Ethics Codes ... It's a concept, it's a law, it's a bird, it's a plane, it's ... Not that Important

Alabama doesn't know what do to with its teacher Code of Ethics. The Legislature doesn't like it, nor does the Unions. The State Board of Education created it and the Governor likes it, and thus today he vetoed a Legislative effort to block the Code of Ethics from entering regulation. 

These Ethics Codes for Educators are peculiar entities. Sometimes they are law, and sometimes they are not. Most states have a code of ethics in some form, but not all states choose to put them into regulation. If they are put in regulation, then they are law, meaning the contents are not really ethics anymore, they are mandates. 

In other fields, such as law and medicine, there is a greater distance between regulation and the ethical standards. The AMA produces the Code of Medical Ethics and the ABA produces the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Some of this is replicated in state law, but not all of it. Of course, in education there is no AMA/ABA equivalent, so this kind of stuff gets promulgated by state entities instead. I would address business ethics, but then we all know that didn't work out so well. 

So, the question is how much does it matter legally who created the Ethics Code or where it sits? And, I think my answer is not all that much. Let me explain ...

First off, ethics codes tend to be very vague. In fact, that's the Alabama Education Association's chief criticism. But, vague language in law is frequent ... and frequently ignored. It can have negative implications, but they are usually sporadic. 

Second, read the Alabama Educator Code of Ethics - 90 percent of the things they say are wrong are already illegal anyway. So ... what's new?

Third, correspondingly, in my experience these Ethics Codes only really have teeth in extreme circumstances. As in, you lose your job anyway, and you lose your license. In situations where a regulating body is going to seriously consider revoking your license, the person has already probably screwed up their life substantially, including frequently criminal behavior. Knowing the kinds of cases that our local educator regulatory body prosecutes every year, they are usually only in unquestionably inappropriate circumstances that they take any real disciplinary action. Thus, whether the Ethics Code is in regulation or in policy or in guidance documents, it doesn't really matter all that much. 

Fourth, all of this is somewhat irrelevant anyway. These Ethics Codes are enacted as if they are Superman, come to solve all our ills. But, let's face it. A dumb teacher is a dumb teacher, whether or not there is an ethics code that tells them not to be dumb. Dumb teachers (those likely to do something highly unethical) are not going to read or worry about the Ethics Code anyway and smart teachers (those that do live their life ethically) didn't need it in the first place. Their greatest functions are ideological and CYA oriented. That Professional Standards Boards or Education Departments can SAY they have an ethics code is far more important than the likely impact on teacher behavior of handing out a pamphlet to pre-service teachers. 

So, I don't get all the hubbub over these Ethics Codes. Teachers, on the whole, are an extremely ethical group anyway (I've never heard of an educator ponzi scheme, for instance). So, I think it is a bit of a waste of political effort, especially right now in the face of Alabama's persistent mid-year budget cuts. I know we have to fight over something, but it really does seem unethical to fight over and Ethics Code, doesn't it? 

Comments

[Scott McLeod]

Educator Ponzi schemes... ;)

http://bit.ly/bTHk6T and http://bit.ly/9cQlUh

[annon.]

"Thus, whether the Ethics Code is in regulation or in policy or in guidance documents, it doesn't really matter all that much."

The Kentucky Teacher Code of ethics is referenced in statute as a basis for insubordination. KRS 161.790(1)(a). The Ky. EPSB regulation arguably cuts a wider swath than prohibited "coduct unbecoming a teacher" or "immorality" (e.g an outright ban on teacher sex with students, even if the student is an adult). As for your statement that such a code "doesn't really matter all that much", tell that to the teacher involved in the case no 2008-CA-000813 (accessible by searching the Kentucky Supreme Court or Kentucky Court of Appeals website).

[Justin B.]

@annon. - It's a good point, but I actually disagree about the wider swath. Immorality seems far wider to me and clearly in the case you reference (sleeping with a student) immorality would work just fine.

I think the case you cite really makes the point for me, and I'll explain why I think that. First, this teacher's license is revoked whether or not the "Ethics Code" exists (the "Ethics Code" being only that material in 16 KAR 1:020). 161.020(b) clearly would have carried the day on it's own here, and really, I think 161.020 would carry the day in most if not all circumstances. Section (m) and the regulation really do not take it any further than the statute already went. Thus, I feel that Section (m) is a little superfluous - especially when you consider that we typically don't revoke licenses except in fairly extreme circumstances, i.e. circumstances that clearly are already going to qualify under other provisions of 161.020. See what I am saying? And, I think most states function similarly. Even a state that didn't have a statute like 161.020 and only had what is now subsection (m), would still function similarly because the professional standards board would be forced to adopt regulations anyway, thus the issue of whether the Ethics Code was in regulation or not would not matter because there would still be some regulation governing teacher license revocation already in place.

Anyway, that's sort of what I see happening. Feel free to disagree if you see the Ethics Code taking us to places that we were not at already anyway.