The central question of different models of upbringing is the question of prohibitions and prescriptions. In any family, any parent has a conception of what can, what can not be done, and also, more specifically, what a child can do, what not, and what is necessary. There are always prescriptions, there are always prohibitions, but in different families the views on this are very different. How many bans should be, what, how much they are obligatory? What can and should prescribe regulations, and where to leave children with the opportunity to choose, leave freedom?
Models of upbringing are sometimes realized, sometimes not completely. In some cases it happens that parents in words declare one model of education, but in reality they implement another. It is quite common for parents to use several models in their practice at the same time.
There’s no ideal model that best suits any parents and any child, but there are more problematic models, there are controversial, but there are enough successful ones. Let’s list and comment out the main models:
Narrow corridor, iron gloves: hard education
The model of education "narrow corridor" sets the task of maximally rigidly regulating the life and behavior of the child (pupil), unambiguously transferring it from point A to point B.
Smart, strong and loving parents (educators) can sometimes arrange for children (pupils) a situation of strict prescriptions and tight control: if this is necessary and in the interests of the child. As a temporary educational measure, it is appropriate, and arrange a month of "nothing but study" before entering the university - children are more likely to help. The "Narrow Corridor" model in the positive version sounds like an army style of upbringing, and from a strong child, just parents with the help of such a model can raise a warrior - strict to himself and disciplined. In this style, the training of special units is traditionally taking place, where the military is trained for extreme loads and willingness to give up life, without hesitation, if necessary.
Minefield in the fog: pedagogical schizophrenia
However, in this foggy space, explosions often occur: when the parents do not stand up to their nerves, they flare up, start screaming, yell, can slap, pull, really something forbid - but then the explosion subsides, and then the fog until the next unpredictable outbreak and the next explosion. Discussion see →
Clean field, thick forest: natural education
In this model, the main task of parents to remove education as such: whenever possible remove any rules, instructions, edifications and prohibitions. Here, parents are convinced that they need to educate only by their own example, while children have the right to be free. If children can be allowed something, then let’s solve: children are more important, we love them. This is not quite permissiveness, but at the level of common sense the principle "The less prohibitions, the better" works. It is clear that parents still teach the child what is vital that will save the life of the child and those around them ("children do not indulge in matches, knives and axes"), but ideally all social prohibitions in this model should be removed. The child is at liberty, as in the open field.
Parents here are not older, but equal, and on all issues with the child agree. It is impossible to put pressure on a child, the child can only become interested in what the adults offer him.
At the same time, unlike connivance, where educational influences are absent as such, in this model the educational process is carried out through the child’s collision with natural, natural limitations. Instead of prohibitions, parents arrange a confrontation with reality. They do not say "I will not let you go without a hat," but went without a hat-my ears froze-who’s to blame? Why did not you listen? Mom and Dad need to obey not because they are so harmful, but because they tell you that life is like that. Discussion, see →
Spacious house: a world of reasonable restraints.
There are two important points in this model: the clarity of prohibitions and the space of freedom. The first is freedom. Here parents want the child to live in the space of freedom. had the opportunity to freely play, try and indulge. The more freedom a child has and the fewer prohibitions, the better. Prohibitions here rather - a forced measure. They are known in advance, beyond this there is nothing, and as long as you do not violate them, we always love you.
By setting a ban, parents think how much it is necessary and try to make it understandable for the child. On the other hand, if necessary, parents prohibit the prohibition clearly and confidently, strictly observing its observance: "it is impossible" here means "it is impossible". Like walls in the house. The wall does not start up because it’s evil, but simply because it’s worth it. Such an order, and this is not disputed. Discussion, see →
A spacious house with a development line
The basis of this model is the "Spacious House" approach, that is, the clarity of prohibitions and the space of freedom. From the "Spacious House" model, this approach is distinguished by proclaimed family values and a designation of the path leading to values. Here, educators have an idea where to live, they have clear values, and they are not afraid to broadcast them. For example, it’s honesty, not as convenient, discipline, and not as it happens. and cooperation, and not just think about yourself. Unlike the model of a spacious house without a red line, where parents avoid directly teaching their children, parents here allow themselves this. Unlike parents who rely only on free choice of children, parents here advise, recommend, instruct, and once, if necessary, determine the life choices of children.
To go not for everyone, but to look narrowly at your own peculiarities. Do not be lazy, but believe in yourself. Do not be afraid, do not give up and set all sorts of goals. Do not lead, but develop the features of a leader. And always think with your head, and not as necessary.
This is not a narrow corridor or iron gauntlets, it is a soft, but extremely careful management of the child’s life. Discussion see →