TESOL Law Journal: January 2006 Vol 1.

January 2006, Volume 1

Article Title
Assessing Ethical Standards for EFL Teaching Professionalism

Author
Robert J. Dickey

Biography
Robert Dickey is a past-president of Korea TESOL, and holds Juris Doctor (law) and Master of Public Administration degrees as well as TEFL certification. He has been teaching in Korea since 1994, but has spent almost all of his life amidst Asian cultures, and has been investigating issues of professional ethics since his early graduate studies in the mid-1980s. Holding tenure at Gyeongju University in S. Korea, he may be contacted at rjdickey@content-english.org

Keywords
ethics, code of ethics, EFL, professionalism, teaching, TEFL

Abstract
Appropriacy for and need of ethical guidelines for teachers in EFL settings is analyzed and the TESOL-Law Draft Code of Ethics is examined following a more general review of underlying principles in ethics. Comparison is made to those rules affecting teachers in various settings across the globe as well as other professions. Distinctions in various systems of ethics are identified. Recommendations for revisions in the TESOL-Law design include reorganization, recommended (aspirational) ideal states, and inclusion of additional topic areas.

Introduction
Nearly ten years ago I began calling for development of a system of ethical guidelines for EFL teachers in the Asian setting, it was therefore with great enthusiasm that I set about assessing the new TESOL-Law (2005) Draft Code of Ethics. While governmental regulations dictating standards of professional ethics for teachers in state-schools is not uncommon across the globe, as is the case for many other professions (law, medicine, and accounting to name just three), teachers outside the state schools generally have no agreed upon standards of professional ethics, and indeed there appears to be some reluctance to develop rules on ethical behavior which could be used by employers to discipline teachers (Dickey, 1998, p. 105).

Why is this an issue? One working definition of "profession" includes an identifiable associated science or art, control of entry into the field, an expectation that professionals keep current with new developments within their field, and the ability to self-regulate the practices within the field. Luegenbiehl (cited in Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, n.d.) notes that adopting a code is significant step in the professionalization of a work-field "because it is one of the external hallmarks testifying to the claim that the group recognizes an obligation to society that transcends mere economic self-interest."

In the field of teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL), none of the three major international societies (TESOL Inc, IATEFL, and AsiaTEFL) have established ethical guidelines for teachers. This may be due in part to the fact that large numbers of members in the first two organizations work in state-schools environments where governmental codes of professional behavior would take precedence. Other societies of language teachers in North America, including the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), the Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers (CASLT), and the Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (NECTFL), have similarly apparently not implemented guidelines for ethical practice. It should be noted, however, that the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC, 2005) has implemented their own "Code of Ethical Conduct and Statement of Commitment" that is in addition to any local legal requirements, as has the National Education Association (1975) and the British Columbia Teachers' Federation (a labor union).

This study will overview some fundamental concepts in ethics and rules of ethical behavior, with reference to existing codes of professional practice, will evaluate TESOL-Law's new draft code of ethics, and will then offer suggestions concerning the future of professional ethics in the field of TEFL. Every attempt will be made to avoid excessive legal jargon, or to provide definitions which are accessible to those without legal training.

Professional Ethics
Professional ethics can be best understood by distinguishing these from other related concepts. Morals and moral principles, the ideas of "right and wrong," are largely developed through religious and parental teachings; whereas (social) values, a sense of "good and bad," are formed through impressions from friends and society at large (Dickey, 1998, p. 106). The combination of these, plus formal teaching or established rules, develop ethics - "a system or code of conduct" (Silva, 1997, p. 359). Due to the complexity and diversity of individualized ethical systems, they may be reduced to a set of rules which are adopted by professional organizations, or enacted as laws or regulations by governmental authorities, or both. In most cases, however, as Strike (1988, p. 1) notes, "ethical questions cannot be settled by an appeal to facts alone."

A "code" is a written collection of rules, organized by topic: the concept of a code of ethics is important because it implies that all the rules can be found in one place and therefore those affected by the code can be expected to be knowledgeable of the requirements. Codes prevent professionals from being judged by individualistic standards. Nevertheless, vague rules still exist: Haigh (1992, p. 8) notes that in England, teachers work under the standard "Do we want somebody like this teaching our children?"

Differences exist in how a code of professional ethics should be drafted. Nigro & Nigro argue that "a code of ethics is best defined as a statement of acceptable standards of behavior" (1984, p. 377), others suggest that the rules should be more general and aspirational: as Wood (1996, p. 14) states, "an ethics code is a tool for professionals, not a cage." In the United States a number of national societies for professionals draft "model codes" or "model rules" for professional conduct, which are often adopted in one form or another by state governments, often with assessment (adjudication) and enforcement referred to local (state) branch divisions of the professional societies. These codes, such as that set by the American Bar Association (1969), may establish both "Disciplinary Rules" that must be satisfied by all professional and "Ethical Considerations" that encourage higher levels of professionalism (though a later set of rules by the American Bar Association (1983, revised 2004) removed this distinction). Professional bodies may also condense their voluminous rules into short sets of more easily memorized principles (see AICPA, 2004 or American Medical Association, 2001). However, in the field of teaching there are not many examples of teacher societies policing their own. For an example of state administrative regulations over teachers in state schools, see, for example, the Code of Professional Conduct for Education Practitioners (State of Washington). In Washington (state) the ethical code is controlled by governmental offices (State Superintendent).

On the other hand, as is remarked by Cahn (1986, p. xi), "remarkably little has been written about the obligations of a professor" (though see American Association of University Professors (1988), which is rather vague and aspirational). While individual colleges may establish their own rules (formal and informal), teachers in tertiary institutions are generally exempted from the rules promulgated for those in state schools. In the case of non-tenured expatriate faculty, there are generally no rules at all.

TESOL-Law's Draft Code of Ethics
First placed online in December of 2005, the TESOL-Law (2006) revised draft code of ethics has been presented as a discussion item for a period of three months. Recognizing that as a draft on the ephemeral page known as the Internet, it may be impossible to review in the future, I will cite text extensively here. The version available January 1, 2006 includes substantial revision from that which was available a few days earlier-sections addressing Webmasters, Publishers, Recruiters, and education providers have been removed. As it is presented as a discussion draft (which accounts for the changes which may occur during the initial period) little attention will be directed at minor issues such as incidental language (or typographical/formatting considerations), instead "big picture" issues which impact how a final version might be developed are the focus here.

Organization and general framework
The TESOL-Law Draft Code of Ethics (henceforth, draft code) has been structured in a highly segmented and specific manner, very consistent with the types of codes adopted as governmental regulations. Most sections of the code are only one sentence, though with numerous clauses, often running 30-50 words or more. Such a design, while easy to cite, is rather distant from most language teachers' preferences.

The four Chapters of the draft code (plus a definitions section) are

1. The foreign language/second language teachers responsibilities to the students in his/her care (12 sections)
2. The foreign language/second language teacher's responsibilities to his colleagues and the teaching profession (14 sections)
3. The foreign language/second language teachers responsibilities to the parents of his students and to the community (3 sections)
4. Legal obligations of the foreign language/second language teacher (3 sections)

In a structural sense, what seems to be missing is a preface: this is important because in many cases the preface is the location for aims or aspiration (MacDonald, n.d.-a). We might also look for an index/table of contents, cross-links, and expanded definitions.

Organizationally and stylistically, it may be desirable to include more general "aims" above a set of related requirements, as is done by American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2003) and American Bar Association (1969). NAEYC (2005) does a particularly good job of integrating preliminary statements before specific guidelines on ideals and principles.

Types of rules presented
It is important both to "distinguish different kinds of rules (for example, values versus prohibitions" (von Bayer, 1997), and to "articulate as far as possible the underlying assumptions and guiding principles of a working ethic" (Toronto Resolution, 1992). In many sets of ethics there are official annotations, or embedded within the code may be examples or expressions of values (Murphy and Swenson, 2003, or see American Psychiatric Association (2001) for an example). The present draft code defines expectations in a rather vague manner, with neither specifically defined acts or prohibitions nor expressions of "best practice. Use of the term "shall" may be inappropriate in this situation, a statement of best practice which would encourage teachers to realize these aims may be more helpful.

Lack of specificity which undermines any potential enforcement can be found in numerous sections: section 1.11 and section 2.7 are presented as examples:

1.11 The foreign language/second language teacher shall not use professional relationships with students for private advantage.

2.7 The foreign language/second language teacher shall recognize his/her duty to manifest responsibility, individual initiative, and integrity in his/her teaching and other professional actions within guidelines laid down for the profession.

While it is doubtful that anyone would challenge the ideals behind section 1.11, it lacks suggestion as where the boundary between private advantage and a reasonable person's personal contacts may cross. Many teachers are paid, in part or full, based on the number of students they teach, and where teachers change employment are they required to leave their student lists behind? Such an issue deserves discussion, particularly in the case of those who are engaged in independent teaching.

There will always be cases where vagueness is required, even expected. Section 2.12 is entirely consistent with rules in many ethical frameworks: division of rules by types, such as (aspirational) principles and (disciplinary) requirements, would allow for clarity in how various types of rules are to be interpreted.

Subject areas encompassed
Organizing the rules according to the teachers' duties in four directions (students, colleagues, parents and community, and legal obligations) is effective in coordinating the "whom" but it leaves the "what" rather mixed. Including the duty to "advance his teaching qualifications" (sect. 4.3) as a legal obligation is a rather interesting choice: one might suggest that legal duties are somewhat obvious and could therefore become part of a broader "duty to colleagues and the profession." Other general topical areas include the duties of the teacher within the classroom versus duties that extend beyond the classroom, his role as an employee, and a general duty to protect the learners.

Topics to be considered for inclusion
There is a lack of definiteness and certainty on several topics which would seem important in the teaching profession. One would be transparency, accuracy, and fairness in testing and grading. While section 1.4 refers to overall justice, it lacks specificity.

1.4 The foreign language/second language teacher shall act, and shall be seen to act, with justice and fairness.

Many institutions develop specific regulations on the development and presentation of grades (including things such as "appeal of grades") whereas many others do not, and grading has been known to be done haphazardly by some instructors. The issue of testing and grading was a topic suggested by teachers participating in a conference workshop/seminar (Dickey, 1998).
Another area which is widely acknowledged in smaller towns, but also particularly pertinent in the case of foreign language teaching, is the question of "teacher as role model." This is a controversial topic (see conflicting lists in Dickey, 1998, 105), thereby meriting discussion, even if a somewhat equivocal policy is set.

Other topic areas for possible inclusion are the development of teaching materials (a highly controversial subject as it can include issues of compensation, expectations of work beyond the classroom, use of textbooks or other pre-selected materials, and the photocopier), private tutoring, cultural conflicts (student expectations), and the question of classroom preparation. This would probably require a change in approach, rather than "the teacher shall" there might be indication of a balance of interests.

The general issue of professional competence is difficult to address in a set of ethics for EFL, where employers may assign teachers to new subject areas or age-groups without regard to teacher preferences or expertise. An obligation for teachers to notify others of their lower competency for certain assignments would only be effective if employers were likely to respect these notices as professionally appropriate. Unfortunately, this is not the case in many educational institutions, but might instead be used as grounds for discipline or termination of employment. As teachers have indicated previously (Dickey, 1998, 105), rules which could be used against teachers by less scrupulous or unknowing employers are to be avoided. On the other hand, although not a collective bargaining agreement, inclusion of employer responsibilities into the code may force employers to be more responsible in considering the code for faculty review (see NAEYC (2005) for an example). In any case provision for self-evaluation of performance should be included. (See American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2003, for examples.)

Overall, one must find this draft code as quite encompassing, there are no obviously missing crucial topics.

Suggested revision of sentence forms
In school settings, although teachers are relatively independent within their classrooms most employers establish some sort of hierarchy. Beyond the principal-teacher relationship, there are often formalized supervision or mentoring structures established as well as less formal or temporary conditions. Section 2.3 addresses this situation, yet does so in an awkward fashion:

2.3 The foreign language/second language teacher shall accept the authority of senior professional colleagues while retaining the right to express professional opinion.

More conducive to collegial relations, and an appropriate tone for much of this draft code, in its present non-specific nature, might be a change in form and a minor adjustment in the verb:

(2.3) Foreign language/second language teachers recognize the authority of senior professional colleagues while retaining the right to express professional opinion.

A code of ethics can set minimal standards, provide a benchmark, or promote high standards (or any combination of these). Through use of a consistent formula, these objectives can be clarified.

The Future of Professional Ethics in Teaching EFL
A generation ago Sockett (1990, p. 243) argued that a code of ethics was "something to be hammered out as professionalism develops… as we discover what best practice is…". While we might have agreed with his argument then, time has passed and we seem no nearer a set of standards than we were then. Clearly it is time for an attempt to be made.

In the field of TEFL, where expatriate teachers may change employers or even countries frequently, the need for a global standard that can accommodate local conditions is critical. Enforcement provisions may be difficult, and minimum standards may be inconsistent with local regulations, but well-reasoned statements of aims and ideals will seldom find much opposition. The draft code is very much based on globally-accepted ideals in education, the next step is to refine the individual rules. These lofty aims, clearly expressed, can guide the profession as a whole as well as add clarity to expectations, particularly in situations where standards may not be well established in local cultures.

The draft code of ethics presented by TESOL-Law is unique in an important aspect: this is not the work of a membership society that can call for all members to uphold these rules, nor is it a project by official representatives of a number of such groups. It is unclear whether a system will be developed for individuals to "profess" their subscription to a code of ethics, or that adoption of the code is to be something less public. Whether this situation will be a blessing or a curse is as yet unknown, but it surely affects the disciplinary authority of the code's enforcement committee (such a committee has been removed from the 2006 draft version). As has been argued (see DeGeorge, 1987, as cited in MacDonald, n.d.-b, and other writers), the mere process of considering and developing a code is an important aspect in the development of a sense of professional ethics, even for those aspects that are never adopted. A code can encourage discussion on the issues and improve how people deal with ethical dilemmas (Ethics Resource Center, n.d.). On the other hand, if this code can encourage professional bodies to adopt their own codes, perhaps largely based on this design (which would make this something of a "model code") then perhaps it has accomplished more than it would as a free-standing set of rules.

References

AICPA. (2004). Code of professional conduct. New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Retrieved December 26, 2006 from
http://www.aicpa.org/about/code/index.html

American Association of University Professors. (1988). Statement on Professional Ethics. Retrieved December 30, 2005 from
http://www.aaup.org/statements/Redbook/Rbethics.htm

American Bar Association Center for Professional Responsibility. (1969). Model code of professional responsibility. Chicago: American Bar Association. Retrieved January 1, 2006 from http://www.abanet.org/cpr/ethics/mcpr.pdf

American Bar Association Center for Professional Responsibility. (1983/2004). Model rules of professional conduct. Chicago: American Bar Association. Retrieved December 31, 2005 from http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/mrpc_toc.html

American Medical Association. (2001). Principles of medical ethics. Retrieved December 30,
2005 from http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/2512.html

American Psychiatric Association. (2001). The principles of medical ethics: With
annotations especially applicable to psychiatry. Retrieved December 31, 2005 from http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/ethics/medicalethics
2001_42001.cfm

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2003). Code of Ethics (revised). ASHA Supplement, 23, pp. 13-15. Retrieved December 31, 2005 from
http://www.asha.org/NR/rdonlyres/F51E46C5-3D87-44AF-BFDA- 346D32F85C60/0/18763_4.pdf

British Columbia Teachers' Federation. (2003). Code of Ethics. Retrieved December 29, 2005 at http://www.bctf.ca/About/MembersGuide/CodeOfEthics.html

Cahn, S. M. (1986). Saints and scamps: Ethics in academia. Totowa, NJ: Rowan & Littlefield.

Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions (n.d.). Code of ethics introduction.
Retrieved December 30, 2005 from http://ethics.iit.edu/codes/Introduction.html

Dickey, R.J. (1998). Ethical considerations for Asian ELT: Formulating standards.
Proceedings of the 1998 Korea TESOL Conference. Seoul: Korea TESOL, pp. 105- 109. Retrieved December 20, 2005 from
http://www.kotesol.org/publications/proceedings/1998/
dickey_1.shtml

Ethics Resource Center. (n.d.). Why have a code? Retrieved December 31, 2005 from
http://www.ethics.org/whycode.html

Haigh, G. (1992, January 10). Personally speaking. The Times Educational Supplement, p. 8.

MacDonald, C. (n.d.-a). Why have a code of ethics? Retrieved December 30, 2005 from
http://www.ethicsweb.ca/codes/coe2.htm

MacDonald, C. (n.d.-b). Guidance for writing a code of ethics. Retrieved December 30,
2005 from http://www.ethicsweb.ca/codes/coe3.htm

Murphy, J., & Swenson, W. (2003). 20 questions to ask about your code of conduct. Ethikos 17(1). Retrieved January 1, 2006 from
http://www.ethikosjournal.com/html/20questions.html

NAEYC. (2005). Code of Ethical Conduct and Statement of Commitment. Retrieved
December 22, 2005 from http://www.naeyc.org/about/positions/PSETH05.asp

National Education Association. (1975). Code of Ethics of the Education Profession.
Retrieved December 20, 2005 from http://www.nea.org/aboutnea/code.html

Nigro, F.A. & Nigro, L.G. (Eds.). (1984). Modern public administration (6th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Silva, T. (1997). On the ethical treatment of ESL writers. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 359-363.

Sockett, H. (1990). Accountability, trust, and ethical codes of practice. In J. I. Goodland, R. Soder & K. A. Sirotnik (Eds.) The moral dimensions of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Strike, K. A. (1988). The Ethics of Teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(2), 156-158.

TESOL-Law. (2005). [Draft] Code of ethics. TESOL Law Journal. Retrieved December 21,
2005 from http://www.tesol-law.com/codeofethics.php

TESOL-Law. (2006). [Draft] Code of ethics. TESOL Law Journal. Retrieved January 2,
2006 from http://www.tesol-law.com/codeofethics.php

Toronto Resolution. (1992). Retrieved December 31, 2005 from
http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/lib/WorldCodes/
Toronto.Recommendation.html

von Baeyer, C. (1997). Codes of Conduct: Panacea or Bunk? CDPA Report [Newsletter of the Canadian Defence Preparedness Association], 11(3) Retrieved December 30, 2005 from http://www.workplaceethics.ca/codes.html

Washington (State of). (n.d.). Code of Professional Conduct for Education Practitioners
[WAC 180-87]. Retrieved December 31, 2005 from
http://cms.washingtonea.org/wea/pubs/legal/
CodeProCondv.htm

Wood, G. S. Jr. (1996). A code of ethics for all adult educators? Adult Learning, 8(2), 13-14.