Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 124e131

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Teaching, morality, and responsibility: A Structuralist analysis

of a teachers’ code of conduct
Damien Shortta, *, Fiona Halletta, David Spendloveb, Graham Hardyb, Amanda Bartonb
a
Faculty of Education, Edge Hill University, St. Helens Road, Ormskirk L39 4QP, United Kingdom
b
School of Education, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper we conduct a Structuralist analysis of the General Teaching Council for England’s Code of
Received 13 December 2010 Conduct and Practice for Registered Teachers in order to reveal how teachers are required to fulfil an
Received in revised form apparently impossible social role. The GTCE’s Code, we argue, may be seen as an attempt by a govern-
1 September 2011
ment agency to resolve the political and ideological tensions that emerge in a society that grapples with
Accepted 2 September 2011
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
Keywords:
a locus in which these tensions collide. However, the GTCE’s attempt to bridge the philosophical gaps
National education system
Code of conduct
provides an opportunity, we conclude, for teachers and teacher-educators to explore the differences
Myth between public myths of the teaching profession and the lived reality of life in the classroom.
GTCE Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Structuralism
Lévi-Strauss
Barthes

1. Introduction
To define what it is to teach, or what it is to be a teacher, is
a notoriously difficult task. In many countries around the world it
seems that there is an ever-changing public debate over the content,
design, and utility of a state-sponsored education system. At one
end of the debate’s spectrum the cost-benefits analysts argue over
the economic value that the taxpayer gets from the vast sums of
money spent on education whilst, at the other end of the spectrum,
the liberal-humanists argue over the metaphysical, ephemeral
benefits gained by an individual child from a well-rounded intro-
duction to all that is good in the arts and the sciences. In the middle
of this debate stands the teacher, who is pulled this way and that
whilst the fashions and fads of public, political, and academic
opinion wax and wane. To make sense of this debate can be difficult,
though not impossible e to definitively resolve the debate is another
matter and one that is beyond our powers in this paper. However,
what we endeavour to do here is to demonstrate how a close
analysis of a seemingly unremarkable policy-document like the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 1695 650903; fax: þ44 1695 570835.
E-mail addresses: shorttd@edgehill.ac.uk (D. Shortt), hallettf@edgehill.ac.uk
(F. Hallett), david.spendlove@manchester.ac.uk (D. Spendlove), graham.hardy@
manchester.ac.uk (G. Hardy), amanda.barton@manchester.ac.uk (A. Barton).
General Teaching Council for England’s (GTCE) Code of Conduct and
Practice for Registered Teachers can reveal much about the public
debate regarding moral values and how they pertain to the national
education system. More simply, we are arguing that, using the
methodology that we propose here, it is possible to see the public
standing and fortunes of a governmental organisation such as the
GTCE (of which more later) as a barometer of societal moral values.
By extension, we believe that a similar outcome will likely be
arrived at when this methodology is applied in the context of
educational systems in other countries. Indeed, codes of conduct
for teaching exist in over 50 countries worldwide (UNESCO, 2010)
and it is worthy of comment that, whilst these are often generated
by the regulatory education system of a given state or territory,
such as in Canada and the USA, some are the work of independent
associations of teachers, such as in India and Singapore, and others
still are drafted by individual schools, such as in Germany. There-
fore, the value of this paper to the international milieu is vested in
what this analysis can model: a means of revealing the underlying
philosophical assumptions of any code of conduct in order to
analyse what they say about societal perceptions of the moral
values of teaching and teachers.
As we write, the GTCE, an independent body set up by the
British Government in the late 1990s to regulate the teaching
profession in England, and which only began its work in earnest in
the first years of the 21st century, stands under threat of abolition.

0742-051X/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.004
 D. Shortt et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 124e131
The Government claims that it does not fulfil its function of pre-
venting ill-qualified and negligent teachers from teaching in state-
funded schools (DfE, 2010), and the teaching unions support this
position and have long aimed attacks at the GTCE and the role that
it plays (ATL, 2009; NASUWT, 2009; NUT, 2009). This somewhat
rare conjunction of government and trade-unions bodes ill for the
future destiny of the GTCE, which is a rather surprising destiny
given that it was originally established following long-fought
campaigns by educational professionals. The GTCE’s sudden fall
from grace is perhaps symptomatic of a deeper cause: society’s
inability to work out for itself the desired relationship between its
children, its Government, and its teachers.
Through analysing the philosophical tensions at the heart of the
Code we hope to show how the GTCE’s current predicament as an
at-risk entity perhaps reflects the confusion and sometimes self-
contradictory nature of the debate about the national education
system in this country. Similar debates and struggles are evidenced
across Europe (Osborn, 2006) as individual nations respond to the
pressure to engage in some form of re-structuring and realignment
(Karlsen, 2002) in response to the Maastricht Treaty which called, in
Article 126, for more co-operation between member states
and their national education systems. Interestingly, when exam-
ining practice beyond Europe, there is some evidence to suggest
that those educational administrative authorities, such as
New Zealand and South Australia, which have tended towards
codes of professional ethics (rather than codes of conduct) for
the teaching profession, demonstrate philosophical coherence
between teachers, society, and the state (Van Nuland, 2009). Whilst
the example under consideration here was formulated in consul-
tation with education professionals and by a General Teaching
Council originally welcomed by the profession, the focus on disci-
plinary measures suggests the need for a deeper analysis of the
assumptions inherent in the text.
1.1. Codes of conduct, professional ethics and teaching
It is, perhaps, reasonable to assume that teacher education, and
the development of a register of teachers deemed to be ‘fit to
practice’, may be associated with certain values and the provision of
particular types of knowledge and skill to protect the wellbeing of
learners. However, the creation of a Code of Conduct and Practice
that is based around only eight ‘principles’ requires some analysis
by those charged with preparing student teachers for the role to
which they aspire. As such, this analysis must necessarily include
an examination of the eight principles in question, which are
described as ‘the core values of the teaching profession’:
1. Put the wellbeing, development and progress of children and
young people first
2. Take responsibility for maintaining the quality of their teaching
practice
3. Help children and young people to become confident and
successful learners
4. Demonstrate respect for diversity and promote equality
5. Strive to establish productive partnerships with parents and
carers
6. Work as part of a whole-school team
7. Co-operate with other professional colleagues
8. Demonstrate honesty and integrity and uphold public trust and
confidence in the teaching profession. (GTCE, 2009, p. 07)
At a fairly superficial level, it could be argued that these prin-
ciples highlight the opportunity discussed by Van Nuland (2009) in
terms of offering a code of ethics for the profession. However,
whether intentionally designed as such, or not, any statement
125
about teacher behaviour and which is grounded in moral or ethical
principles deserves some analysis. Strike (2003, p. 511) argues that
a conception of the ethics of teaching suitable for the public schools
of liberal democracies needs to respect two forms of pluralism: not
only does it need to recognise a pluralism of comprehensive
doctrines, religions, and cultures, but it also needs to respect
a diversity of values. Whilst it could be argued that the principles
cited above recognise a pluralism of beliefs, religions, and cultures
it could equally be argued that the very nature of the Code seeks to
marginalise a diversity of values across the teaching workforce. For
instance, whilst each of the eight principles upon which the Code is
founded offer little to offend a diverse body of teachers, examina-
tion of the ways in which each principle is explicated present
greater difficulty and teachers may find themselves in the unen-
viable position of having to decide which Principle should take
precedence over another.
In this regard, it is perhaps worth noting that Strike and Soltis
(1998) and Carr (2000) caution against generalisations about how
teachers make ethical decisions. They argue that real situations or
controversial issues are very complex and value-laden, and that
those values are often irreconcilable and incompatible. Ergo, Carr
(2000) contests that generalisable ethical models for teaching
practice offer little to the development of ethical deliberation,
which is described by Campbell (2003) as an essential precursor to
the forms of ethical decision making that inform professional
judgement. Thus, it has been argued that teachers must demon-
strate a disposition towards mindfulness and thoughtfulness in
order to exercise professional judgement (Dottin, 2009, p. 85);
whether mindfulness and thoughtfulness are encouraged, or
diminished, by a code of conduct and practice is debateable. More
simply still, this raises a question as to whether those who govern
education systems create codes of conduct in the real belief that
they will actually determine how an individual teacher will behave
in a given situation, or whether the code of conduct is produced in
order to give the appearance that such levels of control over
teachers exist.
A further facet of the Code that is worth exploring here relates to
the inherent morality of guiding principles of practice. Sockett
(1993) defined five major virtues central to the moral character of
teaching professionalism: honesty, courage, care, fairness, and
practical wisdom; more recently, Sockett (2006) argues that, as
education is about the development of intellectual virtues, teacher
professionalism must be about more than functional skills and
knowledge. As such, Sockett asserts that teacher professionalism
requires the development of a number of dispositions: dispositions
of character (self-knowledge, integrity e wisdom, courage,
temperance, justice, persistence, and trustworthiness); disposi-
tions of intellect (fairness and impartiality, open-mindedness,
truthfulness, and accuracy); and dispositions of care (receptivity,
relatedness, and responsiveness) (Sockett, 2006). Likewise, Hansen
(2000, 2001) in exploring teaching as a moral activity, emphasised
‘the moral heart of teaching’, and premised teaching as a time-
honoured human endeavour to bring about human flourishing
contending that:
The moral quality of knowledge lies not in its possession, but in
how it can foster a widening consciousness and mindfulness.
This moral cast of mind, embodies commitments to straight-
forwardness, simplicity, naiveté, open-mindedness, integrity of
purpose, responsibility, and seriousness (2001, p. 59).
Whilst the introduction to the Code of Conduct and Practice
highlights the potential of teachers to bring about human flour-
ishing, the revision of the Code is framed as a means to ‘set out
expectations of conduct and practice for registered teachers’ (2009,
p. 02) rather than a desire to enable a widening consciousness and
126 D. Shortt et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 124e131

mindfulness. Indeed, Dhalgren and Chiriac (2009) question the His use of Saussure’s theory has quite overt political ends in that
degree to which that normalisation of teacher professionalism is he seeks to use Structuralism to reveal the potential for pernicious
about the development of dispositions and moral character and ideologies to cloak themselves in seemingly neutral discourses.
suggest that codes of conduct and practice are more likely to be Barthes’s interest in myth, and in applying Structuralist theory
a response to the global role of education and the needs of to cultural artefacts and institutions, is shared by Claude Lévi-
a knowledge society in a globalised world. However, before tackling Strauss who applies Saussure’s theories to the field of anthropology,
the Code in detail, we must first outline the Structuralist method- but who arrives at different, though related, conclusions to those of
ology upon which we will draw heavily. Barthes. Whilst Lévi-Strauss’s uses of Structuralism are not as
overtly political as Barthes’s, he nevertheless shares the same
desire to acquire a deeper understanding of the meaning of various
2. Structuralism and mythology
cultural texts and thereby to better understand the society that
created them. Barthes starts from a point in the present with
Although we currently exist in the midst of the age of post-
a contemporary cultural text and works towards revealing the
Structuralist and deconstructionist approaches to theorising
ideological myth contained within that text e we can roughly
about education, it seems to us that there is still much to be
categorise these types of myths as the ones that somebody else tells
garnered from the application of Structuralist methodologies to
to us in order (according to Barthes) to interpolate us into
contemporary texts. Structuralism is a theoretical approach still
a particular position in an ideological system. Lévi-Strauss, on the
utilised by a range of academic disciplines to analyse and seek to
other hand, starts with ancient myths (using a more conventional
understand how various phenomena such as art, literature, family,
understanding of that word than Barthes uses, i.e., a very old,
politics and civilisation function and make meaning. It is commonly
symbolic or didactic narrative) and seeks to reveal how the deep
held that the Structuralist method of analysis originates from the
epistemological and philosophical structures of the society that
work of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857e1913), a Swiss linguist whose
created it (as well as the one that continues to perpetuate it) are
theories on the way in which languages operate provides many of
embedded within that myth. He aims to show how these can be
the concepts adopted, adapted and employed across a broad
revealed through a Structuralist analysis e in contrast to Barthes’s
spectrum of disciplines (Eagleton, 2008; Eco, 1984; Hawkes, 1977;
category of myths, these types of myths are the ones that we tell
Nöth, 1990). At the heart of Saussure’s (1986, pp. 65e78) work is
ourselves.
the idea that language functions as a system in which meaning is
Despite there being many different understandings of myth, and
made according to differences between its constituent elements
various cultures undoubtedly having different conceptualisations
rather than because of any inherent meaning possessed by those
as to the definitions, functions, and interpretations of myth, it is still
elements themselves, and that those constituent elements, its basic
possible to make some basic statements towards a working defi-
building blocks, which Saussure terms ‘signs’, incorporate two sub-
nition without fear of too much intellectual controversy. Writing in
elements, the signal and the signification.
something of the twilight years for the application of Structuralist
Although Saussure was thinking of language when he produced
methodologies, William Doty (1986) suggests that ‘mythologies
his work, he was aware that linguistics was only one field to which
convey the political and moral values of a culture and provide
his ideas of structures could be applied (1986, p. 15). Indeed, it
systems of interpreting individual experience within a universal
seems fair to say that his influence has been greatest felt outside of
perspective’ (p. 11), and that myths can serve to ‘validate the society
his own field of linguistics, where his theories have been applied to
[.] by relating human social needs to divine or mythic prototypes’
the analysis of myriad other social and cultural phenomena; one
so that ‘the organisation of human society obtains consensus and
such application relates to the concept of ‘myths’ in society. Within
justification, [and thereby] establishing social roles and publicizing
the field of Structuralism there are basically two understandings of
the benefits of living together’ (p. 48). Likewise, Lauri Honko (1984)
the word ‘myth’. On one side, we have the understanding given to
argues that ‘a myth expresses and confirms society’s religious
us by the anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908e2009), and on
values and norms [and] provides patterns of behaviour to be
the other we have that given to us by the French philosopher of
imitated’ (p. 49).
culture Roland Barthes (1915e1980). Lévi-Strauss focuses upon
More recently, McVeigh (2002) explored the ‘myth’ of Japanese
myth as a narrative genre (often with didactic functions) that is
Higher Education, analysing the political (rather than pedagogical)
present in civilisations throughout the world and throughout
source of educational failure in Japan. In an echoing of the argu-
history, whilst Barthes focuses upon contemporary acts of myth-
ments posited by Barthes, McVeigh interrogates the idealised
making that serve political and ideological ends.
portrayals of Japanese higher education that seek to instil the
In a collection of vignettes written in the mid-1950s, Barthes
virtues of Japanese society yet looks the other way when failing to
applies the concepts of sign, signifier and signified to an eclectic
achieve an espoused educational mission. However, McVeigh does
selection of aspects of French culture in the 50s: His purpose is to
not seek to use Structuralist analyses to inform his exploration of
identify the various signs at play, and to reveal how the complex
this ‘myth’; his use of the term echoes the theoretical grounding
relationship between a signifier and its signified can be manipu-
offered by Barthes and Lévi-Strauss in his recognition of the genre.
lated, and how signs can be presented in unfamiliar contexts in
This distinction is unimportant; we offer a discussion of Structur-
order to distort their commonly held meanings. It is this manipu-
alist analysis of myth as a heuristic device by which we might better
lation and distortion that most interests Barthes, for it is here, he
understand a familiar phenomenon. In a text published post-
argues, that dominant ideologies are encoded into communication.
humously, Cassirer explains the endemic nature of myth as familiar
For Barthes, myth-making is the manipulation of signs and their
cultural phenomenon:
meaning in order to encode an author’s intentions into a piece of
communication with the purpose of delivering that intention to the
we can see that the progress of language itself e one of the
recipient of the message:
greatest facts in human civilisation e inevitably led to another
[.] myth is a type of speech defined by its intention [.] much phenomenon, to the phenomenon of myth. Where two names
more than by its literal sense [.]; and that in spite of this, its existed for the same object, two persons could e quite naturally
intention is somehow frozen, purified, eternalized, made absent and, indeed, inevitably e spring up out of the two names, and
by this literal sense (2009, p. 148). as the same stories could be told of either, they would be
 D. Shortt et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 124e131
represented as brothers and sisters, as parents and child
(Cassirer, 2007, p. 21).
Whilst much of the work discussed thus far was published in the
1980s, Coupe (2009) offers a useful justification for a return to the
work of Barthes and Lévi-Strauss in order to, on the one hand,
understand the ideological basis of cultural artefacts and, on the
other, explore how culture and nature are mediated through the
logic or grammar of the myth (2009, p. 148).
So, if we can accept these elemental definitions of myth, it
hopefully becomes clearer as to how a document such as the Code of
Conduct and Practice for Registered Teachers can be understood as
a modern myth. It is an attempt on the part of a government agency
to set down in writing what it feels to be the commonly held
opinions, beliefs and attitudes of contemporary English society as
regards the functions and roles of teachers; it tries to provide
‘patterns of behaviour’ for teachers to imitate, to establish ‘proto-
types’ to be copied, and to in some small way help organise the
world. By thus taxonomizing the Code as a type of myth produced
by a government agency for such a purpose, we can then, following
Doty (1986, p. 200), conduct the analysis of the Code in the same
way that a mythographer would analyse a myth: by treating the
myth as a an attempt at the resolution of ‘an earlier insoluble
dilemma’ and working ‘from the later resolution of an issue back to
its primary opposition’. In this way the Code is seen as a response to
earlier dilemmas, and by identifying these dilemmas and the
response to them we will hopefully learn more about those who
produced it and why they may have produced it in the way that
they did.
3. The Structuralist methodology
In order to conduct our analysis of the Code of Conduct and
Practice we must first outline a methodology of sorts. At the very
heart of our project is the belief that it is possible to analyse the role
of teachers in contemporary England (and especially the social and
cultural discourse related to the role of teachers as manifested in
the Code) in much the same way as myths and mythology were
analysed using Structuralist methodologies in the second half of the
twentieth-century. In Structural Anthropology, Lévi-Strauss (1968)
argues that the sociological purpose of a myth is to function as
‘a kind of logical tool’ which helps a society to handle problems
where experience and theory contradict each other (p. 216). He
claims that the meaning of a myth does not reside in isolated
elements, but in the ‘way those elements are combined’ in the exact
same way in which the rest of language is made up of constituent
units (phonemes, morphemes, sememes). He terms a myth’s
constituent units as ‘mythemes’ (p. 211). He also argues that the
deeper understanding of myths can only be accessed if the text is
read both diachronically and synchronically (pp. 212e213).
Reading a myth diachronically is rather simple, it merely
involves reading from start to finish in the conventional manner.
However, reading a myth synchronically is a little more complex
and abstract. In order to do this, the reader is first required to
identify the various constituent units from which the myth is
comprised: this usually involves breaking the story down into
Table 1
Example of a Structuralist tabulation of a myth.
Mytheme #1 Mytheme #2 Mytheme #3 Mytheme #4
1 2 4 7
2 3 4 6
1 4
1 2
3 4
127
simple sentences that are limited to a subject and predicate
construction. Next, the reader must identify which constituent
units are related to each other, and assign them a common iden-
tifying marker. So, for example, imagine a myth that involves 24
identifiable units, some of which, when articulated as basic sen-
tences, perform similar functions in the narrative and to which we
therefore assign the same identifying marker (coded in numbers in
this example). The myth might then be summarised using our code
as follows: 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 1, 2, 5, 7, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8. To
read this myth diachronically, we simply read from left to right as
normal. However, to read it synchronically, we will have to group
together the narrative units bearing the same marker. We can do
this in tabular form (Table 1).
When formatted in this way, it can be seen that it is still possible
to read the myth diachronically from left to right, top to bottom
along the table, thus preserving the conventional narrative
sequence. However, what this formatting also achieves is to reveal
the synchronic relations between units of the myth that bear or
perform the same function (these relationships are established up
and down the vertical columns).
Now, thanks to this methodology, in order to analyse the myth
the reader is able ‘to disregard one half of the diachronic dimension
(top to bottom) and read from left to right, column after column,
each one being considered as a unit’ (p. 214). The task of the reader
is to then discover the common feature that links all of the units in
each column. So, the first column on the left may be referred to as
mytheme #1, and the second as mytheme #2, all the way to the
right hand column, mytheme #8. The value of this methodology is
that it offers an analytic device that demands identification, and
justification, of underlying mythemes or concepts that appear to
“rear throughout the myth” (Lévi-Strauss, 1960, p. 353). From this, it
is possible to suggest relationships between mytheme units
including, where they exist, dichotomous tensions. However, the
particular interest of this methodology, we would argue, is in the
“mytheme” justification: without this it would be easy to see how
mythemes could be erroneously identified and, as a result, false
dichotomies could be created that are poorly conceptualised. It is
also worth noting that Lévi-Strauss’s method was applied to
cultural texts and Barthes’ analysis to contemporary texts (in the
most general sense of the word ‘text’, which would include arte-
facts too). As such, we would argue that the Code can be treated as
a cultural text that represents a modern myth and we propose
to use Lévi-Strauss’s method to deconstruct the text and then we
will subsequently draw upon Barthes to analyse the resulting
mythemes.
4. Lévi-Strauss and the Code of Conduct and Practice
for Registered Teachers
If we apply Levi-Strauss’ methodology to the Code of Conduct
and Practice for Registered Teachers, we can begin to unearth
mythemes that reveal dichotomous tensions which will resultantly
move us towards a more fully developed understanding of the
society-wide debates around moral values, teaching, and teachers
(which is the core aim of our paper). Obviously, we are treating the
Mytheme #5 Mytheme #6 Mytheme #7 Mytheme #8
8
8
5 7 8
5 7
5 6 8
128 D. Shortt et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 124e131
Code as a cultural text that presents a modern myth and we are
suggesting that the document, in its present form, is offered by its
authors (the GTCE) as being able to serve a similar social purpose as
that served by any cultural myth in ancient Greece. Rather helpfully,
we can further suggest that, where Levi-Strauss’s methodology
would ordinarily require us to tabulate the myth so that it could be
read both diachronically and synchronically, the way in which the
GTCE has presented its Code neatly begins that job for us in that it is
presented around eight principles of conduct and practice:
1. Put the wellbeing, development and progress of children and
young people first
2. Take responsibility for maintaining the quality of their teaching
practice
3. Help children and young people to become confident and
successful learners
4. Demonstrate respect for diversity and promote equality
5. Strive to establish productive partnerships with parents and
carers
6. Work as part of a whole-school team
7. Co-operate with other professional colleagues
8. Demonstrate honesty and integrity and uphold public trust and
confidence in the teaching profession. (GTCE, 2009, p. 07)
Each principle is briefly expanded upon by a small number of
bullet-points (typically five or six, and which are summarised in
Tables 2 and 3). The effect of this format, it might be argued, is to
dissuade the reader from reading the text in the conventional
diachronic fashion. This disjointed and fragmented narrative
perhaps serves to cloak the myth of the teacher by presenting it in
a format (a series of lists) not usually associated with narration.
However, in order to reveal the tensions at the heart of the Code it is
helpful to view the principles side by side so as to be able to assign
distinct mytheme descriptors for each and thereby determine
mytheme relationships between principles. Let us begin by pre-
senting the first four principles side by side. The first row, in bold
font, is the actual principle, the statements below are the supple-
mentary bullet-points; each statement should be preceded by the
phrase ‘Registered teachers’.
In order to identify the mythemes in the Code, and the core
relationships between them, it is necessary to assign a very short
descriptor for each column, whittling their variety down until we
are left with some core relationships that the eight principles of the
Table 2
Principles 1e4 of the GTCE Code.
Principle 1 Put the wellbeing, Principle 2 Take responsibility
development and progress for maintaining the quality
of children and young people first of their teaching practice
Use professional expertise Meet the professional standards
and judgement. for teaching.
Ensure the safety and wellbeing Develop their practice within the
of children and young people. framework of their school’s curriculum. involve them in decisions that affect them. to equality, inclusion, access, and bullying.
Follow the school’s child protection Base their practice on knowledge
policies and procedures. of their subject area/s and specialism. young people, whatever their background bullying, and stereotyping no matter
Establish and maintain appropriate Make use of assessment techniques,
professional boundaries in set appropriate learning objectives;
relationships with young people. employ a range of teaching
methodologies.
Ensure that their own practice Recognise their own development
does not have a negative needs.
impact on learning or progress.
Use appropriate channels to raise Meet the requirements laid down by
concerns about the practice their professional body, the GTCE,
of other teachers or professionals. to maintain their registration status.
Code appear to be addressing and seeking to regulate. It is impor-
tant to acknowledge, at this point, that there is significant overlap
between the sub-points in Principles 1e4, however, when they are
taken together, and viewed as a conceptual unit (mytheme), we
would argue that a clear dichotomy emerges.
The statements in the first column, Principle 1, may be seen to
focus on establishing the rights of children to protection from
governmental, institutional, or professional malfeasance. Principle
2 deals primarily with the duties of the individual teacher to ensure
that they are professionally competent to teach children. So, when
viewed as a pair, Principles 1 and 2 establish a relationship between
the rights of the child vis-à-vis the duties of the teacher. This
Rights:Duty relationship is repeated in Principle 3, which focuses
on the rights of the child once more, and Principle 4, which focuses
on the duties of the teacher. So, in the first half of the Code, we
would argue that a binary relationship is established in which the
myth of teacher professionalism is seen to be constituted through
the tension between rights and duties. We will go into further
depth about this relationship shortly, but first let us complete the
initial analysis by looking at the second half of the Code.
Principles 5e8 can be seen to deal with the duty of state orga-
nisations (schools, in this instance) to provide a good service to
citizens, and the rights of individual citizens, as a corollary, to have
good services provided to them by the state. In particular, these
principles establish the duties of teachers (as the state’s agents) in
meeting the rights of citizens through both providing and admin-
istering the provision of educational services. So, as with Principles
1e4, the mythemes of Principles 5e8 establish a Rights:Duty
relationship. Where 1e4 establishes the Child:Teacher dichotomy,
5e8 establishes the Citizen:State dichotomy. So, how are we to now
interpret this through utilising Lévi-Strauss’s methodology? What
sort of logical tool is the Code, and what social tensions does it seek
to resolve?
We can begin by looking at the difference between rights and
duties. At the a basic level, it can be argued that rights are derived
from vulnerabilities whereas duties are derived from power. For
example, the right to life exists as a result of the fact that human life
is vulnerable under certain political circumstances; similarly, the
right to practice a faith, to sexual equality, and to privacy, all exist
because those very things are potentially vulnerable and prone to
exploitation or repression under certain political and cultural
circumstances. On the other hand, duties can only make sense from
a position of power because they presuppose the ability of someone
Principle 3 Help children and young Principle 4 Demonstrate respect for
people to become confident and diversity and promote equality
successful learners
Uphold children and young Act appropriately towards all children
people’s rights. and young people, parents, carers
and colleagues.
Listen to children and young people, and Comply with school policies relating
Have high expectations of all children and Address unlawful discrimination,
or aptitudes. who is the victim or the perpetrator.
Clarify how assessment will be used to Take steps to improve the wellbeing,
support improvement, providing clear development and progress of those
feedback, and celebrating success. at risk of exclusion or
under-achievement.
Communicate clear expectations about Help children and young people to
pupil behaviour. understand different views
and perspectives.
Help children and young people prepare
for the future.
 D. Shortt et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 124e131 129

Table 3
Principles 5e8 of the GTCE Code.

Principle 5 Strive to establish productive
partnerships with parents and carers
Provide parents and carers with accessible
and accurate information about
their child’s progress.
Involve parents and carers in important
decisions about their child’s education.
Consider parents’ and carers’ views
and perspectives.
Follow school policies and procedures on
communication with and involvement
of parents and carers.
Principle 6 Work as part of a
whole-school team
Endeavour to develop productive
and supportive relationships
with all school colleagues.
Exercise any leadership and
management responsibilities
in a respectful, inclusive and fair way.
Uphold school policies and procedures,
and raise any concerns about the life
or running of the school.
Provide honest, accurate, and justifiable
comments when assessing the
performance of, colleagues.
Participate in whole-school development
and improvement activities.
Recognise the important role of the school
in the life of the local community, and take
responsibility for upholding its reputation.
Principle 7 Co-operate with other
professional colleagues
Seek to understand the roles of other
professional colleagues.
Communicate and establish productive
working relationships.
Be clear about their own professional
contribution to joint working.
Always act within their own
competence and responsibilities.
Principle 8 Demonstrate honesty
and integrity and uphold public
trust and confidence in the
teaching profession
Exercise responsibilities in relation
to examination and assessment.
Demonstrate honesty and integrity
in management and administrative
duties.
The duty to safeguard children and
young people comes first, but
otherwise acknowledge the rights
of confidentiality.
Represent their professional status
accurately and avoid taking
advantage of their professional
position.
Maintain reasonable standards
in their own behaviour.

to perform the required act: so, a parent has a duty to care for
a young child because they have the power to do so; and a judge has
a duty to justly treat all those accused of a crime because he or she
has the power to dispense justice. It would make no sense to say
that a young child has a duty to care for its parent, or to an accused
criminal that he is duty-bound to administer justice to a judge,
because neither the young child nor the criminal has the power to
perform these acts. The criminal does, however, have the duty to
tell the truth to the judge, since that is within his power, and this is
the reason why the court consequently has the right, established
through law, to be told the truth because it is vulnerable to being
lied to.
So, in the Code we see a negotiation between, and an attempt to
demarcate, the rights and duties relevant to the teaching profes-
sion: in the first four principles we see the rights of the child vis-à-
vis the duties of the teacher, and in the last four principles we see
the rights of citizens vis-à-vis the duties of the state education
system. This is something worthy of analysis in its own right.
However, if we recall our earlier discussion of Lévi-Strauss, what
a Structuralist analysis gives us access to in the Code is something
much more elemental. As mentioned previously, Lévi-Strauss
claimed that, in order to uncover the deeper meaning of myths, we
must look not only for which relationships are explored in the myth
(Rights:Duties), but also to compare and juxtapose the various
binary relationships that are present in order to elicit the originary
source of the myth.
As such, we argue that the Code emerges from the originary
myth of teacher professionalism e the social character of the
teacher which neatly functions for a society as a space to work out
collective, and sometimes repressed, angst regarding the inherent
contradictions of the modern condition: viz. we are free, private,
individuals but we are also constrained/limited/dependent/social
animals. Through the myth of the teacher, it appears, there is an
endeavour to reconcile the glaring and troubling disparity between
the view we have of our society (perhaps fostered and nurtured by
hegemonic capitalist ideology) and our lived experience of the
world. The vulnerability of the weak child is juxtaposed to the
power of the adult teacher in the first four principles of the Code,
just as the vulnerability of the weak individual citizen/parent is
juxtaposed to the power of the state institution in the last four
principles. This dynamic is elucidated in the narrative towards the
end of the Code that specifies examples of circumstances in which
the GTCE has taken disciplinary action (2009, p. 17). This section
frames the ‘teacher’ as a citizen vulnerable to a plethora of temp-
tations e from the obvious misdemeanours of ‘inappropriate rela-
tionships with pupils’ (2009, p. 18) and ‘making racist or sexist
comments’ (2009, p. 19), to more nuanced misdemeanours such as
failing ‘to work collaboratively with colleagues outside the school
in relation to school trips’ and lending ‘school property to parents
or carers without permission’ (2009, p. 19).
Effectively, what the GTCE appears to be saying through the Code
is that, just as the vulnerable child has needs and rights that the
powerful adult teacher is duty-bound to meet and protect, so too the
weak individual adult citizen has needs and rights that the all-
powerful state is duty-bound to meet and protect. The possibility
that the needs and rights of the individual adult citizen might belie
the perceived duty of the state is countermanded by the assumption
that the duty of the state to promote a regulatory order and prevent
chaos is driven by a desire to preserve rights and justice. For
example, it is compelling to believe that the state should normalise
the ways in which teachers communicate and collaborate with
parents and carers in order to ensure parity of access to information
and school resources. However, the corollaries of this belief are
twofold: firstly, we would need to believe that the state is motivated
by a predominantly social, rather than political conscience and,
secondly, we would need to be prepared to accept that such
measures acknowledge a lack of trust in teachers to make profes-
sional decisions about what to communicate to parents, and how. If
we examine the misdemeanours cited above it is difficult to ratio-
nalise the right of the GTCE to decide that a teacher has breached the
Code by lending school equipment to a parent without permission,
for example, as this action may have been a direct result of the
teacher attempting to counteract social justice inequalities perpet-
uated by a particular school climate: such inequalities are well
documented in the literature (see, for example, Allan, 2008; Ball,
2007; Bourdieu, Halsey, Lauder, Brown, & Wells, 1983).
5. Barthes and the Code of Conduct and Practice
for Registered Teachers
What is being done in the Code is rather interesting, therefore.
By playing upon the emotiveness of the Child:Adult relationship
130 D. Shortt et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 124e131
(in the full expectation that no reasonable person could contem-
plate a scenario in which the fundamental rights of a child are to be
compromised in favour of allowing total freedom for the way in
which an adult earns a living) the relationship of the individual
citizen to the state is encoded in the same terms of Right:Duty,
where the citizen is weak and dependent compared to the state
which is powerful and benevolent. This is something of a clever
twist in the second half of the Code (Principles 5e8) in that the
characterisation of the adult teacher has been neatly flipped from
being the all-powerful and potential abuser of rights in Principles
1e4, to becoming themselves vulnerable to abuse in Principles 5e8.
It is as if the GTCE (as a communicative ideological conduit for the
Government) is saying to the teachers: “Just as the state cares
equally for all of its citizens, so must you care equally for all of the
children”. However, a close look at the focus of Principle 8 exposes
a suspicion on the part of the GTCE that adult citizens who are
employed as teachers have the potential to transgress the right of
state institutions to expect honesty and integrity from those
employed as its agents (teachers, in this case) as well as the rights of
other citizens to have a good education provided to their children.
These assumptions are articulated in the Code in relation to
management and administrative responsibilities, on the one hand,
and via more general exhortations around behaviour, on the other.
Thus, whilst the child is represented as vulnerable to exploitation
or neglect by the teacher, it is noticeable that, even though the adult
teacher is acknowledged as having rights, the tenor of the Code as
a cultural text would suggest that the rights of the child and the
rights and duties of the state supersede any rights held by the
teacher as an individual citizen. What can thus be seen, we hope, is
that we now have access to the ways in which the Code seeks to
establish and position the teacher-as-sign, and also the ways in
which the political and ideological myth of teacher professionalism
is in part created.
In this way, using Barthes’s analysis of myth, we can examine
the ways in which the teacher-as-sign can be presented in unfa-
miliar contexts in order to distort commonly held meanings. In
Principles 1e4 of the Code the teacher is positioned in somewhat
familiar terms that embrace the ‘moral heart of teaching’ (Hansen,
2000, 2001) signifying, above all, the duty of the teacher to
preserve the inalienable rights of the child. However, in Principles
5e8 the teacher is signified as vulnerable to temptation via indi-
vidual subjective interpretation of notions of honesty, integrity and
professionalism. Interestingly, this dichotomy does not acknowl-
edge the potential vulnerability of the teacher to exploitation by the
state due to the fact that the espoused motivation of the state in the
Code (to ‘guide everyday judgments and actions’ (GTCE, 2009,
p. 02)) contains implicit notions of benevolence and paternalism.
Therefore, we could argue that, through mythologising teachers
(literally, i.e. creating the myth of the teacher), the GTCE creates the
rational and moral ground that ensures the protection and
perpetuation of a neo-liberal ideology in which the inherent
political motivation of the state is downplayed and where ideo-
logical structures become institutionalised in order to maintain the
ideological status quo in which society at large is allowed the
illusion of benevolent governance. That this status quo might have
the effect of restricting the potential of teachers to demonstrate
a disposition towards mindfulness and thoughtfulness in order to
exercise professional judgement (Dottin, 2009, p. 85) is seemingly
less important than the appearance of homogenising teacher
behaviours in the name of equality, entitlement, and perceived
parity of access and experience in relation to education provision.
Indeed, it could be argued that the Structuralist analysis we have
conducted here reveals the way in which neo-liberalist ideology
imbeds and replicates itself by creating the social conditions
necessary for its disappearance from view and normalisation as the
way things simply are. Indeed, such a reading would suggest that
the Code is an exemplar case of the way in which an ideology
interpolates its subjects so that they become complicit in their own
oppression. The emotiveness of the Child:Adult relationship proves
a perfect catalyst, in this scenario, for provoking adult citizens into
devising systems of control (like the Code) that lock them into
a paternalistic relationship of Child:Adult/Citizen:State.
6. Conclusion
By applying a Structuralist analysis to the GTCE’s Code of Conduct
and Practice we have, we hope, begun to reveal how encoded
ideologies and meaning are layered onto the teacher-as-sign.
Whilst the representation of the teacher within the Code oscil-
lates between them being the powerful controller of children, to
being the powerless individual citizen dependent upon the state for
the provision of vital services and, simultaneously, being the
powerful administrator of those services, the constancy of the
benevolence and altruism of the state is maintained throughout.
What the GTCE appears to attempt through its Code is to present
a myth that functions as a logical tool, à-la Lévi-Strauss, by which
a reconciliation of sorts can be achieved between the inherent
tensions arising from a society’s simultaneously holding as sacro-
sanct the ideal of the autonomous private individual, whilst also
holding as fundamental the role of the state in securing that
autonomy and individuality. In essence and from within the context
of an education system, the Code seeks in some way to work out
how we can simultaneously claim to be autonomous individuals
whilst also laying claim to the benefits of being part of a mutually
dependent society.
Thus, in the Code, teachers find themselves cast in an impossible
social role for which they have most likely not been formally
prepared e and it is to this that we wish ultimately to draw our
readers’ attention. Teachers are charged with being the ones to
whom society collectively abdicates its responsibilities for educating
its children during the first two decades of their lives, yet they are
usually required to do so within a political system that will not
commit to a single, overt, baldly-stated moral framework. The Code
can thus say little to the individual teacher by way of guiding their
actions or framing their moral viewpoint (essentially the purposes
for which such codes are created); instead, it provides an interesting
example of a government agency’s attempts to bridge the political
and ideological gap between delivering on quite commonly held
educational ends within a social and political context in which there
is an inability or even an unwillingness to agree either upon the
means through which those ends might be achieved or upon the
personal moral, political, and cultural concessions that might have to
be made in order to bring about those ends.
The Structuralist analysis of the GTCE’s Code that we have pre-
sented here suggests that there are fundamental philosophical
tensions with which teachers and teacher-educators need to
engage. What our analysis has hopefully suggested is that these
tensions are not solely limited to the English context. Rather, it
seems to us that in any society where there is a social need, on the
one hand, for a state-provided system in which someone takes
responsibility for the care and education of children in order to
allow the adults to go about the business of generating wealth,
whilst, on the other hand, citizens cherish the notion that they are
thoroughly independent, free, and private individuals, then the role
of the teacher will be a site of philosophical and ideological tension.
In the English case, it appears that the general disliking of the GTCE
by both the Government, teaching unions and, by extension,
teachers is a symptom of this tension. Thus, our task going forward
as teachers and teacher-educators is perhaps, at the very least, to
engage our colleagues and students in an exploration of how we are
 D. Shortt et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 124e131
to fulfil the multi-faceted moral role that our education systems
demand of us. The in-depth analysis of apparently unremarkable
policy-documents like the GTCE’s Code seems to us to be one way of
beginning that exploration.
References
Allan, J. (2008). Rethinking inclusive education: The philosophers of difference in
practice. Dordrecht: Springer.
ATL. (2009). http://www.atl.org.uk/Images/ATL response to GTCE code of practice.
pdf Accessed 14.09.10.
Ball, S. (2007). Education plc: Understanding private sector participation in public
sector education. Abingdon: Routledge.
Barthes, R. (2009). Mythologies. UK: Vintage.
Bourdieu, P., Halsey, A. H., Lauder, H., Brown, P., & Wells, A. S. (Eds.). (1983). The
forms of capital. Education: Culture, economy and society (pp. 46e58). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Campbell, E. (2003). The ethical teacher. Berkshire & PA: Open University Press.
Carr, D. (2000). Professionalism and ethics in teaching. London: Routledge.
Cassirer, E. (2007). The myth of the state. Hamburg: Meiner.
Coupe, L. (2009). Myth (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
DfE. (2010). http://www.education.gov.uk/news/news/gtcscrapped Accessed 20.07.10.
Dhalgren, M. A., & Chiriac, E. H. (2009). Learning for professional life: student
teachers’ and graduated teachers’ views of learning, responsibility and collab-
oration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26.
Dottin, E. S. (2009). Professional judgment and dispositions in teacher education.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 83e88.
Doty, W. (1986). Mythography: The study of myths and rituals. USA: University of
Alabama Press.
Eagleton, T. (2008). Literary theory: An introduction. Blackwell: UK.
Eco, U. (1984). Semiotics and the philosophy of language. UK: Macmillan Press.
General Teaching Council for England, GTCE. (2009). Code of conduct and practice for
registered teachers. UK: GTCE.
131
Hansen, D. T. (2000). Teaching as a moral activity. In V. A. Richardson (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). (pp. 826e857) Washington, D.C.:
American Educational Research Association.
Hansen, D. T. (2001). Exploring the moral heart of teaching: Toward a teacher’s creed.
NY: Teachers College Press.
Hawkes, T. (1977). Structuralism and semiotics. UK: Methuen.
Honko, L. (1984). The problem of defining myth. In A. Dundes (Ed.), Sacred narrative:
Readings in the theory of myth. USA: University of California Press.
Karlsen, G. E. (2002). Education policy and education programmes in the European
Union. In J. A. Ibanez-Martin, & G. Jover (Eds.), Education in Europe: Policies and
politics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1960). Four Winnebago myths: a structural sketch. In S. Diamond
(Ed.), Culture and history. New York: University of Colombia Press.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1968). The savage mind. UK: Penguin.
McVeigh, B. (2002). Japanese higher education as myth. New York: East Gate Books.
NASUWT. (2009). http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/ActiveArea/Campaigns/GTCCodeOf
Conduct/index.htm Accessed 14.09.10.
Nöth, W. (1990). Handbook of semiotics. USA: Indiana University Press.
NUT. (2009). http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/9054 Accessed 14.09.10.
Osborn, M. (2006). Changing the context of teachers’ work and professional
development: a European perspective. International Journal of Educational
Research, 45, 242e253.
Saussure, F.de (1986). Course in general linguistics. USA: Open Court.
Sockett, H. (1993). The moral base for teacher professionalism. NY: Teachers College
Press.
Sockett, H. (Ed.). (2006). Teacher dispositions: Building a teacher education framework
of moral standards. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for
Teacher Education.
Strike, K. A. (2003). The ethics of teaching. In R. Curren (Ed.), A companion to the
philosophy of education. Oxford: Blackwell.
Strike, K. A., & Soltis, J. F. (1998). The ethics of teaching (3rd ed.). NY: Teachers College
Press.
UNESCO. (2010). Examples of codes taken from around 50 different countries
worldwide. UNESCO toolkit on teacher codes of conduct. http://teachercodes.
iiep.unesco.org/codes.html Accessed 12.12.10.
Van Nuland, S. (2009). Teacher codes. Learning from experience. Paris: UNESCO.