The profession of teaching is a vital part of our nation’s future
through providing students with the skills and knowledge required in order to
be a productive member of today’s society. Therefore, educators are under
constant scrutiny from not only parents, administrators, and students, but from
groups at the governmental level as well, such as the Department of Education.
Although views regarding teaching strategies and what content is relevant
to student success is constantly changing, the belief that educators, as a
crucial member of society, are expected to behave with the highest professional
standards. In order to fulfill this guideline, a Code of Conduct for
educators was created and is a crucial part in today’s quality of public
education. The National Education
Association, an advocate for children’s right to an education and better
working conditions for teachers, created this Code of Conduct. Although the Code is not great in length, it
absolutely defines the professional expectations of educators with regards to
not only their profession, but for their students as well. Through the usage of “Official Style,” the
National Education Association has been able to not only make their beliefs
apparent to those interested in the prose, but to protect their own interests, as
well as those of the Board of Education and the National Teachers Association
as well.
In 1975 the Code of Conduct for
educators was adopted by the National Education Association, or NEC, in order
to act as a crusade for the rights of all educators and children. Not only has this group created a united
voice for public education, but it also plays a crucial role in improving the
conditions under which teachers work and children learn. In fact, the NEC is the nation’s largest
professional employee organization, with organizations in every state. This group also pushed for a national
Department of Education, which lead to the funding of training programs for
teachers and creating equal educational opportunities for all children. Members of the NEC include students,
substitute teachers, administrators, Education Support Professionals, higher
education faculty and staff, and also retired people of these professions. Since the NEA is composed of representatives
from multiple roles in education it may be assumed that the goals and beliefs
of the NEA, including the Code of Conduct, are therefore shared by the majority
of the profession. The creation of the
Code of Conduct may therefore be viewed as a tool for making the beliefs and
expectations of members’ of the NEA apparent for past, present, and future
teachers. Ultimately however, being a
member of the NEC does not mean that one will take part in the decision-making
process. Decisions are made by the Board
of Directors and the Executive Committee, as well as individuals selected as
President, Vice President, Secretary-Treasurer, and Executive Director of the
Association. These positions are first
elected by members of the NEA at both the state and local level to become a
Representative Assembly delegate. These
delegates then elect the previously listed top officers. Therefore, with this information
in mind, it may be fair to question the idea that the Code was created to push
a certain agenda that the Association had, or in other words, the views that
those first elected held. We must also
consider the role of the government in education and how such influences from
this group had on the contents of the code as well. The outcome of the code is unmistakably
clear; all professional educators need to not only adopt these beliefs and
views, but to abide by these regulations in order to appropriately embody the
responsibilities of a successful educator.
After an understanding of the
context of the prose and the various activity systems involved, we are able to
analyze the usage of a distant tone and complex sentences, in order to protect
private interests of the NEA. The first
example of such writing is found at the very beginning of the code in the
Preamble section. “The National
Education Association believes that the education profession consists of one
education workforce serving the needs of all students and that the term
‘educator’ includes education support professionals.” This introductory sentence is an example of a
relative clause, which defines who an educator is, and is also a tool of the
“Official Style” of writing. We again
see the usage of complex sentences in the next sentence as well: “The educator,
believing in the worth and dignity of each human being, recognizes the supreme
importance of the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, and the nurture of
the democratic principles.” This
sentence is an example of a participial phrase, which again is a tool of the
“Original Style.” Writing an introduction like this is not only setting the
standard for the remaining prose, as well as the style of the writing.
Word choice such as: “the educator,”
is found throughout the prose, giving it a very generic, professional
tone. The obvious reason for utilizing
such would choice in order to create professionalism is so that the prose will
come across as credible and worthy of reading.
Also, considering that the NEA is an association that is affiliated with
the government, it gives a more official feel to the prose as well. On the other hand, such word choice also
creates a distance between the reader and the text. It is possible that the NEA wrote with this
distant tone to not only remain professional and bureaucratic, but to remind the
audience that all educators need to share the same beliefs and values and that
those values are already predetermined by the Board of Directors as well as the
Executive Committee of the NEA.
While considering the various
activity systems associated with the code, the Board of Directors and the
Executive Committee of the NEA, as well as their elected officials and members,
it is reasonable to believe that the intended audience for this prose is most
likely someone associated with education in some aspect. Therefore, with this in mind, the
introduction seems somewhat redundant, and causes question as to why the NEA
felt the need to define something that should already be clear. One possibility is that it was included
because the NEA wanted to have one finite definition for all members of the
various activity systems surrounding not only the NEA, but education as
well. Therefore, it may have been
included so that educators as well as members of the NEA not only learn such a
definition, but begin to use it in future discussions regarding the role of an
educator, which would create a more universal definition. Another possibility is that the NEA wrote
such an introduction because it is the definition that the Board of Directors
and the Executive Committee members believe, and therefore was included with
the intent to push their belief upon the audience. As stated previously, becoming a member of
the NEA does not mean that you are a part of the decision-making process, and
that only those elected do. With this
information in mind, it may be said that the definition was included in order
to push a political agenda held by the elected officials of the NEA. Yet another possibility may be that a parent
who has a student enrolled in public education is reading the code to ensure
that their child is getting the best education possible. With this is mind; it may be safe to say that
a parent knows less about the role of an educator, other than the fact that an
educator is someone who teaches.
Therefore, it would be necessary for the NEA and its various directors
and committee members to explicitly state who an educator is. If this reasoning were to be found true then
it may be said that the NEA wrote such an introduction with the intent to not
only clarify, but to bring an understanding of the role of an educator to an
audience that would include those not associated with the education
profession. To be fair, any one of these
reasons are possible, and it nearly impossible to know the intent for including
it without asking the writers of the code.
The second sentence in the
introduction also causes question as to what the intent was for being included
in the code. For example, shouldn’t
“believing in the worth and dignity of each human being,” be a trait that
humans in general, not only educators, hold?
Even if this isn’t a universal belief that all human beings should hold,
one would like to think that someone associated with education and the activity
systems surrounding the NEA would sure believe such. With this in mind, the word choice of that
sentence may send off a belittling effect upon the reader of the code and send
an off-putting message. Then again, it
is widely known that there are educators out there that do not share this
belief, so the NEA may have felt it pertinent to include in the code.
Looking at the lists of guidelines
further reveals an uncanny resemblance to the Ten Commandments, not only
because of the numbering, but because of the word choice used as well. Did the NEA and its elected officials
intentionally write this way with the Bible in mind, meaning that there is not
only a political agenda but a religious one as well? Or, was this word choice used
because of the time that the code was written and that the NEA believed that
this was the best way to clearly list the guidelines of a successful teacher?
Whether
intentional or unintentional, the continuous use of the word: “shall not,” may
not sit well with some audiences considering that it creates the allusion of a
religious aspect. This is somewhat
ironic considering the separation of church and state, and it is curious as to
why this aspect of the code has not been rewritten or updated as of yet.
Although there are varying
intentions of the NEA and the text of the code, it was written with good
intentions, to clearly define the role of an educator and the guidelines that
one must follow in order to do so.
Through utilizing the “Official Style” of writing by including complex
sentences, specific word choice, and a distant tone, the NEA has been able to
create a piece of writing that has been utilized and followed for many years by
many people associated with the activity systems surrounding all aspects of
education. The reason for this being so
is because through this form of writing the NEA was able to create a credible
prose that would find merit with the activity systems not only surrounding the
NEA, but to those of education as well.
With that being said, it isn’t the form of writing that causes issue for
some, but with the unknown and hidden intent behind the specific word choice,
the distant tone, and the actual content of the code. It is only through viewing and analyzing the
prose from the viewpoints of the various activity systems surrounding the code
that we are able to come up with possible reasons. However, if we look back at the activity
systems surrounding the NEA, it is clear that they are nearly all associated
with the education profession, which causes question as to why the code has not
been revised. It is possible that such redundant,
explicit guidelines were necessary at one time to ensure the success of public
education, but considering that teaching methods and standards are continuously
changing it is curious as to why the code hasn’t changed too.
-Celine W
No comments:
Post a Comment