Looking at the Code of Professional Practice

~ Helen Lovejoy, The Simpsons

For those who may be unfamiliar with the Manitoba Teachers’ Society Code of Professional Practice, it can be read here: http://www.mbteach.org/inside-mts/professionalcode.html.

On reading through the Code, a few of the articles struck me as especially important, and in harmony with my own beliefs about teaching. These are:

• #1 A teacher’s first professional responsibility is to her or his students.

• #4 A teacher speaks and acts with respect and dignity, and deals judiciously with others, always mindful of their rights.

• #10 A teacher makes an ongoing effort to improve professionally.

These sections of the Code speak to me as a teacher who takes the profession seriously and considers the students to be as valuable as any other person on the educational spectrum. I view this document as serving several purposes. In part, it protects the rights of teachers. In part, it protects the students. And finally, it protects the Union.

I know that protecting the Union is part of a union’s raison d’etre. I was a labour activist for many years, and understand the purpose of all of this. To me, these sections are functional, but not really discussion-inspiring.

I also know - although I find it somehow unsettling that it was necessary to dictate this so specifically -  how important it is to have a respectful work environment, and deal with things through the proper channels. Admittedly, the specificity of these areas of the Code took me aback somewhat - there seems an almost conspiratorial flavour to this. But that's another story.

In the end, I would really like to think that the Code is ultimately there to protect and serve the student body. Children in our society at large have so little power – it is their rights which need to be guarded.

Having said that, there are a couple of other sections of the Code that I’d like to take a look at. There was a discussion in class surrounding Article 5, which deals with maintaining confidentiality. Specifically, the question was being tossed around, “Is it appropriate to talk about the students with other teachers in the staff room?” The answer, as one might anticipate, was not a cut-and-dried yes or no. Certainly, consulting about a student is fine … badmouthing or otherwise maliciously conversing is not. No shocker there.

I had to think on that for a few minutes. I have run into this situation before as an EA, and I can say that it made me extremely uncomfortable. In fact, it was this issue, which I viewed as a “poisoned work environment,” to use union lingo, that made me request no placements at that particular school. I fear that if the staff room talk is of that nature, it may signify several things. Obviously, the active participants are jaded, and should perhaps consider a different career, or at least a break from this one. But even the remaining staff members – what does this tell us about them? If the negative talk is so entrenched in their daily life, are they becoming desensitized to it? If it was a different sort of inappropriate talk – say someone using racist language, or inappropriate sexual references – I feel confident that people in that room would have objected. Yet, to sit silent in the wake of this barrage of negativity directed toward one or two students – I fear that it means it’s just not that troubling to them. I am grateful that there is language in the Code addressing this issue (indeed, this falls under at least three of the articles), but simply having those protections in the Code is not enough. As teachers, it is important to uphold the Code, particularly when someone stands to be hurt by the actions taken.

Now, I know that I have already said Article 10 is one of the ones which really stands out for me. Allow me to backtrack, and offer more on that subject. This section refers to a teacher’s responsibility to continue to improve professionally. As a student in the after-degree program, I am disappointed that there aren’t more opportunities to take elective courses. There are several that I’d love to take, yet no time in which to do it. So, I take as many Professional Development offerings as I can, and look forward to the PD opportunities in the workplace.

But I am concerned about the level of enthusiasm that some teachers seem to be displaying. I noticed that, when I signed up late for SAGE, several of the more desirable courses were full. And don’t get me wrong – that morning, there were hundreds of teachers lined up to get into their PD sessions. But alarmingly, there were a lot of half-empty classrooms. I was disconcerted to see this – my initial thought, admittedly, was that I’d have liked a spot in some of those classrooms – but promptly after, I started thinking about the implications. Where were those teachers? Not at their PD sessions. Was this a common practice? It alarms me when teachers aren’t enthusiastic about the PD offerings. I completely understand that if they are veteran teachers, many of those PDs will be ones they’ve taken already. But still – aren’t there new PDs offered every year? Or mightn’t you want a refresher if it’s been fifteen years since you took something?  Knowing that this is not just an issue of ethics, but is actually an requirement in the Code, I would really like to see this issue addressed. Mostly, I would like to somehow instill the missing enthusiasm back into those teachers, and see them really benefit from fresh information.

I guess once I have my magical enthusiasm-instilling machine, I can do that. In the mean time, I will continue to focus where I believe a teacher’s primary focus should be: on her students.