the question with which this chapter began – namely, whether codes of ethics undermine professional autonomy – we are tempted to answer in the negative, but conditionally. A code of ethics can become an obstacle to the development of a genuine professional ethic if it is poorly conceived, hastily constructed, or presented as if it were an exhaustive account of ethical conduct in teaching rather than as an essential starting point for understanding what the ethics of teaching calls on practitioners to do and be. Indeed, if any lesson is to be drawn from this exercise, it is that writing an effective code of ethics is a difficult and complex affair. It 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, as well as professionals’ conception of themselves. This chapter’s analysis has brought to light that, in order for a code of ethics to be favorable to the exercise and development of autonomous professional judgement, codes of ethics should, firstly, prioritize open and flexible over closed and circumscribed formulations of obligation statements. Secondly, they should explicitly encourage teachers to use their critical judgement in the interest of their pupils and the education system by recognizing the duty to reasonable dissent. Thirdly and finally, one should avoid using a code of ethics as a moralistic rhetorical device either to convey a lofty but unrealistic image of the teacher or to vilify teachers as corrupt and untrustworthy. Taking these conditions into account in drafting or revising a code of ethics is certainly no guarantee of perfection but it can help minimize some of the more objectionable but common traits of codes of professional ethics that Ladd (1998Ladd, J. 1998. “The Quest for a Code of Ethics: An Intellectual and Moral Confusion.” In Engineering, Ethics and the Environment, edited by P. Vesilund and A. Gunn, 210–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]) and other critics have identified and for which we found ample confirmation in the Canadian codes of ethics we examined.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

We would like to specify that this article is based on a chapter appearing in a Chinese-language handbook on professional ethics in teaching: Maxwell B, and Schwimmer M. (2016). Codes of ethics and teachers’ professional autonomy. In Campbell E, Wang H. (Eds.) Western Contemporary Research on Teachers’ Professional Ethics and the Moral Work of Teaching. China: Fujian Education Press.

Funding

This work was supported by the Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture [2014-NP-173847].
References
Abbott, A. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labour. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

[Google Scholar]
Alberta Teachers’ Association. 2004. “Code of Professional Conduct.” http://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/Publications/Teachers-as-Professionals/IM-4E%20Code%20of%20Professional%20Conduct.pdf.

[Google Scholar]
Banks, S. 2003. “From Oaths to Rulebooks: A Critical Examination of Codes of Ethics for the Social Professions.” European Journal of Social Work 6 (2): 133–144.10.1080/1369145032000144403
[Taylor & Francis Online],
[Google Scholar]
Campbell, E. 2008. “Preparing Ethical Professionals as a Challenge for Teacher Education.” In Educating Moral Sensibilities in Urban Schools, edited by K. Tirri, 3–18. Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.

[Google Scholar]
Campbell, E. 2013. “Cultivating Moral and Ethical Professional Practice.” In The Moral Work of Teaching and Teacher Education: Preparing and Supporting Practitioners, edited by M. Sanger and R. Osguthorpe, 29–44. New York: Teachers College Press.

[Google Scholar]
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News. 2014. “‘No-Zero’ Teacher Lynden Dorval Cleared of Unprofessional Conduct.” December 12. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/no-zero-teacher-lynden-dorval-cleared-of-unprofessional-conduct-1.2871892.

[Google Scholar]
Carr, D. 2000. Professionalism and Ethics in Teaching. London: Routledge.

[Google Scholar]
Carr, D. 2006. “Professional and Personal Values and Virtues in Education and Teaching.” Oxford Review of Education 32 (2): 171–183.10.1080/03054980600645354
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®],
[Google Scholar]
Cigman, R. 2000. “Ethical Confidence in Education.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 34 (4): 643–657.10.1111/1467-9752.00199
[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®],
[Google Scholar]
Coombs, J. 1998. “Educational Ethics: Are We on the Right Track?” Educational Theory 48 (4): 555–569.10.1111/edth.1998.48.issue-4
[CrossRef],
[Google Scholar]
Daviault, P. 2002. “L’autonomie professionnelle des enseignantes et des enseignants et le droit de gérance.” In Développements récents en droit et l’éducation, edited by P. Chagnon, 3–27. Cowansville: Yvon Blais.

[Google Scholar]
Education Act of Quebec. 2016. Accessed from the Publications Québec website: http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/I_13_3/I13_3_A.html


Dubar, D. 2000. La crise des identités. L’interprétation d’une mutation. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

[Google Scholar]
Forster, J. D. 2012. “Codes of Ethics in Australian Education: Towards a National Perspective.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 37 (9): 1–17.
[CrossRef],
[Google Scholar]
Gereluk, D., C. Martin, B. Maxwell, and T. Norris. 2016. Questioning the classroom: Perspectives on Canadian education. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

[Google Scholar]
Harris, N. 1994. “Professional Codes and Kantian Duties.” In Ethics and the Professions, edited by R. Chadwick, 104–115. Aldershot: Avebury Publishers.

[Google Scholar]
Heid, H. 2004. “The Domestication of Critique: Problems of Justifying the Critical in the Context of Educationally Relevant Thought and Action.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 38 (3): 323–339.10.1111/jope.2004.38.issue-3
[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®],
[Google Scholar]
Higgins, C. 2011. The Good Life of Teaching. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.10.1002/9781444346534
[CrossRef],
[Google Scholar]
Jeffrey, D., G. Deschênes, D. Harvengt, and M.-C. Vachon. 2009. “Le droit et l’éthique dans la profession enseignante.” In Repères pour l’éthique professionnelle des enseignants, edited by F. Jutras and C. Gohier, 75–91. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université du Québec.

[Google Scholar]
Jeffrey, D. 2013. “Profession enseignante: de la moralité exemplaire à l’éthique professionnelle.” Formation et profession 21 (3): 18–29.

[Google Scholar]
Katz, M., N. Noddings, and K. Strike, eds. 1999. Justice and Caring: The Search for Common Ground in Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

[Google Scholar]
Ladd, J. 1957. The Structure of a Moral Code: A Philosophical Analysis of Ethical Discourse Applied to the Ethics of the Navaho Indians. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

[Google Scholar]
Ladd, J. 1998. “The Quest for a Code of Ethics: An Intellectual and Moral Confusion.” In Engineering, Ethics and the Environment, edited by P. Vesilund and A. Gunn, 210–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[Google Scholar]
Legault, G. 2006. “Professionalisme avec ou sans profession.” In Questions d’éthique contemporaine, edited by L. Thiaw-Po-Une, 603–625. Paris: Stock.

[Google Scholar]
MacKay, A. W., L. Sutherland, and K. D. Pochini. 2013. Teachers and the Law: Diverse Roles and New Challenges. 3rd ed. Toronto: Edmond Montgomery Publications.

[Google Scholar]
Maxwell, B., and M. Schwimmer. 2016. “Seeking the elusive ethical base of teacher professionalism in Canadian codes of ethics.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 59: 468–480.
[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®],
[Google Scholar]
Mill, J. S. 1859/2011. On Liberty. London: Walter Scott. Accessed from the Project Gutenberg EBook Library https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm

[Google Scholar]
New Brunswick Teachers’ Association. 2011. “Code of Professional Conduct.” http://www.nbta.ca/resources/code_of_ethics/Code_of_Professional_Conduct.pdf.

[Google Scholar]
Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers’ Association. 2011. “Code of Ethics.” https://www.nlta.nl.ca/files/documents/memos_posters/code_of_ethics.pdf.

[Google Scholar]
Northwest Territories Teachers’ Association. 2012. “Code of Ethics.” https://www.ece.gov.nt.ca/files/Early-Childhood/handbook/Section%201%20documents/NWTTA%20Code%20of%20Ethics%202012.pdf.

[Google Scholar]
Nova Scotia Teachers Union. 2011. “Code of Ethics.” http://www.nstu.ca/the-nstu/about-us/about-nstu/code-of-ethics/.

[Google Scholar]
Ricœur, P. 1990. Oneself as Another. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

[Google Scholar]
Ruitenberg, C. 2015. Unlocking the World: Education in an Ethic of Hospitality. Boulder: Paradigm Publishing.

[Google Scholar]
Shortt, D., F. Hallett, D. Spendlove, G. Hardy, and A. Barton. 2012. “Teaching, Morality, and Responsibility: A Structuralist Analysis of a Teachers’ Code of Conduct.” Teaching and Teacher Education 28: 124–131.10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.004
[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®],
[Google Scholar]
Standish, P. 2015. “Knowing in Feeling.” Paper presented at the meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society Annual Meeting. Memphis, TN, March.

[Google Scholar]
Strike, K. 1990. “Teaching Ethics to Teachers: What the Curriculum Should Be About.” Teaching and Teacher Education 6 (1): 47–53.10.1016/0742-051X(90)90006-Q
[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®],
[Google Scholar]
Terhart, E. 1998. “Formalised Codes of Ethics for Teachers: Between Professional Autonomy and Administrative Control.” European Journal of Education 33 (4): 433–444.

[Google Scholar]
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2010. Examples of Codes Taken from Around 50 Different Countries Worldwide. UNESCO toolkit on teacher codes of conduct. http://teachercodes.iiep.unesco.org.

[Google Scholar]
Van Nuland, S. 2009. Teacher Codes: Learning from Experience. Paris: UNESCO.

[Google Scholar]