Contents
Necessary, sufficient and risky education — the distinction between types of education, useful for deciding the question of the need for one or another education.
Necessary upbringing — instilling in the child vital skills.
Supporters of the most free education, objecting in words to any coercive education, in practice agree that the vital things the child needs to be conveyed and instilled: something that will save the life of him and those around him.
With matches, a knife and axes, children do not indulge. When crossing the road, you must first look to the left, and then to the right … — These things are related to the necessary upbringing, and responsible parents convey these things to the child and instill in the child, regardless of whether the child is interested or not.
Necessary is not yet sufficient. Sufficient upbringing is the upbringing that parents give to the child, based on their ideas about his good, being responsible for the fact that the result of upbringing will be the good, and not the protest of the child.
Parents decided to teach the child to douse with cold water. There is no vital sense in this, but it would be very useful. If they are responsible for the fact that after a month of accustoming the child will pour himself with pleasure and ask himself: “Pour over!” It was enough education.
Risky parenting is the persistent teaching of a child to things that are not vital, without the responsibility of educators for a positive final result.
The child was taken to a music school and they insist on the violin despite the fact that the child is against it. It is possible that Paganini will grow out of a child, who, as a child, was also locked in the basement and forced to exercise for 8 hours a day. However, more often the result is different: if parents do not know how to initially create a craving for music and specifically an interest in the violin, a child may develop a hatred of music for life.
If parents take on the tasks of upbringing, where they are not responsible for a positive result, where good intentions actually turn into the tears of the child and the problems of the parents, this is a risky upbringing.
In summary: necessary education is always good. Risky upbringing is risky and without sufficient forethought rather unjustified. To give sufficient education is the art of wise parents.
Conscious risk in education
Conscious risk in education can be justified, like any risk. For example, some very clever parents consciously try to instill in their child an increased priority of love and respect for money. The goal is to easily provide for himself in life and for them in old age. At the same time, they themselves say that they are at risk: “… what if the bandit succeeds?” Big money and law-abidingness are not always well compatible things… Well, what if the rich and honest come out, do we also teach goodness? I would like to believe…
Where is the line between sufficient and risky education?
Oleg Bely writes:
My son was taken to wrestling classes when he was not yet 10 years old. The little girl obviously didn’t like it. He worked out without a desire, only to please dad … my mother somehow told me, dad, “I talked with the older guys, with the masters of sports, they said that it’s not necessary to force a child, because forcing him to work out through force — hunting him we’ll beat him off completely, and when he grows up and becomes independent, he won’t even want to engage in freestyle wrestling!” I ask my wife: “What do you need — that he must, as an adult, want to engage in freestyle wrestling and that he really wants to become a champion, or is it enough for you that the guy is healthy and developed, accustomed to sports, and when he grows up and can choose his own occupations — even if he does not engage in freestyle wrestling, let him find another way for himself, even chess? The wife said that she did not necessarily need a freestyle wrestling champion from her son, and they began to take him there a little by force. The result — a guy at the age of 12 is the most physically developed in parallel, a two-time champion of the region in freestyle wrestling, but it is felt that he does not like wrestling very much. Well, let him not love. We agreed with him that as soon as he completes the master of sports, he can quit. In fact, I don’t even need a master of sports. But the guy had a good chance to “jump off” from his unloved occupation. Suddenly he will do it … maybe then he won’t want to quit, but he wants to quit — it’s not a problem for me, even now, in fact. But while there is an opportunity — I force, let him walk. Such a story. So the external goal in raising a child turns out to be “to become a master of sports in freestyle wrestling”, but in reality I don’t need it — but my son was taught to regular exercises to strengthen the body and spirit. I’m sure he’ll thank his mom and me someday! Maybe in this way, under the guise of risky education — freestyle wrestling — I actually solve the problems of sufficient education — I instill healthy lifestyle skills? Where is the clear line here?
Conscious and conventional parenting
Such a layout on the shelves: “necessary, sufficient, risky education” makes sense only for CONSCIOUS education. In fact, upbringing is typical “how it goes”, when parents consciously do not educate at all, but simply live. And they influence the child with their rash behavior. He took matches — they yelled. Not so that the house would not be set on fire in the future, but because NOW! Sometimes it turns out (coincides, as in sportsloto) correctly. Sometimes — past the checkout …
So for ordinary education, this system works only as a diagnostic: “The Petrovs adequately conduct the necessary and sufficient education, but they have obvious excesses of a risky type in the field of music schools …”