1/19/17

Commentary 2: Reflections on Minnesota Code of Ethics for Teachers

1) Describe a situation where the Ethics of Teaching were clearly upheld.

2) Conversely, describe a situation where the Ethics of Teaching were potentially

violated.

3) How have these situations influenced your view on the profession?

It has been both my observation of my colleagues and my own experience that,

especially during this turbid election cycle, we have all endeavored to abide by
Minnesota Code of Ethics section G: A teacher shall not deliberately suppress or
distort subject matter. Being in a position of relative power and authority it is easy
to get caught up in your own opinions and lead students to follow your views. As a
teacher, my job is exactly the opposite; rather than tell the students to think as I do,
I need to lead them to form their own views based on information that theyve
gathered. I, of course, can provided them with contradicting opinions and explain
the thinking process that led me to my own understanding.

It is a difficult thing to listen to a conversation between two teenagers that

expresses values that are in opposition to ones own. Its even more difficult to
maintain a cool, unemotional state and engage their thinking process without being
judgmental or demeaning. I am aware that had I entered the teaching profession at
age 23 rather than 34, I would have struggled to the point of incompetence at
keeping my views as mere suggestions rather than angrily foisting them upon
unsuspecting teenagers.

Finding situations where the Ethics of Teaching were potentially violated is a more
difficult task than identifying situations where they were upheld. After a good deal
of soul-searching, I feel I can speak honestly regarding Minnesota Code of Ethics
section A: A teacher shall provide professional education services in a non-
discriminatory manner.

Its easy to disregard, dismiss, or even lack awareness of ones own biases. I am
well intentioned in providing professional education services to all my students
equally, but intention is not action. With respect to students who receive SPED
services, I have found myself impatient, even recalcitrant with the extra demands
that are put on my time. I dont like modifying assignments or trying to remember
who can sit where or who needs copies of notes. I dont like having to send out
extra emails or providing copy after copy of missing work lists because someones
behaviors/difficulty/disability makes them incapable of putting a worksheet in a
folder. I dont like having to keep in the back of my mind that if so-and-so doesnt
get such-and-such grade I may be out of compliance with state laws that Im not
aware of.
My bias against certain group of students puts me in a precarious position. Am I
providing professional education services to these students? Am I doing so in a
non-discriminatory manner? If I have a bad attitude about it does that count as
non-discriminatory? If I just give up and provide all students with the perks that
the SPED students receive am I then not providing professional education services
to the mainstream students because Ive dumbed things down?

I dont know how I would describe how these situations have influenced my view of
the profession as a whole. Having put concrete examples on paper does create a
better awareness of myself and my representation of this profession. Overall the
profession is large and encompasses so many regions and individuals that speaking
to the profession of education as a whole would seem incredibly vague. In general
the standard of ethics should weed out those individuals who are unsuited to work
in the profession or should dissuade them to begin with, but realistically that isnt
always the case. I am fortunate to work with a group of people who dont need an
external statement of expectations to govern their behavior in the profession.
Additionally, this group of personally moral people has a peer pressure effect on
newcomers to our district to uphold the ethics to which we adhere.