AEU submission: Review of the VIT Victorian Teaching Profession’s Code of Conduct

AEU Victoria's submission to the Review of the VIT Victorian Teaching Profession’s Code of Conduct, submitted in February, 2020.

The AEU submission is based upon an evaluation of the professional principles and a consideration of the adequacy of the existing wording given the issues identified in the VIT Review Discussion Paper. The submission is informed by feedback from our school and early childhood members and the professional, industrial and legal expertise and experience within our organisation.

Introduction

The Australian Education Union (Vic) represents 48,000 members working in Victorian public schools, early childhood, TAFE and adult provision. 

The AEU submission is based upon an evaluation of the professional principles, and their preamble, set out in the Code and a consideration of the adequacy of the existing wording given the issues identified in the VIT Review Discussion Paper. The submission is informed by feedback from our school and early childhood members and the professional, industrial and legal expertise and experience within our organisation.

The significant changes to the broader education landscape identified in the VIT Discussion Paper as having implications for the Code of Conduct were: 

  • The inclusion of early childhood teachers in the VIT register of the teaching profession in 2015. 
  • The growth of social media.
  • The impact of the Betrayal of Trust Inquiry and Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse

The recommendations in the AEU submission to the Review were formulated after consideration of what changes to the Code of Conduct these developments might require.
As it is important to have a nationally consistent approach to the teaching profession, the AEU now believes that the Code of Conduct should be replaced by professional boundaries guidelines similar to those produced by other teacher regulatory authorities around Australia (for example the Queensland College of Teachers document).

While covering the same professional boundary issues as the VIT Code, these documents are more representative of the professional nature of teaching, have a clearer focus on professional boundaries rather than the mish-mash of areas within the Code (including content already covered by the professional standards for teachers) and have the capacity to properly explain boundary issues rather than having just a series of dot points which are open to varied interpretation and ambiguity because of their bare nature.

In terms of the present Code, the AEU considers that its language should take into account and be interpreted through the wide range of teaching contexts within the school and early childhood sectors and the diversity of learners within those contexts including their age, race, socio-economic background, sexuality, gender identity, religious affiliations and any disability or special needs. For example, the Code must be able to support the appropriate professional practice of an early childhood teacher when they offer comfort to a stressed student even though such comfort would not necessarily be appropriate and take a different form for an adolescent student in a school context. The language must remain broad enough to provide guidance for all teachers in all contexts.

There is also a need to situate and be cognisant of the conduct of teachers within their working conditions. Such variables as the amount and intensity of work, the level of resourcing to carry out their work, the health and safety conditions within their work environment, the human relations environment created by their employer or their line manager, and specific local institutional and system-wide policies of employers may all have an impact on a teacher’s professional and personal life. 

An important concern for the union is any regulatory or bureaucratic overreach in proposed changes to the Code. To be relevant and meaningful the Code must enjoy the confidence of the teaching profession as it is a guide for the professional conduct of teachers. The level of confidence will depend upon whether the Code properly respects teaching as a professional occupation and whether there is an appropriate balance between the set of standards for professional behaviour and the political, industrial and civil rights of teachers. Our position is that the nature of the present Code, compared to the guidelines produced by other teacher regulatory authorities, and despite the statements in its preamble, seems to be more of an inconsistent assortment of different types of issues linked by dot points rather than a coherent professional guide. The various change proposals in the Discussion Paper would seem to reinforce and add to this flaw rather than address it. 

In view of the above considerations, and taking account of the purposes and status of the Code of Conduct, the AEU does not believe that a convincing case has been made to include new and specific definitions of the various words identified in the Discussion Paper (p.9 and p.12) as “needing further definition or explanation” or that this list of words should be added to.  

Our concern is that in calling for more specific definitions, the Discussion Paper is seeking to transform the Code from its existing status as a professional guide for the conduct of teachers to a more legalistic “disciplinary tool”. 

The AEU agrees with the reported comments from participants in the VIT’s Review workshops (Discussion Paper p.7) supporting the use of strengths-based and positive language in the Code, rather than a list of prohibited behaviours.

Comments about specific aspects of the existing Code

Preamble

The AEU supports the stated purposes of the VIT Code of Conduct:

  • promote adherence to the values teachers see as underpinning their profession
  • provide a set of principles to guide teachers in their everyday conduct and assist them to solve ethical dilemmas
  • affirm the public accountability of the teaching profession
  • promote public confidence in the teaching profession. 

We believe that any proposed changes to the Code should be justified in terms of these purposes.

We also believe that proposed changes should adhere to the Code’s stated status as set out in the preamble:

The Code of Conduct is not a disciplinary tool, nor will it cover every situation. There may be policies or procedures set down by a sector or education setting in which a teacher works, or there may be specific issues covered by an industrial agreement or award.

The AEU does not support any changes to the wording of the purposes or status of the Code as set out in its current preamble. 

Section 1: Professional Conduct

  • The fourth dot point in Principle 1.4: [teachers] ‘do not seek recognition at the expense of professional objectivity and goals’ is difficult to interpret and we believe unnecessary. It should be removed from the code.
  • The fourth point in Principle 1.5 remove “chat lines” and add “social media”. The reference to social media under this principle places this form of communication in the same category as other forms of communication which may be used in ways which violate the professional boundaries between teacher and learner. The Department of Education and Training has detailed policy relating to social media use by its employees. Other employers should also have such policy guidelines. The Professional Boundary guidelines of other teaching regulation bodies are more able to properly address the issues for teachers in the use of social media.
  • The distinction in the dot point wording in 1.5 between the first set of dot points where a professional relationship “will be violated” by the dot point scenarios and the second set of dot points where it (only) “may be compromised” is confusing given the content of each set of dot points. This once again emphasises the drawbacks of having a dot point Code rather than a properly explained Professional Boundaries document.
  • The content of Principle 1.5 does not need to be further added to as it clearly sets out what the professional relationship between teacher and learner should be and is appropriate for a formal Code of Conduct.
  • While the wording of Principle 1.6 may generally remain appropriate - ‘Teachers should be respectful of, and courteous to, parents and carers” – it’s important that the interpretation of this wording should take account of the context within which teachers are now working. Recent evidence about the increasing threats to the occupational health and safety of teachers and principals by some parents should inform the VIT’s understanding of this Principle. ( see for example: Philip Riley (2019), The Australian Principal Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing Survey 2018 Data, ACU; Paulina Billett, Rochelle Fogelgam and Edgar Burns (2019), Teacher targeted bullying and harassment by students and parents: Report from an Australian exploratory study, La Trobe University.

Section 2: Personal Conduct

  • The AEU does not believe that the VIT should increase its regulation of the personal conduct of teachers above and beyond what is already specified in the wording of this section. In fact various interpretations of the present set of dot point standards already raise questions about whether they go too far in circumscribing the political and civil rights of teachers. The dot point format lends itself to this type of interpretation.
  • No clear case has been made as to why teachers’ private lives should be further scrutinised, particularly in relation to actions that are not education-related or illegal, or that the Code of Conduct should be altered to mimic the examples referred to in the VIT Discussion Paper – the Victoria police ‘off duty’ conduct standards covering alcohol, drugs and participation in political matters such as signing petitions or the ‘disreputable conduct’ wording used in the psychologists’ Code.

Section 3: Professional Competence

  • The wording for Principle 3.2 could be clarified in the following way: Teachers are cognisant of the legal requirements and their legal responsibilities in relation to:
  • “Child Safe Standards” could be a seventh dot point added to the list of specific areas where teachers should be aware of the legal requirements and their legal responsibilities.
  • The AEU supports the notion in the VIT Discussion Paper (Question 2 in Section 3) that the Code should recognise the shared responsibility of teachers, employers and education sectors in maintaining standards and competence. To reiterate the position we outlined in the Introduction to this submission (see above), the concept of ‘professional competence’ cannot be viewed in isolation from the context and working conditions within which a teacher demonstrates that competence. This means taking into consideration such matters as: the extent to which the employer has provided appropriate resources and support to meet the needs of the student population where a teacher is employed, whether a teacher is required to teach ‘out-of-field’ where they may lack a depth of subject knowledge or pedagogical-related subject knowledge, whether they are able to access in a timely manner the relevant professional learning they need or their overall workload burden.  

The distinguished educationist Professor Richard Elmore has defined good accountability systems as those which have “very strong reciprocity principles”. This means “for every unit of performance I require of you, I have an equal and opposite responsibility to provide you with a unit of capacity”. (Richard Elmore in interview (2007), Professional Voice, Volume 5 Issue 1, AEU(Vic), p.52).

2 February 2020