American psychologists, advocates of humanistic psychology, are recognized as precursors of "unhindered" education. However, as I will try to show, such views have appeared in European pedagogy for a long time. Already in the second half of the 18th century, pedagogues J.H.Pestalozzi and F.A.Froebel They showed a strong humanistic approach in their pajdocentric programs. Pestalozzi, as a supporter of peoples, drew attention to naturalness of upbringingwhich should develop the child's strength and abilities. This development will occur when the educator will look after the pupil, leaving him a lot of freedom, assimilating to contact with others and encouraging him to manifest his own activity.
He referred to his pedagogical theories writer J.J.Rousseau postulating the upbringing of children consisting not of steering but of "removing obstacles" and interfering with human nature as good as possible - "Man is by nature good, civilization distorts him".
So the conclusion is one - the only criterion for pedagogy should be freedom. You should learn what children want spontaneously. The child's natural needs determine the content of learning, and school is a place for the student to spend joyful time. These familiar and familiar-sounding views are by no means American, their author is L. Tolstoy, who at the end of the nineteenth century incorporates them into his school life.
The question that should be asked at this moment is - to what extent do ideological assumptions apply and are right nowadays?
In the sixties of the last century, on a wave of criticism of current trends in upbringing and teaching, arises in England "A revolutionary example of a free school". A. Maslow and C. Rogers particularly emphasized the child's freedom, and limited the role of the teacher to supporting his natural development. The style of upbringing was called "Laissez-faire." D. Baumrind began research on parents and children guided in life by the above principles. According to guardians - supporters lack of control of children's development will affect the juveniles' strong development of the sense of independence and creativity due to having unlimited, free space. The results of the survey surprised everyone. According to Baumrind, laissez-faire consisting in providing the child with great freedom, lack of expectations and requirements towards children, almost no punishment for disobedience and bad behavior as well as full acceptance and willingness to talk on the part of educators, as a consequence, lead to immature behavior, little self-control. Children brought up according to the style studied are usually very shy and impulsive. They also resent the caregivers.
It is interesting WHY should they blame their guardians for giving their children everything they wanted? At this point, I am reminded of two situations. The first took place in 2008, when Natalka, 8, who was then 8 years old, said that they (the group in which I was conducting theater classes) probably did not like me terribly, because I am such a "soldier" she answered without thinking: "We are Lady we love, Mrs. Julia. Because at least you know what you want from us. "The second situation took place in 2011 when, after my departure from my mother-in-law's sister, talking to joint students (junior high school) about the" new "lady from the theater said:" We preferred Mrs. Julia. At least we did something with her, we knew what and where we can afford. "These two situations confirm my belief that Baumrind's research can relate to today's educational situation in Poland.
Diana Baumrind went much further in her research. She decided compare the three most popular educational methods with long-term results in the final formation of a small person into a member of society. I discussed the first method above. The other two are Authoritarian and Authoritative styles.
Authoritarian educational method in general, it assumes educational chill. Guardians demand full obedience and adjustment. They do not explain commands, they willingly command disobedience. Parents in the education apply the principle of "children have no voice". Effect? A child growing up in an authoritarian family is quite dependent, introverted and often dissatisfied. In life, he has little curiosity about the world and has little motivation in striving for achievement. As an adult, such a child is very distrustful and has low self-esteem.
It often happens that an authoritarian family imposes corporal punishment on a child. That is why it is often associated with despotism, dictatorial parents, sometimes even pathology. Such a model of upbringing in Poland occurred very often before World War II. After the war, it lasted until the middle of the century. Later, it gradually began to be displaced by the model authoritative education.
The authoritative model assumes influencing children's behavior through clear rules and standards. There is a high grade for discipline (mistaken for pejorative understanding of the discipline in the authoritarian model) and independence. Parents raising according to this model are consistent in using educational measures while being ready to discuss instructions with children. In this method, parents are equally guided by clear rules and emotional warmth towards the child.
It is not difficult to guess that a child growing up in such a family is certain of your abilities during the struggle with new tasks. In adulthood, such a child is a satisfied person, persistent with healthy self-esteem. In life, he sometimes takes a risk he is not afraid of.
The conclusion is simple. So why are so many psychologists and educators promoting? a model of stress-free upbringing, which is similar to the laissez-faire style"? Could these studies not be known by scientists? Are parents choosing such a model of upbringing guided by their own beliefs or just ordinary laziness?
Today, unfortunately, more and more parents are choosing a child "in the process" of pursuing a career and reaching new levels of promotion. A higher position means higher pay. Higher pay means more opportunities for the child to provide additional activities and develop interests that will obviously direct the child to future success. Is this really the case?
Another scene from life. Kindergarten. Group of 4-year-olds. Unruly, beating other children Kuba. Already on the first day I was warned about what he is a jet. Indeed - lack of obedience, ignorance of punishments, unwillingness to activate and cooperate with the group. In a word - he smashed every class. The time has come to prepare for the small show. I talk to Kuba: "You will not take part in the performance as you behave and do not know your role." The four-year-old replies: "I don't have to attend. Nobody will come to me anyway. " The statement that I have been walled up is a strong euphemism here. After talking with the tutors, I learned that Kuba attends ALL extra classes, is the first in kindergarten (at 7am) and leaves last (after 6pm). I am asking you, dear parents: "What the devil are you child? For what? To create (because, not bring up) an emotional monster? " Anger is still inside me as I recall that day and Kuba himself. The conclusion seems to be more than simple - a child does not need a thousand activities that make him a "successful man", and parents need their time, love and above all presence. If a child is sent to classes, it is not because they only go to it and use it in their career one day! The child needs us to look at it, at the effects it achieves, at its development. Then it makes sense to the child.
Children, although they have different temperaments and psychomotor skills, are not born bad, stupid or lazy! They can happen if adults do not show them norms of behavior, set impassable boundaries and are not consistent in their requirements as to compliance.
As I mentioned in the "life" examples I mentioned earlier, children feel much better if they have clearly defined norms of behavior when they clearly see what is good and what is bad. Everyone, not just a child, has the need to have their own territory and respect other people's borders. In everyday life it should be done almost automatically. With a little sensitivity, we will understand the mimic, verbal, pantomimic signals sent when crossing borders. Children must learn it. In their lives they look for boundaries testing the surroundings, this is a natural element of their development. Therefore, the statement that "children are allowed everything" is one of the most harmful views for their entire upbringing, both at home and at school.
It cannot be denied that the achievements of humanistic psychologists regarding stress-free upbringing permanently entered modern pedagogy and psychology. When we look closely, we will see that actually the entire educational program in schools is based on these principles, although implementation varies.
Increasingly parents "push" the teachers to raise their children. They argue that where, if not at school, the child has knowledge and all the rules. The hair bristles on hearing these parents! The trouble is not that the teacher would not make it, but in increasingly limited rights in dealing with students. We remember how probably everyone got a ruler on the hands from a lady at school, and this for biting nails, and for muzzleing, and for something else. The offended child cried from head to toe, complained at home and was shocked by the parent's complaint for complaining. And there was nothing strange about it. Parent always stood on the teacher's side. I remember myself when I came home, I complained that the teacher got caught on me and set the wrong bet. What did my parent do? I received a scold (and not a small one) for it and for complaining, I was also punished (naturally double) and the obligation to immediately improve the said cock. The conclusion for me was that it does not pay for me to combine, but you should get to work. I know it today. At that time, I was naturally outraged, angry, angry, and thought that the "adult world" could not be won.
And what would a similar situation look like today? The next (if not the same) day parent would run to school in the morning, immediately to the headmaster with the great blame that the child is mentally abused, oppressed and depressed. I will not quote the rest of the charges, because that would be too much. The management calls on the teacher's rug, which in turn is designed to withdraw the allegations against the student under threat of reporting the matter to the Ombudsman for Children, the Ministry, the Board and God knows who else.
Today, the Student has rights, and the teacher, school, parents - duties. And is this rush behind upbringing trends good for us? Did we - brought up with a heavier hand, according to norms, rules, bans and discipline - got out on the wrong people? Do we have a grudge against parents today that they once forbade us this or that? Are we complex today with no chance for success in life? So are the latest upbringing trends right? Should they be used? If a child decides to go to the roof of the house, then following the advice of "experts" upbringing, do you not forbid, but go with him?
Let's ask ourselves - Who has rights and who has obligations? And what? After all, we, when giving birth to a child, assume the huge OBLIGATION to raise a child to be a valuable man. Let us fulfill this obligation. In education, do not follow guidebooks or pseudo-scientific trends of psychologists and educators. Follow, Dear Parents, common sense, intuition. Be consistent, even if it will be very difficult and it will be - I assure you. Looking at the child's sorrow, think not about the moment, but about the child in 5, 10 or 15. Will it work out for him? If you answer yes, it means that it is worth surviving this moment of regret.
After all, the long-term effect counts ...