Weekly Commentary #1

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

In my time at Grand Meadow School, I have seen many exemplary instances of

educators living up to their obligations as laid out in the Code of Ethics for Minnesota Teachers
Standards of Professional conduct. A specific example that comes to mind is the upholding of
the standard to provide educational services in a nondiscriminatory manner. Grand Meadow is
a very small community, and as such, there are many close relationships between staff and
students due to frequent interactions in the community outside of the school setting. It is not
uncommon for a student to literally be a next door neighbor of one of their teachers. It is also
not uncommon to find a teacher having their own child as a student. I know of four such cases
at Grand Meadow.

It would be easy, and in some ways understandable for a teacher to show favoritism to a
student who is a close family friend or one of their own children, but I have seen no instance of
this ever occurring. I have had several conversations with teachers who were in the position of
being their own child’s teacher, and in each case, the teacher was well aware of the dynamic
and made conscious effort to be as impartial as possible and treat their own children in the
same way they would any other student. If anything, the tendency among these educators
would to be harder on their own children than other students so as not to arise any suspicion of
favoritism. This spirit of impartiality extends to the athletic coaches and their children as well. I
have not observed any student feeling as though there is an inappropriate or unfair
environment in their classroom, and I attribute that to the conscious efforts by these teachers
to teach in a nondiscriminatory manner in this regard.

2. Describe a situation where the Ethics of Teaching were potentially violated.

In my time at Grand Meadow, it has been rather easy to find examples of teachers living
up to their ethical obligations, however, finding potential violations are not quite as apparent.
One thing I have noticed is that there are tendencies among some teachers to skirt close to
violating the code that states that teachers shall not make false or malicious statements about
students or colleagues. I say skirting close to this violation because the word “malicious” implies
intent to do harm, and I do not think any of these teachers intend to do harm whatsoever. That
said, teachers do talk about their students and vent their frustrations and commiserate with
colleagues, and sometimes inaccurate or overstated negative impressions of students can be
spread.
 I have been told on a couple of occasions to “watch out for student x” because he or she
doesn’t put forth any effort or doesn’t care or may be a disciplinary problem. I do not think
teachers intend to do any harm by making these statements, but nevertheless such
commentary does potentially have the effect of prejudicing a new teacher’s opinion about a
student before they have even interacted with them. Nobody wants to be pigeonholed and
past behavior is not always a predictor of future behavior. Students are in various states of
physical, mental, and emotional maturation and what may have been true one year, or in one
particular circumstance, will not necessarily be the case in another.

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

The first case of teacher/parents providing educational services in a nondiscriminatory

manner has shown me that teachers need to be aware of how their outward actions set the
tone for the classroom environment. Students are keen to pick up on unequal treatment among
their peers and are often searching for instances of ethical inconsistency and hypocrisy from
teachers. It is up to the teacher to not only avoid discriminating against students in their
thoughts, but to do everything in their power to ensure they are not projecting any visible signs
of things that could be construed as discriminatory behavior. This requires a conscious effort to
think about how we present ourselves, how we grade, enforce rules, and how we speak about
sensitive content. This same principle would not only apply to teachers with close personal
relationships with certain students, but any instance of potential discrimination, be it
socioeconomic, racial, cultural or otherwise.

The second case of potentially making false or malicious statements about students or
colleagues has shown me that it is very easy for people to get caught up in teacher lounge
gossip and that self-censorship is not always a bad thing. Just because one teacher may have
had a negative experience with a certain student, does not mean that in a different
environment with a different teacher and/or content area that that student will demonstrate
similar behavior. I have personally had positive relationships with students that I had previously
been warned about. I believe that teachers do not necessarily have bad intent when they vent
frustrations about students to their colleagues. It can be very helpful to mutually discuss
strategies and share experiences to most effectively reach students that can be a challenge.
We should however, try to use the utmost decorum when speaking about difficult students and
recognize that there are many causes for a student to act out or disengage, and to not take
things personally.