 |
| Picture by Amazon.com |
Through some
unforeseen chain of events, my children are attending a public school and I am
working outside the home. And like most
things, I’m sure the Lord is teaching me lessons I wasn’t aware (or desiring) that
I needed to learn. Fortunately, I have
been able to be employed as a TA (Teacher’s Aid) at the very school my youngest
children are attending. I get to be
involved in what my children are experiencing as well as make money on the
side. Win-Win, right?
And while
this may only be a temporary interim employment, it’s all coming back to me why
I didn’t feel the desire to continue pursuing my elementary education
major. I recall it had something to do with the
amount of politics that were involved in education – and very little to do with
teaching children. Now that I’m in the
thick of it, I’m seeing a good deal of the teacher’s role… is classroom
management – with very little to do with igniting a fire in the heart of the
child to love learning.
I get that a
room of 20 plus children is similar to herding cats and it would be impossible
to instruct them unless there is some semblance of order. I get that children are young and
inexperienced and need to be guided in how to behave appropriately. And I also get how I am working with elementary
aged children and the lessons they are learning now will set the stage for the
rest of their schooling experience and so the lessons are more about
self-control and less about academic content.
But what I
don’t quite understand is why addressing inappropriate behavior makes me feel
like loving kindness, long suffering, and patience ought to be replaced with
the stern “LOOK”, zero tolerance, and no opportunity to connect with the
child’s heart.
I’ve seen,
first hand, why teachers might lose their love of teaching because of the
difficulty in managing a classroom. Let’s face it, sometimes kids are tyrants. The teachers develop the furrowed brow, the
low tolerance for disorder, the no allowance for individual expression because
it downward spirals into community chaos.
(The same thing might apply to parents.)
So I’m
curious…Are children inherently malicious?
I’ve known
some people who view them this way. Give
them and inch and they’ll take a mile.
A milder,
yet similar assumption might be that children are innately immature. You know, the whole Id, Ego, and Superego
assumption.
 |
| Picture from simplypsychology.org |
They are ego-centric and
incapable of monitoring themselves without staged “lessons” to direct them into
appropriate behavior – commonly called discipline. With that premise, it is the teacher’s (or
parent’s) responsibility to cause them to behave contrary to their juvenile
nature in order to grow – correct?
I wonder if
that popularly adopted theory doesn’t take into account the dual nature of the
being – spiritual… as well as physical.
Our spirits are quite mature and developed – they’ve passed the first
estate and have learned all they could learn in Father’s presence. Now we are experiencing a veiled spiritual memory
and awareness while simultaneously working with the undeveloped natural
body. It’s quite the juggling act when
you think about it.
When
children misbehave, it isn’t necessarily a result of them solely being selfish
and inexperienced, but a navigating of how to work this undisciplined portion
of their physical nature while not wholly remembering their disciplined and
mature spiritual self.
I get that
it is difficult to see the greatness of a person who is defiant and unwilling
to cooperate with what we view as a more noble objective. (That probably needs to be put into different
perspective as well.) Requiring everyone
be quiet so they can hear what I have to say is helpful, but helping the child
connect with their mature self and desire to want to be respectful is a much
more powerful, useful, and life-changing lesson.
 |
| Picture from slideshare.net |
Those two hidden
assumptions about children,
1)
A physical being going through a development
from instinctual response to moral based decisions
and
2)
A combination of both a mature spiritual and immature
physical being going through a process of becoming unified – to remember the
one and develop the other.
may sound
very similar, I know, but understanding the underlying assumption for a
behavior is huge in determining the appropriate response to that behavior.
You have to
admit that we respond differently when we believe something was done with
intent rather than it being done innocently or accidently. Of course, both theories take into account
that the behavior is done innocently and in need of improvement. However, the latter is a much more complex
process and so much more is going on than simply caveman to civilized behavior.
And if
children are simply immature and need directed into appropriate behavior, then
the teacher/parent takes on the role of controlling or manipulating the child in
order to train them to behave in their best interest. That sounds a lot like Satan’s approach. But if children are already giants of
character that are struggling to balance the outside forces that are placed
upon them, then the teacher/parent takes the role of leading them to find their
innate greatness. Both approaches are
done through discipline, but the premise and motive is completely different. Control versus loving persuasion.
Discipline
alone trains the body, however, runs the risk of offending the spirit. Discipline with a heart connection, takes
into account the dual nature of children while preserving one’s own desire to
behave in a Christ-like manner.
“No power or influence can or
ought to be maintained... only by persuasion,
by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and
by love unfeigned; By kindness,
and pure knowledge...
Reproving
betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the
Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of
love
toward him whom thou has reproved, lest he esteem thee
to be his enemy...
(Doctrine
and Covenants 121:41-43)
