There are two important points in this model: the clarity of prohibitions and the space of freedom. The first is freedom. Here, parents strive to ensure that the child lives in a space of freedom, has the opportunity to freely play, try and indulge. The more freedom a child has and the fewer restrictions, the better. Prohibitions here are rather a necessary measure. Prohibitions are known in advance here, everyone knows them, everything is clear, they are spoken many times and often written down, there is nothing more than that, and as long as you do not violate them, we always love you.
When establishing a ban, parents think how necessary it is and try to make it understandable for the child. On the other hand, if it is necessary to forbid, parents indicate the prohibition clearly and confidently, strictly monitoring its observance: “no” here means “no”. Respect for established prohibitions is just as obligatory here as respect for the freedom of the child.
Therefore: we don’t talk obscenities, and if you can’t shout at your grandmother, if you can’t fight with sticks, then you can’t. And if at 22.00 everyone goes to bed, then after 22.00 there is no life. No. Everybody sleeps.
If it is impossible, then it is always impossible, but the severity of the ban is implemented in various ways, not necessarily only by punishments, especially by quick punishments. Personal example, warnings, explanations, kind conversations, and the formation of a total public opinion help to comply with the ban: “That’s definitely impossible.” Something can be forgiven, but the direction of educational policy is definite: what is impossible is really impossible. Like walls in a house. The wall won’t let you in, not because it’s evil, but simply because it’s standing there. Such an order, and they do not argue with it.
If dad said you can’t, then you can’t. Why? Because dad said. We have such laws in our family. Every society has laws, every family has laws. We have such. Grandmother may have her own laws, at school too, but in our family — so. Why? Because this is our family. Because we love you, because this is how people live, because this is how it is in our family.
And what about raising children here? Parents here avoid directly teaching their children, but teach them by their example, their way of life, captivate them with their hobbies — and with everything that they managed to captivate children with. If parents want their children to go in for sports, they look for such sports and such sections where the child will become interested in himself. Of course, interested parents control the development of their children, but they do so only unobtrusively, allowing them to independently choose the most attractive of what their parents have found for them.
A spacious house is a fairly successful model of education. Its obvious advantages: a good opportunity for self-realization of the positive potential of the child. Children here are free, they have a good and harmonious soul. At the same time, children are socialized, generally brought up, they know what “no” means, they feel good both at school and at work.
This model is quite common. Non-religious Jewish upbringing is built on this model; most of the intelligent people with a high level of income adhere to this model.
At the same time, this approach also has relative disadvantages: the level of development of children with such an upbringing of the model, as a rule, is not the highest, but rather average. If a child is talented and energetic, burning with his hobbies, he will develop his talent and his abilities here. If the child is inclined to be lazy, with this approach, he has the opportunity to be lazy and — lazy. Cowardly — cowardly. If it is important for parents that their child has high achievements in life, this model. most likely, they will not suit them, and they will be more interested in the “Spacious house with a development line” model.