GTCE Code of Conduct

For the information of members, this is ACT's response to the Consultation on the GTCE Code of Conduct

Response to the Consultation on the GTCE Code of Conduct

The Association of Christian Teachers is a non-denominational Christian membership organization of about 1,500 members, which provides professional and spiritual support to Christians engaged in pre-school, primary, middle, secondary, special, college and university education in England. This response
to the consultation is from the ACT Board composed of teachers and other education professionals elected by the members.

Summary: 

Section A - a welcome for the principles of the Code of Conduct.
Section B - a specific concern in the light of recent events
Section C - some specific proposals to overcome potential difficulties.

Section A

1.      ACT welcomes a Code of Conduct which sets out the high standards that those in the education
         profession expect of themselves, and which members of the public expect of the profession.
         It welcomes the GTCE's affirmation of these high standards, particularly at a time when standards
         in teaching are often in marked contrast to the standards displayed in other areas of public life.
2.      ACT draws attention to the fact that such standards for teachers derive from Christian principles,
         and  that when proper training colleges for teachers were first established over 150 years ago, the
         majority were set up by the churches whose Christian leaders did much to establish on Christian
         principles the professional standards expected today. Thus, the eight principles of the Code, and
         many of its component statements, derive from specific Christian principles such as love, care for
         others, integrity, and respect for God's creation, and not just from the secular humanitarian ideals
         which have subsequently been based on them. Christian teachers should also be motivated by
         specific faith teaching relevant to the principles of the Code of Conduct, for example:

         1. The wellbeing of children at the heart of professional practice (Mark 10 v14, Luke 9 v48)
         2. Professional standards (Titus 2 v7)
         3. High expectation for learning (Prov 22 v6)
         4. Respect for all regardless of race and religion (Luke 10 vv30-37, Acts 10 vv32-35)
         5. Respect for parents (Exodus 20 v12, Ephesians 6 v1)
         6 & 7. Respect for colleagues (Romans 12 vv3-8)
         8. Standards of honesty and integrity (Psalm 51 v6)

Section B

3.      ACT welcomes the fact that part of the code's intention is to promote respect for religion and belief,
         especially at a time when religious belief is often demeaned in public debate. ACT naturally expects
         its members to respect professional standards and expectations, that they do not abuse their
         position of trust with students, and maintain a proper balance in presenting all issues in the
         classroom. This does not, however, require teachers and others working in education to forgo
         entirely their individual rights to hold religious beliefs. For Christian teachers for whom we speak,
         their Christian faith requires them to live out their belief in their daily lives. To behave otherwise
         would be hypocritical, and in conflict of the Code's core value of honesty and integrity. ACT affirms
         the right of teachers to express and live out their personal views on a range of matters such as
         lifestyle, religious, moral scientific and other beliefs, provided this is done in a balanced context
         and with proper respect for the views of others. The Code itself affirms the importance of respect
         for religion and beliefs.

4.      Members have, however, expressed concern that principle 4, as it stands, may possibly be
         misused to restrict and limit the sincere and non-harmful expression of religious belief in the
         professional context. Such concerns are not lightly expressed, but are based upon recent examples
         where such restrictions have been imposed upon Christian professionals seeking to express
         beliefs which are in no way detrimental to others but are fundamental to their Christian faith. 
         The examples cited are:
          •  The case of nurse Caroline Petrie suspended by North Somerset Primary Care Trust for
              offering to pray for a patient.  The trust cited the Nursing and Midwifery Council Code requiring
              "personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity", in terms similar to principle
              4 of the GTC code.
      •  The case of Pilgrim Homes, a Christian care home whose funding was withdrawn by Brighton
              Council which claimed that it failed to comply with "fair access and diversity "policies by refusing
              to question elderly residents about their sexual orientation.
      •  The case of Lillian Ladele, disciplined by Islington Council for refusing to conduct homosexual
              civil partnership ceremonies, whose case was upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal,
              because to do otherwise would "send the wrong message to staff… about its commitment to
              equality".
      •  The case of an experienced foster mother whose approval to foster was withdrawn by a local
              council, because a girl from a Muslim background expressed an interest in Christianity while in
              her care.

          In the first two cases the public bodies had to withdraw their complaint and suffered 
          embarrassment and loss of reputation; the fourth case is still under review. These are examples
          of the misuse of well-intentioned codes mistakenly applied.

5.      Public debate in this area is only just coming to terms with the difficult issue of conflicting 'goods',
         desirable 'rights' which may nevertheless conflict. We do not blame the GTCE because it has not
         yet addressed this issue adequately, though we hope it will now do so.  ACT affirms the importance
         of promoting equality, in the sense of valuing people equally, of valuing equally as people those
         who hold different opinions, and of understanding and appreciating different views. 

6.      There are, however, unexamined confusions about promoting and valuing diversity as such, with
         which many Christians, and people of other faiths and none, have serious difficulty.  If we are truly to
         value beliefs, we must understand and appreciate those who, because of their beliefs, may not be
         able to accept that some diverse opinions or behaviours are acceptable. Indeed, the teaching
         profession already refuses permission to promote certain diverse views such as the acceptability
         of race hatred, slavery, or holocaust denial. Finding a way to express potentially conflicting rights is
         extremely difficult. We simply suggest that the language used in the code needs more careful
         examination, and to be used more cautiously, if the GTCE is to avoid the kind of embarrassment
         and damage to reputation recently experienced by other bodies, and if teachers are to avoid the
         distress and harm of unjustified criticism experienced by other well-intentioned professionals.

Section C

7.      ACT believes, therefore, that Christians, and others who hold strongly to values without threatening
         or demeaning others, need greater protection from the possible misuse of the Code. The principle
         of protection from undue pressure for those who do not wish to teach RE or attend collective worship
         had long been recognised. ACT suggests it is time that similar protection from pressure is offered
         to those who wish to express their beliefs within a professional code for teachers. 

8.      We make two very specific suggestions for consideration:

         8.1    That the words …'and value diversity' be removed from principle 4.
         Recent examples have shown the potential for confusion and harm, where the desire to promote
         diversity has itself been used to prohibit diversity. Bullet point 5 of principle 4 already makes this
         point in a more helpful way. Core Values, bullet point 5, speaks helpfully of 'Respect', and it may be
         that 'Respect for individuals who hold different views' suggests a more helpful way forward than
         'valuing diversity'.

         8. 2   That the GTCE considers how it can improve its existing guidance, for example by indicating
         what the code is not intended to prevent. Appendix Two 'interpreting the Code of Conduct' is already
         helpful in indicating one set of parameters, by exemplifying instances of the kind of completely
         unacceptable behaviour which the code is intended to deal with. In the light of recent experiences,
         it might also be helpful to give similar instances of behaviour which would not be likely to lead to
         action under the code.

         For example, principle 4 might include something on the lines of:

        'The GTCE is very unlikely to take action where: a teacher has expressed their own personal beliefs 
        within the context of a balanced presentation of an issue; where a teacher's personal beliefs make it 
        impossible for them to promote (as opposed to present) a particular point of view; or where a teacher
        in demonstrating their positive commitment to the Code's general principles has done this in a way
        which is influenced by their personal beliefs.'

Conclusion
ACT hopes the GTCE will consider carefully the potential for harm to its own reputation and that of teachers potentially at risk if some changes are not made, and offers the above constructive proposals as a first step in resolving a difficulty which has implications not only for GTCE, but in the wider field. We trust that it will be possible to avoid the risk of more serious legal challenges which might otherwise arise. 

Posted 2 March 2009