On A Teacher's Disposition And Inner Landscape

There is a new document out by NCATE, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education about "teacher dispositions"--that is, exactly what predisposes an individual to being an effective educator.

Let me say right off: This is a fascinating and much neglected topic, one very much at the forefront of most new teachers' consciousness. The self-examination, even self-doubt entering this profession is a constant companion: "Am I really cut out to be a teacher?"

I sure asked that, as did every student I know who has considered teaching a career.

So, this is relevant and timely, given the sheer numbers of new teachers that will be needed over the next decade.

But, to what extent are good teachers just "born" with their abilities? And, to what extent can they be "made" through scholarship, training and practice?

In other words, in teachers, like everything else, is "disposition" about "nature" or "nurture"?

I'll get there, but first, let's look at the new definition of what "disposition" is exactly when it comes to teacher candidates:

"Professional attitudes, values, and beliefs demonstrated through both verbal and nonverbal behaviors as educators interact with students, families, colleagues, and communities. These positive behaviors support student learning and development. NCATE expects institutions to assess professional dispositions based on observable behaviors in educational settings. The two professional dispositions that NCATE expects institutions to assess are fairness and the belief that all students can learn. Based on their mission and conceptual framework, professional education units can identify, define, and operationalize additional professional dispositions."

Some good and some lacking here. I think that "attitudes, values and beliefs" are certainly part of the equation, but not to the extent that you can identify them in any specific or practical way. For instance, it's not like some values, "faith in human and technological progress" for example, can be held superior to "skepticism of Western materialism".

That is not the kind of debate we want to get into. In fact, since first surfacing the idea of "dispostions", NCATE has been dogged by disputes, counter-claims and debate about the softness, plasticity and potential political correctness inherent in identifying such things as "values, beliefs and attitudes."

What they are trying to surface is this sense that teachers must, at heart, have "attitudes, values and beliefs" that fit well with the tasks of teaching: helping and nurturing others to realize their potential. That, this is essential in an individual if she is going to pursue teaching. For example, you don't want a teaching candidate who is a white supremicist because their disposition toward people of color might limit their effectiveness. (Tongue-cheek.)

I guess the word "care", which has been championed by Nel Noddings is too touch-feely in an era of hard accountability. But, really, that's what they are getting at here. "Care" after all is the end-product of someone's conviction of what must be offered or done in any given situation. And, it does communicate the sense that most of what teachers offer day in day out are, in fact, "actions". If you can't get down to providing "care" to other people, especially those in need, then something has gone very wrong between the heart and the head.

Really though, notice that the above definition eventually spells out which two "values" matter most: fairness and a belief that all students can learn.

These are definitely core issues, not the only ones in my opinion, but sturdy ones nonetheless, very American, and indisputable. OK good.

But, as an article in Education Week asks-- how then does one "operationalize" these values in the classroom? And here, then, we get instantly diverted from a teacher's inner world of values, attitudes and beliefs to the outer world of pedagogy, curriculum and practice.

And, at that point, you get checklists and observations, somewhat awkward looking people with clipboards hunched over the entire class-period making notes on paper. Now, I'm not against observations, feedback, or even checklists--I think they're essential for new teachers to learn and grow as professionals.

But, let's step back. If the interest is in dispositions, which at heart dwell within the teacher candidate, how did we get back out into the classroom-- to pedagogy and instructional practice?

In other words, the system, even when it identifies something inherent and crucial to teaching, like attitudes, beliefs and values, seeks a way to tangibly measure these in terms of classroom practice.

Here's the problem with that, and it goes back to my opening question of "nature" versus "nurture".

Teachers grow into the job we ask of them. They have to. If they didn't grow, adapt and learn, then new teachers would be as good on day one as in their 10th year of teaching, and clearly, that is not the case. Teachers grow and improve. I don't think anyone disputes that.

And, I submit, they grow, improve, learn principally by integrating their values, attitudes and beliefs into the way they do their work.

In fact, I submit, this is what allows teachers to excel over time: a good teacher finds a way to integrate, in ever more profound ways and at ever higher levels, their inner world with the outer demands of pedagogy, curriculum and instructional practice. They have to. If they don't grow in this regard, I submit, they fail to connect with people, lose interest in the job, or just plain burn out.

This is about that "inner landscape" of the teacher championed by Parker Palmer in his book The Courage To Teach. While the exact definition of what this is varies from person to person, and in fact, is rooted in mystery, the core of the inner landscape is a commitment to learning and growth. Teachers need it as much for themselves as they do for their students. And, to me, this is as much of a crucial disposition as anything.

But, to grow the heart of a learner in a teacher requires a combination of nature and nurture. They must have some natural aptitude and interest in school, learning and people, and it must be fortified by some level of practice, training and intellectual insight. In other words, that inner world can be cultivated, stimulated and made more rich through proper care and feeding, but also, some level of aptitude for it must already be in place.

I know that sounds really imprecise, perhaps even a bit "new agey", but I'm going to insist on it for this reason: the strongest organ in the human body is the heart. We often emphasize the brain in education, and prize intellect above all. Yet, as Parker Palmer convincingly shows in his work, it is the heart that is most essential organ for all the varied tasks of teaching as well.

You can only get to the highest levels of instructional practice, of doing that difficult work connecting with other human beings, when the heart is fully engaged. And, the best way to get the heart fully engaged is to be fully open and alert to your inner life, and the way it "fits" with the world around it. That, in turn, requires some level of intention and practice--it is something that is built over time.

So, the long and the short of it is this: Yes, dispositions are terribly important in teaching, and the two identified by NCATE are certainly core values that we can all agree on. But, this says nothing about "how" we engender those values in new teachers; nor, that this is a "process" that is continually being refined, reconstituted and grown. Making judgments about the ultimate level of "dispositions" in a new teacher is risky business, if not counter-productive.

What we really need is to realize that the inner life of teachers is a crucial laboratory where excellence, compassion and leadership is fermented. It is not a place that can be configured, measured or controlled by the system; in fact, too much tinkering, totalling and tailoring from the outside can lead to poor outcomes.

This is not about finding a recipe or magic formula. We are talking about unique individuals and particular circumstances in every case. As with the students themselves, it is about mixing an exposure to rich and stimulating material, with a creative, productive and collaborative set of people, while providing guidance and channels so that the individual can fully realize the truth of what is inside.