In this article, the author responds to the Presidential address, "Ethics for the New Political Economy: What Can It Mean to Be Professionally Responsible?" in which Michael G. Gunzenhauser defines, names, and proposes a professional ethics for educators: an ethics of the everyday. The author introduces her response by stating that neither an ethics of collective action nor an ethics of protest, ethics of the everyday concerns how human beings daily treat each other and, specifically, in the context within which Gunzenhauser writes, how educators daily regard and behave toward each other, students, parents, and school staff. Practicing ethics of the everyday within schools and other public educational settings does not mean working to transcend school, district, state, and national structures but transforming one's individual practice so to assert the possible while attending to dangers, especially the eminent danger of foreclosing students' and one's own possibilities. Asserting the possible means transforming children's daily lives in schools--their learning and social experiences, their claiming knowledge and educations--and means creating a facilitating environment through which children reclaim themselves as individuals and individuals in community. Educators' first step toward embracing Gunzenhauser's ethics of the everyday is a step many educators neglect, ignore, or never think about at all, a step even teacher educators fail to take, work through with their students, and require their students to formulate: their philosophies of teaching and of education. Through formulating a philosophy that grounds one's teaching practice in ethics of the everyday, teachers would be bound to include this element of possibility where Gunzenhauser argues power, politics, relationships, and ethics converge. The author explores these areas in depth, examining Gunzenhauser's views on high-stakes accountability within U.S. neoliberalism; his critique of educators conflating test-score accountability with professionalism and professional ethics; his use of "professionalism" and "professional ethics"; and his ethics of the everyday as a moral ideal for the teaching profession. (Contains 20 footnotes.)