ABSTRACT
From Alan Tom’s initial identification of teaching as a moral craft (1984) to David Hansen’s exploration of the moral heart of teaching (2001); from Goodlad, Soder, and Sirotnik’s recognition of the moral dimensions of teaching (1990) to empirical studies that vividly reveal these dimensions (Jackson, Boostrom, & Hansen, 1993; Richardson & Fenstermacher, 2001), the academic and professional literature has increasingly illustrated how the moral aspects and complexities of K-12 teaching can be neither separated from the technical elements of instruction nor, worse, ignored as somehow extraneous to the central mission of education. Some connect these moral nuances, embedded in the daily life of classrooms and schools, to the professional role of the teacher and the ethical implications for professionalism more generally in teaching (Bergem, 1993; Campbell, 2003; Carr, 2000; Oser & Althof, 1993; Sockett, 1993; Strike & Soltis, 1992; Strike & Ternasky, 1993). Within a context that integrates consideration of the moral nature of teaching with applied professional ethics in teaching, this chapter explores the concept of teacher professionalism as being inseparable from what I define as the teacher’s ethical knowledge. This knowledge relates to both how teachers conduct themselves in morally appropriate ways and how they engage in moral education. Specifically, the chapter addresses two interrelated areas, presented within discrete sections. The first argues that ethical knowledge can provide the basis of a renewed professionalism in teaching. It defines ethical knowledge and discusses teaching as unique among the professions, not least because of its moral and ethical layers. It further distinguishes ethical knowledge from formalized codes and standards. The second section, which constitutes the dominant part of this chapter, explores ethical practice as a professional imperative. It offers examples of moral agency, which underlies ethical knowledge, as illustrated by the teacher’s actions as both a moral practitioner and a moral educator. Conversely, and contentiously, it further presents an argument against the co-opting of moral agency as a kind of politicized and ideological activism.
