HELPING CHILDREN BLOOM
Using the Michael Teachings to Better Understand, Educate, and Raise Them
By Shepherd Hoodwin
I am writing a book about the Michael teachings and children. I am neither a parent nor a teacher (although I have always loved kids), so I am doing something different: I’m asking spiritual students, especially of the Michael teachings, to send me stories about how metaphysical insights have helped you nurture children more effectively. (Thank you to everyone who already did.) Please email me at ShepherdHoodwin (at) gmail (dot) com with anything you’d like to share.
Below is a draft of an introduction, my thoughts so far on the subject:
***
The Michael teachings are a fascinating body of channeled material about how we, as souls, set up our lifetimes. A majority of people believe that humans have (or are) a soul, although definitions vary. If people have given it any thought at all, they tend to assume that all souls are made in basically the same way. A core breakthrough of the Michael teachings is that it defines seven types of souls that are constructed differently for different purposes. (There are also many other characteristics that further differentiate souls.) We each have different strengths and weaknesses. We are not all the same, and we’re not meant to be, but everyone has strengths. If they can be found and developed, many more people would be seen as gifted or even geniuses. So much human talent goes untapped. Children desperately need adults to see their gifts and believe in them; without encouragement, their fires might never be lit. As it is, only a select few gifts and kinds of intelligence are recognized and valued by society.
A problem with education as it has been practiced is that it tends to use a one-size-fits-all approach. A premise of this book is that if we better understand a child’s unique combination of traits, some of which are given clarity in the Michael teachings, we can tailor their education to help them thrive. The first Michael channel, Sarah Chambers, channeled that the material taught as the Michael teachings is known on other planets by fellow “creatures of reason” and is used to educate their young more effectively. Maybe its time is coming for us Earthlings, too. 😀
The seven roles or soul types are the core of the Michael teachings.
Warriors are persuasive, single-minded doers, often with a hearty sense of humor and sometimes the subtlety (and strength) of a Mack truck. They seek challenge.
Kings are the large-picture counterparts of warriors. They are charismatic leaders, organizing others to action, sometimes in a tyrannical manner. They seek mastery.
Scholars, rather than being oriented toward doing, are a resource for others. They study and assimilate, intellectually or otherwise. Sometimes they are overly theoretical and distanced from life. They seek knowledge.
Artisans create what is new, whether in art, hairstyles, or computers. They are often warm and playful, and sometimes out of touch with reality. They seek originality.
Sages express and communicate. They are witty, friendly, entertaining, and sometimes loud and verbose. They seek insight.
Priests inspire others through their compassion and vision. They sometimes get carried away and take too much on faith or try to force their beliefs on others. They seek the higher ideal.
Servers support and nurture others, sometimes in a self-denying and victimized way. They seek the well-being of all.
Of the seven roles, scholars, the assimilation-axis role, are best suited for traditional education models, although older soul scholars, especially, might balk at the regimentation. (Soul age is another trait explicated by the Michael teachings.)
Warriors, especially boys, may have a hard time sitting that long because they are, by nature, active. They might excel in athletics.
Kings, the other action role, may have the same issue but their drive for excellence and self-control may mitigate that somewhat.
Artisans, the most creative type, are likely to zone out (perhaps doodling) and daydream if not engaged. They run the gamut from those who are good with their hands (future car mechanics or artists) but not academics, to those who are brilliant at mathematics due to their ability to see structure, and/or creative writing due to their expansive imaginations.
Sages, the other expressive role, are likely to be the class clowns since they crave an audience and have an especially high need to be heard and seen. They may have their hands up a lot, crying “Call on me!” They aren’t as interested in pure information as much as insights and stories. In fact, stories are central to our humanity, and skilled educators use interesting stories to teach. Teachers who are sages or who have strong secondary sage traits are especially likely to be good at this and therefore to engage students. Sage students respond especially well to vivid stories that illustrate lessons.
Priests need to find a higher meaning in what they do and, like many students, may not see the point in memorizing facts they’ll soon forget. I agree: What IS the point of that, especially when good computer skills can find needed facts almost instantly?
Servers, the other inspiration role, also need meaning but can find it in any situation where they feel they can help. However, how can they do that in a static classroom?
Another concept of the Michael teachings is centering. Each of us is primarily centered in the intellect, emotions, or body. Those with intellectual centering tend to be more verbal and like book learning more (which is also true of scholars and sages). Those with emotional centering may prefer art and music (also true of artisans and sages), which is increasingly being cut from curriculums. Those in one of the two body centers react with sensation or movement and don’t do well with too much sitting (especially true of warriors and kings). Speaking of sitting, note the recent science on sitting, which is what are we making kids do all day in the classroom, being bad for health.
Attitudes are another of the many traits explored in the Michael teachings. They are the way we look at life. The seven (named for ancient Greek schools of philosophy) are stoic and spiritualist (inspiration axis), skeptic and idealist (expression axis), realist and cynic (action axis), and pragmatist (assimilation axis). Those children with skeptic or cynic attitudes are more innately inclined to question received wisdom; teachers might help them do so more fairly, with less bias. Idealists and spiritualists can be more naïve and teachers (and parents, of course) can teach them to test ideas for soundness. Realists can easily list the facts about a situation but might need help weighing them. Stoics may need reasons for caring about the outside world, since they focus more on their inner world. Pragmatists may need help seeing beyond the utilitarian.
Knowledge of all the Michael teachings traits can help us understand others and interact more positively with them. There are other personality systems that can also be useful, such as astrology, numerology, the Enneagram, Myers-Briggs, etc. Some people are drawn to such systems, and some aren’t. If you’re reading this, you probably are. But for some, it is enough just to appreciate the uniqueness of each person and support flourishing without rigidly insisting that it can only happen in certain ways and trying to force a round peg into a square hole. Without metaphysical knowledge, we can still allow children to reveal and be who they are. We can still be curious about other people, including children, and wonder what hidden riches might come to the surface—observation can reveal a lot. But the Michael teachings offer a vocabulary to help identify various traits. They can lead to additional clarity and some big aha’s.
Detailed Michael teachings profiles can be channeled. Here are examples of my charts, along with explanations:
Many parents have told me how revelatory and helpful getting Michael charts on their children has been. However, if you study the teachings deeply and get a sense of what the traits look and feel like, you can probably make some good educated guesses, too.
IMPROVING EDUCATION
Formal education is still practiced in much the same way it was hundreds of years ago: Classes lasting a set amount of time, a teacher in the front lecturing and writing on a board, homework assignments, and graded tests. An alternative, free schools, had a surge of interest in the 1970s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_school_movement
That article especially highlights Summerhill School:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerhill_School
A book on it, first published in 1960, was my favorite as a teen:
I deeply believe in allowing children freedom (“not license,” as the author of Summerhill wrote) to learn at their own speed and to follow their interests. I’m not advocating a laissez-faire or “benign neglect” approach to children. I instead suggest gentle guidance that is sensitive to the whole person and that believes that our potential “wants” to manifest. Like seeds in the ground, it needs sunshine, water, and nutrients.
Alternative educational techniques are not the focus of Helping Children Bloom, but that would be a highly worthwhile complementary study. Education, like many of society’s institutions, could benefit from being profoundly rethought. What results might be a range of options from traditional classrooms for children who like the structure and do well in it, to an almost entirely self-taught approach with frequent check-ins with teachers, to a combination where groups assemble when that is the most effective approach. There are some obvious situations, such as sports, theater, and discussions, where assembling at scheduled times makes sense. Opening more choices could at times be chaotic, but also dynamic and creative. We shouldn’t be afraid of a little chaos as long as teachers are paying attention and are deeply engaged with students. If children have freedom and a variety of options, they will gravitate toward the kinds of learning appropriate to them. We know that some of us learn best by reading, others by listening, and still others through videos, for instance.
I don’t see much point in lectures that aren’t highly interactive, since the material can simply be read or listened to on one’s own time. Similarly, calling on students to regurgitate the expected answers seems pointless. But since there has been a steep decline in people’s ability to think critically, lively discussions where people’s reasoning is examined, using the Socratic method, can be highly useful. I’d like to see the voting age lowered to sixteen so that students who are still likely partaking of public education can be in an environment of debate where there are real stakes. Projects involving creative problem solving and service to the community are also worthwhile. Schools tend to be segregated from the “real world,” resulting in many young people without the skills to function in it. Students growing gardens and helping prepare their meals, for example, have been positive experiences.
When I was a student, I found most textbooks boring, which is a failure of writing. If any writing isn’t crystal clear and interesting, it’s largely the writer’s fault, assuming that the material is at the reader’s level. But textbook companies have to please many different school boards and are incentivized to make their books bland. The kids being subjected to this boredom have no say in it. In a free school, kids choose their own learning tools.
I’d love to see textbooks be in the form of interactive apps with video and audio as well as text. In the 1980s, there was a Mac application to teach kids to play piano using a keyboard connected to the computer. It made the lessons like video games, and kids learned the basics four times faster than through standard lessons. A piano teacher is still necessary to help with technique, posture, and interpretation, but instead of fighting what most kids love (such as video games), why not use them to teach and make education fun?
To keep improving apps, anything not clear or accurate could be reported to the writing staff (human, not just AI) that could make quick refinements. The apps could be translated into many languages, which is getting easier and more accurate all the time; even the poorest people around the world could learn with them as long as they have a phone, tablet, or computer. (Cell phones are now ubiquitous around the world.)
Most of us have trouble sitting still when we are bored. The intellectually brightest children may be bored from not being challenged, and those who don’t understand the material might give up. Many children have been misdiagnosed with ADD/ADHD and drugged because they can’t sit still in a classroom that’s boring or inappropriate for them. We’re trying to make children fit the classroom rather than making the classroom fit children. A freer and more fluid classroom might encourage both self-teaching and children teaching one another, where children who recently grasped an idea teach it to those who haven’t yet because they still remember what made it click and fall into place for them.
When I was in school, my biggest objection was what a slow and inefficient way it was to learn. Ideally, students who need more help can get it as soon as the need arises, and those who need less can forge ahead. I was always good in math. In my senior year of high school, we had daily classes in trigonometry, but all the written-out problems weren’t due until the end of the semester. Being a procrastinator, I pulled an all-nighter and did a semester’s worth of work in one marathon the night before it was due (and got an A). I vowed that I’d get all the next semester’s work done in the beginning so that it wasn’t hanging over my head; of course, I didn’t. 😀 But I didn’t need to sit through those daily classes. (At university, I tested out of my math and science requirements, which is not the same as going at your own speed more independently, but an option I appreciated.)
In criticizing an outmoded system, I am not criticizing dedicated teachers and administrators, and some of them function brilliantly within the confines of that model. I’m just saying that it’s a box well worth thinking outside of.
The current system ensures that most kids will fail at least part of the time and be humiliated. Those not good at academics but who excel at sports may take it out on the “nerds” once on the field with particular mean-spiritedness, since most time in school focuses on academics.
Being well-rounded IS important. Ideally, education fosters comfort and enjoyment in physical and artistic activities, in addition to academics. The problem with the current system is that it’s coercive: compulsory education, which assumes that kids don’t want to learn and need to be forced. This is not the experience of successful free schools, once the old programming has worn off. In addition, mean-spiritedness and excessive competition tend to disappear, and schools become happy, supportive, and productive environments.
In primary and secondary schools, where class attendance is required, teachers must be disciplinarians, for which many are not well-suited. Obviously, this can be a distraction from teaching.
Although university classes are still hobbled by the necessity that everyone learn at the same speed and comply with deadlines, attendance is voluntary and the classroom experience is generally better. Still, studies show that college students are feeling increasingly stressed, and mental health issues are rising. (Not all of this is due to the educational format. Financial and emotional pressures are factors, too.)
***
We all want to be seen. The Michael teachings are a lens through which we can see ourselves and others more clearly. They can be a boon in all walks of life. Their application in childrearing and education could be transformative.
***
Feel free to share this with anyone you think may be interested. My focus is the Michael teachings but I’m interested in any stories about how the power of love and understanding has helped children thrive and grow. The ultimate aim of the Michael teachings (and all true spiritual paths) is to foster unconditional love.
Leave a Reply