Theory and practice of free education

Freedom is one of the most important vital values ​​of human life, and the topic of free education has long been of concern to 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 at least in one copy.

The free education movement began in the 18th century with J.-J. Rousseau, was strongly continued by L.N. Tolstoy. Alexander Neill’s school at Summerhill gained great fame.

Supporters of the ideas of free education believe that children are born free beings, and the main task of adults, in their opinion, by raising a child without coercion, is to help him preserve his freedom.

In practice, representatives of free education are more concerned not that there is no coercion, but that children do not feel coercion. Indeed, when children are forced not by the educator, but by circumstances, then there is, as it were, no coercion. Even if these circumstances were skillfully organized by the educator himself … No matter what disputes occur, smart representatives of this trend still understand that it is simply unrealistic to seriously oppose any coercion in the matter of education, and everyone admits at least one type of coercive education: this is education, caring for the life and health of the child and those who are close to him.

They are convinced that all children themselves always strive for the best, if, of course, favorable conditions are created for them. In their opinion, the child should not feel humiliation, coercion and coercion, so parents, adults and the school should free the child from 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 one, as a rule, by greater awareness, obviously less conservatism, and, most importantly, significantly greater respect for the personality of the child.

The specific vision of free education differs greatly among the classics of pedagogy, among ordinary teachers, and even more so 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 “Clear field, dense forest” model) and in approaches where social prohibitions are minimized to the limit (“Spacious House” model). Free education can take a very different form, especially when this term is understood to mean what its authors opposed.

Often, free education is identified with permissive education, but this is not so. When a child commands the parents, when there is a “sloppy upbringing”, when parents or other educators are simply not up to education, or when the child is left alone with himself, the yard, the TV or the computer — this is not free education, but the absence of education. Similarly, free parenting is not permissiveness, as both Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Alexander Nill, the founder of the Summerhill School, and probably one of the most consistent, bright and successful leaders of the twentieth century engaged in the practice of free parenting, repeatedly and loudly emphasized.

However, in practice, in schools and families where free education is proclaimed, permissiveness is often practiced and allowed. There are two main reasons: once conscious radicalism, more often — a lack of intelligence …

The free upbringing of the male type is different from the free upbringing of the female type. Free education according to the male type primarily respects the freedom of the child to make independent decisions and pay for his own choice, and the main task is only to acquaint the child in a timely manner with the consequences of his actions, so that the child has enough data for sufficiently considered actions. In contrast, free upbringing according to the female type seeks first of all to protect the child from the rigidity of the external and cruelty of the adult world, and acting from within, playing on the feelings and appealing to the feelings, seeks to keep the child as safe as possible. For many, especially women, free upbringing is upbringing that pities the child, although the ideas of free upbringing are in no way connected with this desire not to overwork the child and create comfortable living conditions for him.

At least Jean-Jacques Rousseau resolutely opposed the pampered female culture, where it is customary to feel sorry for the child, to yield to the child, to do for the child, to create comfortable living conditions for him. Natural education according to Rousseau is a direct meeting of a child with a tough and difficult life, with cold and hunger, with deprivation and death. Rousseau is exacting in the upbringing of the child’s resilience, and accustoming the child to the harsh reality of life is quite compatible with the idea of ​​free education.

In different versions of free education, teachers have different views on the need to form a personality for a certain social or moral ideal. Rousseau on the pages of «Emil, or On Education» demonstrates that the educator not only persistently teaches, but also persistently educates, purposefully forms the personality of his pupil. Rousseau has his own, fairly definite educational ideals, he knows what he will not allow, what he will be indifferent to and what he will definitely bring up. Free education according to Rousseau is not education without a pedagogical model, not education “what grows up, grows up”, it is the purposeful formation of the personality of the pupil.

How does this fit in with the idea of ​​non-coercion? Unexpectedly, creatively, beautifully, cleverly. Rousseau does not force the pupil himself: he arranges circumstances, adjusts living conditions, and even directly incites other people so that in the aggregate this will arrange the necessary influence on the pupil. This is the approach of the Tactician and the Manipulator. This is Rousseau’s ideology.

The course of free education prepared the birth of the humanistic approach, and although not all varieties 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 education was an important counterbalance to traditional education and was a historic step forward.

However, free parenting has many weaknesses.

Traditional parenting is simpler, requires less teacher qualifications, and causes less damage to material values: children start fewer fires and break windows less often. On the other hand, free education requires a much greater involvement of the educator, his time and his attention, and often creates additional difficulties with those around him, who do not understand and do not need such pedagogical experiments.

. Free upbringing gives unpredictable results, because when the parents stop raising the child, the child realizes only what was originally laid in him. Good things are laid — the child will grow up well. Controversial is put in place — the child will have problems with the child. Attempts to carry out free education in a mass and extreme version have so far ended sadly. See →

In particular, contrary to popular belief, free upbringing, giving the child complete independence does not at all lead to the development of independence. A child to whom you have given complete independence is just a child left to any other influences. And who is responsible for what they will be? See →

. As the main path, free education is not very suitable for the education of the elite. The modern European elite is brought up at Eton, where the upbringing is more hard-spartan and demanding than soft and free. On the other hand, the experience of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum shows that, surrounded by traditional totalitarian education, islands of free education for a specially selected elite also give impressive results.

Important: for a specially selected elite and surrounded by a traditional totalitarian upbringing. If these two conditions go away, impressive results go away.