February 23rd, 2022—The question informing this post is, why is it often easier to focus on the techniques and practice of teaching than the inner life of the educator; the energy that fuels the outer practice? One answer, for me, when leaning into this question comes from a recent conversation with a colleague. We were discussing a course we are co-teaching and what learning experiences we want students to experience in our next class session. At the center of our conversation was an instructional puzzle. We noticed the challenge and struggle students experienced when invited to articulate the qualities and characteristics of the inner dimensions of their teacher-self. And at the same time, they could easily speak about their commitments to the practice of humanizing pedagogy. During our reflections my co-teacher noted: “It is easier to run to the safety of teaching…” to which I added, “than the vulnerability of self”.
As soon as the sentence was completed, I dropped into a moment of contemplative silence. There was something emerging that needed time to enter into the heart of our consciousness and become embodied as a partner in our course planning. My co-teacher is equally attentive to the importance of silence. Collectively we held our wonder, waiting for the energy and understanding to be correct before continuing our conversation. At the core of our quietness was the realization that we were on the cusp of understanding, in new ways, the challenge of inviting students into experiencing the spirit at the center of their calling to teach.
The students in this course, Spirituality in Education, are graduate students in curriculum and instruction. Many have taken multiple courses from me; they are familiar with my zest for organizing courses and activities around the inner life of the educator. My syllabi note that a core learning outcome is the way that the readings, assignments and conversations can change students as people and educators. The nature and depth of the transformation is not for me to define, that is their journey. My role, as I see it, is to provide the raw materials for educational transcendence as deep inner change, not technical proficiency or scholarly acumen. Whether or not students move beyond the traditional student role of mastering the material and into the mystery of transformation as the true work of an educator is ultimately their choice.
Yet over the years I have witnessed a phenomenon I’m increasingly struggling to understand and find new ways to respond to. I know that my invitation to connect technical practice with deep spiritual-longings is mostly working, but many holes and gaps remain. I feel like I’m missing some key element in the learning landscape that is right there, but I’m unable to grasp and place in its proper location. Some students make the leap to fuller integration of inner-self and external practice. But, full linkage for most students remains incomplete and not as unified and integrated as I hope and believe is possible. Students are truly inclined to consider the spiritual elements of teaching. But they often falter when asked to apply those elements to the liberation of their inner spiritual essence in service of their pedagogical goals. The heart and hand seem to be speaking the same language but with different dialects.
This same apparent disconnect was emerging again in this course. This was particularly puzzling because my co-teacher and I were intentional, in every class, to offer students a spiritual practice designed to bring them into closer contact with heart, soul and inner wisdom. The essential question here is odd, it seems. As I have argued in other posts, if being human means being spiritual, why is attending to the spiritual elements of self such a challenge? How does a teacher develop self as a spiritual being? And how does this emerging sense of soulfulness inform teaching practice? Why is it the case that many educators can claim that teaching is a calling (a distinctly spiritual term) and yet still find little purchase on the deep spiritual roots of their practice?
One consideration is that these questions are asked in the context of a society and educational system that values individualism and notions of the self as an autonomous being. Perhaps the fault rests with the Western commodity driven and social media-profile focused culture where there is a version of self that is manufactured and marketed as often as the online feed refreshes. In the presence of an over-expansive external-self, that trumpets its existence in loud and raucous digital tones, the quieter internal aspects of self are likely to retreat into the background. The inner-self has neither the inclination nor the skills to compete with the more boisterous external-self.
Another consideration is the role of reflection in teacher education and professional development. In a recent course, students offered passionate critiques about the ways the current system for evaluating teachers is dehumanizing, because it is built on the fragmentation of the teacher into minute practices and check boxes. They could articulate the elements of an ideal teacher evaluation system, one that honored the complexity of teaching while humanizing the educator. Yet they struggled when asked to create a cosmology of core evaluative-elements based on their unique inner-qualities of humanness. As we tried to understand this gap, a veteran teacher of 20 years noted that the question of inner-self was rarely if ever asked in the profession of teaching. They noted that it is common in professional development to reflect on teaching practices and values, but the deep questions of heart, as it informs practice, were absent from the conversation. Reflection seemed narrowly focused on the technical and avoided the more expansive and more intimate realm of the soul.
Why is it often easier to focus on the techniques and practice of teaching than the inner life of the educator, the energy that fuels the outer practice? Why does it seem that “It is easier to run to the safety of teaching, than the vulnerability of self”? I’m still not sure of the answer, and this is good because the elements of the question are too complex and alive to fully understand. And at the same time, I’m getting closer to seeing the outer-technical practices and the less tangible elements of the inner-self as two necessary forces when designing teacher professional development. And I know the students in Spirituality and Education are getting closer as well. Every week they submit a one-page reflection on their understanding of the spirit in education. Their posts suggest that they are beginning to shift from the intellectual elements of the course to the deeper rumblings of self and teacher as a soulful being. One question we are learning to ask is what metaphor best captures your sense of self as educator informed by your deep spiritual essence? When you are fully yourself as an educator, what image or identity comes to mind? For me, when I’m at my best, I’m a lighthouse keeper. I’m not the light, but I keep it shining, especially in rough weather so others can find their way to a safe port. What metaphor speaks to your inner-self when you are your best as an educator?