"Large and Traditional": Teachers on the course of "family life" for schoolchildren
Talk about introducing the lessons of "family happiness" It’s not the first day that people go to the Russian school curriculum, but in some regions, family science is already taught as an elective. Recently, methodological recommendations for the course on the family lifestyle for schoolchildren appeared in the public domain. It was developed by the public organization "National Parental Association for Social Support of the Family and Protection of Family Values" together with the Ministry of Education and Science. For parents, there is also a booklet entitled “The wisdom of forty generations about the role of the family in raising children”, a poster with Vladimir Putin’s quotes about the family and a list of scenarios for events with children.
The program of "family happiness" involves blocks of "male and female culture" and "the foundations of a family lifestyle." The authors confidently operate with such concepts as "real man", "true woman", "moral and spiritual guiding lines", "family values and norms of behavior". The developers of the methodology consider the emergence of “new forms of marriage” (for example, “visiting marriage” and “trial marriage”) as an unfavorable tendency; they blame “secondary celibacy”, that is, “celibacy after divorce or widowhood”.
The content of the courses is not allowed to include the promotion of "sexual perversions" and "other phenomena aimed at the destruction of traditional family values." And on the poster you can find a quote by Vladimir Putin: "A large, prosperous, traditional family should once again become a symbol of Russia."
We studied the course materials and tried to figure it out with teachers, psychologists, and a lawyer, to which “family happiness” in schools can lead.
I have a negative attitude to this initiative: it can bring discomfort to children whose families do not fall into the category of "prosperous". I would prefer to avoid such labels. Family "well-being" is usually based on financial stability and the presence of two parents. But it often happens that seemingly prosperous families hide many psychological conflicts in themselves. At the same time, children whose parents do not live together can feel completely comfortable until they are told: "You live in the" wrong "family."
The course of social studies already includes a block of classes about the family - about its functions and family law. The textbook in which I am engaged in does not spell out a strict division of roles - this is more about mutual aid and support. If we decide to expand this conversation, then instead of teaching children to play imposed roles, we need to help people interact. Not only marriage between a man and a woman can be called a family: two sisters living together are also a family. I would talk about interpersonal communication, but the proposed concept, unfortunately, is not at all about that.
Conducting such classes is not in the competence of the teacher: teachers will begin to bring into the course their own subjective values and attitudes, while many adhere to the "traditional" views. Before teaching about family and relationships, teachers should receive special training. But it is better if such an initiative is organized as a psychological training, which will be conducted by specialists, and children will attend at will.
From generation to generation passes a misunderstanding of how to communicate within the family and raise children. Many parents act "according to custom", and for them these are Soviet habits and traditions, although we now live in other realities. I believe that the basics of family psychology will be useful for modern schoolchildren. Creating a family, many act reflectively or copy the model of the parents, without resorting to psychology, individual experience and circumstances.
In the program, according to which we deal with social science lessons, the theme of the family is a cross-cutting one. With fifth graders, we talk about family traditions and holidays, with time we move on to the theoretical part: discuss the types of families - polygamous and monogamous models in different cultures, the matriarchal and patriarchal systems, families of different nations (not all schools use this curriculum. - Ed.). We consider family law and economics - we learn how to form a budget.
I consider the idea of the course a good one. But to realize it, we need thoughtful forms. The theoretical course is nothing more than an extra load and empty slogans. Practice - trainings, workshops, discussions and reflection - will be useful. So you can understand the real situation. It seems to me strange and useless just to tell the students that creating a family is good, and children are happiness, without explaining how to communicate with them, what budget is needed for raising a child and that family is a great job. In the classroom, for example, we begin with a discussion, and then proceed to practice: we do time management to figure out how to allocate time, if you have a family, work and mortgage.
The meaningful load should depend on the request - you need to look at what problems children or parents have, what concerns them. Now the school lacks an individual approach. Hearing a request when there are about thirty people in your class is not easy. But it is easier for officials to introduce a new course - and at the same time show the appearance of their work - than to carry out qualitative changes.
The family always comes first in every person.
From event scenarios with children and parents
A large, prosperous, traditional family should once again become a symbol of Russia.
V. V. Putin, from visual materials of the course
Time and history have repeatedly proved the absolute value of traditional family foundations. They have always protected and elevated Russia, made it more powerful and stronger, formed the moral basis of our multi-ethnic people.
V. V. PUTIN, FROM THE VISUAL COURSE MATERIALS
So far, no information has been received on this innovation. I got acquainted with the materials and I can say that this course is “about nothing”: the value of the family is not laid from the outside, it is gradually being formed in the child. To say that a large and full family is “prosperous”, and the others are not, while many children grow up without fathers, in shelters or with caregivers - means giving rise to injuries to the already-affected child’s psyche. Talking about what is “fully-fledged” and what is not, as, incidentally, the Orthodox culture now being imposed in a multi-confessional country is a cause for discord, conflicts and aggression.
Family law - something that is really useful for children to know - is already included in the social studies course. I believe that we need not lectures, but real examples. Society must avoid double standards: learn to work honestly and support children, and not educate children, emphasizing the “disadvantage” of their families.
The materials make us think about leaderism: a poster with V. V. Putin and his quotes about the family is a reason to return to this problem once again.
Objectivization of adolescents is characteristic of our country: the system is based on the fact that we have to give them something, since they themselves are allegedly not able to make a conscious decision. It turns out that we perceive a separate age group as not dependent and try to impose our ideas on it - first of all those that are now beneficial to the state system.
The appeal to traditional values itself raises the question of normativity: why are we trying to put all people on one shelf? The course appeals to the concepts of "right / wrong", "good / bad", "normal / abnormal" - this position does not allow for diversity.
Firstly, the topic of the family is not relevant for everyone. We stigmatize those who are not interested in it as a social unit, and those whose family relationships do not add up. Now there are many partnership formats - imposing one of them as correct, we do not allow people to sort out the whole range of possibilities. Speaking of large families as the basis of society, we forget about women who do not want or can not have children, and about many intersex people.
If we talk about the impact of such an initiative on children, I would have divided all adolescents into three conditional groups. The first is the guys who just remain indifferent. The second is those who will absorb information and develop in a given vector. This can lead to categorical and rejection of others. On the other hand, for them it is a strong limitation of experience: if they do not show them an alternative way, they may not reveal many inner possibilities and aspirations. The third group includes guys whose experience is dissonant with the course program - in this case there is a high risk of developing anxiety and depressive disorders.
My ideal is a course that would speak about diversity and the right of man to choose. To say that gender is a social construct, and identity may not correspond to gender. It is more useful to cultivate morality in the course of sex education: in a country with the HIV epidemic, it is unreasonable to avoid this topic. In a conversation about relationships, it is necessary to cover all of their formats: it is equally normal to have feelings for one person or several at the same time, one’s own or the opposite sex. Either we talk about everything, or we leave the person to independently deal with his sensual experience.
The destruction of a family is the destruction of the natural foundation of human socialization. The destruction of the family institution is in its essence catastrophic, since the destruction of the familial way of reproduction can lead to the formation of a non-family way of socialization.
FROM METHODICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The family is the primary, natural and at the same time sacred union into which a person enters into force of necessity. He is called to build this union on love, on faith and on freedom to learn in it the first conscientious movements of the heart; and rise in it to further forms of human unity of the Motherland and the state.
I. Ilyin, a quote from the guidelines
Civil marriage (in fact, cohabitation), voluntary childlessness, homosexual unions are difficult to understand.
At the heart of the family is love. Love is multifaceted, love is many-sided. The love of man and woman. The love of parents and children.
From the guidelines
The main issue is in the implementation of the program. What is behind the common words in the manuals? I believe that such an initiative is a good idea, and the school can talk about family and relationships. But competent psychologists must develop and manage programs. Moreover, the author of the training program should train specialists who will work on it.
I do not think that we need a separate discipline. I see this project as a psychological group or trainings that children will be able to attend at will. It should be interactive and debatable, not edifying. Then it would be really useful to emphasize a responsible approach to the creation and planning of the family, communication skills and respect for each other. In addition, when talking about the family, it is worth being very careful, especially with the lower grades, so that children living with one parent do not feel hurt.
Now another question is being actively discussed - whether sexual education in schools is necessary. I think yes: the guys should know about their personal boundaries and what to say no - this is normal. They are waiting for the first sexual experience, which is often traumatic. This is largely due to the lack of enlightenment. But now we run into a shortage of specialists.
If the block "male and female culture" implies the separation of roles, then for the family it is more of a harm. The cultivation of gender roles can also lead to divorces: if a woman earns more and a man wants to realize through taking care of children, but cannot do it because of social pressure, we get reasons for conflicts.
Understanding the situation in the family - the key to understanding the child. The first question a social teacher or a school psychologist asks will be about the family. I believe that such initiatives are needed by the school. I believe that this will affect the attitude of parents to children and, perhaps, will encourage them to change the communication within the family.
The theme of sexuality education and gender theory can be revealed on classroom hours: social roles are strongly imposed. For example, the class teacher of my daughter says that she behaves "not like a girl": she can defend her position or speak sharply. It is not clear to me why the boy is allowed to do this, and the girl is not. I understand that we cannot exchange reproductive functions with men and cancel anatomy, but this should not lead to strictly fixed roles.
The goal of the course is to prepare specialists and parents to work on the revival, strengthening and preservation of progressive folk family traditions, to use the knowledge gained in the practice of social education of children, which should contribute to the growth of their self-awareness, ethno-cultural identity based on common human values, as well as strengthening the Russian family.
From the guidelines
The moral values underlying the family, in general, coincide with national values.
From the guidelines
A good idea in itself in the framework of the Russian model of education risks changing for the worse. Despite the fact that I myself adhere to traditional views on relationships, I think it is important to move away from stereotypes, which, unfortunately, in the framework of the proposed program will not work. In addition, there is a question about LGBT people: it is likely that this topic will either be silenced or they will speak only negatively about it, which is even worse.
What would I like to hear myself? It would be useful to talk about psychology and harmonious relations, where partners do not infringe upon each other, and touch on personal points: first of all, you should be comfortable with yourself - and then you can talk about readiness for relationships. It is important to talk about a conscious approach to children - not to try to solve problems in a relationship through the birth of a child.
I support the idea of sexual enlightenment, but again, if the course will be led by specialists - doctors and psychologists - and not the teachers' council. Not all parents can bring it, you need to overcome the fear of this topic.
A course for schoolchildren can be useful only if it includes practical exercises: master classes, discussions, and conversations. Otherwise, he runs the risk of becoming a formality, like so much that happens in a modern school. You should be very careful with the terms "having many children" and "well-being" - the fact is that now these are not Russian families at all. In addition, the traditional way in which the course focuses is a thing of the past. It is replaced by a collectivist approach with equal rights and duties in the family and raising children.
The value approach to teaching family theory, if you can call it that, is a failing path: not a single teacher will present values without mixing his subjective views with them. As a lawyer, I believe that more time in school should be paid to financial literacy and family law. Ending school, many young people marry early. However, they do not always know what legal consequences this carries. They perceive marriage not as a legal fact, but as a ritual and a beautiful ceremony.
It is necessary to speak about international private law. Guys should be aware of the possibility of marriage in the territory of another country. This information may be of particular importance for LGBT people. If we tell schoolchildren that same-sex marriage is illegal in Russia, we ask and the implication is “such unions are not normal”. If we point out that such a possibility exists in another state, we state the difference in legislation, without giving homosexual marriages a hint of “abnormality”.
Photo: macau - stock.adobe.com, marilyn - stock.adobe.com