BOOK REVIEW

Considering the ethical potential of professionalcommunities

Ann Lieberman and Lynne Miller, Eds.: Teachers in professionalcommunities: Improving teaching and learning. Teachers CollegePress, Teachers College, Columbia University, New Yorkand London 2008, 120 pp, ISBN 978-0-8077-4889-3

Elizabeth Campbell

Published online: 20 November 2008� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

In Teachers in Professional Communities, Ann Lieberman and Lynne Miller offer com-

pelling support from the research literature in education and engaging descriptive case

accounts from the field to illustrate the clear potential of professional learning communities

‘‘for improving teaching and learning for both the adults and students in our schools’’

(p. 1). This edited book is premised on the argument that professional learning commu-

nities that seek to enhance, in a connected sense, teaching competence and teaching

community promise significant success. This is in contrast to other teaching reform

strategies and policies that traditionally have originated outside of the professional com-

munities of teachers who bear the ultimate responsibility for the deepening of their content

knowledge and pedagogical proficiency. Organized around five overarching themes of

context, commitment, capacity, content, and challenge, editors Lieberman and Miller’s

(2008) discussion of the theoretical and empirical evidence in support of professional

learning communities as ‘‘ongoing groups of teachers who meet regularly for the purpose

of increasing their own learning and that of their students’’ (p. 2), is effectively presented in

the first part of the book. The second part comprises five vivid case studies of professional

learning communities in action, written in rich detail by the educators engaged in their

development. The five organizing themes are sustained throughout the book and are used to

frame the examination of the cases.

In reading this book, it is easy to feel inspired by the dedication, diligence, and devotion

of the professionals striving to improve their own collective practice within teaching

communities. Serious attention to work of curricular and pedagogical significance is an

essential characteristic of teacher professionalism. So too is the awareness of the ethical

dimensions and complexities of practice and conduct associated with the teacher’s role. On

this point, the book is silent. I do not offer this observation as a criticism of the authors, for

there is no obvious reason why they should have applied a lens of moral and ethical

analysis to their study of teaching practices—that was not their point in writing this book.

Nonetheless, there is the potential for examining the objectives and challenges of

professional communities through such a lens, and the subsequent discussion will focus on

E. Campbell (&)OISE, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street W, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6, Canadae-mail: ecampbell@oise.utoronto.ca

123

J Educ Change (2009) 10:83–87DOI 10.1007/s10833-008-9097-3

how the ethics of teaching can have implications for the relational and interpersonal

dynamics among colleagues as members of school-based professional communities. After

all, it has been noted that a key quality of such communities is ‘‘a core of shared values

about what students should learn, about how faculty and students should behave, and about

the shared aims to maintain and promote the community’’ (Louis et al. 1995, p. 16). Once

we consider the notion of shared values as they pertain not only to teaching and learning

processes but also to the behavior of teachers as professionals, we inevitably bump into

questions of an ethical nature.

The formal and informal world of classrooms and schools, as well as the nuances of the

teacher’s daily work, have been increasingly studied and represented as being layered in

dimensions reflective of inherent moral and ethical importance (Buzzelli and Johnston

2002; Campbell 2003, 2008; Hansen 2001; Jackson et al. 1993; Richardson and Fens-

termacher 2001; Sockett 1993). Accompanying themes of the teacher’s moral agency and

the professional ethics of practitioners reveal further both the ethical imperatives and the

ethical tensions that confront teachers and contribute to the complexity of their moral

practice (Campbell 1996; Carr 2000; Colnerud 1997; Nash 1996; Strike and Soltis 1992;

Strike and Ternasky 1993; Tirri and Husu 2002). Woven into the daily interpersonal

experiences teacher share with students, colleagues, administrators, parents, and others are

examples of virtues such as fairness, honesty, compassion, empathy, kindness, respect,

integrity, constancy, patience, consistency, and courage. Regrettably, such experiences also

include times when these and other virtues are neglected, compromised, and violated.

The expression, or its lack, of moral and ethical principles in teaching takes shape in

multiple ways relating to curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, classroom management,

discipline, and the choices, both spontaneous and planned, teachers make in the course of

their regular practice. They are reflected in the ways teachers structure lessons, assign

groups, set expectations, establish classroom routines and rules, call on students to answer

questions in class or read aloud, mete out punishments or allocate rewards, praise or correct

students; they are similarly reflected in the ways teachers talk to others about colleagues,

administrators, students, and their families, enforce policies, adhere to school norms, and

engage in their own professional growth. Those teachers who possess a keen awareness of

how their conduct and practice promote their ethical professionalism, not just their tech-

nical proficiency, have cultivated ‘‘ethical knowledge’’ (Campbell 2003, p. 138), which is a

principle-based concept. Although incomplete and ever-evolving, it is defined by the

teacher’s understanding and ‘‘appreciation of the moral significance of such principles as

justice and fairness, honesty and integrity, kindness and care, empathy and respect for

others.’’ In terms of practice, it is ‘‘woven into the professional conduct of practitioners

engaged in the specific elements of their own distinct work.’’

The cases in Teachers in Professional Communities do not address ethical knowledge as

a kind of professional knowledge base. Rather, they focus clearly on ‘‘subject matter

knowledge and content-related pedagogies’’ (p. 38). Teachers involved in professional

learning communities are committed to enhancing their knowledge, skills, understanding,

and capability around pedagogical content knowledge in ways that seek to enable students’

academic growth. But, what of their emotional and moral growth as well? Students are

influenced by the way they are treated by teachers as well as by the ‘‘sound pedagogical

theory’’ (p. 41) that teachers employ. Thus, in seeking to reflect on why they do what they

do, I would urge members of professional communities to explore not only the practical

efficacy, but also the rightness or wrongness of their curricular and pedagogical choices.

For example, in Chapter 5, Pointer Mace describes the use of multimedia to support

teacher development, and she provides a detailed example of one grade nine English

84 J Educ Change (2009) 10:83–87

123

teacher’s website that shows her teaching a lesson that admittedly deals with the teaching

of ‘‘controversial subjects’’ (p. 53). Yet, even in a lesson infused with moral dimensions,

the ethical role of the teacher is ignored. The potential for teachers to confront ethical

dilemmas relating to whether and how they should and should not deal with complex

curricular issues is of moral significance and worthy of attention. In limiting the scope of

discussion to ‘‘pedagogical and curricular moves’’ (p. 59), teachers within professional

communities may miss out on the opportunity to delve into the often tricky domain of what

teachers should and should not teach, express personal opinion about, and actively promote

in the classroom from an ethical perspective.

Such discussion among members of professional communities, if it were to happen, may

encourage the sharing of ethical knowledge as well as of subject-focused and pedagogical

knowledge. However, in order to initiate it, colleagues have to feel safe with one another.

A need for ‘‘a culture of respect’’ (p. 68) and the development of ‘‘bonds of trust’’ (p. 18) is

emphasized throughout the book in that true ‘‘collegiality’’ is based on honest feedback,

challenge, and disagreement (p. 18) that are constructive only within a secure and trusting

environment. Lieberman and Miller stress the importance of ‘‘honest talk’’ (p. 18) that

seeks to address, not cover up, ‘‘problems of practice’’ (p. 24) and allows teachers to

engage in open conversation. As one teacher in a chapter written by Matt Ellinger explains,

‘‘It’s so easy to be defensive when discussing your own teaching, but it just doesn’t serve

any purpose’’ (p. 82).

However, it is one thing to discuss with one’s colleagues problems of practice per-

taining to failed lessons, ineffectual pedagogy, stagnant curriculum, and inadequate subject

knowledge. This is the scope of discussion addressed in the book. It is quite another thing

to try and engage with colleagues about moral problems of practice that cast doubt ethi-

cally on the teaching behavior of one’s peers. By way of a personal example, I recall as a

very new teacher casually mentioning to one of my veteran colleagues that the only way

I could maintain reasonable discipline in one grade nine English class during students’

class presentations was to deduct marks for this assignment from those boisterous students

who ridiculed or disrupted others while they were delivering their presentations. Her quick

response both surprised and hurt me; she said something like, ‘‘Well, you can’t do that.

Deducting grades for something not related to the assignment is just wrong.’’ Of course,

I realized that ethically she was probably right, but her candid admonition, which did not

seem open for discussion, seemed to be criticizing my moral judgment, rather than my

faulty (albeit desperate) assessment method. I felt quite ashamed of myself, and more than

20 years later, this is still one of the few occasions I remember in which I described my

teaching to a colleague.

As Strike notes, ‘‘Teachers are rarely asked to engage in moral dialogue with other

educational professionals about the ethical issues of their practice’’ (Strike 1995, p. 33). As

argued by Sockett and LePage (2002), teachers lack proficiency in the use of ‘‘moral

language.’’ So, while ‘‘honest talk’’ about pedagogy may be possible among communities

of teachers, it seems uncertain that they would feel comfortable embracing honest talk

about honesty, about fairness, about kind treatment of students. It is surely less risky

interpersonally to question one’s judgment about a curricular or pedagogical approach than

to question his or her moral judgment.

In fact, studies on the kinds of moral and ethical dilemmas, tensions, and conflicts that

teachers experience, consistently identify collegial relations as a dominant source of many

challenges (Campbell 1996; 2005 ; Colnerud 1997; Tirri 1999; Tirri and Husu 2002).

Norms of peer loyalty and non-interference in the practice of colleagues leave teachers

feeling powerless to address real ethical concerns they have about a colleague’s possibly

J Educ Change (2009) 10:83–87 85

123

harmful conduct. This is consistent with Lieberman and Miller’s description of the norms

of privacy so pervasive in many schools; they note, ‘‘One of the earliest lessons that

teachers learn in traditional school cultures is the importance of being private. Privacy is

invoked when teachers shy away from sharing experiences, visiting one another’s classes,

talking about problems of practice, and displaying their successes…Privacy has its

advantages. It protects against exposure and censure in cultures that have not developed

forums for honest talk’’ (pp. 32–33).

How then can members of professional communities engage in genuine collegial dis-

course about curricular and pedagogical issues with colleagues whose conduct or aspects of

their practice they find ethically disturbing, without also bringing to the table the ethical

dimensions of teaching? Glossing over inevitable concerns and tensions of an ethical

nature, while concentrating only on subject matter and teaching techniques, may clearly be

less threatening to professional communities; however, it does nothing to deepen ethical

knowledge in teaching. Nor does it respond to the possibility that such tensions, if left

unaddressed, may foster lingering suspicion and resentment among colleagues that serve to

thwart their efforts to stimulate productive collegial work.

Teachers in Professional Communities introduces exciting possibilities for enhancing

the practices of teachers by improving their collective curricular and pedagogical profi-

ciency. However, the potential for teaching communities to explore the moral and ethical

nuances that underpin, in both positive and negative ways, these daily practices is left

untapped. Perhaps by building strong professional communities, teachers at last can

develop the appropriate environments for the genuine sharing of their ethical knowledge as

well.

References

Buzzelli, C. A., & Johnston, B. (2002). The moral dimensions of teaching: Language, power, and culture inclassroom interaction. New York and London: Routledge Falmer.

Campbell, E. (1996). Ethical implications of collegial loyalty as one view of teacher professionalism.Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 2(2), 191–208.

Campbell, E. (2003). The ethical teacher. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press McGraw-Hill Education.Campbell, E. (2005). Challenges in fostering ethical knowledge as professionalism within schools as

teaching communities. Journal of Educational Change, 6(3), 207–226.Campbell, E. (2008). The ethics of teaching as a moral profession. Curriculum Inquiry, 38(4), 357–385.Carr, D. (2000). Professionalism and ethics in teaching. London: Routledge.Colnerud, G. (1997). Ethical conflicts in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(6), 627–635.Hansen, D. T. (2001). Exploring the moral heart of teaching: Towards a teacher’s creed. New York:

Teachers College Press.Jackson, P. W., Boostrom, R. E., & Hansen, D. T. (1993). The moral life of schools. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (Eds.). (2008). Teachers in professional communities: Improving teaching and

learning. New York: Teachers College Press.Louis, K. S., Kruse, S. D., & Bryk, A. S. (1995). Professionalism and community. In K. S. Louis, S. D. Kruse,

et al. (Eds.), Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools (pp. 3–42).Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Nash, R. J. (1996). ‘‘Real world’’ ethics: Frameworks for educators and human service professionals. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Richardson, V., & Fenstermacher, G. D. (2001). Manner in teaching: The study in four parts. Journal ofCurriculum Studies, 33(6), 631–637.

Sockett, H. (1993). The moral base for teacher professionalism. New York: Teachers College Press.Sockett, H., & LePage, P. (2002). The missing language of the classroom. Teachers and Teacher Education,

18(2002), 159–171.

86 J Educ Change (2009) 10:83–87

123

Strike, K. A. (1995). Professional ethics and the education of professionals. Educational Horizons, 74(1),29–36.

Strike, K. A., & Soltis, J. F. (1992). The ethics of teaching (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Strike, K. A., & Ternasky, P. L. (Eds.). (1993). Ethics for professionals in education: Perspectives for

preparation and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Tirri, K. (1999). Teachers’ perceptions of moral dilemmas at school. Journal of Moral Education, 28(1),

31–47.Tirri, K., & Husu, J. (2002). Care and responsibility in ‘the best interest of the child’: Relational voices of

ethical dilemmas in teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(1), 65–80.

J Educ Change (2009) 10:83–87 87

123