Troy Hutchings, Ed.D.

Senior Policy Advisor, NASDTEC

The Emerging Playbook: Reexamining Professional Obligations in a Virtual Classroom

Part IV – Protecting Teacher Privacy and Expression

Today’s classrooms do more than house neat rows of desks facing a blackboard. They are sensory rich environments that affirm and inspire while developing a safe and inclusive space – posters, quotations, artwork, banners, and meaningful objects all create a learning and living aesthetic for students and educators alike.

And just as importantly, classroom décor exhibits and champions certain values.

By simply creating and curating the classroom space, teachers become the arbiters of those values and how they are messaged. And this is rarely an issue – after all, embracing the rich diversity that is brought into the building by all schooling participants, including educators, is a good thing.

But what happens when the classroom is reduced to an isolated space on Zoom – when a singular poster now becomes the ever-present backdrop during remote classroom instruction? Or when teachers are relegated to utilizing their personal living spaces as virtual classrooms – livestreaming lessons from the sanctity of their homes when visible expressions of personal values such as religious symbols, controversial books or political posters are the backdrop to instruction?

The virtual classroom creates a visual tunneling – opening the door for accusations that educators may be pushing personal agendas or even indoctrinating children with religious, social or political ideologies.

Consider the Ohio math teacher who recently faced a barrage of public criticism when posters addressing social issues were visible in her remote classroom, or the Texas teacher who was briefly suspended because she personalized her virtual background with several posters – one advocating for inclusivity and another drawing attention to systemic racism.

In Part IV of our blog series focusing on ethical issues related to the virtual classroom, cyber expert Frederick Lane^[i] offers thoughts on risks related to the intersection of teacher privacy and personal expression.

Don’t Zoom So Close to Me: The Ethics of Educator Privacy in a Pandemic

Frederick Lane

 

Even under the best of circumstances, maintaining a reasonable amount of personal privacy has been challenging for educators. Not only is the job of teaching intrinsically public, but it also necessarily involves extensive interaction with impressionable children. No one should be particularly surprised that school boards, administrators, and parents have a keen interest in the deportment and conduct of the person at the head of the classroom.

The Model Code of Ethics for Educators acknowledges the profession’s expectations and makes clear that educators need to “establish and maintain appropriate … boundaries” (Principle III). It used to be more straightforward for educators to “keep personal and professional lives distinct” (V.A.7). In the privacy of one’s home, it is reasonable to assume that one’s lifestyle choices are free from public scrutiny and, therefore, cannot damage one’s professional standing.

We have learned over the last fifteen years or so, of course, that what happens behind closed doors does not necessarily stay behind closed doors. Thanks to the increasingly toxic combination of personal computers, social media networks, and mobile devices, all of us can share our personal lives with the world. When we do so, we implicitly invite the world to judge our behavior.

And then a global pandemic arrived. With thousands of school districts requiring virtual or hybrid remote learning, educators have no choice but to invite students into a corner of their home. Unavoidably, this further blurs the distinction between an educator’s public role and personal space.

By virtually breaching the walls of an educator’s home, remote teaching raises the possibility that educators will accidentally disclose information that they would rather keep private. And unfortunately, the fact that students have a regular window into their teachers’ personal space all too often means that parents are privy to it as well.

Teachers have both a personal interest and an ethical obligation to minimize the scope of the virtual invasion. The two most important steps are to create an appropriate professional background for virtual teaching sessions and dress accordingly. Flip your camera to view your space as others see it, or better yet, do a Zoom call with a friend you can trust to critique what people see behind you.

If possible, remind the other occupants of your house that you are teaching and that their behavior reflects on you. Try to keep distractions and extraneous noises to a minimum. Perhaps most importantly, always assume that your camera is on and act accordingly.

There’s one final point worth considering. When circumstances are forcing educators to share part of their home with students (and their parents), perhaps it might make sense to be more aggressive about protecting your privacy in other areas. It might be a good time to think about how you use social media and the amount of personal information you share with the world.

As Fred pointed out, it was not that long ago that a few basic guidelines went a long way in preventing the blurring of one’s professional and personal expressions.

But remote learning is prompting a reexamination of how to best meet our professional obligations during the virtual classroom era. One example that I have recently discovered is that some districts are now providing teachers and students a common virtual background to use during Zoom sessions – an excellent idea!

If your educational jurisdiction or educator preparation program has created resources or guidelines to protect teachers during the virtual learning era, we invite you to share them with the readers of Ethics and Educators by using the comment boxes below.

In our next blog, and the final in the series The Emerging Playbook: Reexamining Professional Obligations in a Virtual Classroom, Fred and I will be discussing the ethics of technological competence in light of our growing reliance on remote learning tools.

Troy Hutchings, Ed.D

Senior Policy Advisor, NASDTEC

The Emerging Playbook: Reexamining Professional Obligations in a Virtual Classroom 

Part II - The Slippery Slope

As districts contend with the daily challenges associated with virtual learning, they must also consider the ethics of increased teacher and student cyber interactions. This raises an interesting question – will the number of reported cases of educator misconduct either rise or decline in this new era of instruction? There is certainly an argument that can be made for either side.

On one hand, it makes sense that limited face-to-face interactions between educators and students may lead to fewer misconduct cases. However, interactions between educators and students that occur outside the traditional boundaries associated with the physical classroom do pose unique risks.

In Part II of our five-part series on emerging ethical issues, author and attorney Frederick Lane[i] discusses specific cautions for educators as they navigate this new educational terrain.

Remote Learning: The Slippery Slope Gets Steeper

Frederick Lane

 

The coronavirus pandemic is rapidly reshaping K-12 education in the United States and around the world. Even in the hopeful event that scientists develop a vaccine in the not-too-distant future, the pandemic will permanently alter how we teach our children. In one form or another, remote learning is here to stay.

Not long after I first met my friend and colleague Troy Hutchings, I heard him use the phrase “the slippery slope” to describe an educator’s potentially rapid descent from the heights of principled professionalism to the depths of unethical teacher-student interaction. One of the things that became clear as I worked in this area as well is that technology steepens the slope and often accelerates an educator’s luge run straight out the teaching profession.

Before texting, for instance, it might take weeks or months for a teacher to cross a career-ending boundary; in many of the cases I’ve researched, however, teachers have glided across multiple professional borders in a single evening. Digital communication is inherently intimate, the speed of the communication intensifies the emotional impact of late-night conversations, and people who wish to talk privately with each other have an almost endless number of options for doing so.

In an ideal world, teachers and students would reduce their use of digital technologies to communicate. The slippery slope is always there, just a button click away. But unfortunately, the exigencies of our public health crisis require much greater use of digital communication technology than ever before.

In theory, the increased use of remote learning should not increase the risk of educator misconduct. Online classes, after all, are group exercises that offer one of the key measures for reducing the risk of misconduct: transparency. Every student logged into the online class, and every parent or sibling who might be hovering nearby can see and hear the teacher, and observe his or her interactions with the class. It is difficult to imagine a teacher trying to engage in inappropriate conversations under those circumstances.

But two specific concerns heighten the risk of misconduct. The first is that online classes have the potential to reveal more of a student’s personal life than he or she might be comfortable sharing. It implicitly changes the nature of the relationship between the teacher and student, which is challenging enough. But in the worst circumstances, what was previously private information (a student’s resources, family dynamics, etc.) may increase the risk for inappropriate interactions between educators and students.

The second risk is that as the use of digital communication between teachers and students becomes more routine, the potential for inappropriate conversations grows steadily greater. If the majority of instruction is taking place virtually, how much easier is it for a teacher to suggest to a student that they talk privately on an unmonitored communication app? The teacher’s initial motivation may be salutary or at the worst, merely benign. But the intrinsic nature of digital communication raises professional and personal risks for both teachers and students when those conversations are unmonitored and insufficiently transparent.

At any point during an online interaction with a student, an educator should reflect on whether he or she would be comfortable if a colleague was a party to the conversation. The unbelievably rapid growth of distance learning is altering the day-to-day practice of teaching but it does not alter the profession’s underlying ethical precepts.

As always, Fred comments are compelling – giving us the opportunity to engender a larger discussion within our specific educational communities. We invite you, the readers of Ethics and Educators, to engage in the conversation by using the comment boxes below to note additional ethical concerns that may be emerging in your jurisdictions. 

We look forward to our next blog – Fred will be discussing student privacy as we continue to reexamine our professional obligations in a virtual classroom.

[i] Frederick S. Lane is an author, educational consultant, and attorney based in New York. He is the author of ten books, including most recently Cybertraps for Expecting Moms & Dads, Raising Cyberethical Kids, and Cybertraps for Educators 2.0. All of his books are available through Amazon.com or his web sites, FrederickLane.com and Cybertraps.com

Troy Hutchings, Ed.D.

Senior Policy Advisor, NASDTEC

June 25, 2015: Shifting the Narrative

Since the introduction of the Model Code of Ethics for Educators (MCEE) five years ago, I have had the opportunity to see first-hand how it is being used by practitioners, preservice candidates and educator groups across the country. Their enthusiastic implementation of the Code is impressive.

More than anything else, I have been able to witness how the conversations engendered by the MCEE are making a significant difference already in the function and trajectory of our profession.

The Model Code of Ethics for Educators was unveiled at the historic National Press Club in Washington D.C. on June 25, 2015. As we commemorate its five-year anniversary, let’s take a step back and reflect on its origins, as well as its current and future use.

The Beginnings

The discussions that led to the MCEE’s creation started within one organization: National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC). Founded in 1928, NASDTEC represents state and provincial departments of education and professional standards boards that are responsible for the preparation, licensure, and – if necessary – the sanctioning of K-12 certified personnel.

In 1997, NASDTEC established an annual conference devoted solely to the topic of educator ethics, as well as the investigation and adjudication of educator misconduct. Known as the Professional Practices Institute (PPI), the conference is regularly attended by attorneys, investigators, state directors, education preparation providers and district officials. Attendee conversations in the meeting rooms and hallways of the PPI helped fuel the early discussions that eventually led to the development of the MCEE.

Between 2012 and 2014, NASDTEC organized a series of purposeful initiatives – symposiums, surveys, webinars, presentations, meetings with professional organization partners – to affirm the need and assess the support for the development of a professional code of ethics.

In the spring of 2014, professional educational organizations selected a diverse and representative group of P-12 stakeholders from across the country – practicing paraprofessionals, teachers, school administrators, district superintendents and state department of education officials from around the country – to serve on the MCEE Task Force. The group met for the first time in Baltimore, Maryland in June 2014 and began a year-long process of drafting a code of ethics.

After numerous face-to-face and virtual meetings, the MCEE Task Force disseminated a draft edition of the code for public comment in February 2015. Based on the feedback it received, the final draft of the document was unveiled at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. on June 25, 2015.

Limitless Utility

The beauty of the Code – and something that I certainly didn’t anticipate – is that its utility to the education profession does not seem to have limitations. The more I work with practitioners as they engage with the MCEE, the more I realize that it cannot easily be summed up with a quick and easy phrase like “professional norms,” “guide to ethical behavior,” “or statement of values.” Those brief descriptions do not do justice to the full potential of the Code as a tool for educators and the profession.

Consider the middle school English teacher whose choice of literature upset some parents: “Using the MCEE, in conjunction with guidelines from the National Council of Teachers of English, I was able to explain the value of the literary selection to the parents and my principal. But just as importantly, I was able to shift the narrative from what ‘I believe is best’ to ‘as teachers, we believe.’”

Or the high school principal who shared with me that the MCEE now gives him permission to have honest, caring discussions with teachers when they may be approaching a compromising situation: “School administrators don’t always feel comfortable discussing those things with a teacher if a line hasn’t been crossed,” he said.

And when an entire elementary school implemented the MCEE into their daily practice, the changes were unmistakable. “Now we are meeting about the micro-steps prior to an issue occurring,” said one teacher, “and its far deeper than discussing ethical dilemmas – we are discussing the steps that lead to an ethical dilemma.” Another shared that “perhaps the greatest gift of the Code is setting educators on that journey of discussions.” An early childhood teacher proclaimed that “we now feel empowered as professionals.”

Of course, this makes sense.

The interpretability of The Model Code of Ethics for Educators allows for robust professional discussions and targeted applications that are unique to every schooling community.

Moving Forward

Since its introduction, the Model Code of Ethics for Educators has been rapidly adopted by a wide range of educational organizations, including state departments of education, county offices of education, school districts and educator preparation programs. As the promotion and implementation of the MCEE continues, we should ask ourselves this germane question: What impact will professional ethics have on the everyday working lives of educators?

In a series of articles that I wrote for RealClear Politics in 2016, I envisioned a future in which professional ethics was a natural part of the preparation and professional learning of educators – as it is in other professions:

 At first, the changes would be structural – teachers would receive training on professional ethics in preparation programs, have discussions involving ethical issues with mentors as they navigate the early years of their careers, and ideally, continue to get refreshers in the form of professional development in which teams of teachers revisit the principles of professional ethics … and discuss with each other how they apply to their own challenges in the classroom.

All of this would go a long way toward helping individual teachers navigate the complexities of their role and become more aware of the unintended consequences of the thousands of decisions they make on a daily basis. But over time, once the idea of professional ethics has become engrained in the field as a whole – and as important to teaching as content and pedagogy – the impact could be transformative.

Educators would avoid falling into the trap of assuming that misconduct is a discrete event and something that only happens to teachers that lose sight of their personal moral compass. Instead, it would acknowledge the collective risk that all teachers face as a result of the demands of their overlapping roles and the intensely personal relationships they are expected to follow.

In turn, this understanding would give teachers permission to approach each other in candid, professional discussions about uncomfortable subjects. This kind of professional environment would allow teachers to self-regulate as a field. And the collective awareness of professional obligations fostered by this environment would allow many situations to be addressed before damage is done and the teachers’ reputations – and students’ lives – face irrevocable harm.

But that is just the beginning. If these kinds of conversations are brought to light in transparent ways, parents and the community as a whole also could understand the challenges that teachers face … over time, this understanding could lead to a much deeper respect for teachers – and the profession as a whole. Perhaps more than anything, that’s what professional ethics can bring to the field – a rethinking of teaching as a true profession, in the eyes of policymakers, the public, and most importantly, in the eyes of teachers themselves.[1]

Although this work is just beginning, the initiative to empower educators through the development and implementation of a professional code of ethics may have a far greater impact than we could have initially imagined.

And that’s because the concept of professional ethics generally – and the MCEE in particular – places responsibility back in the hands of the practitioner. Perhaps most importantly, the Code is successfully engendering collective conversations which, as the middle school English so artfully articulated: “… shifts the narrative from what ‘I believe is best’ to ‘as teachers, we believe.’”

[1] Hutchings, T. (2016). Professional ethics and professionalizing education, RealClear Politics. October 21, 2016.