Formulating ethical principles for extracurricular education teachers and youth workers

At the launch event held on 30 September 2025, it became clear that while youth workers genuinely wish to rethink and rearticulate their own code of ethics, extracurricular education teachers prefer to align themselves with the emerging teachers’ code of ethics, as the principles it contains also reflect the realities of their professional practice. The same event also hosted the first discussion on how the teachers’ code of ethics could be interpreted in the field of extracurricular education.

Following this, the working group (in varying compositions) has met three times. The authors of the current version of the document are Eliise Kannukene, Tuuli Vaher, Kätlin Virgo, Krõõt Kiviste, Regina Eleena Suik, Kristel Kallau, Agris Kiudma, Külli Salumäe, Halliki Harro-Loit, Kertu Rajando, Margit Sutrop, and Katrin Velbaum.

In addition to substantive interpretation, the meetings also addressed how to define the boundaries of the extracurricular education field and the role of the teacher within it. The original idea behind the teachers’ code of ethics was that, although it was primarily developed with general education teachers in mind, it should ideally—with appropriate adaptations—be applicable to all those engaged in teaching, including, for example, driving instructors.

A similar approach could be followed in the case of the extracurricular education supplement. First and foremost, the document takes into account staff working in different types of hobby and interest schools, whose umbrella organisations include the Estonian Private Hobby Schools Association, the Estonian Hobby Schools Association, the Estonian Association of Art Schools, the Estonian Association of Music Schools, the Estonian Dance Education Association, and the Estonian Association of Science and Technology Education. At the same time, the agreements, principles, and illustrative interpretations set out here could also resonate more broadly with instructors leading extracurricular activities and with coaches, despite the fact that coaches already have their own code of ethics. This is because pedagogy plays a significant role in the work of both activity instructors and coaches.

What factors shape the work of extracurricular education teachers? First, it must be taken into account that the members of the learning community with whom teachers can collaborate may differ from those in general education. For example, at present it is not always possible to rely on support systems that facilitate the participation of learners with special educational needs, which makes the role and significance of parents—particularly in the case of underage learners—even more important (see section 2.5 of the teachers’ code of ethics: “The teacher engages in substantive cooperation with support specialists”). Indeed, many of the topics addressed in the interpretation document are, to a greater or lesser extent, connected with parents: informing them about expectations, opportunities, and circumstances arising from the nature of the field, and reaching shared agreements on these matters.

A second important distinctive feature lies in the potential mismatch between parental expectations and the capacities or established practices of hobby schools. Given the wide variety of learning styles and objectives in extracurricular education, parents may not always be aware of what lies ahead for their children or what level of involvement is expected from them. Informing parents about these conditions and reaching agreement on them should be an ongoing responsibility of teachers, led by the management of the hobby school (see section 2.3 of the teachers’ code of ethics: “The family of a minor learner and the teacher work as partners, respecting the learner’s autonomy and listening to their views. The teacher makes efforts to initiate and sustain this cooperation”).

A third characteristic, also highlighted in the introduction to the document, is the voluntary nature of participation in extracurricular education, which may give rise to competition between different institutions. This, in turn, raises the question of what should primarily guide the provision of educational opportunities: the teacher’s and institution’s understanding of good education, or what appears more attractive to so-called clients. These two orientations need not be in conflict, but if they are, priority should be given to ensuring that the ethical norms and values of the teaching profession are not compromised.

A fourth distinctive feature is that extracurricular education involves in-depth engagement with a single field of interest, which may take place at different levels of intensity, such as recreational, core, or pre-professional training. In certain fields (for example, sport, dance, or music), the principle of non-maleficence becomes particularly important (see the value of human dignity in the teachers’ code of ethics: “This [human dignity] also entails a prohibition on causing harm to others”). This means that even where the agreed goal with the learner and their parents is preparation for high-level performance, this must not be pursued at the expense of the child’s future physical or psychological health, whether in determining workloads or in choosing teaching methods.