WHAT KIND OF EDUCATOR DO I WANT TO BE: A SPY OR AN EXPLORER?
By Romi Morales
“שלח לך אנשים ויתורו את ארץ כנען”
“Send for yourself men, and let them explore the land of Canaan.”
(Bamidbar 13:2)
This week we read Parashat Shlach Lecha, better known as the parasha of the spies.
However, when we look closely at the text, we see that it does not speak of spies. The instruction given to Moshe is to send distinguished people from among the nation to explore the land of Canaan before they enter it. Some suggest that exploring implies adopting the stance of an explorer — that is, this group of representatives was expected to travel the land, observe it with curiosity, examine its cities, its inhabitants, its fruits, and bring back clear information for the rest. So, why do we speak of spies? Simply because not all of them succeeded in fulfilling the mission. Ten representatives observed the land through the lens of espionage, focusing on threats, weaknesses, and critical aspects that made the conquest of Canaan seem impossible. In contrast, Yehoshua and Caleb maintained the perspective of explorers, looking upon the land with curiosity, openness, and above all, optimism.
As educators, we often find ourselves in situations where we must choose which lens to use to interpret the reality before us. In this article, I would like to explore what it means to be an educator who acts as a spy and how that differs from an educator who chooses to be an explorer. If this topic interests you, join me. Let’s begin!
How does our choice between spy and explorer affect us?
At first glance, we might think these prototypes are not so different. However, they represent opposite educational philosophies. Choosing one or the other impacts a wide range of attitudes and aspects of our educational practice: the intention with which we approach the educational bond, our attitude at the start of each encounter, how we observe the group, the tone and type of communication we use, and our internal and external language regarding what happens within the group. It influences the type and degree of presence we bring into the educational space, how we relate to mistakes and successes, what we believe our main goal is, and what results we hope to achieve. It determines how we see our role and the role of those with whom we share the educational space. Therefore, this decision should not be left to chance — it must be understood and made consciously, based on a critical, analytical, ethical, and moral stance about the figure we want and need to be for our children and youth.
The educator as a spy
A “spy” educator operates based on hypotheses they seek to confirm at every educational encounter. As a result, they often hold prejudices that guide their educational strategy. They typically adopt a defensive stance and view the group or situation with suspicion. This leads to a vigilant posture, focusing on what’s lacking, weak, or wrong. By concentrating on the negative, their internal dialogue tends to be harmful, and when communicating with others, they often express complaints, highlight problems, and generate an atmosphere of mistrust. Spy educators usually have rigid plans, controlling even the smallest details. Their interventions often come from a place of imposition, aiming solely to meet predefined goals, regardless of the group’s needs. They expect total obedience, and any disobedience or errors are met with harsh sanctions. This creates a hierarchical and distant relationship with the group.
The educator as an explorer
The explorer educator enters each encounter to discover and understand what is happening within the group at that moment. This open, curious, and receptive attitude fosters a close, horizontal relationship with others. Their internal dialogue is positive, which makes them inspiring and hopeful figures for those around them. Their full presence in the educational space allows them to analyze situations and turn challenges into opportunities for growth. A flexible plan enables them to adapt according to the group’s needs, generating greater connection and enthusiasm for learning. They see themselves as facilitators, guides, and companions on the journey, intervening through dialogue, questions, and offering experiences and opportunities for intellectual and personal development. Because they care about each individual’s context and story, success is not standardized; it is achieved when the educational proposal uniquely reaches each person, allowing them to learn at their own pace and style.
In conclusion
When we consider both educator models, it’s natural to want to be explorer educators. However, the truth is that it is not always easy. First, we need to be aware that there are different ways of becoming educators — this is the first step toward working on the figure we want to embody. Second, we must develop a conscious and attentive perspective on our educational practice. Being aware of our thoughts and feelings about the group we work with is essential to acting more precisely. Third, we need to cultivate internal honesty. Being an explorer educator does not mean pretending that everything in our educational relationship is perfect. On the contrary, it means maintaining a critical (but not judgmental) and complex (but not complicated) view of reality so we can build and improve based on strengths and what is present. We cannot make challenges disappear, but we can offer educational opportunities to create tools for our groups to overcome them confidently and successfully.
In Parashat Shlach Lecha, by following the spies, the Am Israel were punished with 40 years of wandering in the desert. The next generation, led by Yehoshua Bin Nun and Caleb (our examples of explorers), succeeded in conquering the land of Canaan. This teaches us that deciding which model to follow begins within and for ourselves, but ultimately impacts those who come after us, for better or for worse. May we have the wisdom to choose the right model and the strength and courage to stay consistent in our journey to become the best educators our groups could ever have.
