I think that morality can be aligned with a religion, but does not have to. A person's morals is what dictates how they behave--or how they think they SHOULD behave, anyway. Morality is influenced by upbringing (which often includes religion) and mass culture. A person can choose to accept all the morals of a particular religion, in which case their moral enterprises will be religious. But a person can choose not to adhere to any religion and still pursue something governed by their morals, what they think should be and what they think they should do.
In teaching, it's the same thing. We are helping to teach kids how they should behave, and we will bring our own morals into that. Even if we never explicitly mention our religious background or membership, we will still act (for the most part) according to our own morals.

I agree with you Rachel, morality may have an impact based on your religion but it is also focused on your up-bringing as well. Just because a person isn't religious does this mean they lack morals? Of course not. Also you can use your morals without having to bring your religion with it. As teacher, our morality choices will be present but it is not our place to bring in any religious aspect of such. We also should not force our morals on others, but we can have an effect.

There is truth to be found in what both of you have brought up so far. Carrying a faith will inherently bring morals into a person's life, however a person may still have morals without a specified faith. This is a matter of what has become known as our conscience which in some faiths, the conscience is God speaking to us. For instance when we were young, we would do things that somehow we already knew were wrong just to see if we would be caught and how sever the punishment would be. Most of us had parents which held us accountable for our actions so that when we did something wrong, we had to deal with the consequences of our actions. Where this relates to personal faith is that when we have a belief system that we practice, we have something to hold us accountable for our actions and therefore our morals and values are usually greater in quantity, quality and are adhered to more strictly. Those of us without a faith tend to base our morals on convenience for ourselves because after all, why would an individual have a moral if it did not benefit them and there was nothing to hold them accountable. Also, an individual may have a particular moral that is not necessarily convenient, but how likely is that individual going adhere to it if there is no source of accountability?
The one area where I find a flaw with what has been said thus far is that "we are not supposed to impose our morals upon other people around us." In some cases this may hold true, but in others it does not. Where this holds true is morals that we hold for ourselves and those we have authority over. For instance, I have chosen to never drink alcohol and will hold that moral for myself and my household whenever it is established. If I own a business I will also hold my employees to that moral by banning alcohol in my place of business and not allowing employees to show up to work intoxicated or hungover. However, for people not under my authority, or for my employees whenever they are not on "my time" they may do as they please when it comes to drinking alcohol because they will not be under my authority. Now, as for my other morals that extend beyond myself that I will also hold other people accountable for, are those that concern actions of others that can/will affect me. One example of this is that I am against stealing. I of course can hold myself to this moral but I will also hold others to this moral as well. If I find that one day a student in my classroom steals something from his fellow classmate, it would be rather silly and irresponsible of me to look at the scenario and say "I would never allow myself to steal something, but I cannot hold you to that moral because I am not supposed to impose my morals on you." Of course some may argue that the students would be under my authority because they are in my classroom, yet the same can be said for someone who may be trying to steal from me out on the street, or even steal from someone else. When I have been faced with that scenario I step in to stop the thief from making off with my possessions because their lack of morals are infringing upon my morals and my personal property.

What this means for us as teachers is that even though we may not want to "offend" other people/our students by imposing our morals on them, you may find that we already do that and that it is not wrong of us to do so.

I definitely agree with everything that has been said already. Everybody has their own individual morals that stem from their upbringing and cultural surroundings, whether that be religious or not. Because of this, teachers are going to implement their morals into their classrooms whether they realize it or not. This is definitely not a bad thing because I think it helps students to understand their teachers better on a more personal level. However, teachers just need to make sure that they are not forcing any particular beliefs on students or shooting down students' beliefs because that is most certainly not what teachers are called to do.

I think its all about motive. Its about why we do things. This "why" is what influences how things come across. Motive check is so important for teachers. What will help students the most as people and students.