Many people can remember exemplary teachers who positively influenced and enriched their lives. What was different about them? Why aren’t all teachers exemplary? If we don’t find out what distinguishes exemplary teachers’ thinking and teaching, how can others learn from them? Throughout my lengthy experience as a Canadian K-12 teacher, I had often wondered why some teachers were recognized implicitly or explicitly as wonderful teachers or, in Jackson’s (1968/1990) words, “teachers who would be called outstanding by almost any standard” (p. 115). Being recognized as an outstanding, exemplary, accomplished, or inspiring teacher does not mean that these teachers are exempt from human limitations, idiosyncrasies, inconsistencies, and imperfections, but it does mean that they can provide examples from which others can learn (Berliner, 1986). A vast literature and policies regarding qualifications of teachers (teacher preparation, licensure, and professional development) have obviously not satisfied the quest for ‘quality’ teachers. Some scholars—but many fewer—have looked beyond professional requirements, technical expertise, and measurable competencies to include teachers’ personal beliefs and attributes (e.g., Combs, 1982; Lortie, 1975). Sockett (1993) commented that by ignoring character, researchers miss much of teaching quality. Hare (1993) argued that multiple “excellences” such as humility, empathy, and open-mindedness are necessary to becoming a good teacher (p. v). A landmark United Nations report (Delors, 1996) emphasized learning to live together as well as learning to know, do, and be, calling on schools to “plant the seeds of caring” and universal human values (p. 59). Similarly, the Carnegie Council (1989) challenged schools to become places where students “acquire durable self-esteem, flexible and inquiring habits of mind, reliable and relatively close human relationships, ….virtues such as courage, acceptance of responsibility, honesty, integrity, tolerance, …and caring about others” (pp. 12, 16). But while caring and clear values are consistently associated with exemplary teaching (e.g., Agne, 1999; Collinson, 1996; Leithwood, 1990; Williams, 2001), the mere mention of virtues can provoke resistance and ridicule from teacher educators in some countries (Holmes, 1989) and carry negative connotations like “goody-goody” (Dewey, 1897/1964, p. 130), “moralistic” (Straughan, 1988, p. 2), and “indoctrination” (Purpel & Ryan, 1975, p. 661). Indeed, “much of the formal scholarship in English, save for that of a small group of educational philosophers, has for decades avoided any serious consideration of the moral and ethical aspects of teaching” (Fenstermacher, 1992, p. 95; Heath, 1994). So there remain large gaps of understanding in the research on exemplary teachers: few studies address the complexity and interwoven aspects of teachers and teaching; few studies have investigated why second-level teachers do x instead of how they do x; few studies cross grade levels and subject areas; and few studies explore exemplary teaching across various contexts (e.g., urban and rural, wealthy or poor). The absence of a more robust understanding or a testable theory of what makes an exemplary teacher currently limits available help for developing existing and future teachers. It is my intent that this theory, grounded in the lives of practitioners, can inform further research on teacher development.

The study explored exemplary teachers’ thinking about good teaching and an ethic of caring. Using grounded theory methodology (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) and Hunter’s (1953) reputational method of selection, I invited regional groups of six to 12 teacher peers to nominate exemplary second-level teachers who care about learning and students (see also Marshall et al., 1996). The nominating groups comprised educators with extensive teaching knowledge and classroom experience as well as opportunities to visit classrooms and work with teachers in their school systems. The final sample, selected from the larger pool of nominees, included 81 teachers across the USA. Each of the teacher participants completed a pre-interview survey and then engaged in a semi-structured, three-hour interview that was taped, transcribed, and coded. I also saw or received additional data from the participants such as student work, assessments, and teacher-solicited evaluations from students.

Findings include the teachers’ main shared values/attitudes (e.g., curiosity, hope, respect for persons) and their explanation of why those ethics are important to them and their teaching. Not only did the teachers clearly articulate their own values and attitudes, they understood that their values/attitudes represent “a way of being” and that they serve as a model to students. The teachers made no distinction between ‘teacher’ and ‘teaching,’ identifying themselves as the major instrument of teaching and their subject area as a vehicle for what they are trying to accomplish (develop the whole child). As such, they were keenly aware of two issues: that their every word, decision, and behavior has the potential to influence students; and that they respect and guide students’ individual development. As one teacher explained, “Their [students’] values may not be exactly your values, but let's hope that they’re all positive values…They have to decide for themselves. That's the important thing.” The grounded theory also includes a Table indicating the teachers’ overarching aims, their three shared and interrelated goals for developing students’ thinking and identities, the principles they use to try to achieve those goals, and the underlying values/attitudes they help students develop.