Custodians, as well as field trip chaperones and coaches, become holders of privileged information simply by being surrounded by students outside of structured environments. Bus drivers and teachers supervise minors while simultaneously juggling myriad high-stakes responsibilities. Food service personnel and instructional assistants often interact with students informally and holistically. School receptionists, office staff and school administrators publicly represent the school’s mission amid numerous high stress competing tensions. And in a small community, where multiple relationships exist organically, there are added layers of challenge for every single employee. Such issues engender a range of ethical considerations – regardless of role.

The language embedded within Standard IV.B.1 of the Model Code of Ethics for Educators: “Respecting colleagues as fellow professionals and maintaining civility …” By placing the emphasis on professional alliance, Standard IV.B.1 gives priority to shared practitioner norms as opposed to focusing on differing individual or role-specific values. This distinction underscores the responsibilities which unite all schooling employees.

It is important to note the phrase respecting as fellow professionals is paired with the phrase maintaining civility. The word “civility” is derived from the Latin word ‘civis’ which means ‘citizen.’[1] Quite literally, civility applies to one who fulfills the duty of a citizen – and as employees within the schooling community, our citizenship is rooted in shared professional norms, values and responsibilities.

But there is another aspect to professional citizenship.

The ethos of professional ethics goes well beyond merely adhering to established professional norms when making decisions. It also entails a higher threshold of responsibility – our professional commitment to the welfare and betterment of the community in which we live.

**To read the full article visit https://www.nasdtec.net/blogpost/1757877/450953/Regardless-of-Role **

     There is a distinction between the professional and private life of a teacher. Teachers are individuals with private lives; however, off-duty conduct matters and sound judgment and due care must be exercised.

     Teachers’ off-duty conduct, even when not directly related to students, is relevant to their suitability to teach. Members must maintain a sense of professionalism at all times – in their personal and professional lives.

     As early as 1939, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a case called Horosko v. Mt. Pleasant School District opined that “ [i]t has always been the recognized duty of the teacher to conduct himself in such way as to command the respect and good will of the community, though one result of the choice of a teacher's vocation may be to deprive him of the same freedom of action enjoyed by persons in other vocations.” Take a few minutes and read the Horosko case and you might be surprised to learn of the “conduct” that so shocked the Court in 1939.

     In a society with rapidly changing morals, the challenge lies in determining when a teacher's off-duty conduct results in a perhaps unintended effect in their professional life. Sometimes it is easy to see how particular off-duty conduct can affect a teacher's professional life. For example, if a teacher is found to be using illegal drugs, it is relatively easy to assume that disciplinary action will follow given the zero tolerance for drugs in schools, the accepted position of teacher as a role model, and the perceived undermining of the teacher’s authority in the classroom as a result of the illegal conduct. The repercussions of other off-duty conduct or lifestyle choices may be more difficult to predict and may depend on the culture of a school district or the nature of a teacher's position.