Moral Dilemmas in Teaching- Reading Reaction

After reading the first chapter in The Ethics of Teaching, the discussion of the consequentialist thinking versus the nonconsequentialist thinking paralleled with Kolhberg's three stages of moral reasoning. His stages include the preconventional stage, where the individual is looking to avoid punishment and seek reward, and this stage is usually associated with children. The second stage is the conventional stage, where society defines morality for the individual. People operate on a "Golden Rule" policy, and most do not advance past this stage. Lastly, the final moral stage is postconventional, where the individual uses his personal values to define morality for himself. Virtue is its own intrinsic reward.
When looking at these stages of moral reasoning in relation to the readings, it begs the question, how do we as teachers establish our moral codes? Some of us may reason in the conventional level and therefore prescribe to a nonconsequentialist view of thinking. Teachers have signed contracts to uphold the policies determined by the governing body. However, if some of us have attained the postconventional way of thought, then we have decided to define morals for ourselves and this will overlap in the classroom. The problem with this is that the rules a consequentialist prescribes to have no basis except in the individual's mind. Therefore, there is no "standard" for the moral reasoning, and the teacher will examine each case in an individual light. Soltis and Striker lay out their premise in the book, saying that morals can be discussed objectively and justifiably in a certain way, yet in a way this undermines Kolhberg's assumptions of the three stages of thinking.
I am interested in discussing more the "rational" way that ethics can be defined in relation to how other students perceive ethics. I know they are essential in the classroom, and how I choose to define my ethics will ultimately shape my classroom and my effectiveness as a teacher.