Свобода против порядка.
- Я считал, иногда хороший шлепок не повредит делу! - Нет. Моих детей бить нельзя.
Freedom is one of the most important life values of human life, and the theme of free education has long worried both the best minds of mankind and just parents for whom children are not just entertainment, but a joyful opportunity to create a decent human life in at least one instance.
The movement for free education began in the th century with J.-Z. Rousseau, was strongly continued LN. Tolstoy. Great popularity was given to the school of Alexander Nill in Summerhill.
Supporters of the ideas of free education believe that children are born free beings, and the main task of adults, in their opinion, is raising a child without coercion, to help him to preserve his freedom.
In practice, representatives of free education are more concerned not with the lack of coercion, but with ensuring that the children of compulsion do not feel. Indeed, when children are forced not by the educator, but by circumstances, then there is no compulsion. Even if these circumstances were cleverly organized by the educator himself ... Whatever the disputes, clever representatives of this trend still understand that it is simply unrealistic to seriously oppose any coercion in the matter of education, and at least one type of coercive education is admissible by everyone: it is upbringing, caring for the preservation of the life and health of the child and those who are with him.
They are convinced that all children themselves always strive for the better, if, of course, they create favorable conditions. In their view, the child should not feel humiliated, forced and coerced, so parents, adults and school should free the child of everything that he does not need. The choice of one s life path is the natural right of the pupil himself.
Free education differs from the traditional, as a rule, greater awareness, apparently less conservatism and, most importantly, substantially greater respect for the child’s personality.
The concrete vision of free upbringing differs greatly among classics of pedagogy, among ordinary pedagogues, especially among ordinary parents.
Most often, free upbringing is embodied in models where social prohibitions are removed and the child develops, meeting with natural circumstances (the "Clean Field, Thick Forest" model) and in approaches where social prohibitions are minimized to the limit (the "Spacious House" model). Free education can have very different forms, especially when this term is understood by what its authors opposed. Often, free education is identified with conniving upbringing, but this is not so. When a child commands his parents, when the child "goes through the arms of upbringing", when parents or other caregivers are simply not up to education or when the child is left alone with himself, the court, the television or the computer, this is not a free upbringing but a lack of upbringing. Likewise, free upbringing is not permissiveness, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Alexander Nill, the founder of the Summerhill school, repeatedly and loudly stressed, is probably one of the most consistent, bright and successful leaders of the twentieth century engaged in the practice of free education.
However, in practice, in schools and families, where free education is proclaimed, permissiveness is often practiced and resolved. The main reasons are two: once realized radicalism, more often - lack of intelligence ...
Free education in the male type differs from free education in the female type. Free education in the male type first of all respects the freedom of the child to make independent decisions and pay for his own choice, and the main task is only to timely acquaint the child with the consequences of the actions he has performed so that the child has enough data for sufficiently thoughtful actions. In contrast, free education by the female type aims first of all to protect the child from the rigidity of the external and cruelty of the adult world, and acting from the inside, playing on feelings and addressing feelings, seeks to keep the child as safe as possible. For many, in the first place women are free education - this is education that pities the child, although the idea of free education with this desire not to overwork the child and create comfortable living conditions for him is not connected in any way.
At least, Jean-Jacques Rousseau strongly opposed the girlishly-female culture, where the child is to be pitied, to give the child, to make a child for him, to create comfortable living conditions for him. Natural education in Rousseau is a direct meeting of a child with a tough and difficult life, with cold and hunger, with deprivation and death. Rousseau is demanding in education of the child s fortitude, and the child’s accustoming to the rigid reality of life is fully compatible with the idea of free education.
In different versions of free education, teachers look at the need for the formation of a personality for a certain social or moral ideal. Rousseau in the pages of "Emile, or About Education" demonstrates that the educator not only persistently educates, but also persistently educates, purposefully forms the personality of his pupil. Rousseau has his own, quite certain educational ideals, he knows what he will not allow, to which he will treat indifferently and that he will bring up necessarily. Free education in Rousseau is not education without a pedagogical model, not education "what will grow, it will grow", this is a purposeful formation of the personality of the pupil.
How does this combine with the idea of non-compulsion? Unexpectedly, creatively, beautifully, dexterously. Rousseau does not force the pupil himself: he builds up the circumstances, adjusts the living conditions, and even directly incites other people to collectively arrange the necessary influences on the pupil. This is the Tactics and Manipulator approach. This is Rousseau’s ideology.
The flow of free education has prepared the birth of a humanistic approach, and although not all forms of free education fit into the framework of the humanistic approach, it is the humanistic approach that has now become the ideological basis of free education. The results of free education are largely determined by the personality of the educator, and not by the methodology used by him. In general, free upbringing was an important counterbalance to traditional upbringing and was a historic step forward.
Nevertheless, free upbringing has many weaknesses.
Expensiveness. Traditional education is simpler, requires less qualification of the educator and causes less damage to material values: children are less fires and less likely to hit windows. On the other hand, free upbringing requires much greater involvement of educators, his time and his attention, and often creates additional difficulties with those around whom such pedagogical experiments are incomprehensible and unnecessary.
Unpredictability of results.
Free education gives unpredictable results, because when a child is no longer being raised by his parents, the child realizes only what is inherent in it. The good is laid - the child will grow up quite good. The controversial is laid - the child and the child will have problems. Attempts to carry out free education in the mass and final version have so far ended sadly. See →
In particular, contrary to popular belief, free education, giving the child complete independence does not lead to the development of independence. A child to whom you have given complete independence is just a child provided for any other influences. And who is responsible for what they will be? See →
Failure to educate the elite.
As the main path, free education is little suited to the cause of educating the elite. The modern European elite is brought up in Eton, where education is more rigidly spartan and demanding than soft and free. On the other hand, the experience of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum suggests that, surrounded by traditionally totalitarian education, islands of free education for specially selected elites also yield impressive results.
Important: for a specially selected elite and surrounded by traditionally totalitarian education. If these two conditions go away, impressive results also leave.