Troy Hutchings, Ed.D.

Senior Policy Advisor, NASDTEC

Abolishing the Discomfort

Amid our country’s most recent racial reckoning, let’s not forget that schools have historically been – and will no doubt continue to be – a legal battleground for society’s struggle with racism, equity and equality.

The systemic challenges that our educational system faces are profound. But let’s be perfectly clear – it is the individual educator who has the greatest potential to be the arbiter of change and the engine of social progress.

Regardless of the community or grade level, educators will be navigating difficult and potentially polarizing conversations when school resumes this fall – with colleagues, parents, students – related to race relations, power structures in society, the appropriate methods of confronting and challenging societal inequity, and how best to discuss deeply controversial current events.

As we consider how to shape these conversations, we need to honestly and thoroughly examine the impediments that may constrain appropriate action.

This past week, one high school educator in Maryland did precisely that. In an article entitled My Failures as a White Teacher Confronting Racism in the Classroom, teacher Dylan Craig courageously examines why he, and I dare say many of us, have faltered or stood silent when faced with subtle or even blatant displays of racism.

According to Craig, it is not enough to act on discriminatory comments made by students in the hallways and classrooms by applying rote disciplinary actions and demanding half-hearted apologies:

I faltered, not because I felt the discussion was over, or because I felt they had learned something. I stopped because I was uncomfortable. I questioned whether it is my place to discuss false meritocracies. I falter when students frame discussions of human rights as arguments between liberal versus conservative viewpoints, and I fear being accused of indoctrinating students. I falter as I see my students fall back on their personal political views of individualism. School is meant to be a place to allow students to think for themselves and develop their own views — but what views are they developing if those views are based on a false narrative that I am too uncomfortable to address?[1]

Dylan Craig’s experiences are not unique. His honest reflection speaks for educators across the country and exposes what I think is a harsh reality – when faced with deeply disconcerting issues, we may falter because we are uncomfortable acting in isolation.

By identifying our collective professional values and obligations, we strengthen our resolve in countering dangerous and damaging narratives when working with students, colleagues, and other members of the schooling community. Codes of ethics contain the norms that affirm and empower collective professional action. The conversations they engender help to shatter the professional isolation that lead us to question purpose and role – the very competing tensions contained within Mr. Craig’s reflective writing.

Here is the beauty of a broadly agreed-upon code – it unequivocally states what we believe and the standards to which we aspire. Practitioners stand united in their convictions regardless of the turbulent currents in public discourse.

There is a reason why equity and equality are prominent themes in the Model Code of Ethics for Educators – quite simply, they are each central to the mission of professional educators. The Code recognizes and enshrines the fundamental obligation of all educators to acknowledge and deconstruct the barriers to opportunity faced by any student – regardless of whether those barriers are brazenly explicit or insidiously implicit. Eleven MCEE standards, articulated in all five of the Principles, are devoted to the professional responsibilities of equity, equality, and anti-discrimination.

But those MCEE standards go beyond merely stating professional values – they express an ethical standard of purposeful movement. Rooted in action phrases, they refute complacency or neutrality.

Our responsibility to the profession entails not just holding oneself accountable to the ethical standards, but also our colleagues and the broader school community. As uncomfortable as professional accountability may be – it needs to be done. In just the two weeks since the death of George Floyd, news outlets have reported that a public school superintendent, as well as several teachers and coaches, have been fired or resigned due to insensitive, tone deaf, or racist social media posts.

We can do better.

Let’s be emboldened by our stated collective professional norms and obligations as articulated in the Model Code of Ethics for Educators, allow ourselves to have the difficult conversations – and in the process, abolish the discomfort that is often rooted in professional isolationism.

[1] Craig, D. (June 5, 2020). My Failures as a White Teacher Confronting Racism in the Classroom. Maryland Matters. https://www.marylandmatters.org/2020/06/05/opinion-my-failures-as-a-white-teacher-confronting-racism-in-the-classroom/

Troy Hutchings, Ed.D.

Senior Policy Advisor, NASDTEC

Professional Ethics: Its All About the "We"

During her opening remarks at this year’s Professional Practices Institute, the current NASDTEC President shared a line from a series of well-known commercials to illustrate the collective knowledge held by the conference attendees:

“We know a thing or two, because we've seen a thing or two.” 

The tagline communicates experience, a resulting professional wisdom, and perhaps most critically, it infers trust.

I couldn’t help but consider how that slogan embodies the kind of agency that professional ethics strives to achieve. At its very core, professional ethics makes a promise: “You can trust us – we are acting in the public’s best interest.”

But what assurance does the public have that we are acting in its best interest? After all, this is a profession that values and even relishes professional autonomy – which works well with teaching methodologies and classroom protocol, but it may not necessarily inspire public confidence when serious situations occur.

Social psychologist Albert Bandura, provides insight through a concept he calls “collective agency … people’s shared belief in their collective power to produce desired results.”[1] In other words, practitioners working together to navigate the complexities of a profession that has multiple duties, overlapping obligations, and a staggering amount of high-stakes responsibilities.

Collective agency has the potential to tap into the shared wisdom of educators – their experiences, their preparation, their knowledge, and when used with the Model Code of Ethics for Educators, the profession’s collective values.

But most importantly, there is an exciting and dynamic synergy involved when colleagues work together in response to emerging situations and issues. It connects us to each other as educators, and as professionals – regardless of the grade levels or subject areas that we teach.

I have witnessed literally hundreds of educator groups working together to resolve ethical dilemmas – in schools as well as workshop and research settings – where collective agency is occurring in a vibrant manner. Practitioners discussing together the competing tensions, possible risks and consequences of complex situations that may be unique to their learning community. Laughter and stories always emerge – resulting in a shared honesty and transparency. And by using a common set of standards – the Model Code of Ethics for Educators – they have a guide in working towards a common solution:

• Third grade teachers in a suburban elementary school created a professional response to parents who were insisting that teachers utilize personal social media platforms for communication purposes.

• Coaches at a small rural high school realized that they were all facing the same dilemma – the one student who has no way to get home late at night after an athletic event. Together, they created a solution that didn’t involve placing students in their personal vehicles – yet ensured student safety.

• High school educators who were implementing SEL strategies into their classrooms were concerned about how to cultivate caring relationships in a safe manner. They created agreed-upon boundaries – which actually enhanced the teacher-student relationship, while at the same time ensuring professional integrity.

Professional ethics speaks with one voice. It relies on the shared wisdom and experiences of practitioners when responding to the unique variables present in each situation. It removes decision-making from the wheelhouse of an individualized personal morality and places it in the hands of a collective and unified profession.

By exercising collective agency, there will rarely be accusations related to conflict-of-interest, self-serving decisions, or immunity from the common good. Quite simply, it inspires public confidence.

In a profession that routinely considers decision-making as an individual and isolated endeavor, let’s recognize the efficacy of collective agency.

It’s all about the “we.”

“WE know a thing or two, because WE’VE seen a thing or two.”   

[1] Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75-78.

Troy Hutchings, Ed.D.

Senior Policy Advisor, NASDTEC

You Went to College - Just Teach!

I was terrified – it was my first teaching job, and I only had two weeks to prepare.

Teaching middle school students isn’t what terrified me. But starting my career in the early 80’s meant the only curricular road map was a textbook. And that was severely outdated.

No state standards. No internet. Inadequate texts.

I sheepishly entered the principal’s office and asked, “What content should 8^th graders be learning in their English classes – what should I be teaching?”

“You went to college – just teach,” she replied with a smile.

It was probably the only answer she could give – an honest confession exposing a gap that was present in our profession.

State teaching and learning standards, as we know them today, simply didn’t exist in the late 70's and early 80's. Words and phrases that we now take for granted – benchmarks, competencies, direct instructional lesson planning, instructional scaffolding, learning objectives, cross-walking standards to curriculum – were not a part of our professional lexicon. 

For those of us at the middle and high school levels, to “just teach” meant that we frequently went a bit rogue. We often found ourselves in curricular and pedagogical silos. What was being taught varied greatly between teachers. And most importantly, there were extreme differences between what students might be learning – even within the same course, school, district and state.

So much of what I chose to teach in the pre-standards era was based on my own values, experiences and preferences. And I was not unique. As crazy and chaotic as that sounds now, it was often the norm.

So, what does any of this have to do with professional ethics?

I am finding striking similarities in the discussions I have with educators about the field of ethics. Without common professional ethics standards, practitioners are left on their own with only their personal values and experiences as a guide – which means a high degree of isolation and variance between educators in determining appropriate courses-of-action when interacting with students, parents and other stakeholders.

Today, it would be unconscionable to ignore district, state and national standards when curriculum mapping. Yet, we are one of the few fiduciary professions that has not had ethics standards with which to align to our daily decision-making – and we can’t disregard the fact that we are in a high-risk profession where seemingly insignificant decisions can cause irreparable damage.

The education profession has made great strides since I first started teaching. Teacher candidates today know what needs to be taught because content standards are now part of the DNA of our profession. Lesson plans, objectives, unit plans – they are all linked to collectively agreed-upon standards.

And now it’s time to do the same with standards in professional ethics. Since 2015, the Model Code of Ethics for Educators (MCEE) has been available as a mechanism to bridge that gap – allowing educators to collectively determine responses to the complexities of their practice in a way that aligns to the values of the profession.

But let’s be perfectly clear about this set of professional standards.

The Model Code of Ethics for Educators is not meant to be used for evaluation or assessment. It is not a set of rules. It is not about right or wrong. It does not tell us what to do, or even what not to do. It is not meant to bind or constrain educators.

Quite simply, it is an invitation.

Professional ethics invites practitioners to collectively determine how to best navigate the intense demands of the overlapping roles and personal relationships they are expected to foster by using the MCEE standards as a guide. Key concepts that are present in all professional codes – transparency, risks, unintended consequences, implications, equity, appearance of impropriety, communication, conflict of interest, confidentiality, multiple relationships, role ambiguity – are at the core of the standards contained within the MCEE.

Other professions – law, counseling, medicine, finance, psychology – all have a long history of integrating their codes of ethics and ethics standards into their professional frameworks.

It is as foundational to their practitioners as content standards are to educators.

It is time we do the same.