|
The Early Childhood Australia Code of Ethics: The ethics of connections (available free online) |
|
|
|
Wise moral decisions will always acknowledge our interdependency: our moral choices are ours alone, but they bind us all to those who will be affected by them. So deciding for yourself what's right or wrong does not mean deciding in isolation.
(Mackay, 2004, p. 242)
History
In 1989, a group of visionaries decided that it ‘was time' for the national early childhood association – then known as the Australian Early Childhood Association (AECA) – to have a code of ethics. Their vision was achieved after wide-ranging consultations with the field over a 12-month period. In 1990, the AECA (now Early Childhood Australia – ECA) formerly adopted its Code of Ethics, which many believed was a significant point in the history of the early childhood profession in Australia. The early childhood profession in New Zealand and in the USA also engaged in similar professional activity during this period.
When the Code was adopted, there was considerable discussion about whether or not having a code of ethics confirmed professional status for the sector. While this discussion was inconclusive, it did serve to generate debate and to heighten awareness of professional issues.
Contexts for current interest in ethics
It is possible to identify considerable community interest in ethics across many different fields, including education, business and medicine. Community values concerned with professional conduct have changed as issues are debated and newly-shared understandings are developed. What was tolerated or condoned 20 years ago would now be condemned as unethical.
In the field of early childhood education, the work of international early childhood researchers such as Moss (UK), Dahlberg (Sweden), Rinaldi (Italy), Dalli (NZ) and locally, Kennedy, Newman, Pollnitz and Woodrow have provided provocations that have stimulated discussion and debate. The 2001 Australian Journal of Early Childhood themed edition on ethics in early childhood education and the decision by the ECA National Executive to review its Code of Ethics are examples of the current interest in ethics.
Should we have a code?
There are those who argue against the need for a profession to have a code of ethics. Their arguments are based on the premise that ethical behaviour is a matter of individual ethical or moral autonomy and therefore codes are irrelevant and unnecessary. The opposite position argues that in professions such as early childhood, groups as well as individuals make ethical choices and a code of ethics can provide the context for that type of decision-making. In addition, those in favour of codes of ethics claim that individuals do not make judgements in an ethical vacuum, as individual ethical decisions affect others because of the nature of our interdependency.
What are codes of ethics?
Codes of ethics can be described by identifying what they are not. They are not, for example, the same as traffic regulations or the rules for a library user. These types of rules or regulations do not allow for the user's interpretation and are generally rigid in the way that they are applied: you were either late returning your books or you were speeding or you were not. The ECA Code of Ethics does not provide specific answers to ethical dilemmas as a book of procedures does. Instead, it signposts ethical alternatives for discussion.
Why have an ECA Code of Ethics?
Early childhood professionals are expected to work in partnerships with children and families which require considerable professional skills and understandings. Ethics are involved in these partnerships because the relationships are based on value choices. Values such as being respectful in the development of partnerships with families are embedded in the ECA Code of Ethics – which confirms their importance to the profession and families. Young children cannot choose the professional who will care for them in the same way that an adult can choose which doctor to visit. This places the early childhood professional in a context of power and the child in a position of vulnerability. The Code of Ethics reminds the profession of these positions and the need for them to be taken into account.
Features of the ECA Code of Ethics
There are several features of the ECA Code of Ethics embedded in the document. The commitments within the Code are presented in a positive and personal way: ‘I will' rather than ‘You shall'. This positive approach supports the idea that the Code is not a ‘rule book'. A further feature of the Code is that it is inclusive of all members of the Association whose qualifications, experiences, nature and places of work vary considerably. This inclusivity reminds everyone that ethical conduct is not the prerogative of the highly qualified or the most experienced. The Code also exposes the scope and complexity of our work as early childhood professionals to the members and the wider community. Value commitments to ethical relationships feature in the Code. This focus on relationships reflects the profession's concern for the importance of developing partnerships with families and children.
A timely review
It was the intention of the original Code of Ethics working party that there would be an ongoing review process so that the document remained relevant for contemporary professional contexts. ECA's decision to implement a review is timely for several reasons. Current and emerging theories in early childhood education and in the area of professional studies provide new perspectives on the child and family and on education, care and professionalism. These ideas need to be considered in the review of the Code. For example, the Code's principles focus on the child as an individual, independent and autonomous person, but more recent theories focus on interdependency and the idea that children learn in collaboration with others rather than on their own. While the Code's focus on commitments to ethical relationships is important, these relationships are formed in order to provide the best foundation for children's learning and development. In highlighting relational commitments, the Code does not provide guidance on the ethical choices involved in the development of the learning environment, which includes the types of experiences provided, how the children's learning will be assessed and what will be considered as learning. In professional studies, current theories on leadership and the ethics of care for example, provide new insights for consideration in the reviewing of commitments in the Code.
Conclusion
Codes of ethics cannot be a substitute for debates and deliberation on ethical issues or the ethics in issues, but they can act as a catalyst or provide the context for the discussion. For example, a staff team in an early childhood service could consider a principle in the ECA Code of Ethics as a discussion ‘starting point' at their regular staff meetings. They might select a principle which connects with a problem or issue they are dealing with, or alternatively, they could choose a principle to generate new understandings or to challenge a taken-for-granted practice. Codes of ethics cannot guarantee ethical conduct, but they may make it more difficult for someone to continue to act in breach of their profession's Code—especially when the profession or an individual member alerts them to the breach. Codes of ethics can help guide professionals as they deliberate on the ongoing question: What ought I to do?
Dr Anne Kennedy
Senior Lecturer
Monash University
Anne.Kennedy@education.monash.edu.au
Reference
Mackay, H. (2004). Right & Wrong. Sydney: Hodder.
If you liked this article, you can 'social bookmark' it with others who might be searching for good content on early childhood. This means you can share your favourite webpages with others, or just keep an online list of your bookmarks so you can access them on any computer.
Read more about social bookmarks
|
|
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 12 September 2005 )
|
