Codes of Ethics in Australian Education – Study Notes
Abstract & Central Thesis
Teachers hold a dual moral responsibility:
Acting as values educators in classrooms.
Serving as moral agents whose behaviour shapes the public integrity of the profession.
Codes of ethics/conduct both articulate shared professional values and function as regulatory instruments that position teachers within sanctioned roles.
Main research questions addressed:
How do Australian State/Territory codes position teachers as professionals, moral agents, and public servants?
What assumptions about ethics and professional autonomy are embedded in these documents?
What educational implications flow from differing code types?
Key conclusion: Australian codes divide into two broad families—“aspirational” (values-oriented) and “procedural/regulatory” (rule-oriented)—each shaping teachers’ role morality differently and blending in various jurisdictions.
Political & Policy Context
Dominant policy discourses stress:
Transparency of outcomes in numeracy/literacy.
Evidence-based practice and standardisation.
Accountability to professional standards, accreditation, and performance management.
Social-justice improvement for disadvantaged, Indigenous, and low-SES communities.
Federal initiatives: National Curriculum, NAPLAN testing, National Partnerships, National Values Curriculum, AITSL/Professional Standards—all generate pressure for harmonised ethics yet codes remain State/Territory based.
Historical Background
19^{th}-century Australian teachers cast as moral exemplars with missionary zeal.
Expectations expanded toward multiculturalism, gender equity, human-rights advocacy.
Contemporary move from collective notions of “good teaching” to an audit-culture “competent teacher” model.
Conceptual Foundations
Distinction between professional ethics vs. general morality:
Professional ethics = special obligations in a position of public trust and partial autonomy.
Professional standards ≠ ethical standards; competence may not equal moral action.
Aristotelian view: Professional role morality is a subset of broader morality; its specifics hinge on the profession’s contribution to human flourishing.
Persistent tension: individual autonomy vs. collective responsibility/service.
Methodology of the Study
Exhaustive desktop search (to 2012) of all publicly available “Code of Ethics” or “Code of Conduct” documents from official teacher registration bodies, institutes, or departments across the 8 States/Territories.
Content-analysis questions included layout, terminology, purposes, guidance mechanisms, links to standards, and clustering of value statements.
Comparative tables created mapping purposes, authorship, disciplinary links, and key values.
Typology of Codes
Aspirational Codes
Goal: inspire, unite, and publicly communicate shared ideals.
Not primarily disciplinary; often disclaim use as compliance tools.
Emphasise values such as integrity, respect, justice, care.
Examples: VIC, QLD, WA, SA, NT, TAS.
Regulatory/Procedural Codes
Goal: ensure adherence, manage misconduct, protect reputation.
Breach → formal disciplinary action.
Often authored by education departments rather than professional boards.
Examples: historical NSW 2004 version; ACT Public Service Code.
Trend: even the most regulatory codes are “softening,” adopting value statements and framing themselves as decision-making “frameworks.”
Authorship & Jurisdictional Nuances
Professional registration bodies author codes in all jurisdictions except NSW & ACT (department authored).
Alignment with Teacher Registration Acts ensures legal enforceability during complaints/investigations.
Table 1 (article) synthesises purposes per State/Territory. Key highlights:
VIC: Code of Ethics (2005) + Code of Conduct (2008) – both non-disciplinary.
QLD: One-page Code of Ethics (2008) to “guide & encourage.”
WA: Code (2009) to guide, inspire excellence, promote public confidence.
SA: Framework for reflection; explicitly “not an instrument of compliance.”
NT & TAS: Stress “fit and proper” / “good character.”
NSW 2010: broad framework but obliges reporting of breaches; disciplinary potential remains.
ACT 2005: Mandatory; breach triggers disciplinary measures.
Core Value Families Identified
Integrity (present in all codes except the brief WACOT list):
Elements: honesty, trustworthiness, accountability, impartiality, truthfulness, dignity.
National Values Framework defines as acting “in accordance with principles of moral and ethical conduct” ensuring consistency of word & deed.
Respect (explicit everywhere):
Elements: care, compassion, fairness, impartiality, valuing diversity, collegial regard.
Tension noted between “arm’s-length fairness” vs. intimate care/compassion.
Extended family values: justice, responsibility, dignity, empathy, care.
Variation in use: what VIT labels “impartiality” under Respect, QCT lists under Integrity—illustrates semantic drift and potential practitioner confusion.
Presentation Styles & Supporting Resources
Formats vary from single-page posters (QLD, WA, TAS) to multi-section policies (NSW, ACT) to online multimedia resources (VIC).
Decision-making aids:
NSW 2004 had a linear model; replaced in 2010 by online teacher interviews.
VIT supplies step-wise decision models + online workshops using practitioner vignettes.
Some codes encourage collegial consensus-building; others emphasise hierarchical consultation (seek supervisor clarification).
Philosophical & Practical Tensions
Heroic/Aspirational vs. Surveillance/Regulatory:
Heroic codes risk unsustainable expectations of self-sacrifice.
Regulatory codes may foster deferential rule-following, dampening moral agency.
Autonomy vs. Public Assurance:
Society demands trustworthy service; teachers demand space for context-sensitive moral judgment.
Static rule sets vs. Dynamic relational ethics:
Fixed directives can quickly lose relevance amid evolving pedagogical realities.
Moral agency flourishes through ongoing dialogue, reflection, and situational discernment.
Implications for Teacher Education & Professional Development
Ethical content exists in Australian ITE programmes but often implicit; few dedicated philosophical ethics units.
Risk: graduates not equipped for robust moral reasoning.
Recommendation:
Make ethics components explicit, multidimensional, and reflective.
Use code comparisons to provoke critical debate (e.g., impartiality vs. care dilemmas).
Provide continuous PD resources (vignettes, workshops, decision models).
Aspirational codes need complementary structures (dialogue forums, mentoring) to translate ideals into practice.
Regulatory codes should incorporate interpretive flexibility and nurture “grounded ethical confidence” (Cigman).
Connections to Broader Literature
Aligns with Higgins’ regulatory-focus theory: threat/punishment vs. promotion ideals shape motivation.
Echoes Terhart 1998 on balancing professional autonomy with administrative control.
Mirrors international anti-corruption rationale for codes (van Nuland & Khandelwal 2006).
Resonate with discourse analyses on professionalisation and managerial standards (Sachs 2001, 2003).
Numerical & Statistical References
Publication details: Australian Journal of Teacher Education, Vol 37, Issue 9, September 2012.
Timeline of code releases: majority between 2005–2009; notable updates NSW 2010.
Eight jurisdictions analysed (VIC, NSW, QLD, WA, SA, TAS, NT, ACT).
Open Questions & Future Research Directions
Should codes be nationalised to match federal trends in curriculum/standards?
How can pluralist community voices (students, families) inform future revisions?
What mix of aspirational articulation and disciplinary enforceability best sustains both public trust and teacher autonomy?
How to operationalise values (e.g., “respect”) with greater conceptual clarity across diverse contexts?
Key Take-Away Messages
Codes are powerful shapers of teacher identity; their design choices carry real moral and educational consequences.
Australian trend is towards aspirational framing, yet regulatory undercurrents persist, especially via enabling legislation.
Integrity and respect are universal core values but interpreted diversely; explicit discussion is essential to avoid ethical ambiguity.
Effective ethics education must move beyond static code reading to dynamic, situated, reflective engagement.
Continual dialogue among teachers, policy makers, and the community is vital to harmonise professional autonomy with public accountability.