Teaching, morality, and responsibility: A Structuralist analysis of a teachers’ code of conduct
In this paper we conduct a Structuralist analysis of the General Teaching Council for England’s Code of Conduct and Practice for Registered Teachers in order to reveal how teachers are required to fulfil an apparently impossible social role. The GTCE’s Code, we argue, may be seen as an attempt by a...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Teaching and teacher education 2012, Vol.28 (1), p.124-131 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 131 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 124 |
| container_title | Teaching and teacher education |
| container_volume | 28 |
| creator | Shortt, Damien Hallett, Fiona Spendlove, David Hardy, Graham Barton, Amanda |
| description | In this paper we conduct a Structuralist analysis of the General Teaching Council for England’s
Code of Conduct and Practice for Registered Teachers in order to reveal how teachers are required to fulfil an apparently impossible social role. The GTCE’s
Code, we argue, may be seen as an attempt by a government agency to resolve the political and ideological tensions that emerge in a society that grapples with the paradox of revering individual autonomy whilst simultaneously being dependent upon state-delivered services like a national education system. In such a situation it seems that teachers are a locus in which these tensions collide. However, the GTCE’s attempt to bridge the philosophical gaps provides an opportunity, we conclude, for teachers and teacher-educators to explore the differences between public myths of the teaching profession and the lived reality of life in the classroom.
► We conduct a Structuralist analysis of a teachers' code of conduct. ► The GTCE's
Code of Conduct is an important sociological document. ► Attempts to regulate teachers reveal much about public views of the profession. ► This Structuralist methodology can be usefully applied to similar policy documents. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.004 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1023096393</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ945113</ericid><els_id>S0742051X11001077</els_id><sourcerecordid>1023096393</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c354t-d9a2d16770300751fb879f68f216df59cf3b52271bb1c11a1b2287080e5b22923</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1KBDEQhYMoOI5eQFxk6WK6rUr_RtyI-IvgQgV3IZ1Oa4aezphkhNl5Da_nSUwz4tJVFVXfe1Q9Qg4RUgQsT-ZpkEGnDBBT4ClAvkUmWFc8YXkN22QCVc4SKPBll-x5PweAsoByQuSTlurNDK8zurBO9iasZ1QOLXXaL-3gTWPG2Sk9p4_BrVRYjZAPkZH92htPbUclDaOLdv7784sq2-pxquzQRsE-2elk7_XBb52S56vLp4ub5P7h-vbi_D5RWZGHpOWStVhWFWQAVYFdE6_vyrpjWLZdwVWXNQVjFTYNKkSJDWN1BTXoInacZVNyvPFdOvu-0j6IhfFK970ctF15gcAy4GXGs4iyDaqc9d7pTiydWUi3jpAY8xRzMeYpxjwFcBHzjKKjjUg7o_4El3c8LxBHz7Pfdfzxw2gnvDJ6ULo1TqsgWmv-c_8B5pmIZA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1023096393</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Teaching, morality, and responsibility: A Structuralist analysis of a teachers’ code of conduct</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Shortt, Damien ; Hallett, Fiona ; Spendlove, David ; Hardy, Graham ; Barton, Amanda</creator><creatorcontrib>Shortt, Damien ; Hallett, Fiona ; Spendlove, David ; Hardy, Graham ; Barton, Amanda</creatorcontrib><description>In this paper we conduct a Structuralist analysis of the General Teaching Council for England’s
Code of Conduct and Practice for Registered Teachers in order to reveal how teachers are required to fulfil an apparently impossible social role. The GTCE’s
Code, we argue, may be seen as an attempt by a government agency to resolve the political and ideological tensions that emerge in a society that grapples with the paradox of revering individual autonomy whilst simultaneously being dependent upon state-delivered services like a national education system. In such a situation it seems that teachers are a locus in which these tensions collide. However, the GTCE’s attempt to bridge the philosophical gaps provides an opportunity, we conclude, for teachers and teacher-educators to explore the differences between public myths of the teaching profession and the lived reality of life in the classroom.
► We conduct a Structuralist analysis of a teachers' code of conduct. ► The GTCE's
Code of Conduct is an important sociological document. ► Attempts to regulate teachers reveal much about public views of the profession. ► This Structuralist methodology can be usefully applied to similar policy documents.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0742-051X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-2480</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.004</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Barthes ; Classrooms ; Code of conduct ; Codes of conduct ; Educational Philosophy ; Educational Policy ; England ; Ethics ; Foreign Countries ; GTCE ; Lévi-Strauss ; Misconceptions ; Moral Values ; Myth ; Myths ; National education system ; Personal Autonomy ; Politics of Education ; Public Agencies ; Role of Education ; Structuralism ; Teacher Education ; Teacher Responsibility ; Teacher Role ; Teachers ; Teaching ; Teaching (Occupation)</subject><ispartof>Teaching and teacher education, 2012, Vol.28 (1), p.124-131</ispartof><rights>2011 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c354t-d9a2d16770300751fb879f68f216df59cf3b52271bb1c11a1b2287080e5b22923</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c354t-d9a2d16770300751fb879f68f216df59cf3b52271bb1c11a1b2287080e5b22923</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0742051X11001077$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,4010,27900,27901,27902,30977,65534</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ945113$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shortt, Damien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hallett, Fiona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spendlove, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hardy, Graham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barton, Amanda</creatorcontrib><title>Teaching, morality, and responsibility: A Structuralist analysis of a teachers’ code of conduct</title><title>Teaching and teacher education</title><description>In this paper we conduct a Structuralist analysis of the General Teaching Council for England’s
Code of Conduct and Practice for Registered Teachers in order to reveal how teachers are required to fulfil an apparently impossible social role. The GTCE’s
Code, we argue, may be seen as an attempt by a government agency to resolve the political and ideological tensions that emerge in a society that grapples with the paradox of revering individual autonomy whilst simultaneously being dependent upon state-delivered services like a national education system. In such a situation it seems that teachers are a locus in which these tensions collide. However, the GTCE’s attempt to bridge the philosophical gaps provides an opportunity, we conclude, for teachers and teacher-educators to explore the differences between public myths of the teaching profession and the lived reality of life in the classroom.
► We conduct a Structuralist analysis of a teachers' code of conduct. ► The GTCE's
Code of Conduct is an important sociological document. ► Attempts to regulate teachers reveal much about public views of the profession. ► This Structuralist methodology can be usefully applied to similar policy documents.</description><subject>Barthes</subject><subject>Classrooms</subject><subject>Code of conduct</subject><subject>Codes of conduct</subject><subject>Educational Philosophy</subject><subject>Educational Policy</subject><subject>England</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Foreign Countries</subject><subject>GTCE</subject><subject>Lévi-Strauss</subject><subject>Misconceptions</subject><subject>Moral Values</subject><subject>Myth</subject><subject>Myths</subject><subject>National education system</subject><subject>Personal Autonomy</subject><subject>Politics of Education</subject><subject>Public Agencies</subject><subject>Role of Education</subject><subject>Structuralism</subject><subject>Teacher Education</subject><subject>Teacher Responsibility</subject><subject>Teacher Role</subject><subject>Teachers</subject><subject>Teaching</subject><subject>Teaching (Occupation)</subject><issn>0742-051X</issn><issn>1879-2480</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1KBDEQhYMoOI5eQFxk6WK6rUr_RtyI-IvgQgV3IZ1Oa4aezphkhNl5Da_nSUwz4tJVFVXfe1Q9Qg4RUgQsT-ZpkEGnDBBT4ClAvkUmWFc8YXkN22QCVc4SKPBll-x5PweAsoByQuSTlurNDK8zurBO9iasZ1QOLXXaL-3gTWPG2Sk9p4_BrVRYjZAPkZH92htPbUclDaOLdv7784sq2-pxquzQRsE-2elk7_XBb52S56vLp4ub5P7h-vbi_D5RWZGHpOWStVhWFWQAVYFdE6_vyrpjWLZdwVWXNQVjFTYNKkSJDWN1BTXoInacZVNyvPFdOvu-0j6IhfFK970ctF15gcAy4GXGs4iyDaqc9d7pTiydWUi3jpAY8xRzMeYpxjwFcBHzjKKjjUg7o_4El3c8LxBHz7Pfdfzxw2gnvDJ6ULo1TqsgWmv-c_8B5pmIZA</recordid><startdate>2012</startdate><enddate>2012</enddate><creator>Shortt, Damien</creator><creator>Hallett, Fiona</creator><creator>Spendlove, David</creator><creator>Hardy, Graham</creator><creator>Barton, Amanda</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2012</creationdate><title>Teaching, morality, and responsibility: A Structuralist analysis of a teachers’ code of conduct</title><author>Shortt, Damien ; Hallett, Fiona ; Spendlove, David ; Hardy, Graham ; Barton, Amanda</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c354t-d9a2d16770300751fb879f68f216df59cf3b52271bb1c11a1b2287080e5b22923</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Barthes</topic><topic>Classrooms</topic><topic>Code of conduct</topic><topic>Codes of conduct</topic><topic>Educational Philosophy</topic><topic>Educational Policy</topic><topic>England</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Foreign Countries</topic><topic>GTCE</topic><topic>Lévi-Strauss</topic><topic>Misconceptions</topic><topic>Moral Values</topic><topic>Myth</topic><topic>Myths</topic><topic>National education system</topic><topic>Personal Autonomy</topic><topic>Politics of Education</topic><topic>Public Agencies</topic><topic>Role of Education</topic><topic>Structuralism</topic><topic>Teacher Education</topic><topic>Teacher Responsibility</topic><topic>Teacher Role</topic><topic>Teachers</topic><topic>Teaching</topic><topic>Teaching (Occupation)</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shortt, Damien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hallett, Fiona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spendlove, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hardy, Graham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barton, Amanda</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><jtitle>Teaching and teacher education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shortt, Damien</au><au>Hallett, Fiona</au><au>Spendlove, David</au><au>Hardy, Graham</au><au>Barton, Amanda</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ945113</ericid><atitle>Teaching, morality, and responsibility: A Structuralist analysis of a teachers’ code of conduct</atitle><jtitle>Teaching and teacher education</jtitle><date>2012</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>124</spage><epage>131</epage><pages>124-131</pages><issn>0742-051X</issn><eissn>1879-2480</eissn><abstract>In this paper we conduct a Structuralist analysis of the General Teaching Council for England’s
Code of Conduct and Practice for Registered Teachers in order to reveal how teachers are required to fulfil an apparently impossible social role. The GTCE’s
Code, we argue, may be seen as an attempt by a government agency to resolve the political and ideological tensions that emerge in a society that grapples with the paradox of revering individual autonomy whilst simultaneously being dependent upon state-delivered services like a national education system. In such a situation it seems that teachers are a locus in which these tensions collide. However, the GTCE’s attempt to bridge the philosophical gaps provides an opportunity, we conclude, for teachers and teacher-educators to explore the differences between public myths of the teaching profession and the lived reality of life in the classroom.
► We conduct a Structuralist analysis of a teachers' code of conduct. ► The GTCE's
Code of Conduct is an important sociological document. ► Attempts to regulate teachers reveal much about public views of the profession. ► This Structuralist methodology can be usefully applied to similar policy documents.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.004</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0742-051X |
| ispartof | Teaching and teacher education, 2012, Vol.28 (1), p.124-131 |
| issn | 0742-051X 1879-2480 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1023096393 |
| source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
| subjects | Barthes Classrooms Code of conduct Codes of conduct Educational Philosophy Educational Policy England Ethics Foreign Countries GTCE Lévi-Strauss Misconceptions Moral Values Myth Myths National education system Personal Autonomy Politics of Education Public Agencies Role of Education Structuralism Teacher Education Teacher Responsibility Teacher Role Teachers Teaching Teaching (Occupation) |
| title | Teaching, morality, and responsibility: A Structuralist analysis of a teachers’ code of conduct |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T14%3A02%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Teaching,%20morality,%20and%20responsibility:%20A%20Structuralist%20analysis%20of%20a%20teachers%E2%80%99%20code%20of%20conduct&rft.jtitle=Teaching%20and%20teacher%20education&rft.au=Shortt,%20Damien&rft.date=2012&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=124&rft.epage=131&rft.pages=124-131&rft.issn=0742-051X&rft.eissn=1879-2480&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.004&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1023096393%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1023096393&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ945113&rft_els_id=S0742051X11001077&rfr_iscdi=true |