Troy Hutchings, Ed.D.
Senior Policy Advisor, NASDTEC

"All" Means All - It Really is that Simple

The school administrator was visibly frustrated.

“I’m afraid our school board may not adopt the Model Code of Ethics for Educators because of the second half of a singular sentence,” he said during a recent workshop on educator ethics. “They would fully embrace the MCEE if Standard III.B.2 ended after the clause, ‘Respecting the dignity, worth and uniqueness of each individual student’. But it doesn’t,” he said.

Sadly, he may very well be right. The phrase “each individual student” is certainly conventional – an expected clause within any schooling document. After all, it reinforces the democratic ideal that an equal and equitable education is available to all students.

Until, of course, it is not.

And that is why it is so important for Standard III.B.2 to be read in its entirety – it explicitly identifies unique student characteristics which, in some cases, have resulted in marginalization:

Respecting the dignity, worth and uniqueness of each individual student including, but not limited to, actual and perceived gender, gender expression, gender identity, sexual orientation, civil status, family status, religion, age, disability, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic context and culture (MCEE III.B.2).

Unequivocally and with a moral clarity, Standard III.B.2 provides a not-so-gentle reminder that “each individual student” means all students.

For some, that may be a bridge too far.

Imposing personal values and beliefs into our work – at the expense of professional norms – is dangerous territory. This becomes especially troublesome when the “dignity, worth, and uniqueness of each individual student” becomes politicized.

And that’s precisely why professional norms, such as the Model Code of Ethics for Educators, are so important.

The Model Code of Ethics for Educators utilizes the word “students” 33 times without any delineation – meaning every single individual student. The Code then specifically utilizes the phrase “all students” five times to be perfectly clear on issues where there should be no ambiguity:

• Equitable educational opportunities for all students (II.A.3),
• Acts in the best interest of all students (II.C.),
• Respects the rights and dignity of all students (III.A),
• Promotes the emotional, intellectual, physical and sexual safety of all students (III.B.3), and
• Advocating for equal access to technology for all students (V.D.1).

And then, of course, the MCEE goes one step further in Standard III.B.2 – ensuring there is absolutely no question or equivocation that “all” does indeed mean all.          

Among professional educators, there should be no debate about our ethical duty to every student in our school community. Precedent-setting court cases and legislative action have clarified, and continue to clarify, the notion that “all students” means all students: 

• Gender Expression and Identity? Consider brushing up on Whitaker v. Kenosha (2017), Glouster v. Grimm (2018), Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) and the expansion of Title IX (2014) to include gender expression and Identity.

• Students with Disabilities? Google the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) and the subsequent laws that are part of the authorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA).

• Children of Immigrants? Take some time and read Plyler v. Doe (1982). The Supreme Court declared that all young people, regardless of documentation status, have a right to public education.

• Gender? Don’t forget the oft-discussed Title IX (1972) which protects students from gender discrimination.

• Race, Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Considerations? Trace the judicial activity stemming from the 1954 landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

• Equal Protection? Let’s not forget the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment (1868) guaranteeing equal protection under the law – which of course, includes students.

And there are so many more.

If judicial and legislative activity has settled the issue – that “all” does indeed mean all – then why does the Model Code of Ethics for Educators repeatedly emphasize the importance of the “all”?

Societal acceptance of the concepts of full inclusion and equitable treatment has been, and continues to be, a protracted struggle – often unfolding in a public and agitated manner.

Just ask the school administrator from the educator ethics workshop who clearly understood the political realities triggered by the specificity of language contained within Standard III.B.2 of the education profession’s code of ethics.

Recently, I read an article which illustrates the importance of extending unconditional professional care to all students and their families:

When district superintendent Janice Adams was approached by a mother asking for support for her kindergarten child who was born male but had identified as a girl, Adams wrote: “… while I hadn’t dealt with a situation like this before, I believed every child had the right to feel safe, welcomed and valued, and I would work with the family to make sure we supported her child. I never had a political agenda; my agenda was to support our students. I worked to be an advocate, not an activist. If your experience is anything like my own, you will be in unfamiliar — perhaps even uncomfortable — territory. It is important, however, that your own personal uncertainties do not interfere with your ability to do the right thing to protect the safety and well-being of these vulnerable children.”[1]

Superintendent Adams’ narrative directly echoes the words encapsulated in the previously mentioned MCEE standards.[2] But just as importantly, she didn’t hesitate to do the “right thing” – unflinching in her care – irrespective of the situation and the uniqueness of students.

Our role as professional educators – regardless of the political realities and personal uncertainties – requires us to remain steadfast to the calling that propels our life’s work.  While decisions about the adoption of the Model Code of Ethics for Educators are often made at levels where politics is a factor, educators have an ethical obligation to all students irrespective of the Code’s formal adoption. The MCEE does not create ethical duties for educators – instead, it organizes and ratifies ethical standards that are innate to the teaching profession.

For the sake of all students.

[1] Orr A, Baum J, Brown J, et al.: Schools in transition: A guide for supporting transgender students in K-12 schools. National Center for Lesbian Rights, Gender Spectrum, HRC Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Education Association, 2015.

[2] MCEE Standards II.A.3, II.C., III.A., III.B.2, III.B.3