MARCH 2007
ISSUE 9 - ISSN 1448 - 6326
Becoming a Therapeutic Teacher: A Personal Journey
Jade
Abstract
Although many teachers think that in their role as pastoral carers, they also counsel students, this paper argues that the goals, tasks, strategies and role relationships of counselling and education are very different. A teacher is not a counsellor. However, it is argued that teachers can incorporate counselling theory and skills into their teaching practice without blurring role boundaries, to enhance student-teacher relationships and students’ engagement in an holistic education.
Introduction
This paper explores what I can, as a teacher in a Catholic school, take back into my classroom and school community, from my pastoral counselling studies to help me be a more effective teacher. Today’s teachers are psychologically informed for their classroom teaching practice and pastoral care duties. Now that I am a teacher and a counsellor, I am challenged to consider how both roles differ, what they may have in common and how I might enhance my teaching practice through transferring counselling knowledge, experience and skills into my teaching practice. Firstly, an understanding of my psycho-educational and theological context as a teacher is needed because this is the role that I had when I entered counselling studies and will continue to have in the future.
The impact of psychology on Catholic education
The 1950s and 1960s saw Western
education become involved in the shift from a teacher-centred, passive student,
“jug and mug” praxis, indoctrination, towards a student-centred, active student
learning environment, emancipation. Understanding the learner and how the
learner learns and acknowledging that children are different from adults were
two central ideas for this developing emancipatory praxis. The cognitive,
affective and spiritual aspects of children and adults were recognised and
acknowledged by educational theorists. Psychological theories of human
development were instrumental in the development of this movement. In the early
20th century, Sigmund Freud (1952) and Carl Jung (1991) began a
revolution into “inner space.” Post
World War II, developmental theorists made significant contributions to
education: Maslow’s (1970) eight step hierarchy of needs; Piaget’s (1955) four
stage theory of cognitive and intellectual development; Erickson’s (1987)
developmental stage theory of human maturation; Kohlberg’s (1987) developmental
stage theory concerning one’s ability to discern successively more complex and
subtle moral dilemmas; and Fowler’s (1981) theory of faith development. These
theories influenced educational theorists to move towards a child centred,
developmental approach, with educational praxis seeking to meet the needs of
the whole person in a supportive and nurturing environment that encourages
active learning. This educational position was consistent with, and indeed
influenced, educational developments taking place within the Catholic Church.
The Vatican II paper on education, Declaration on Christian education (Gravissimum educationis) of October, 1965 was extended and further clarified by three more Vatican documents from the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education: The Catholic school (1977); Lay Catholics in schools: Witnesses to faith (1982); and The religious dimension of education in a Catholic school (1988). Basically, the whole person or “whole man,” if published before, or resisting, the notion of inclusive language, was the central idea of these documents. The Catholic Church utilised the available theories and interpreted them so as to be workable within a Christian framework. For example, The Catholic school states:
She establishes her own schools because she considers them as a privileged means of promoting the formation of the whole man…..In the light of her mission of salvation, the church considers that the Catholic school provides a privileged environment for the complete formation of her members, and that it also provides a highly important service to mankind (Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, 1977, p. 13-190).
This document cited the encyclical
letter Ecclesium Suam of Pope Paul VI
in declaring that the “simultaneous development of man’s psychological and
moral consciousness is demanded by Christ almost as a precondition for the
reception of the befitting of divine gifts of truth and grace” (Sacred
Congregation for Catholic Education, 1977, p.13). The impact of psychological
theory is evident in this passage. Canon law 795 (1983) speaks in the same
developmental, psychological discourse:
Education must pay regard to the formation of the whole person, so that all may attain their eternal destiny and at the same time promote the common good of society. Children and young persons are to be cared for in such a way that their physical, moral and intellectual talents may develop in a harmonious manner, so that they may attain a greater sense of responsibility and a right use of freedom, and be formed to take an active part in social life (p. 145).
The Catholic educational praxis that flows from these principles is emancipatory by comparison with the pre-Vatican II era of indoctrination. The days of corporal punishment have passed. Students are encouraged to question and actively seek the truth in the world, with teachers as facilitators of student’s learning rather than authoritarian, task masters. This post-Vatican II paradigm is seen as "almost a pre-condition for the reception of the befitting divine gifts of truth and grace” (Ecclesium suam, cited in Sacred Congregation of the Faith, 1977, p.13). The psychological discourse has been successfully appropriated within the theological discourse: a shift from theological content dominating the discourse to psychological process being privileged. For example, instead of rote learning the Catechism’s questions and answers, today’s Catholic senior school students might critique the pre-Vatican II Catechism as a text positioned within its historico-cultural-social-politico-theological contexts and relate this analysis to their own lives in terms of their own stages of development.
The 1970s saw the impact of
psychology upon education give rise to the middle schooling movement. In
If being the “best” is what success means-and that is the idea in many schools-most students will fail at school. Kohn 1986) states that a competitive learning environment, “distracts you from a task at a given moment; makes you less interested in that task over the long run, and this results in poorer performance” (60-61) Contrary to what you may have been led to believe , competitive environments do not result in increased learning (pp. 67-68).
Key concepts in middle schooling are relationships and inclusivity (Knowles and Brown, 2000). In today’s education marketplace (Marginson, 1997a,b), all teachers need to be very good at building, negotiating, sustaining, and enriching their relationships with their students and all the other educational stakeholders including parents, school staff, community and business organisations, government bodies and the legal system. The secular middle schooling philosophy, positioning relationship and inclusivity as central to the success of a student’s educational experience is congruent with the expectations of the 21st century Catholic classroom. The Catholic concept of the dignity of each human person positions the human person as a relational being in the body of Christ (Dywer, 1994), privileging relationship as central to what it means to be human. The preferential option for the poor (Dywer, 1994) demands the inclusion of all students in the education system with their diverse needs being acknowledged as equally deserving of being met. In today’s fragmented, postmodern world, the role of the school and its teachers has never been more demanding.
Teachers are challenged to support
children and adolescents on their life journeys so that each student may become
an intellectually reflective person; a person enroute to a lifetime of
meaningful work; a good citizen; a caring and ethical individual; and a healthy
person (Turning points, 1989, p.15 cited in Knowles & Brown, 2000, p.49).
From the Catholic perspective, teachers have the added challenge of making a
positive contribution towards the person’s personal redemption and salvation,
both in this life and for the next life as well. As stated earlier, “Education must pay regard to the
formation of the whole person, so that all may attain their eternal destiny and
at the same time promote the common good of society” (Canon law 795, 1983,
p.145). Today’s teacher is confronted with very challenging goals and tasks.
These challenges are made even more difficult because of the 1990s shift in
government economic policy from a Keynesian welfare state model to a free
market model whereby education is reconstructed from “a public service into a
tradeable good in the marketplace” (Marginson, 1997a, backcover). In this
educational marketplace, “positional goods advantage” is seen by the
parents/consumers and government as “places in education which provide students
with relative advantage in the competition for jobs, income, social standing
and prestige” (Marginson, 1997a, p.38). The privileged pyscho-educational
discourse within the Australian school systems from the 1960s to the 1990s has
been challenged by this reductionistic, individualistic and competitive
economic free market discourse in the last decade, raising questions of social
justice for both State and private schools (O’Shea, Emmett & Coventry,
1996). As evidenced, the ever-evolving role of the teacher is a complex and
challenging one in an ever-changing socio-politico-legal environment. Does the
position of teacher, or should it, include a counselling role?
The teacher as counsellor
Prior to doing my counselling studies, I had presumed that teachers were often also called to be counsellors in their role when providing pastoral care. Anecdotal evidence that I have had in passing staffroom conversation overwhelmingly supports my view that other teachers also believe this to be so. However, since doing my counselling studies, I have realised that I did not understand what the role of the counsellor, and the goals and tasks of the therapeutic “counsellor-client alliance” (Gaston, 1990) entailed:
(a) the client’s affective relationship with the therapist, (b) the client’s capacity to work in therapy purposely, (c) the therapist’s empathic understanding and involvement, and (d) client-therapist agreement in the goals and tasks of therapy (cited in Hubble, Duncan & Miller, 1999, p.430).
King (1999) confirms my anecdotal
evidence and quotes Arbuckle’s (1950) early position that “every teacher is a
counsellor” (p.5). King explains that many educators presumed that the teacher
was well positioned to meet an individual student’s needs because the teacher
was closest to the student in the school and knew the student better than
anyone else did. Educators have argued
that the only person who can be continually effective is the teacher, with the
presumption that the teacher has intimate knowledge of his or her students
(King, 1999). During my counselling practicum at my school, I realised that as
a teacher, I had unconsciously fallen prey to this presumption. My experience
in the counselling room made me realise that I did not know my students as well
as I had thought. I have extensive knowledge of aspects of my students’
demonstrated academic abilities, their classroom behaviours and some aspects of
their personal lives. However, this “window” into their lives provides me with
only a narrow perspective upon who they are. This has been a significant
learning for me as a teacher to take back into the classroom. I need to be
attentive to my environment and seek to recognise and challenge my presumptions
that inform my thinking and consequent relational actions with my students.
Arbuckle (1965, p.158) went on to change his opinion:
I was the first person to write a book using the term “teacher-counsellor.” Since then however it has become abundantly clear to me that the two simply do not go together…the teacher is not a counsellor or psychotherapist, either from the point of view of his education or his knowledge, and it is doubtful that his functions include becoming involved in a real counselling relationship with the child (cited in King, 1999).
Although the key concept in both the teacher–student and counsellor-client connection is “relationship,” the important learning I have had from my counselling practicum is that they are very different kinds of relationships. One can see the parallel by simply substituting student for client, teacher for counsellor, and education for therapy, in Gaston’s (1990) quote (cited in Hubble, Duncan & Miller, 1999, p.430)
(a) the student’s affective relationship with the teacher, (b) the student’s capacity to work in education purposely, (c) the teacher’s empathic understanding and involvement, and (d) student-teacher agreement in the goals and tasks of education.
However, this parallel should not be mistaken for “sameness.” I agree with King (1999) when she points out that “the major differences relate to confidentiality, boundaries and the contractual nature of the relationship” (p.6). The teacher and the counsellor roles need to complement each other and maintain clear role definition, not overlap.
In a session with the a Year 12 student who agreed to engage in the counselling-client relationship with me, I became aware that the other Year 12 students had a much better understanding of the differences between the teacher-student and counsellor-client relationships than I did. My client informed me that the other students could not understand how she could come and talk to a teacher about her personal problems. I had contracted with the school not to teach the Year 12s during the year that my counselling practicum took place, so as to avoid a duality of role. However, the fact that I had taught many of the Year 12 students since their entry into the school in Year 8, firmly positioned my role relationship and identity, as teacher. My shift to a counselling role was unacceptable for most of them. There clearly was a duality of role issue for most Year 12 students. I had thought that because many of the students had shared personal information with me in my teaching capacity, they would be willing to also see me as a counsellor. I was wrong, except for the one exception. I have learnt to always look for the exceptions. My one Year 12 client has known me since she entered Year 8 and had me as a teacher in Year 10. She is an experienced client, a risk-taker and a genuinely caring person. I think that she was doing me a favour because she likes me and wanted to help me out. Interestingly, one of the issues that emerged for my client during our sessions was the frustration and anger that she experiences when she puts others’ needs before her own.
Can I enhance my teaching with counsellor training?
While maintaining clear boundaries
between counselling and teaching, I believe that I can enhance my
teacher-student relationships by consciously incorporating psychological
theories and counselling micro-skills (Ivey& Ivey, 2003) into my teaching
repertoire to become a “therapeutic teacher.” This is not a new idea. King
(1999), speaking about British education, argues that:
Teachers are being faced with problems in schools for which they are inadequately trained, and students are not receiving the help that they need. The emphasis now is on equipping teachers with basic counselling skills: not training them as counsellors or to work as counsellor, but helping teachers perform their ‘pastoral’ work more effectively, and enabling them to recognise problems which need referring on to a specialist or specialist agency. It is recognised that teachers need training to assess the different levels of problems, so that they work within their level of competence, do not suffer undue stress as a result of the work, and do not harm students (p.4).
However, during my one-year graduate diploma, secondary teacher education course, the emphasis was firmly on subject content and teaching strategies. Behaviour management was only briefly dealt with and the real learning about “surviving” as a teacher came during the school practicum and during my induction as a beginning teacher into the school. This master-apprentice relationship is then heavily influenced by the particular school culture that one finds oneself in. Problems associated with this master-apprentice relationship have been discussed by Ashman (1994), within the context of barriers to collaboration and consultation between teachers, parents and counsellors:
Professional induction comes primarily from other practising teachers rather than from the role models presented by their lecturers. A major issue in teacher education has been to sustain the beginning teachers’ idealism about theory and process in the face of the practising professional’s pragmatism in schools during practicum placements (Haberman, 1978). Andrews and Wheeler (1990) argued that the teaching strategies that the students select and use at university are quickly eliminated by classroom experience. Why is this so? One answer may be the continuing adherence of generations of teachers to a collective, oral tradition about how classroom instruction and management occur. While there are no doubt other explanations, the master-apprentice relationship is not one that fosters positive attitudes and beliefs about collaboration and cooperation which may be encouraged at university (pp.3-4).
This problem concerning the lack of
collaboration and cooperation is a logical consequence of the factory model of
schooling, which positions teachers as authoritarian, expert, task masters.
Even though the middle-schooling model is not new in education, it is
relatively new in
Importantly, psychological lenses and skills, and personal “inner work” have helped me to better understand myself, students, the system and other educational stakeholders. Taking a simple but important example, I have realised that some of the time I work with the students from within a humanistic-existential philosophy. This believes that the person develops from an unfolding of potential through acceptance and empathy (Frankl, 1963; Perls, 1969; Rogers. 1961). This relational framework is evident, for example, when I listen to students as we conference about their research work. When the students demonstrate that they are appropriately engaged in their tasks, I listen at times, and also use non-directive questions and statements. It is common for me to give very self-directed students opportunities to decide how and where they want to work during class time. For example, I give them the option to go to the library or computer room rather than engage in a class discussion on an issue that they have already mastered for themselves.
I also work with many students,
within a cognitive framework that believes that the person develops from the
interaction of inner and outer forces through clarification and delineation
(Adler, 1964; Berne, 1987; Glasser, 1965). I contract with the students about what
they need to commit to do and confront them with directive statements when I
perceive them to be off task. I engage them in discussion to reframe their
perspective to invite them to see that engaging in the goals and tasks is in
their best interests; the overarching goal being the student’s empowerment
through the educational process.
When faced with a minority of students that do no respond to either of these frameworks, I move into a behavioural framework that believes the person develops as a result of external conditions through reinforcement and punishment (Bandura, 1977). For example, I see students individually or in small groups at lunch to work on their research tasks with them. I model what is expected in the task and reinforce their appropriate efforts with praise. I will also, occasionally, use directives firmly with a student and tell them that if they do not meet their task requirement then they will forfeit their lunch time until the task requirement is met; the logical consequence being the work is done under teacher supervision. This presumes that there is no acceptable reason for the work not being done. I move in and out of these different frameworks in response to the student’s communications and behaviours. I think that being able to shift frameworks in response to students’ needs is very important.
Peck’s (1990) simplified model of Fowler’s psycho-theological (1981) stages of faith has been a helpful theoretical lens through which to look to understand this situation. When a person is in chaos they can benefit by the structure and certainty of a behavioural model to support them in their journey out of chaos so that they can function in a social system. Those people who are functioning reasonably well in the social system can be motivated and fully engaged through a cognitive, interactionist framework. Fully engaged, independent learners can be best supported by not holding them back with the majority of the class by working with them through a humanistic-existential framework whereby they have the freedom to explore, unencumbered by an interactionist relationship that they do not need. When students’ behaviours go beyond this continuum of teacher–student relationship, I know it is time to refer them to the counsellor.
What is the consequence if some educators work exclusively within the behavioural framework and do not realise that there is any other framework? Sometimes, when teachers argue for consistency in approach to behaviour management with all students, they are defining themselves within one framework only; a behavioural framework. This is possibly an effective framework to use consistently with particular children with a disability. However, this actually impairs the developmental processes of students who are ready for more relational and independent frameworks. Using a reflexive praxis, I am seeking to continually consider and reconsider what is in the students’ best interests. Not losing sight of the students’ best interests is a big challenge for all teachers; knowing what is in the student’s best interests is the biggest challenge of all. Understanding that my role as teacher is one of service to my students first, is essential. Using counselling micro-skills can enhance the teacher relationship with students, by privileging a strengths perspective through counselling techniques such as using key words and minimal encouragers, paraphrasing, interpretation, reframing, open and closed questions, reflection of meaning and feeling, and confrontation (Ivey & Ivey, 1999).
As a teacher in a Catholic school,
surrendering to my calling to service is an ongoing challenge. Engaging in my
own personal, psychological-theological work is the most crucial factor in this
process. This is because where I am at in my own personal journey impacts upon
all my relationships. In particular, it impacts upon my teacher-student
relationships because of the authority and power in these relationships. I do
not want to abuse that trust either knowingly or unknowingly. Socrates urged
to, “Know thyself.” By engaging in my own “inner work” I have come to realise
that I want freedom, and I am coming to an understanding of what this can mean
for me as a relational being in Christ. Paul said, “It is for freedom that
Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourself be burdened
again by a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5: 1). My journey now is about continually
committing to surrender into God’s unconditional love through service in the
world. As I engage in this, I can come to truly love myself, and my students
and God.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it; ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments (Mt 22:37-40).
As both a teacher and a counsellor, my ever-deepening psycho-spiritual journey is helping me to know the importance of humility, and to seek to be more tolerant, compassionate and loving towards my students. I have realised how important it is to seek to honour people where they are at, in their own journeys. Understanding psychological theories and practicing appropriate counselling micro-skills in educational tasks and goals can help me to do this, as a teacher. As Kopp (1972) says, when referring to counselling, I will need to join my client, “on his pilgrimage, more as another, more experienced pilgrim than as a guide…..For each of us, the only hope resides in his efforts, in completing his own story, not in the other’s interpretation” (p. 63). I think that, as a teacher in today’s postmodern, uncertain world, I also need to practise to join my students and all educational stakeholders, with this same attitude of humility, compassion and love.
Conclusion
Teaching and counselling are complex and challenging professions. Both are psychologically informed. However, their goals, tasks, strategies and role relationships are very different. A teacher is not a counsellor. I now feel confident that I understand the differences in confidentiality, boundaries and the contractual nature of both relationships. Having completed a Master’s degree in pastoral counselling I can see how I can incorporate counselling theory and skills into my teaching practice without blurring the role boundaries and enhance my student-teacher relationships in supporting students in their pursuit of an holistic education.
References
* I would like to acknowledge my lecturer, Dr John Barletta, for introducing me to the term therapeutic teacher.
Adler, A. (1964). Social interest: A challenge to mankind.
Ashman, A. (1994). Identifying and removing blocks to successful collaborations between counsellors, teachers and parents. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 4(1), 1-17.
Code of Canon Law. (1983).
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory.
Barker,
K. (Gen. Ed.). (1985). The niv study
Bible: New international version.
Dwyer, J. (Ed.). (1994). The new dictionary of Catholic social thought. Collegeville: Liturgical.
Erickson, E. (1987). A way of looking at things: Selected papers
from 1930 to 1980.
Fowler, J. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human
development and the quest for meaning.
Frankl, V. (1963). Man’s search for meaning.
Freud, S. (1952). The major works of Sigmund Freud.
Glasser, W. (1965). Reality therapy: A new approach to psychiatry.
Hubble, M., Duncan, B., &
Miller, S. (Eds.). (1999). The heart and
soul of change: What works in therapy.
Ivey, A., & Ivey, M. (2003). Intentional interviewing and counseling:
Facilitating client development in a multicultural society. (5th ed.).
Jung, C. (1991). Psyche and symbol: A selection from the
writings of C.J. Jung.
King, G. (1999). Counselling skills for teachers.
Knowles, T., & Brown, D.
(2000). What every middle school teacher
should know.
Kohlberg, L. (1987). Child psychology and childhood education: A
cognitive-developmental view.
Kopp,
S. (1972). If you meet the Buddha on the
road kill him!: A pilgrimage of psychotherapy patients.
Marginson, S. (1997a). Markets in education. St Leonards, NSW:Allen & Unwin.
Marginson, S. (1997b). Educating
Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality.
O’Shea, J., Emmett, G., &
Peck, M. (1990). The different drum: The creation of true
community-the first step to world peace.
Perls, F. (1969). Gestalt therapy verbatim.
Piaget, J. (1955). The language and the thought of a child.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of
psychotherapy.
Sacred Congregation for Catholic
Education. (1977). The Catholic school. Homebush:
Sacred Congregation for Catholic
Education. (1982). Lay Catholics schools: Witnesses to faith. Homebush:
Sacred Congregation for Catholic
Education. (1988). The religious
dimension of education in a Catholic school: Guidelines for reflection and
renewal. Homebush:
Jade Ireland graduated from the Master of Social Science (Pastoral Counselling) ACU in 2005. She has a B.A. (Com) USQ; Grad. Dip. (Sec. Ed.) and Grad. Cert. (R.E.) ACU; and M. Bus. (Com) QUT. Since writing this paper, Jade has taken a sabbatical from teaching and is currently working as a volunteer telephone bereavement counsellor with Karuna Hospice Services, Brisbane. Jade has two other academic publications and a poetry contribution in previous issues of this ejournal.
Email: irelandbentley@bigpond.com
© Copyright is retained by the author
This article has been peer reviewed, and is deemed to meet the criteria for original research as set out by the Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training.
