In defending a conception of education as growth,
both at the level of the learner AND the educator, and in arguing that
faculty members in post-secondary education must acknowledge their dual
sets of professional responsibilities as both scholars and educators, it
becomes necessary to outline the structure of the student/teacher
relationship. If we are to understand professors as members of the
profession of education, we must develop an adequate account of the
relationships which obtain within the educational context in the effort
to generate the fundamental professional obligations they incur.
It is important to note that the
various models of the teacher/student relationship identified in this
chapter is neither meant to be an exhaustive account, nor is it meant to
be a directly normative account of the way people ought to teach. This
chapter is meant primarily to describe the various ways in which
post-secondary educators identify themselves as teachers, and to
highlight some of the potential problems with these sorts of models. In
Chapter IV, we will deal with the prescriptive implications of these
models, developing a starting point by which to assign professional and
moral responsibilities to faculty members.
Regardless of whether or not
college professors conceive of themselves as professional educators,
nearly all understand that they have certain fundamental moral
obligations to their students, and that these obligations rise out of
the unique structure of the student/teacher relationship in higher
education.
So how do post-secondary educators
view their relationship with their students, and how does this view
affect their understanding of their professional responsibilities as
teachers? There are a numerous models of the teacher-student
relationship in contemporary education, and as we shall see in the
following pages, these models are not exclusive of one another in every
case, nor are they specific to any particular level or education or type
of institution. From kindergarten teachers to dissertation directors,
there is a broad spectrum of roles and responsibilities assumed by
educators. Any viable concept of the teacher/student relationship must
account for the significant variations throughout education. These
variations include (but are not limited to)
Given the wide diversity of roles
and responsibilities assumed by professional educators, it is of little
surprise that each teacher must determine for themselves the exact
nature of their relationships with their students. Different teachers
have different students, different styles of teaching, and differing
self-concepts of their roles as educators. While these conceptions of
the relationship between student and learner might not be explicitly
stated, it will nevertheless hold important implications for interaction
both in and out of the classroom. Also significant are the assumptions
regarding moral correctness and pedagogical responsibilities that are
connected with these various conceptions of the student/teacher
relation. Few teachers make explicit their ethical principles and
conceptions of virtue, but in relating to students in specific ways,
these values and virtues become actualized within the context of the
pedagogical relationship.
In examining how moral questions
are dealt with by educators, it is instructive to consider the self
concept or the model of the relationship of the educator to the
recipient of instruction held by educators and how those basic modal
concepts factor into the deliberative process. This is so because the
members of the profession carry with them a model or basic idea of how
it is that they relate to those whom they serve. Stated simply, all
faculty are aware of the type of teacher they want to be, and strive,
consciously or not, to achieve that ideal. Whether a faculty member has
learned from extensive pedagogical research what type of teacher they
want to be, or (more likely) have drawn their pedagogical ideals from
their own educational experiences, this pedagogical “template” functions
to structure much of their pedagogical practice. Now, since the
educators themselves exert control over the educational process, the
nature of the relationship of the educator to the recipient of
instruction will serve as the focus here. With some modification, some
of the basic models discussed below are also evidenced in many (but not
all) other professions.
Educational Practice and the
Ontology of Student /Teacher Relations
Practitioners of education operate
within a set of interpersonal relationships which differ significantly
from the relationships seen in the business, service, and retail sectors
of society. At times, the unique nature of the teacher/student
relationships can cause a strain or present a dilemma for the educator.
Consider that on the one hand
educators have a relationship with the recipients of education, called
“students” and on the other hand educators have a relationship with all
other educators, whom they call “colleagues.” Educators also maintain
significant relationships with the families of students, with
administrators, and, given the social expectations placed on the
profession, with society as a whole. It is this complex constellation of
inter-personal relationships that generates the ethical responsibilities
of all educators.
Navigating the ethics of education
means recognizing the often-conflicting demands placed upon educators by
all of the individuals involved in or affected by the profession. For
example, there will be times that a teacher feels torn between a sense
of loyalty towards and responsibility for professional colleagues, and a
sense of obligation towards the well being of the recipients of
education. This interplay of individual, institutional, and collective
responsibilities (which will be discussed at length in the next chapter)
is the source of significant ethical conflict for the educator.
The ways in which an individual
instructor attempt to resolve these ethical conflicts often has more to
do with the more general conception the teacher has of what a teacher
is, the role of the teacher, and the nature of the relationship with
the student rather than an explicitly held set of ethical principles.
Both educators and students may be willing participants in holding to
these conceptions of the responsibilities of educators and model
dynamics which they might adopt. Therefore it is inappropriate to simply
apportion the origin or responsibility for these models with the
educators themselves when the expectations assumed by the profession are
generated within this complex web of interpersonal interactions.
Some Basic Self-Conceptions
of Professional Educators:
What follows is an attempt to
identify the various ways in which the individual educator might
conceive of their relationship with their students, and the means by
which they might best fulfill their professional obligations. We use the
term “professional educator” to distinguish between the duties of
teachers and the larger obligations of all members of a democratic
society to educate those around them. As parents, co-workers, community
members, friends, activists, and citizens, each person in a democratic
society has a responsibility to inform and educate the people around
them. And while everyone in society has a duty to educate, professional
educators take education as their primary professional duty. It is also
important to note that very few educators fit neatly into the categories
we delineate. These models described below are "ideal types" and
operate in the realm of conceptual forms. In the classroom, educators
typically appear to act as if they have adopted some or all of
the components of one or more of these various models of the student/teacher
relationship. However, as our colleagues will note, very few
individuals fit exactly into any group operating with any one of these basic models, and in this sense, the
following list is more a heuristic device than an attempt to categorize
teaching styles.
"Confession must be made that
talk of these models as being actually instantiated in the basic
thought patterns of individuals may be a bit condescending, but it
needs to be admitted that in the teacher-learner relationship there is
something like these models involved in education."-Jay Mullin, QCC,
CUNY
Nevertheless, elements of these
basic models can be seen to obtain within the context of student teacher
relationships.
1. Paternalistic
(Authoritarian)
Some educators consider themselves
to have responsibility for the well being of those who come to them for
assistance. They think of themselves as a parent would think in relation
to their children. The term “paternalism,” derived from the Latin
pater (father) literally means treating someone in a “fatherly” way.
Traditionally, this entails providing for a person’s basic needs without
giving them autonomous, decision-making authority. The professional
practitioner of education assuming the role of a parent will make
decisions for the child (student), determine what information will be
provided, and provide only as much information as the parent thinks best
for the student. The educator might even act in ways to influence or
coerce the decisions or actions of those considered to be that
educator's “child.” At bottom, pedagogical paternalism is the tendency
of educators to act in what they perceive as the best interest of the
student, regardless of what the student actually perceives as his her
own best interests. This attitude often results in a teacher acting in a
most authoritarian manner, even though the educator believes he or she
is acting in the best interests of the student.
Important in the understanding of
paternalistic models of education is that the profession of education,
as rooted in the fiduciary (from the Latin fiducia – trust)
commitments of beneficience (charity, benefit, kindness), and it has an
intrinsically paternalistic dimension. All teachers make decisions
regarding course content and pedagogical methodology. This means that we
are deciding what our students SHOULD know, what sorts of criteria we
use for assessing that knowledge, the format for inquiry and discussion,
and the normative claim that this knowledge will benefit them.
Educational paternalism occurs on
many different levels. First and foremost, education is paternalistic in
the sense that students (or their parents) have implicit trust that we,
as educators, will teach them things that will benefit them in the
future. However, the paternalistic implications of pedagogy are not
consistent over time. As Ronald Dworkin argues, children are not
autonomous, and we are justified in making decision for them in their
own best interest based on the fact that they “…lack some of the
emotional and cognitive capacities in order to make fully rational
decisions.” Dworkin, Gerald. 1972. “Paternalism.”
The Monist. Vol. 56, no. 2 (January, 1972). pp. 70.
It is a mistake to assume
first-graders will make informed decisions regarding their education,
and so we, as adults, structure their education in ways that we think
will benefit them in the long-run, and to best provide for the
development of autonomous decision-making in the future. As children
age, their choices become more informed, and we rightly allow them to
make more and more significant choices regarding their education.
Adult learners, while in
possession of the emotional and cognitive capacities which signal
informed consent and autonomy, are still lacking the intellectual
capacity to decide the content of their studies . A student might make
autonomous decisions regarding their career path and major field of
study, but most students are ill-equipped to make decisions concerning
course content. (Note: Of course students in upper-level and graduate
courses often do make these sorts of content decisions-independent
studies, senior projects, and thesis projects - yet these are simply
another result of growing academic autonomy of advanced learners.). In
making the informed choice to attend college, students are implicitly
giving institutions the right to determine curricular programs and
standards, and giving individual faculty members the right to set
content and methodology in the classroom. This tacit “approval” of
paternalistic treatment given to colleges by students carries with it a
set of reciprocal obligations on the part of administration and faculty.
All individuals involved in post secondary education must constantly
evaluate, and where necessary, modify, their curricula and courses to
meet these fiduciary obligations.
At its most basic level the
relationship of the post-secondary educator to the adult learner is
paternalistic, though not in the strongly paternalistic context of the
kindergarten classroom. The basic responsibilities individuals have to
respect the autonomy of others is radically transformed in the context
of the teacher/student relationship in higher education. Post-secondary
educators, in their professional roles as teachers, encounter a new set
of responsibilities akin to that of parents of grown children. On
these grounds, autonomy is not something you either have or you don’t.
Autonomy is not a steady state, but is seen in both generative and
degenerative contexts. Thus, while there is significant differences
between the paternalistic decision-making of the educator and the
autonomous action of the learner depending on the level of education,
some element of paternalism always exists. Dewey, long a foe of
paternalism, recognized that education was the inculcation of certain
values into the minds of students of all ages.
Throughout the span of an
individual’s life, there is growth in the capacity for autonomy or a
"generative autonomy " on the part of children and students alike and
thus there is a tendency for paternalism to decrease. The least evidence
of paternalistic behavior would be and is exhibited in graduate and post
graduate education. In latter life there are oft times conditions that
lead to a "degenerative autonomy" whereby children often need to
exercise a paternalism in their relationship to their aging and ailing
parent. The development of programs for the aged have led to children
"enrolling" their parents in education programs aimed at assisting them
with adapting to circumstances of their aging.
The professional responsibilities
of the educator are also dictated by the educator's social role. The
educator is in a covenential role (see below) with society and with the
individual learners. The educator is, in John Dewey's view, not simply
the transmitter of some well defined set of skills or body of knowledge.
For Dewey, education prepares people for for fulfilling lives by not
simply providing them with the information and the skills they need for
professional success. Education is , in one sense, life itself, and one
of the crucial functions of education is preparing people for a lifetime
of learning.
Like it or not, the educator plays
a central role in shaping the decisions of students, both academic and
personal. In giving bad grades or performance ratings, for instance, an
educator can close off entire avenues of professional development. And
on these grounds, an educator is not only responsible for student
learning , but in one sense functions as society's "last line of
defense" with regard to the maintenance of accepted standards for
personal achievement and professional development.
On these grounds, the educator
must determine for each student::
·
what potential for
academic, professional, and personal growth the learner has
·
what is known and still
unknown and yet to be known
·
what there is to be
accomplished by the learner
·
how knowledge and skills
can be used
Educators are in a “softly”
paternalistic relationship to the degree that they serve as educators
due to the decision of the parent(s) and/or learner to ensure proper
academic development, at least in part, to others who are trained and
professional educators. On these grounds, the educator serves in
loco parentis in the development or growth of the learner. The
partnership is between the parents and educators in the academic
development of the student.
Educators enter into either an
implicit or explicit relationship with the parents or those serving in
the stead of parents, guardians or the state in the form of public
institutions for education. At times there is an explicit contract
between parent and educator at other times it is through some mediating
body such as a school system.
Parents must produce changes in
their children, else they die for lack of physical change known as
growth. Children left unfed will not prosper or long survive. Parents
attend to the needs of their offspring before such are known or
appreciated by their progeny. Parents, at least those who attempt to be
responsible parents, make their best judgments as to how to best serve
the needs of their children for physical and intellectual development or
growth. So parents are to produce changes in their children. Parents
enter into this relationship and its incumbent duties of their own
accord. There is no contract that explicates either the relation or the
duties.
Educators must produce changes in
their students, else they “die”, in an intellectual, cognitive and
academic sense, for lack of the cognitive change known as intellectual
growth. Students left untaught will not prosper in society, or even
survive, lacking the basic tools of social interaction. Educators attend
to the needs of their learners before such needs are known or
appreciated by their students. A student signing up for an introductory
philosophy may neither understand the importance of philosophical
discourse nor the content of these types of courses, and must rely on
the instructor to make curricular choices in their best interest.
Educators, at least those who attempt to be responsible educators, make
their best judgments as to how to best serve the needs of their students
for intellectual development or growth. As we shall see in Chapter VII,
educators have a fundamental responsibility to change their student’s
minds, whether the student wants change or not.
Problem: Young children
are one thing, but most mature adults do not want to be treated as if
they were children. Most human beings want to maintain their autonomy
and right of self-determination. The law supports the rights of
individuals to make their own decisions and their right to the
information needed to make good decisions. This model may work well with
small children and those lacking full intellectual capacity as
autonomous moral agents capable of responsible decision making. The
paternalisitic model seems to break down as children mature, and
certainly becomes most problematic, if not downright insulting, when
used with adults. This being said, it seems that in higher education,
the relationship involving the educator and the learner have NOT
accumulated equal or equivalent knowledge or skills and so there is
often need for the learner to surrender decision making authority to the
educator. The educator, who assumes the fiduciary responsibility for
the learner when making decisions on behalf of the learner, must aim of
to both benefit the learners and protect the learner from harm.
2. The Therapist is In:
Pedagogy as Therapy
In the relation of a
educator to a learner there are some similarities to the relationship of
a physician to a patient. The physician has a relationship with those
treated wherein the physician's responsibility is to provide cure or
alleviation of the pathology and the maintenance of health wherever
possible. There is the therapeutic relationship in which it is the
obligation of the physician to restore a person to wellness and to
maintain wellness. Can (or should) this type of relationship exist
between the educator and the learner?
For wellness, the human needs to
grow in a number of ways: physically, socially, intellectually and
emotionally. Parents assist their children in that development. Parents
can contract directly or indirectly with professional educators to
assist them in the intellectual development of the child. If the child
encounters pathological condition, the parents seek to ameliorate,
remediate or alleviate it. Parents are responsible to provide for such
as best they can. Many times parents seek professional assistance in
addressing these needs and through which they fulfill their duties to
their children. Something similar exists when focusing on the
intellectual development of the child. In performing this duty most
parents look for assistance from professional educators to assist in the
normal development of intellectual capacities and to address pathologies
as best they can do so.
What would be an intellectual
pathology to be addressed through formal education? Given what we know
from cognitive and developmental psychology there is a range for normal
development of cognitive skills and acquisition of information. For some
part of formal education to be seen as a form of mediation or "medical"
therapy there would need to be some condition that the professional
educator would need to relieve or at least address so as to lessen its
severity in impairing the human. What might that be? It might be
cognitive development that was running behind the range of the normal or
it might involve the actual contents of the intellect: its beliefs,
information and habits of organization. If so what would be the
pathology to be remediated, remedied, or cured? As humans are born
ignorant and without skills, the normal natal condition of a human cannot be
viewed as a pathological condition. So where would be the need for a
cure?
Consider the following chart
comparing the various conditions treated by physicians, and a potential
list of pedagogical counterparts:
Physician |
Educator |
|
|
Bacterial Infection |
Incorrect Belief |
Viral Infection or Genetic
Disposition |
Incorrect Information |
Injury |
Debilitating Habit of Mind |
A belief held that is not
supported by evidence and has counter-evidence in abundance available to
the believer would be an "incorrect" belief. An educator can identify such
beliefs and then attempt to remedy them if there is an available counter
agency or therapy in the form of counter evidence or the presentation of
other beliefs held by the learner that are inconsistent with or in
direct contradiction to the belief identified as incorrect in some way.
Such an “incorrect" belief can be eliminated.
A virus once acquired nearly
always remains in the human body for its remaining life. The virus has
been fought off through a period of resistance to it as the immune
system brings about a new state of equilibrium with the virus. The
educator approaches incorrect information so as to place it in proper
context and provides the needed correctives and more accurate
information. The learner continues to remember the incorrect information
but now recognizes it -post correction- as being inaccurate or incorrect
in some way. Each person "inherits" a great deal of information
inherited from the social environment. Not all of it is accurate
and much of it can be false. Education can address this condition
and change ideas that a person inherits or that have been "given" as
true into ideas that are revealed to have been disproved claims and
unwarranted assumptions and improperly unqualified claims.
A method for organizing
information and acquiring knowledge and fixing beliefs is a habit of
mind that might not always be the most effective at enabling the human
to make the best judgments, decisions, and evaluations. When the
predominant habit of mind is not well functioning for the entire
organism it is as if an injury had occurred and a debilitating condition
set in. Such habits of mind can be identified by the educator and then
repaired or improved upon through a program of studies and experiences
intended to develop in the learner an alternative habit of mind that
would better serve the entire organism in the midst of the human
community.
Problem:
It happens at times that physicians
focus more on the disease entity or organ system than on the person who
is ill and in need of assistance. This has been commented on often in
the fields of medicine and medical ethics as this situation brought
attention to itself through the resultant set of problems generated in
the realm of interpersonal relationships and respect of basic human
rights and sensibilities that becomes lessened when the focus is not on
the person. There are ongoing attempts to address this through medical
school curricula incorporating more humanities instruction and
legislative measures setting out basic rights for recipients of medical
care. In education a professional educator can become more focused on
the curriculum or the discipline and its cognitive contents than on the
persons being educated. When this occurs, educators can lessen the
emphasis on the growth process of individuals as they attend to the
development and delivery of course content. Some attempts to address
this are now in evidence as there is a rapid rise in centers for
excellence in teaching and learning and the move towards learner
centered education. The literature or SOTL is replete with materials
urging or supporting a focusing on the learner.
The contrast between focusing on
the content of the curriculum rather than on the development and growth
of the learner evidences itself in discussions on the relative
importance of depth as compared to the breadth of the instructional
program or class. It is also in evidence in the nearly perennial debate
amongst those in higher education that pits instruction in the liberal
arts and sciences against vocational and professional training.
3. Priestly
In this model the role of educator
is extended the role of the educator beyond that of an expert in
education or a professional field of study to that of a supposed expert
in morality and of life in general. Here, the educator functions as a
sort of “sage.” This educator is imbued with as much certainty
concerning the the ultimate goals of the instructional program and the
sort of person to be produced by it as is any person possessed of faith.
This faith empowers the priest-educator to make many decisions as to
what is in the best interests of the learners. This fallacious move
promotes the unjust aspects of educational paternalism whereby the
student's role is severely reduced.
Problem: Significantly,
this model lacks the implicit obligations generated by post-secondary
institutions with regard to the fiduciary obligations of faculty and
staff in the adult-learner context. In a secular society the religious
faith or the priest is replaced by the faith of the educator in the
ideal person as conceived by the educator. The coach who teaches classes
in sports and in health is akin to the priest laboring to save souls.
The priest is building character while teaching some subject matter. The
priest is turning out the perfect member of the congregation. In the
secular world the product of priestly instruction is the proper citizen
and participant in society. In place of the soul filled with grace we
have the person whose character is noble filled with civic virtue and
who participates in the fullness of the social life of the community. In
this sense, the educator is seen as infallible, and the process of
inquiry is replaced with indoctrination and training. The learners are
to accept and participate in the faith as espoused and practiced by the
priestly educator.
4. Employee (less
Authoritarian)
As an opposing alternative
to the paternalistic approach some educators consider themselves to be
contracted employees and the person in need of assistance is the
employer who contracts for certain services to be supplied by the
educator. There is no obligation of the one toward the other beyond that
of employer to employee.
Problem: Most educators are
not willing to see themselves and simply employees of the student and
obliged to do only what they are instructed to do by those students.
Teachers think of themselves as more knowledgeable about the student’s
condition and thus in a better position to make decisions concerning
instruction than the learner.
5. Collegial
(non-authoritarian)
In this approach the
educator would be seen as a colleague of the recipient of instruction,
as an equal. The collegial approach to the basic relationship is one
which attempts to be non-authoritarian in as much as neither party has a
position of power over the other. The provider of care and the recipient
of instruction are as equals. They meet and share a common concern for
the intellectual and vocational well being of the person seeking
assistance. Together they discuss the situation, consider the options
available and reach a decision as to the most appropriate and desirable
course of instruction.
Problem: Educators are not
the equal of the recipient of education in so far as knowledge and
skills. They do not see themselves on equal footing with those who they
teach.
6. Contractual
(non-authoritarian)
In this approach the
educator would be seen as a party to a contract and as such contracts
with the recipient of instruction to perform services. If both agree to
terms there is a contract. The educator is obliged to do only what is
stated in the contract and the recipient of the service must in turn
provide remuneration as stated in the contract.
Problem: There are several
problems (see also below) not the least of which is that the parties to
the contract usually have different educational backgrounds and
knowledge of the intellectual condition of the potential student. It is
difficult, if not impossible, to arrange a fair contract between parties
who are so unequal in their knowledge and interests.
7. Entertainer-Audience Model (Edu-tainer)
While there is no doubt that the
ability to keep students interested and entertained during lectures and
discussions can play a valuable role in post-secondary education, there
is a pernicious danger in emphasizing “style” over “substance.” Perhaps
most significant is the fact that the teacher-entertainers are often
beloved by students, and rank very high on student evaluations. The rise
of web sites such as ratemyprofessor.com highlights student
desire for entertaining and lively presentations. Instructors deemed
“funny” (or even “sexy!”) consistently receive the highest ratings on
such sites. Students flock to their courses, and they achieve celebrity
status on campus.
Problem: There is a
tendency for practitioners of this model to unwittingly adhere to the
rationalistic conception of education, seeing themselves merely as
presenters of inert facts instead of taking seriously their
responsibilities as facilitators of informed and critical thought.
Though entertaining and popular, these “edu-tainers” can pose a
significant threat to the integrity of the profession. If post-secondary
education is to be conceived of as the entertaining transmission of
facts, the fundamental mission of the academy is lost.
Another problem with the
entertainer-audience model of pedagogical relationships lies in the
tendency for such educators, while engaging in presentation, to
disengage from their students. Professors who are entertaining and are
engaged with their students and who strive to achieve the goal of
informed and critical thought in their classrooms are meeting the
ethical obligations of the profession. But so are instructors who, while
not pedagogically “exciting,” are cultivating the minds of their
students in a variety of other ways.
Entertainment and education are
not mutually exclusive. But entertainment alone is mere amusement.
Amusement is the discouraging of thought in favor of visceral
excitement. “Sit back and enjoy the ride, and maybe you’ll learn
something along the way” is the implicit assumption in such an approach
to education. Yet this model turns the academy into an amusement park,
with students seeking out courses that amuse them rather than challenge
them. Education is opposed in some fundamental ways to amusement, in as
much as, far from removing the learners from the influence of their
"muses", educators are to fulfill the role of the muse in prompting
thought and creativity which are active modes of life rather than the
passive.
8. Covenential
The eighth approach enumerated
here would have the educators seeing themselves as involved in a
covenant with a deity or society itself and as such obliged to society
to render care unto its members in return for what society had provided
to the educators.
The key elements of the covenant
model (CM) are promise and fidelity to the promise. In this model the
educator has received a gift of the knowledge and skills needed to
practice the art of instruction. In return the educator has made a
promise to incur a debt in return for what was provided to prepare the
educator to be a member of the profession of education.
The educator is responsive to the
debt and has taken on an obligation to the society that extended itself
to provide the knowledge, training and skills of the educator to those
who enter into education programs.
As William May points out, the
covenant model involves a Canon of Loyalty and Fidelity. The educator,
under the debt to society for training and renumeration, is obliged to
provide society with the accuracy and fidelity in their professional
pedagogical practice, and to be faithful to the promise to provide
effective instruction. The ethical “aim” of this model is not simply
proficiency but genuine care about the intellectual development of
learners. William May, " Code and Covenant or
Philanthropy and Contract" in Reiser, Jay, Dyck, A.J. and Curran, W.J.
Ethics in Medicine: Historical Prospectives and Contemporary
Concerns. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977, pp.65-76.
Problem: There are not many
educators who are ready to acknowledge any indebtedness to society (see
also below) and the concurrent obligation to provide service to others
in return. Why should education be anything more than another job?
Section II: Code, Contract,
Covenant : Three Models of the Relationship between Education Provider
and the Recipient
Now keeping in mind these basic
forms of self conception, next in order is an examination of three basic
models or conceptual ideals for the relationship of the education provider to the recipient
of instruction. The
three models or ideals are, respectively, Code, Contract, and Covenant. These are
based upon the analysis made by William May of medical professionals.
(William May, " Code and Covenant or Philanthropy and
Contract" in Reiser, Jay, Dyck, A.J. and Curran, W.J. Ethics in
Medicine: Historical Prospectives and Contemporary Concerns.
Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977, pp.65-76.) When examining the manner
in which May used these concepts, models, ideals and norms for behavior
with regard to medical professionals it can easily be seen how they are
as applicable to professional educators as well.
Each of these models has its own governing ideals, a
different conceptual framework and the resultant perspectives that
influence the decisions made and actions taken by the practitioner. How
has it been established that educators actually make decisions using any
one or more of these models? Through observations of
educators making decisions and then through conversations it is not
difficult to find expressions of justification for actions taken or
avoided that incorporate a language of obligations towards colleagues,
even against the interests of students, or obligations based on written
contract or those based on some overriding sense of social
responsibility and obligations to students. In post secondary
education there is often heard the celebration of the technical
proficiency of academicians and the quality and volume of their
publications even unto the avoidance of consideration for their skills
in a classroom with students. Why is this so? These ideals
or models help to explain what is observed often enough that evidence is
not hard to obtain that elements of these models are operative in the
decision making or many professional educators.
I. CODE
The model based on Code is one
that finds its historical foundations in the mediaeval guilds. These are
written and unwritten, traditional guides, and rules to govern the
conduct of the members of the professional guild. The purpose of such
regulations is the development and maintenance of technical proficiency.
The knowledge and skills of the members of the guild is of the greatest
importance and value in maintaining the integrity of the craft.
There are written and official
pronouncements made by the governing authorities of the guilds, and
their aim is to foster a sort of etiquette among guild members. Members
of such professional associations have their own special language, often
have initiation rites, and are under an obligation of secrecy concerning
the inner workings of the profession. Members have duties towards one
another prior to the members of society at large.
Given this, guild members have
deep feelings of solidarity which leads them to support one another and
to be more cooperative rather than competitive. There would be a sort of
anti-competitive monopolistic practices, such as price fixing, including
the use of a sliding scale in order to maximize income. Teachers form
their own professional associations and labor unions in order to
maximize income, improve conditions of their labor and conduct political
actions to secure increased funding. Their associations effectively
remove competition in the market place that could reduce income for
educators.
For the members of the
professional organizations (guilds) the overarching aim appears to
create those institutions and practices that provide for a life style,
an image, a sense of decorum and basically a beautiful life. The codes
aim for the realization of an aesthetic ideal. They are not founded upon
a concern for the welfare of society, but on an overarching concern for
colleagues and for the maintenance of the craft itself. Because of
this, five factors tend to mitigate against self-criticism and self
regulation:
1. Sense
of community - this is very strong
2. Power
of the priestly caste - this is undermined by doubts and questions
raised by colleagues
3. Power
of the modern educator unstable- based on power over ignorance and
incapacities -undermined by admission of limitations on effectiveness of
instruction
4.
Suspicion of officiousness, injustice, hypocrisy - caused by the special
language, attitudes and secrecy of guild members
5. Basic
conflict- there are two sets of obligations: to guild and to those
outside of the guild
On the one hand, and like guild
members, professional educators appear to acknowledge obligations to
colleagues. Such obligations are seen as being responsive as an
obligation or a debt owed to other members of the guild for training,
admittance and privileges of membership. On the other hand, obligations
to students are seen as being self-incurred and any duties involved
towards the recipients of care are the result of the philanthropic acts
of guild members.
The educator enters the profession
acknowledging debts owed to those who trained the practitioner. This
establishes a special relationship amongst those who make that
acknowledgement that sets them apart from the general public. It
establishes a relationship of debt and obligation amongst the
professionals. Towards the recipients of their instruction the
acknowledgement establishes a relationship of largess. The educator
regards other members of the profession as colleagues, teachers, and
progeny.
In the codal model there is the
ceremonial taking of an oath in which the member of the guild professes
what is owed and what obligations are incurred. Further there is a
recitation of what appropriate and inappropriate conduct is for a group
member.
This oath includes the codal
duties to students and the conventional obligations to colleagues. It is
set in the context of an oath sworn before the gods as witnesses but not
as the originators of what the guild members possess. There is no
obligation to the gods incurred in return for any gift bestowed upon the
educators. They are what they have become due to what their predecessors
have given them: knowledge and training.
So there is no reference to a gift
from the gods and no promise to return anything to the gods. But there
is such for their senior colleagues.
So this initiation oath and the
acceptance of a code is seen as involving the educator in a profession
because it was chosen, a chosen profession and a transformation that has
occurred through the self chosen act of self transformation.
There are no obligations to a god
or gods or to any transcendent source or authority.
As an example of a code for
educators consider that of the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP)
http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/2002/02JF/02jfrow.htm
The
preface of this statement is excerpted below. It sets the general tone
as it recognizes that education is a profession and that it has
responsibilities consequent thereto.
The statement which follows, a
revision of a statement originally adopted in 1966, was approved by
the Association’s Committee on Professional Ethics, adopted by the
Association’s Council in June 1987, and endorsed by the
Seventy-third Annual Meeting.
INTRODUCTION
From its inception, the American Association
of University Professors has recognized that membership in the
academic profession carries with it special responsibilities. The
Association has consistently affirmed these responsibilities in
major policy statements, providing guidance to professors in such
matters as their utterances as citizens, the exercise of their
responsibilities to students and colleagues, and their conduct when
resigning from an institution or when undertaking sponsored
research. The Statement on Professional Ethics that follows sets
forth those general standards that serve as a reminder of the
variety of responsibilities assumed by all members of the
profession.
In the enforcement of ethical standards, the
academic profession differs from those of law and medicine, whose
associations act to ensure the integrity of members engaged in
private practice. In the academic profession the individual
institution of higher learning provides this assurance and so should
normally handle questions concerning propriety of conduct within its
own framework by reference to a faculty group. The Association
supports such local action and stands ready, through the general
secretary and the Committee on Professional Ethics, to counsel with
members of the academic community concerning questions of
professional ethics and to inquire into complaints when local
consideration is impossible or inappropriate. If the alleged offense
is deemed sufficiently serious to raise the possibility of adverse
action, the procedures should be in accordance with the
1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure,
the 1958
Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings,
or the applicable provisions of the Association’s
Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure.
Now in this statement there is
much more attention to obligations to disciplines and colleagues than
there is on the relationship with the learners. Most of those duties are
to individuals, groups and institutions other than the learners. Of
special note is the seeming conflict between the primary responsibility
of the professor as being towards the maintenance of the integrity of
the discipline and the expressed responsibility to be an effective
teacher.
Item one concerning the primary
responsibility of an educator being towards the subject or discipline is
in conflict with item four whereby educators are to strive to be
effective teachers and scholars. The conflict exists in so far as what
is to receive the highest priority or attention: either (1) the
discipline and their discipline colleagues or (4) their teaching. Here,
there is a significant confusion regarding the priorities of the
professoriate.
1.
Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of
the advancement of knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities
placed upon them. Their primary responsibility to their subject is to
seek and to state the truth as they see it. To this end professors
devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly
competence. They accept the obligation to exercise critical
self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting
knowledge. They practice intellectual honesty. Although professors may
follow subsidiary interests, these interests must never seriously
hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry…
4.
As members of an academic institution, professors seek above all to be
effective teachers and scholars. Although professors observe the
stated regulations of the institution, provided the regulations do not
contravene academic freedom, they maintain their right to criticize
and seek revision. Professors give due regard to their paramount
responsibilities within their institution in determining the amount
and character of work done outside it. When considering the
interruption or termination of their service, professors recognize the
effect of their decision upon the program of the institution and give
due notice of their intentions.
Operating with a code can help
members to avoid the acknowledgment of a duty to report members who are
failing to observe the rules of conduct that may be resulting in harm to
others outside of the guild. In an article by Wendy Wassyng Roworth, the
chair of the AAUP’s Committee on Professional Ethics, the following is
reported:
“Most of us don’t give much thought to professional ethics as we carry
out our day to day duties as teachers, researchers, committee members,
and advisers. We may read about a case of plagiarism or hear about
scientific fraud at another university, but such serious violations seem
to be rare or distant from our daily routines. Faculty who have no
problem expressing views on teaching strategies, research methods, or
university politics hesitate to question a colleague’s conduct in the
classroom, the space in which each professor reigns supreme..…
Several years ago, the committee grappled with a controversial
statement, On the Obligation of Faculty Members to Respond to
Misconduct, which was published in draft form in the November–December
1998 issue of Academe with an invitation for comment. The statement
provoked both strongly positive and critically negative responses from
members of the profession. Some believed that individual faculty members
should be responsible for speaking out and reporting misconduct to
authorities when they have knowledge of violations and that,
furthermore, guidelines should be developed to handle ethical breaches
by faculty colleagues. On the other hand, several faculty members
expressed grave concerns about what such a policy might unleash. How
could an individual be absolutely sure that he or she was right about a
perceived wrongdoing? How could one assess the seriousness of an
infraction? What would be the consequences of a false or mistaken
accusation?
The
divided reaction to the committee’s statement highlighted the
troublesome and perplexing question whether faculty can respond
appropriately to misconduct by colleagues without trampling on
individual rights or endangering other professional standards. It also
revealed the need for broader understanding of ethical issues and
individual responsibility for adherence to ethical standards.”
(Roworth,
Wendy Wassyng. "Professional
Ethics, Day By Day", Academe, Jan-Feb, 2002, 24-27.)
Roworth goes on to argue that
“[u]nlike the professions of law and medicine that have associations to
enforce their standards, responsibility for enforcing ethical standards
in the academic profession lies with individual colleges and
universities. In other words, it’s up to each of us to ensure the
integrity of our professional conduct.” (Roworth, 2002; p. 28). And
while this seems a fair expression of the relative autonomy and freedom
of the American professoriate, there are some who would argue that such
a statement might be seen by some as a bit like leaving the kids in
charge of the candy store. Lacking external mechanisms for the
development and enforcement of the obligations to those outside of the
profession, the profession itself opens itself to criticism from the
very public it purports to serve.
II. CONTRACT
In the contractual model there is
certain symmetry in the relationship of the members of the educational
profession and those for whom they render service. They are seen as
nearly equal parties engaged in a voluntary association for mutual
benefit. This model is one promoted in a time of frequent litigation.
The enforcers of contracts promote envisioning the basic relationship
between human beings in terms of an instrument that has a feature of
legal enforcement.
It is a model in which the
participants are seen as singularly motivated by self-interest and not
philanthropy. Informed consent is desired by the recipient of
instruction as needed for intelligent decision making in keeping with
the goals and values of the recipient of instruction and in
acknowledgment of the right of self determination. Informed consent is
seen by the provider of instruction as desirable as a means of
protection against charges of coercion or any other charge that would
hold the provider liable for the outcomes of the services rendered.
This model is beset with
difficulties and despite its being urged by litigators, practitioners
are not taking to it in its entirety. It is influencing educational
institutions in so far as the taking of measures to minimize exposure to
liability.
Here are some of the problems.
A. Minimalism - With a contract
the educator is obliged to do only what is set out in the terms of the
contract-no more and no less- or else there may be a claim ( and
possible damages-monetary damages) against the educator by the other
party in the contract.
B. Unpredictability - Often in
education there are unpredictable circumstances that could arise. If
they are not covered by the contract then there is no ground for the
educator to respond to those circumstances including those that may pose
a strong threat to the well being of the other party in the contract.
C. Maximalism- Defense Mechanism -
The educator in order to protect the practice from possible claims
against it by the other parties to the contracts for services, would be
pressured to include procedures, practices and treatments in the
contract not so much for the well being of the learner but to protect
against possible malpractice suits. Thus, more tests may be ordered than
are strictly needed in order that there not be a claim that the educator
had done anything less than what was in order to detect or prevent a
harm to the recipient of instruction.
D. Inequality - The parties to an
education contract between the provider and the recipient of instruction
are not equal in knowledge or skill, nor do they have equal aims or
values. Thus any contract between them is less likely to be a fair one
as one party is usually much more knowledgeable and likely to influence
the other due to that knowledge. The recipients of instruction are under
the pressure and anxiety to do well and in fear that ignorance impairs
their decisions. Such a condition operates against a mind needed for
rational decision making.
E. No freedom of choice - Often
the recipient of education has little or no choice but to accept the
terms of a contract as produced by the provider when that provider of
care is the only one near to or affordable to or provided to the
recipient of that care.
F. Denies transcendent rights and
duties - This model does not allow for the educator to acknowledge that
there is any ground for an obligation to provide service other than the
one voluntarily incurred by the parties entering into the contract and
then that obligation is only to the extent indicated by the terms of the
contract.
III. COVENANT
The key elements of the Covenant
Model (CM) are promise and fidelity to the promise. In this model the
educator has received a gift of the knowledge and skills needed to
practice the art of instruction. In return the educator has made a
promise to incur a debt in return for what was provided to prepare the
educator to be a member of the profession of education.
The educator is responsive to the
debt and has taken on an obligation to the society that extended itself
to provide the knowledge, training and skills of the educator to those
who enter into education programs.
The Covenant Model involves a
Canon of Loyalty and Fidelity. The educator under the debt to society is
obliged to provide society with the truth and be faithful to the promise
to provide instruction and effective instruction. The aim of this model
is not simply proficiency but genuine care about the intellectual
development of learners.
With this approach the teacher
undergoes a change in ontological status. The person who becomes a
member of the profession becomes an educator not just at those times
when in the office or school, but at all times. The person has undergone
a transformation into a different sort of being, one possessed of
knowledge and skills not found elsewhere in the populace. As such,
whenever such a person encounters someone in need of those skills there
is an obligation to provide whatever service that can be reasonably
rendered.
This ontological shift in some
ways parallels the professional responsibilities of the physician. On
the dramatic side it can be noted that while few cries of “is there a
teacher in the house” are heard on a daily basis, like the physician,
the educator has a fundamental responsibility to fulfill their duties
both in professional and non-professional contexts. A professor of
biology, on hearing a politician make a erroneous remark about
evolutionary theory, has an obligation to correct that remark. In a
less dramatic but more profound level the ontological shift is noted in
the manner in which the general populace responds to news reports of
people who have committed social transgressions and illegal acts who in
the report are also noted to be educators. While expressing a
disapproval of the behavior, whether dealing in drugs or prostitution or
lesser offenses such as ticket scalping, added on that expression is
another response such as “and he is a teacher, too!”, indicating that
more or at least different behavior is expected particularly of an
educator. This is likely to be so because society entrusts educators
with behaving so as to have politicize influences on others ,
particularly the young, whether they be in the classroom or not, whether
they be students of the particular, individual educator or not.
Yet the primary problem with this
model is that it needs a transcendent reference for the proper context.
It needs a transcendent norm for rights and duties of educators and
students. It needs a source of limits for expectations and duties
outside of the profession itself. Otherwise, it is little more than a
modern version of the guild.
What is the source outside of the
profession that generates the ethical obligations of the practice? The
traditional answer has been theological. If there is a god and that god
gives someone the gift of knowledge and skill then the person owes it to
that god to return something for what has been given. The source of
obligation that is the basis for the sense of duty is the transcendent
being. But if there is no god or no effective belief in a god or no
acknowledgment of anything being given by such a being to members of the
profession, then what grounds the covenant? Who is in the covenant with
the educators?
In place of a supreme being or
transcendent deity as the source of the indebtedness society itself may
serve as the origin of the gift and as the party in a covenant with the
profession of education. In other words, the ethical obligations of the
professoriate are generated by the debt owed to society by the
professoriate itself.
The educators’ indebtedness to
society may be established by five (5) factors:
1. Education - no school of
education is entirely self sustaining. Almost all teaching institutions
receive state and federal aid and the students receive a variety of
financial aids, most stemming from government subsidies and private
endowments.
2. Privileges - members of
the profession of education are permitted what others in society are
not. They may presume certain deference in virtue of their
occupation-profession that others must earn.
3. Social Trust- Society
places its children into the care of educators relying on them to
provide the best possible forms of instruction in order to prepare
people to take their place within society as productive members of it.
4. Experimental Subjects -
There can be no knowledge of pedagogy and no development of pedagogic
skills without human beings serving as students with whom future
educators work to develop their skills as educators. Pedagogic research
is needed and training must take place to gain the knowledge and skills
that make members of the profession of education what they are. The
educators who acquire that knowledge so obtained owe a return to those
from whom and through whom that knowledge was secured.
5. Continual Support of
profession and individuals -Society continues to support the
Institution of Education and educators through the continuing support
for schools of education. Society may expect something in return.
The Covenant Model includes and
extends beyond that of code and contract. It includes aspects of the
code: fidelity to duty, responsibilities to students and colleagues. It
includes elements of the contract model in terms of fidelity to the
terms of a contract.
However, the Covenant Model
requires more because there is a surplus of obligations to society and
these are the final advantage of this model over the others.
The obligations (debts) to society
in the Covenant Model are greater than debts to colleagues in the Codal
Model. Thus the Covenant Model has its advantages:
1. Permits possibility of
self-discipline
2. Not so personal- applies to the
whole profession; a covenant with society broadens accountability
3. Permits setting professional
responsibility for one human good – knowledge- within social
limits
In each of these models the
"Student" role relates to the educator's self image and general model
for the relationship between the provider and recipient of instruction.
If the educator's self conception
is as parent or priest, then the student is seen as dependent.
If the educator's self conception
is as technician, then the student is seen as passive host of ignorance.
If the educator's self conception
is as contractual partner, then the student is seen as equal
participant.
If the educator's self conception
is as covenanter, then the student is seen as active participant and is
there are with all other parties, providers and recipients, mutual
reciprocal rights and duties, gifts and debts, promises and obligations.
Now consider the application of
the models and self conceptions to cases involving difficult decision
making related to the relationship of the parties involved in the
situation and rather different results might emerge in the same
situation by using a different conceptual setting, a different model for
examining the nature of the relationships and whatever obligations may
be involved.
Applied Ontology: Code,
Contract, and Covenant in Practice
Consider the following case: An
instructor is thinking about making a change in the manner of
instruction in the coming year with the laudable goal being to improve
on the efficacy of instruction. In particular the teacher is thinking of
having more group work and collaborative learning exercises. The teacher
wonders about whether or not such a change will be of benefit to the
learners. Should the instructor simply proceed to introduce the new
pedagogic approach and see what happens? A different answer might result
depending on what model of educator the particular teacher is operating
with in relating to the learners. Each model would generate and
provide basis for a quite different approach to the need for an
institutional review of pedagogic experimentation.
A likely result based on a
decision making process that operates with the code model would be for
the educator-researcher to consider what the obligations and liabilities
as are indicated in the relationship with fellow educators. Codes of
professional conduct along with institutional rules and regulations and
any relevant laws would be observed. There would likely be no ethical
review of the course of action being contemplated beyond what was
required by the code and legal agencies. Even if there is recognition
within the educational institution of the regulations requiring reviews
for research involving human beings and the Institutional Review Board (IRB)
often professional colleagues can be relied upon to minimize the onerous
task of submitting to review or eliminate it altogether. While
there are reports of institutions that range from requiring review of
all pedagogic experimentation to exempting all such experimentation
(Hutchings, Patricia A., "Ethics and Aspiration in the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning", Introduction in Hutchings, Patricia A.
(ed) Ethics of Inquiry: Issues in Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning. Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching., 2002. ) still most typical are institutions
that exempt all experimentation not involving publication and most of
that which does.
If there is to be a change in
the instructional design or methodology and it is not to be examined
carefully and the results reported through publication then there will
likely be no review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). If there
may be a publication then there may be an exemption given to such
pedagogic research or experiment either as a result of a blanket
institutional policy exempting all pedagogic research and
experimentation from IRB review or as a result of a policy that requires
an IRB review of all research and then an exemption granted for just
about all pedagogic research. In the codal model blanket exemptions from
review are most welcomed by fellow members of the guild-colleague
educators. In most cases with or without IRB review there is not
likely to be consideration for the entire range of possible and
avoidable harms that might result to the students involved. Any such
harm that is not included in the language of contracts, regulations,
codes and laws are not operative in this model.
Operating with the contract model
would result in the educator-researcher considering what the obligations
and liabilities as are indicated in the contractual relationship with
the employer and what the strict obligations are to fellow educators.
Rules and regulations and any relevant laws would be observed and quite
strictly. However, there
would likely be no ethical review of the course of action being
contemplated beyond what was required by the relevant agencies.
While all pedagogic experimentation will likely be required by
institutional policy to be submitted to review by the IRB the outcome is
likely to be widespread exempting of all such experimentation not
required to be examined by a strict and literal interpretation of the
statutes and regulations. As with
the code model, in most cases with or without IRB review there is not
likely to be consideration for the entire range of possible and
avoidable harms that might result to the students involved. Any such
harm that is not included in the language of contracts, regulations,
and laws are not operative in this model.
For those who base their decision
making within the context of ethical obligation to society that is
characteristic of the covenant model, the approach to decision making
involves still different considerations and certainly a different sense
of the professional responsibilities of an educator. With the covenant
model pedagogic assessment and research that leads to innovations and
revisions are part of a basic set of responsibilities of a professional
educator who is obliged to insure efficacy of instruction. Such research
would be conducted in a manner that would be approved as being morally
correct after an ethical review process that is designed to insure that
there are no avoidable harms to the learner involved. This process
would be more inclusive and extensive than that which involves current
IRB review. And it is here with the covenant model where we find the
sources of the professional obligations of the professoriate.
Those operating out of the covenant model would recognize a fiduciary
responsibility to students and review any and all pedagogic research and
experimentation, including innovations, in order to insure that there be
no unnecessary and avoidable harm that would result to them.
In the next chapter the model that
will serve as the basis for ethical obligations is later considered it
will be established (chapter IV) that it is the fiduciary model born out
of the recognition of the necessity to follow the general social norms
within the profession of education. This model within education is the
one most consonant with the concept of covenant and responsiveness to
society in terms of the origin of its moral norms and the obligations to
serve the individual and society as well.
This work will now turn to
consider the entire range of ethical responsibilities of professional
educators, individually and collectively, and to the basic relationship
model that is at the base of those responsibilities.
@copyright 2004 by S. Kincaid and P. Pecorino