Ivan Snook: Watered-down ethics code for teachers is inadequate

The Teachers' Council has released the final version of its proposed code of ethics for teachers to a mixed reception.

Bernie Ogilvie, United Future's education spokesman, described it as a piece of "mumbo jumbo", while John Langley, the former director of the Teachers Registration Board, rued its inadequacy and said "consultation has resulted in the watering down of the code".

On the other hand, Colin Tarr, the president of the NZEI, said he was "delighted with the development of the code". This is a reminder that this final draft was preceded by two others. And that the first draft was subjected to wide consultation and lobbying by teachers through their unions, the NZEI (primary) and the PPTA (secondary).

While Mr Ogilvie's statement seems harsh, it is true that the final code is very bland and, as Dr Langley says, this may be the result of consultation.

Discussions of a code of ethics began under the Teachers Registration Board. In 2002 the Teachers Council, which replaced the board, commissioned three people to write a draft. This was circulated in September 2003.

This first draft acknowledged duties to students, parents and families, society and the profession. Under each heading there were matters which a teacher "will" do and matters which a teacher "will not" do.

Thus, in relation to students, "Teachers will protect students from harassment, bullying and pressure from interest groups" and "teachers will not form or attempt to form sexual or other inappropriate relationships with students".

In relation to parents, "teachers will respect the confidentiality of families and treat all information with appropriate confidentiality" and "teachers will not deceive or attempt to deceive parents/guardians or families regarding the abilities or progress of their children".

This first draft attracted 23 submissions, almost all from teacher groups, principals, universities and colleges of education. There was a surprising absence of submissions from groups outside organised education, or from those representing parents or students.

The Principals Federation and the Secondary Principals Association suggested minor changes but supported the draft. The Qualifications Authority was fully supportive, and the Education Review Office suggested one minor change.

Teachers' groups, on the other hand, were extremely critical. According to the council's summary, "respondents were at their most united in seeking positive, aspirational, inspirational and inclusive language".

Teacher unions argued that "the form of language is punitive and inappropriate for a code of ethics" and they rejected "the prescriptive and negative tone" of the code.

The NZEI said it "would like a code of ethics in a one-page, bulleted format"; the PPTA demanded that all sections beginning "Teachers will not ... " be deleted.

The major structural change in the second draft (February last year) was that all the negatives ("Teachers will not ... ") were eliminated. There is, apparently, nothing that a teacher is forbidden to do, even "form or attempt to form sexual or other inappropriate relationships with students".

In addition to this clause the following had disappeared from the second draft:

* Teachers will not expose students to embarrassment or disparagement.

* Teachers will not punish a student unnecessarily, harshly or unfairly.

* Teachers will not use information gained to disparage any family.

* Teachers will not invade a student's privacy without good cause or disclose to a third party information gained from the professional relationship.

* Teachers will not deceive, or attempt to deceive, parents/guardians or families regarding the abilities or progress of their children.

* Teachers will not accentuate or promote in their teaching the interests of any particular group in society.

While some of the deletions might be defended, the public might well be alarmed that, apparently, teachers objected to being bound by such ethical obligations.

Some of the positive requirements in the first draft had been removed also. Significant among these were:

* Teachers will help students to detect propaganda and other forms of persuasion.

* Teachers will protect students from harassment, bullying and pressure from interest groups.

* Teachers will encourage young people to be respectful of the rights of others, including the exercise of tolerance toward beliefs and values they may not share.

* Teachers will work to raise the standards of teacher selection, education and induction.

* Teachers will co-operate with others in the development of defensible forms of teacher assessment and appraisal.

The final version of the code was released in December, and public discussions on it began last month.

This time, the major structural change is that the positive demands have themselves been softened. Instead of the bald "Teachers will ... " we now have the softer "Teachers will strive to ... " (as if respecting the privacy of families or presenting subject matter in a balanced way are matters that might prove too difficult for a teacher).

Other changes are relatively minor but are not without substance. "Teachers will present subject matters truthfully and impartially" becomes "teachers will strive to present subject matter from an informed and balanced viewpoint". (The PPTA and other submissions had trouble with the word "truth").

Additionally, "Teachers will teach these positive values which are widely accepted in society ... " and "encourage [students] to examine them critically" becomes (more cautiously) "and encourage learners to ... critically appreciate their significance".

This removes the important ethical point that even commonly accepted values such as obedience and loyalty can be wrongly used, as in obedience to a Stalin or loyalty to a corrupt government.

The extent to which a professional code should be vague and aspirational and the extent to which it should be prescriptive and precise can be debated. It is a pity no real discussion took place on this question.

The vast majority of teachers might be happy with an aspirational code, but those who worry about ethical behaviour will see the code as inadequate.

A great opportunity has been missed for teachers to face squarely the task of being a learned profession and for parents to be assured their children are safe.

* Ivan Snook, emeritus professor of education at Massey University, was one of the trio commissioned to produce the first draft of the code.