Ethics and standardization of teaching practices

Ethics and standardization of teaching practices

  • Denis Jeffrey, Université Laval, Canada

doi : 10.18162/fp.2016.351

Résumé

Ethics is a fundamental professional concern. Any professional is usually characterized by an ethic he shares with his peers. Or, Québec teachers are never aggregated to around common ethical standards. It even seems that without a common ethic, still prevails within their profession a «moral virtuism» inherited from ancien teachers training. We argue here that we connot used this old morality for evaluating the work of teachers and it would be better that they give to themselves a professional ethic of responsibility. In this paper, we frst present some impasses in the process of professionalisation of teaching practices. Subsequently, we examine historical considerations to understand why the religious virtuism is still needed today to judge the morality of a teacher. We end with arguments to support an ethic of responsibility for Quebec teachers.

Abstract

Ethics is a fundamental professional concern. Any professional is usually characterized by an ethic he shares with his peers. Or, Québec teachers are never aggregated to around common ethical standards. It even seems that without a common ethic, still prevails within their profession a «moral virtuism» inherited from ancien teachers training. We argue here that we connot used this old morality for evaluating the work of teachers and it would be better that they give to themselves a professional ethic of responsibility. In this paper, we frst present some impasses in the process of professionalisation of teaching practices. Subsequently, we examine historical considerations to understand why the religious virtuism is still needed today to judge the morality of a teacher. We end with arguments to support an ethic of responsibility for Quebec teachers.

To cite this article

Jeffrey, D. (2016). Ethics and standardization of teaching practices. Formation et profession, 24(2), 5. https://dx.doi.org/10.18162/fp.2016.351