Ethical Principles and Practice Standards, Essay Example

The Council for Exceptional Children and the Georgia Professional Standards Commission each provide a set of principles and standards of ethical behavior regarding the instruction of students. At first glance these rules appear to be obvious and even superfluous –why should practicing teachers need to be reminded that student safety ranks high among their duties and responsibilities? At the same time, however, it must be remembered that educators function in the public arenaand must adhere to the highest ethical and practical standards; as such, having a firmly-established and well-defined delineation of such standards is in the best interests of teacher and the public alike. These guidelines serve as a reminder of the importance of each ethical practice, enhance the quality of instruction offered by teachers, and reinforce the individual values held by each instructor.  The following discussion focuses on several key components of the ethical standards provided by the Georgia Professional Standards Commission and considers some of the ways in which these standards are similar to and different from the standards proffered by the Council for Exceptional Children.

The overarching context in which such ethical standards are applicable and valuable is in the area of teacher/student interaction and the conduct demonstrated by teachers in the course of such interaction. The GAPSC code, Standard 2, advises educators to maintain professional relationships with all of their students whether inside or outside classrooms. With the rise in reports of inappropriate professional and student relationships, it is pertinent that professionals hold to the standards that are set for them. By willingly going against these standards they jeopardize students and create legal ramifications for the school. This standard describes a number of specific behaviors that are considered to be unethical; among these is the admonition against “personally or electronically engaging in or soliciting sexual acts from the student.” It has become practically commonplace to see news reports of teachers who have been charged with criminal offenses related to sexual activity with students, and the use of social media is a common element in many of these stories. While it is beyond the scope of this discussion to examine the role of social media in such cases, it seems that the use of social media may often blur the lines between appropriate and inappropriate contact between teachers and students. Standard 2 serves as reminder to teachers that they must adhere to appropriate standards when interacting with students in any capacity.

The second important Georgia code, the GAPSC code of remunerative conduct, Standard 6, recognizes that educators interact with the community and as such are role models while in public outside of the school setting. Teachers are expected to adhere to the highest standards of integrity in their dealings with “students, colleagues, patrons, or businesses when accepting gifts, gratuities, favors, and additional compensation.”In a sense, this standard builds on the precepts of Standard 2, by reminding teachers that they must adhere to ethical standards when dealing not just with their students, but with the parents and guardians of those students and all other members of the community. This standard warns against the practice of receiving any economic benefits that fall outside of their standard remuneration; an example of a transgression in this regard could include a teacher who accepts a gift from s student or parent in exchange for giving a student a better grade.

The third important component of the GAPSC code, Standard 3, deals with the use of alcohol and/or drugs. Teachers are expected to enforce this rule for themselves, their colleagues, and their students or risk their credibility as professionals. An example of unethical conduct under GAPSC Standard 3 is described as “being on school premises or at a school-related activity while under the influence of, possessing, using, or consuming illegal or unauthorized drugs.” Such behavior would clearly violate the ethical standards of the teaching profession, and would send a powerful negative message to students and professional peers. While it is not specified in Standard 3, the ethical standards therein should be understood to extend to all public behavior on the part of teachers. Whether on school grounds or elsewhere in public, teachers represent the institutions for which they work and are expected to serve as appropriate role models for students. A teacher who appears intoxicated in public –even on his or her own time- is not exemplifying the positive ideals and standards expected of professional educators.

The CEC and GAPSC are similar in that they each offer a set of ethical guidelines; further, both groups recognize that such guidelines are not implacable, but must be understood and applied in the context of real-world circumstances and in a manner that reflects the individual needs and traits of each student. Despite these conceptual similarities, each group frames and presents their ethical principles and standards differently. The CEC had developed a set of guidelines that are general enough to be broadly applicable, whereas the GAPSC guidelines are notable for the specificity with which they describe potential violations of ethical standards and the circumstances applicable in cases where such standards are violated. The CEC principles echo a warning that my mother once gave me: “If you’re not sure if something is wrong, and you hope that it isn’t, then you’re probably rationalizing.” Because the CEC governs the treatment of special education students, it is possible that the guidelines proffered by the organization are purposefully designed to give teachers a fair amount of latitude and discretion; the GAPSC standards, by contrast, appear to provide a more rigid framework within which teachers are expected to function.

The two primary differences between the CEC guidelines and those offered by GAPSC, then, are found in the scope and the specificity of each set of principles. The guidelines for ethical standards offered by CEC are fairly brief, and are presented in a manner that allows a measure of latitude for instructors to interpret them according to the particular circumstances and individual needs of students. The GAPSC standards, by contrast, are lengthier and more specific than the CEC standards. The GAPSC standards function more as a set of rulesand offer a number of specific circumstances and scenarios in which ethical standards should be considered and adhered to by teachers. While each group offers their guidelines as a means of considering and understanding ethical principles in the context of education, the CEC principles are presented in a broader, more general manner, and do not take into account the manner in which violations of standards are defined or addressed.

Both sets of ethical codes have an important place in Georgia’s educational system, as each helps to define and promote optimal learning environments for students. Education professionals have a responsibility to foster positive learning environments and are tasked with helping to mold and shape students into strong, successful individuals. Irresponsible and unethical behavior and actions on the part of teachers cast a bad light on the organizations in which they function and on the entire profession; such actions jeopardize the successful operations of schools and the educational outcomes for students. These ethical codes are designed to ensure that teachers understand the ethical parameters in which they function and to ensure that they conduct themselves in an honest and professional manner. Although the CEC and the GAPSC codes are presented in different ways, each set of codes underpins the development and maintenance of learning environments that respect diversity and foster positive behavior on the part of teachers and on the students they teach.

References  

Council for Exceptional Children. (2009). Special Education Professional Ethical Principles and Practice Standards for Special Education Professionals. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Web. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/Standards/Ethical-Principles-and-Practice-Standards.

Georgia Professional Standards Commission. (2009). The Code of Ethics for Educators. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Alliance of Education Agency Heads. Web. Retrieved from http://www.gapsc.com/Rules/Current/Ethics/505-6-.01.pdf.