The case of Summerhill school: Are today's permissive parents too extreme?
© 2010 Gwen Dewar, Ph.D., all rights reserved
Some people believe that kids shouldn't exist required to restrain their impulses.
Adults shouldn't tell them what to do or how to behave.
Children should be free to express themselves and explore the world on their own terms.
How far does this freedom go? Some parents sheepishly stand up by while their kids ignore responsibilities, hurl insults, damage holding, spoil public places, or disrupt public gatherings.
These parents say they want to care for their kids similar equals. They say they want to relate to their children every bit friends.
But when I run into an 8-year-old issuing commands to his parents, bullying other kids, or making rude remarks, I don't see equality or opens in a new windowfriendship. I see a child at the peak of the authorization hierarchy.
This is my big beef against permissive parents. I don't care if kids want to dye their hair blue. I exercise intendance if kids are permitted to injure other people's feelings and violate their rights.
Then I was surprised when I learned that the original model of permissive parenting–the one proposed by Diane Baumrind in the 1960s–wasn't actually near "anything goes."
The parents described past her model weren't necessarily extremists who let their kids to violate the rights and feelings of other people.
Instead, they were advocates of a more moderate position—that kids should be allowed to make their own choicesas long as they don't injure other people.
If you recall I'm making this upwardly, check out the case Baumrind used to illustrate the permissive mindset (Baumrind 1966).
The original model for permissive parenting
To illustrate her definition of permissive parenting, Diane Baumrind used several quotes fromAlexander Sutherland Neill, a 20th century Scottish educator who sought to reform the harsh, authoritarian educational system of his ain Victorian own childhood.
What did Neill recommend?
Neill argued that kids should exist happy and free. Children shouldn't be compelled to nourish lessons or follow rules imposed by authority figures. Neill wrote:
"I believe that to impose anything by dominance is wrong. The child should non do anything until he comes to the opinion—his own opinion—that it should be washed" (Neill 1995).
Neill put these ideas into practise at Summerhill, a British boarding school that exists to this day.
In his 1964 book near the project, Neill explains how students are allowed to play crude-and-tumble games on the furniture (which must be frequently replaced). He likewise notes that some kids at the dinner tabular array might twist the prongs of their forks into knots.
Neill's views are plain very permissive. And personally, I don't jibe with the broken-down furniture or the forks. But was he recommending "anything goes?" No.
Summerhill School had–and still has–lots of rules. But the rules aren't imposed from on high. They are decided upon democratically–by the entire school body–with teachers and kids getting equal voting rights.
And Neill'due south basic premise was "freedom, non license." Kids get considerable freedom to do what they like as long every bit they don't harm others.
So that was Baumrind'due south original model for permissive parenting.
Is this the same parenting style that has been discredited by so many studies? I'm not certain. I wonder if the link between permissive parenting and poor outcomes is actually about extreme permissiveness–the kind that lets kids get away with anti-social behavior.
Simply how mutual is "extreme" permissiveness, really?
I don't know. Only consider this postscript.
Zoë Neill Readhead, who is Neill'southward daughter and the current head of Summerhill, complains that parents have goalso permissivefor her own school.
In the 1940s and '50s, Summerhill seemed like a progressive, revolutionary place. But today'south kids are being spoiled by their parents—and so much so that Summerhill faculty experience compelled to teach students the basics of cocky-subject area.
As Neill Readhead writes(Neill Readhead 2006):
"Now the Summerhill community finds itself in the function of disciplinarian, teaching kids that they can't exercise what they like and that they accept to take regard for other people's rights and feelings—a bit of a role reversal that Neill would have found interesting."
Interesting, and maybe alarming.
More information
opens in a new windowA. Southward. Neill's Summerhill School website provides an overview of the school's history, philosophy, and mission.
For more data about permissive parenting, see these articles on the opens in a new windowdefinition of permissive parenting and opens in a new windowwhat research reveals about the effects of permissive parenting.
In addition, for an overview of the iv basic parenting styles, come across opens in a new window"Parenting styles: A guide for the science-minded."
References: Permissive parenting and Summerhill School
Baumrind D. 1966. Furnishings of administrative parental control on child beliefs. Child Development, 37(four), 887-907.
Neill, AS. 1995. Summerhill School – A New View of Childhood. New York: St. Martin'south Griffin.
Neill Readhead Z. 2006. Summerhill today. In Vaughan Thou (ed): Summerhill and A.S. Neill. Open Academy Printing.
Content last modified 2/10
Source: https://parentingscience.com/summerhill-school/
0 Response to "The case of Summerhill school: Are today's permissive parents too extreme?"
Post a Comment