What do you think?
Rate this book
Theorie und Praxis der antiautoritären Erziehung: Das Beispiel Summerhill
Der revolutionäre Pädagoge A. S. Neill erzählt die Geschichte der von ihm gegründeten Schule Summerhill und zieht die Summe seiner Gedanken über Kinder und Eltern, Schulen und Lehrer, über Freiheit und Zwang, über die neue Sexualmoral und Lernpsychologie.
Neill setzt nicht auf den Umsturz der bestehenden Zwangsgesellschaft. Freiheit und Menschlichkeit erhofft er sich nicht von den politischen Institutionen und technischen Fortschritten, sondern von einer neuen Erziehung. Ein ermutigendes Buch.
Neill setzt nicht auf den Umsturz der bestehenden Zwangsgesellschaft. Freiheit und Menschlichkeit erhofft er sich nicht von den politischen Institutionen und technischen Fortschritten, sondern von einer neuen Erziehung. Ein ermutigendes Buch.
338 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1960
162 people are currently reading
3330 people want to read
About the author
A.S. Neill
33 books76 followersAlexander Sutherland Neill was a Scottish progressive educator, author and founder of Summerhill school and its philosophy of freedom from adult coercion and its community self-governance, which remains open and continues to follow his educational philosophy to this day. He is best known as an advocate of personal freedom for children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 202 reviews
January 12, 2022
Es un libro donde Neill nos explica sus teorías sobre la educación en la edad temprana. Es un punto de vista bastante radical y que requiere tener una visión global de la infancia ya que algunos aspectos pueden resultar demasiado "arriesgados" hoy en día.
It's a book where Neill explains his theories about early childhood education. It is a rather radical view and requires a global vision of childhood as some aspects can be too "risky" today.
It's a book where Neill explains his theories about early childhood education. It is a rather radical view and requires a global vision of childhood as some aspects can be too "risky" today.
January 24, 2016
Wow ... I saw a friend 'currently' reading this.
It brings back memories of being a Freshman in college.. ( dorm room late nights -- James Taylor music-- and this book, "Summerhill".
Tell me..I'm not the only old fart who has memories of this book?
It brings back memories of being a Freshman in college.. ( dorm room late nights -- James Taylor music-- and this book, "Summerhill".
Tell me..I'm not the only old fart who has memories of this book?
June 30, 2007
This book blew my mind as a teenager. Basically it is a description of a "radical" school in England that believed - back when this was not a popular idea - that the child is born inherently good, and should be allowed to discover the world/academics at her own pace. A.S. Neill, the founder of the school and the book's author, is a little heavy on Freud but it's a very, very interesting documentation of a social experiment.
April 10, 2020
"Будущее человечества принадлежит молодым родителям" (с)
Здорово, если бы эту книгу прочли все, кто планирует стать родителями или уже таковыми являются. Описанное в ней известным педагогом, писателем и основателем известной школы Саммерхилл Александром Уиллом настолько очевидно и логично, что даже цитировать неловко. И все-таки на каждой десятой странице книгу хочется захлопнуть от нагрянувшего из нее откровения.
Например:
"Обучение нужно детям гораздо меньше, чем любовь и понимание. Чтобы быть естественным образом хорошими, им нужны поддержка и свобода".
"С детьми, которые вас боятся, жить гораздо легче, чем я теми, которые вас любят, - в том смысле, что с первыми жизнь течет гораздо спокойнее".
"Очень часто испорченный ребенок воплощает для родителей новый шанс на успех в жизни"
"Вызывающее поведение детей - всегда вина взрослых"
"Тоталитаризм всегда начинался и до сих пор начинается в детской"
"В дисциплинированных странах жизнь стоит дешево"
"Задача ребенка в том, чтобы прожить свою собственную жизнь, а не ту, которую выбрали его беспокойные родители"
Ну, и самое главное:
"Как можно взрастить счастье? Отменив власть. Дав ребенку быть самим собой. Не подталкивать все время, не учить, не читать нотаций, не возвышать и не заставлять".
Бесспорно, самая знаковая для меня книга о воспитании и восприятии детей.
Она очень сильно и позитивно повлияла на мои собственные отношения с ребенком.
Горячо ее рекомендую состоявшимся и будущим родителям, а также всем, кто работает и общается с детьми.
Здорово, если бы эту книгу прочли все, кто планирует стать родителями или уже таковыми являются. Описанное в ней известным педагогом, писателем и основателем известной школы Саммерхилл Александром Уиллом настолько очевидно и логично, что даже цитировать неловко. И все-таки на каждой десятой странице книгу хочется захлопнуть от нагрянувшего из нее откровения.
Например:
"Обучение нужно детям гораздо меньше, чем любовь и понимание. Чтобы быть естественным образом хорошими, им нужны поддержка и свобода".
"С детьми, которые вас боятся, жить гораздо легче, чем я теми, которые вас любят, - в том смысле, что с первыми жизнь течет гораздо спокойнее".
"Очень часто испорченный ребенок воплощает для родителей новый шанс на успех в жизни"
"Вызывающее поведение детей - всегда вина взрослых"
"Тоталитаризм всегда начинался и до сих пор начинается в детской"
"В дисциплинированных странах жизнь стоит дешево"
"Задача ребенка в том, чтобы прожить свою собственную жизнь, а не ту, которую выбрали его беспокойные родители"
Ну, и самое главное:
"Как можно взрастить счастье? Отменив власть. Дав ребенку быть самим собой. Не подталкивать все время, не учить, не читать нотаций, не возвышать и не заставлять".
Бесспорно, самая знаковая для меня книга о воспитании и восприятии детей.
Она очень сильно и позитивно повлияла на мои собственные отношения с ребенком.
Горячо ее рекомендую состоявшимся и будущим родителям, а также всем, кто работает и общается с детьми.
January 4, 2015
The Educational Psychology professor at Grinnell College was so personally lackluster, so unusually straight for the time, that I cannot recall his name. His class, however, despite a bow to orthodoxy by having us go through Ausibel and Robinson's textbook, included some great ancillary reading, the best and most provocative of which was A.S. Neill's Summerhill. For one who was going out of his way to read radical literature, Summerhill was still impressive, maybe the most challenging and eye-opening of the lot.
Imagine, then, a successful educator running a school entirely without coercion. Imagine raising a child entirely without coercion. What if no child were forced to go to class or to study? What if no child were pressured into adult toilet habits? These were new thoughts to me at the time and the impact of Neill on American education in the sixties was comparable to Rousseau's on the French two centuries earlier.
Imagine, then, a successful educator running a school entirely without coercion. Imagine raising a child entirely without coercion. What if no child were forced to go to class or to study? What if no child were pressured into adult toilet habits? These were new thoughts to me at the time and the impact of Neill on American education in the sixties was comparable to Rousseau's on the French two centuries earlier.
December 24, 2023
Molto interessante e stimolante, pieno di spunti x chi è interessato all'argomento educazione (alternativa). Sicuramente provocatorio in alcuni aspetti ma propone un'esperienza pluriennale che credo meriti attenzione.
May 11, 2011
The author of The Idle Parent, which I loved, makes frequent reference to Summerhill and A. S. Neill's parenting and teaching methods. So I decided to read Summerhill and found very little to recommend it. The beginning section, in which Neill describes his unique boarding school (Summerhill) was interesting and informative. But the rest of the book, in which Neill explains his philosophy toward children, felt very dated and way off-base to me.
Neill turns out to be a Freudian (this book was written around 1960), and he believes that most problems children have stem either from not knowing where babies come from (having that knowledge withheld from them by well-meaning adults) or from not being allowed to touch themselves (and feeling shame about sexual impulses). And when I say children, I mean children -- even little five-yr-olds suffer from these problems in Neill's view. Apparently, all it takes is a little talk with Neill for the children to have any difficulty, academic or emotional, cleared up. In fact, Neill seems to have practiced psychotherapy on the students at Summerhill.
Neill champions the idea of the "self-regulated" child, and believes that a child that is completely left alone will end up healthy and happy. He seems to place little or no value on intellectual pursuits. Overall I was left with the impression that Neill meant well, and his school may have been a welcome haven for children who were suffering in a traditional school environment, or who needed to get away from troubled parents. But mostly reading this book made me question my respect for and belief in The Idle Parent, since it's author seems to place so much faith in Neill's philosophy. I can see how this book and its ideas may have seemed radical and progressive (in a good way) fifty years ago, but now they just seem dated and a little crazy.
Neill turns out to be a Freudian (this book was written around 1960), and he believes that most problems children have stem either from not knowing where babies come from (having that knowledge withheld from them by well-meaning adults) or from not being allowed to touch themselves (and feeling shame about sexual impulses). And when I say children, I mean children -- even little five-yr-olds suffer from these problems in Neill's view. Apparently, all it takes is a little talk with Neill for the children to have any difficulty, academic or emotional, cleared up. In fact, Neill seems to have practiced psychotherapy on the students at Summerhill.
Neill champions the idea of the "self-regulated" child, and believes that a child that is completely left alone will end up healthy and happy. He seems to place little or no value on intellectual pursuits. Overall I was left with the impression that Neill meant well, and his school may have been a welcome haven for children who were suffering in a traditional school environment, or who needed to get away from troubled parents. But mostly reading this book made me question my respect for and belief in The Idle Parent, since it's author seems to place so much faith in Neill's philosophy. I can see how this book and its ideas may have seemed radical and progressive (in a good way) fifty years ago, but now they just seem dated and a little crazy.
July 20, 2018
I loved and hated this book about how children who are not coerced to do anything become uninhibited and naturally good and caring (given a situation with enough social pressure to be that way). The book was based on Neill's school where he didn't force any child to go to classes (but most students went anyway). I loved how Neill had such a down-to-earth style of giving advice and acknowledged that every child is different and requires sensitivity to their needs. I thought it was amazing how he had the guts to give positive reinforcement to rebellious behaviors (he paid girls to continue raiding the larder, and they magically stopped). One of his ideas was that a child needs to sense that you love and approve of them before they'll give you any respect. He was also for complete sexual education and freedom for his students, trusting that they wouldn't fool around because his teenage students loved Summerhill too much to sully its name with an unwed pregnancy (and I guess it worked?).
I disliked like how self-satisfied he was. His comments on how preschool children and babies need constant attention made me wonder if he had ever been the main caregiver for a small child. Also, his Freudian interpretations of everything started to feel like a conspiracy theory. The book went on for too long, way past the point that I felt I understood his approach. I also feel like maybe his approach worked for neurotypical students, but felt disappointed that he didn't bother addressing why the Summerhill school didn't work for everyone.
I disliked like how self-satisfied he was. His comments on how preschool children and babies need constant attention made me wonder if he had ever been the main caregiver for a small child. Also, his Freudian interpretations of everything started to feel like a conspiracy theory. The book went on for too long, way past the point that I felt I understood his approach. I also feel like maybe his approach worked for neurotypical students, but felt disappointed that he didn't bother addressing why the Summerhill school didn't work for everyone.
Read
November 6, 2008Penjara itu Bernama Sekolah
Bermula dari sekolah percobaan, kini sekolah yang memberikan kebebasan penuh pada anak tersebut menjadi sekolah pembuktian. Awalnya dari ide yang sangat sederhana, bagaimana membuat sekolah yang cocok dengan anak-anak, bukannya anak-anak yang harus cocok dengan sekolah.
Sekolah yang didirikan Alexander Sutherland Neill pun membebaskan anak-anak untuk menentukan apa yang mereka mau. Mereka membuang jauh-jauh ketertiban, arahan, anjuran, pengajaran moral, dan pengajaran agama.
"Kami dianggap berani dengan ide ini, padahal tak dibutuhkan keberanian apa pun," ujar Neill. Yang dibutuhkan hanyalah keyakinan penuh bahwa anak-anak adalah makluk yang baik dan bukan makhluk jahat. "Kami meyakini sepenuh hati," tambah Neill. Keyakinan Neill tak pernah surut, sejak sekolah didirikan hingga saat ini.
Di sekolah ini, anak-anak bebas memilih pelajaran yang akan mereka ikuti. Bahkan bagi anak yang baru masuk ke sekolah "sesukamu" itu, mereka bebas bermain sepanjang waktu, berhari-hari, bahkan bertahun-tahun.
Neill sangat memahami, butuh waktu bagi anak untuk menjadi dirinya sendiri setelah begitu tertekan dari sekolah "normal". Panjang pendek masa penyembuhan ini tergantung pada seberapa besar kebencian yang ditanamkan oleh sekolah "normal" ke dalam diri mereka. Seorang anak TK yang pindah ke Summerhill akan mudah menyesuaikan diri dengan keadaan baru di sekolah tersebut. Tetapi makin bertambahnya umur anak, semakin lama waktu penyembuhan yang mereka lakukan. Bisa jadi mereka bersumpah tidak akan pernah mau lagi mengikuti pelajaran "terkutuk" yang selama ini mereka dapatkan dari sekolah lamanya.
Bagi Neill, pelajaran bukanlah sesuatu yang penting. Aktivitas belajar tidalah sepenting kepribadian dan karakter. Jack, salah satu siswanya, tidak lulus masuk ujian perguruan tinggi karena dia membenci buku. Tetapi ketidaktahuannya tentang pelajaran tidak menghalangi hidupnya. Jack tumbuh menjadi seorang yang sangat percaya diri.
Tes yang dilakukan di kelas pun sangat iseng. Pertanyaannya, di manakah Pulau Kamis, obeng, demokrasi dan kemarin? Tak butuh jawaban. Tetapi anak yang baru saja masuk tidak memberikan jawaban seperti jamaknya anak-anak yang sudah lama di Summerhill. Bukan mereka bodoh, tetapi karena sudah terbiasa dalam rimba keseriusan, padahal bagi anak-anak yang sudah lama di Summerhill, justru keisengan ini yang dinantikan.
Anak Bermasalah
Bagi Neill, memaksakan pelajaran pada anak, sama saja memaksakan pekerjaan yang tidak menyenangkan buat anak. Tak bisa disangkal, banyak anak bermasalah di Summerhill. Mereka yang berkali-kali dikeluarkan dari sekolah, pribadi yang penuh kebencian atau pemberontakan.
Neill tidak menyangkal kalau seorang anak sebetulnya tumbuh dengan egonya. Tetapi ia yakin, ego yang dipelihara dengan baik, akan memiliki apa yang disebut dengan kebaikan. Tetapi ego yang dikekang hanya menghasilkan kejahatan. Anak-anak yang dianggap jahat sejatinya ia sedang berusaha mencari kebahagiaan. Rumah dan sekolah seringkali menjadi sumber ketidakbahagiaan dan sikap antisosial.
Kebahagiaan yang tak mereka rasakan sejak kanak-kanak hanya akan membuka celah bagi kebahagiaan palsu yang didapat dari kegiatan merusak, mencuri, atau menghajar orang. Kejahatan dan hukuman tidak akan pernah mengatasi kejahatan dan kenakalan anak. Ketika seorang muridnya mencuri, menurut Neill, yang dicuri anak itu adalah kebahagiaan. Sebetulnya ia ingin mendapatkan perhatian dan kebahagiaan.
"Saya tidak menghukumnya," ujar Neill. Ia justru memberinya hadiah, kadang uang atau apa pun. "Buat apa memarahi mereka, mereka akan sadar dengan sendirinya," ujar Neill. Dan resep ini sangat manjur.
Anak-anak yang bermasalah menurutnya adalah anak yang tidak bahagia. Dia berperang dengan dirinya sendiri, konsekuensinya dia berperang dengan seluruh dunia.
Kebebasan pula yang menghilangkan rasa takut pada anak-anak. Anak-anak kecil di Summerhill tidak ada yang takut dengan petir atau gelap. Jadi kebebasan juga mengubah anak yang semula penakut menjadi pemberani dan teguh pendirian.
Jika ada anak yang ketahuan mencuri, ia hanya diminta mengembalikan apa yang sudah diambilnya. Hukumannya pun ditentukan oleh anak-anak sendiri. Sekolah ini memang dikelola bersama, guru dan siswanya. Swakelola istilah mereka. Dari hukuman-hukuman ini, mereka sadar bahwa mencuri itu merugikan.
"Mereka adalah para realis cilik. Mereka tidak akan mengatakan bahwa tuhan akan menghukum pencuri," ujar Neill. Seminggu sekali mereka mengadakan rapat bersama untuk membahas semua kejadian dalam keseharian mereka. Hukuman, ketidaksetujuan, dan ide dibahas secara demokratis. Guru tidak campur tangan. Semuanya diselesaikan sendiri oleh anak-anak.
Sejak didirikan hingga saat ini, sudah banyak alumni Summerhill School yang berhasil, entah apa pun pekerjaan yang mereka lakukan.
Dalam konteks Indonesia, sekolah yang membebaskan ini tentu sangat diperlukan. Anak-anak yang sangat putus asa dan tertekan dengan sekolah, butuh "penyembuhan". Sangat tidak masuk akal melihat anak-anak putus asa bahkan mengakhiri hidup mereka karena permasalahan sekolah. Terlebih ketika anak-anak sangat tertekan dengan Ujian Nasional dan ketentuan-ketentuan yang "menggantung" hidup dan masa depan mereka. Sekolah tanpa kita sadari sudah menjadi penjara. Dan orang tua pun berlomba-lomba memasukkan anak ke dalam penjara.
Bermula dari sekolah percobaan, kini sekolah yang memberikan kebebasan penuh pada anak tersebut menjadi sekolah pembuktian. Awalnya dari ide yang sangat sederhana, bagaimana membuat sekolah yang cocok dengan anak-anak, bukannya anak-anak yang harus cocok dengan sekolah.
Sekolah yang didirikan Alexander Sutherland Neill pun membebaskan anak-anak untuk menentukan apa yang mereka mau. Mereka membuang jauh-jauh ketertiban, arahan, anjuran, pengajaran moral, dan pengajaran agama.
"Kami dianggap berani dengan ide ini, padahal tak dibutuhkan keberanian apa pun," ujar Neill. Yang dibutuhkan hanyalah keyakinan penuh bahwa anak-anak adalah makluk yang baik dan bukan makhluk jahat. "Kami meyakini sepenuh hati," tambah Neill. Keyakinan Neill tak pernah surut, sejak sekolah didirikan hingga saat ini.
Di sekolah ini, anak-anak bebas memilih pelajaran yang akan mereka ikuti. Bahkan bagi anak yang baru masuk ke sekolah "sesukamu" itu, mereka bebas bermain sepanjang waktu, berhari-hari, bahkan bertahun-tahun.
Neill sangat memahami, butuh waktu bagi anak untuk menjadi dirinya sendiri setelah begitu tertekan dari sekolah "normal". Panjang pendek masa penyembuhan ini tergantung pada seberapa besar kebencian yang ditanamkan oleh sekolah "normal" ke dalam diri mereka. Seorang anak TK yang pindah ke Summerhill akan mudah menyesuaikan diri dengan keadaan baru di sekolah tersebut. Tetapi makin bertambahnya umur anak, semakin lama waktu penyembuhan yang mereka lakukan. Bisa jadi mereka bersumpah tidak akan pernah mau lagi mengikuti pelajaran "terkutuk" yang selama ini mereka dapatkan dari sekolah lamanya.
Bagi Neill, pelajaran bukanlah sesuatu yang penting. Aktivitas belajar tidalah sepenting kepribadian dan karakter. Jack, salah satu siswanya, tidak lulus masuk ujian perguruan tinggi karena dia membenci buku. Tetapi ketidaktahuannya tentang pelajaran tidak menghalangi hidupnya. Jack tumbuh menjadi seorang yang sangat percaya diri.
Tes yang dilakukan di kelas pun sangat iseng. Pertanyaannya, di manakah Pulau Kamis, obeng, demokrasi dan kemarin? Tak butuh jawaban. Tetapi anak yang baru saja masuk tidak memberikan jawaban seperti jamaknya anak-anak yang sudah lama di Summerhill. Bukan mereka bodoh, tetapi karena sudah terbiasa dalam rimba keseriusan, padahal bagi anak-anak yang sudah lama di Summerhill, justru keisengan ini yang dinantikan.
Anak Bermasalah
Bagi Neill, memaksakan pelajaran pada anak, sama saja memaksakan pekerjaan yang tidak menyenangkan buat anak. Tak bisa disangkal, banyak anak bermasalah di Summerhill. Mereka yang berkali-kali dikeluarkan dari sekolah, pribadi yang penuh kebencian atau pemberontakan.
Neill tidak menyangkal kalau seorang anak sebetulnya tumbuh dengan egonya. Tetapi ia yakin, ego yang dipelihara dengan baik, akan memiliki apa yang disebut dengan kebaikan. Tetapi ego yang dikekang hanya menghasilkan kejahatan. Anak-anak yang dianggap jahat sejatinya ia sedang berusaha mencari kebahagiaan. Rumah dan sekolah seringkali menjadi sumber ketidakbahagiaan dan sikap antisosial.
Kebahagiaan yang tak mereka rasakan sejak kanak-kanak hanya akan membuka celah bagi kebahagiaan palsu yang didapat dari kegiatan merusak, mencuri, atau menghajar orang. Kejahatan dan hukuman tidak akan pernah mengatasi kejahatan dan kenakalan anak. Ketika seorang muridnya mencuri, menurut Neill, yang dicuri anak itu adalah kebahagiaan. Sebetulnya ia ingin mendapatkan perhatian dan kebahagiaan.
"Saya tidak menghukumnya," ujar Neill. Ia justru memberinya hadiah, kadang uang atau apa pun. "Buat apa memarahi mereka, mereka akan sadar dengan sendirinya," ujar Neill. Dan resep ini sangat manjur.
Anak-anak yang bermasalah menurutnya adalah anak yang tidak bahagia. Dia berperang dengan dirinya sendiri, konsekuensinya dia berperang dengan seluruh dunia.
Kebebasan pula yang menghilangkan rasa takut pada anak-anak. Anak-anak kecil di Summerhill tidak ada yang takut dengan petir atau gelap. Jadi kebebasan juga mengubah anak yang semula penakut menjadi pemberani dan teguh pendirian.
Jika ada anak yang ketahuan mencuri, ia hanya diminta mengembalikan apa yang sudah diambilnya. Hukumannya pun ditentukan oleh anak-anak sendiri. Sekolah ini memang dikelola bersama, guru dan siswanya. Swakelola istilah mereka. Dari hukuman-hukuman ini, mereka sadar bahwa mencuri itu merugikan.
"Mereka adalah para realis cilik. Mereka tidak akan mengatakan bahwa tuhan akan menghukum pencuri," ujar Neill. Seminggu sekali mereka mengadakan rapat bersama untuk membahas semua kejadian dalam keseharian mereka. Hukuman, ketidaksetujuan, dan ide dibahas secara demokratis. Guru tidak campur tangan. Semuanya diselesaikan sendiri oleh anak-anak.
Sejak didirikan hingga saat ini, sudah banyak alumni Summerhill School yang berhasil, entah apa pun pekerjaan yang mereka lakukan.
Dalam konteks Indonesia, sekolah yang membebaskan ini tentu sangat diperlukan. Anak-anak yang sangat putus asa dan tertekan dengan sekolah, butuh "penyembuhan". Sangat tidak masuk akal melihat anak-anak putus asa bahkan mengakhiri hidup mereka karena permasalahan sekolah. Terlebih ketika anak-anak sangat tertekan dengan Ujian Nasional dan ketentuan-ketentuan yang "menggantung" hidup dan masa depan mereka. Sekolah tanpa kita sadari sudah menjadi penjara. Dan orang tua pun berlomba-lomba memasukkan anak ke dalam penjara.
February 12, 2023
Συγκλονιστικό. Είναι στο τοπ 3 των καλύτερων βιβλίων που έχω διαβάσει ποτέ
February 18, 2022
Ne sećam se kada me je neka knjiga ovako oborila s nogu. Sa poglavlja na poglavlje snažni udarci, kao bokser iz runde u rundu do konačnog nokauta kada se knjiga zaklopi. A onda kao poražen posle meča vraćaš snimak i gledaš gde si grešio u svom meču (životu), od poglavlja do poglavlja.
Strašno je i izuzetno uvredljivo da naša najjača izdavačka kuća Delfi/Laguna ovakvu knjigu deklariše kao dečija! Sramota! Za ovo ću im posebno pisati mejl sa žalbom. Naročito sam razočaran, što ovakva knjiga jedva može da se pronađe i kod antikvara (srećom, na kupindu može). Čitajući ovo štivo, a uporedo svestan nepostojanja nijednog novijeg izdanja, ipak verujem u pojam "zabranjene knjige". Možda jedini razlog zbog kojeg se ova knjiga ne deklariše kao zabranjena smo mi, čitaoci, koji ne možemo da je shvatimo! Štivo je "razgovetno" i svako može da ga pročita, ali ne i da ga oseti, a još teže, da njene principe primeni.
Razlog što ova knjiga nije revolucionarna i opšte prihvaćena može se ilustrovati na jednostavan način: Zamislite da pokušate da zagrejete bazen od 10000 litara hladne vode sa kofom vode od 5 litara tople. Čovečanstvo tj. nezdravo roditeljstvo je hladna voda, a principi ove knjige su kofa tople vode.
Veliki vaspitni šamar svima, a naročito roditeljima. Ali samo onim roditeljima koji su spremni da ovaj šamar upiju kao sunđer. Oni koji se prema ovoj knjizi ne budu ophodili kao sunđer, i ne treba da je čitaju!
Nagutao sam se itekako knedli prisećajući se, tokom čitanja, koliko je roditeljstvo u mom okruženju pogrešno. Broj primera nezdravog roditeljstva iz svakodnevnog života, kojih se čitalac priseća tokom čitanja je ogroman, što stvara neisceljivu bol, a naročito razumevanje za bolesno društvo puno mržnje u kome živimo.
Šta je roditeljstvo? Ajmo, "kefalica" jel zna neko? Mi smo, ustvari, pred ovom knjigom deca iz emisije kefalica! Dok nam autor nije objasnio, mogli smo samo da nagađamo.
Zašto je roditeljstvo tako strano i daleko mnogima? Stvar je prosta. Pa zato što je roditeljstvo veština, a da biste se usavršili u nečemu neophodno je što ranije da počnemo. Nažalost mnogi nemaju vremena za ovo i počinju da vežbaju onda kada je već kasno: po rođenju deteta! Kada bismo roditeljstvo uzeli da vežbamo kao bilo koju drugu vrstu veštine od najranijih dana, gde bismo dogurali kada dođe vreme za stvarnu praksu?
Mržnja i nezadovljostvo svake vrste počinje u detetu da se razvija od najranijih dana usled nepravilne upotrebe roditeljstva. Ali ljudi u zabludi misle: "Ja sam odrastao i pametniji, ja znam šta je dobro za dete". NE! Ne znaš i nisi svestan koliko ne znaš jer se nisi ni zapitao šta je roditeljstvo. Ova knjiga daje odgovor samo onima, koji istinski žele da se čovek kao biće oplemeni i sa generacije na generaciju prenese svoj oplemenjeni duh kako bi nekoj sutrašnjoj deci bilo bolje. Onaj ko nema osećaja za svoje poreklo, rod i buduća bića koja budu koračala ovom planetom, ne može razumeti ovu veličanstvenu knjigu. Dokle god se ne prekine višemilenijumski pogrešan stav o uzdizanju i slobodi deteta, čovečanstvo neće biti bolje. Ovakvo razmišljanje stvara paničan strah onima koji žele slobodu svoj deci odmah i sada. Znajući da mogu milenijumi da prođu dok se ne stvori takvo slobodno i plemenito društvo kakvo autor u knjizi priželjkuje i predviđa, dolazi se do zaključka da se ovaj naslov može uporediti sa distopijskim knjigama predviđanja Žila Verna i Džordža Orvela. Nažalost mnoštvo se predviđanja obistinilo u stvarnosti, kod gore navedenih autora. "Lako" je predviteti zlo kada dobijate insipraciju od već osakaćenog društva, ali predviđati utopiju i ostaviti uputstvo za njeno sprovođenje, u istim okolnostima kao Orvel, Vern i Haksli, e to je razlog što ću Aleksandra S. Nila više vrednovati.
Strašno je i izuzetno uvredljivo da naša najjača izdavačka kuća Delfi/Laguna ovakvu knjigu deklariše kao dečija! Sramota! Za ovo ću im posebno pisati mejl sa žalbom. Naročito sam razočaran, što ovakva knjiga jedva može da se pronađe i kod antikvara (srećom, na kupindu može). Čitajući ovo štivo, a uporedo svestan nepostojanja nijednog novijeg izdanja, ipak verujem u pojam "zabranjene knjige". Možda jedini razlog zbog kojeg se ova knjiga ne deklariše kao zabranjena smo mi, čitaoci, koji ne možemo da je shvatimo! Štivo je "razgovetno" i svako može da ga pročita, ali ne i da ga oseti, a još teže, da njene principe primeni.
Razlog što ova knjiga nije revolucionarna i opšte prihvaćena može se ilustrovati na jednostavan način: Zamislite da pokušate da zagrejete bazen od 10000 litara hladne vode sa kofom vode od 5 litara tople. Čovečanstvo tj. nezdravo roditeljstvo je hladna voda, a principi ove knjige su kofa tople vode.
Veliki vaspitni šamar svima, a naročito roditeljima. Ali samo onim roditeljima koji su spremni da ovaj šamar upiju kao sunđer. Oni koji se prema ovoj knjizi ne budu ophodili kao sunđer, i ne treba da je čitaju!
Nagutao sam se itekako knedli prisećajući se, tokom čitanja, koliko je roditeljstvo u mom okruženju pogrešno. Broj primera nezdravog roditeljstva iz svakodnevnog života, kojih se čitalac priseća tokom čitanja je ogroman, što stvara neisceljivu bol, a naročito razumevanje za bolesno društvo puno mržnje u kome živimo.
Šta je roditeljstvo? Ajmo, "kefalica" jel zna neko? Mi smo, ustvari, pred ovom knjigom deca iz emisije kefalica! Dok nam autor nije objasnio, mogli smo samo da nagađamo.
Zašto je roditeljstvo tako strano i daleko mnogima? Stvar je prosta. Pa zato što je roditeljstvo veština, a da biste se usavršili u nečemu neophodno je što ranije da počnemo. Nažalost mnogi nemaju vremena za ovo i počinju da vežbaju onda kada je već kasno: po rođenju deteta! Kada bismo roditeljstvo uzeli da vežbamo kao bilo koju drugu vrstu veštine od najranijih dana, gde bismo dogurali kada dođe vreme za stvarnu praksu?
Mržnja i nezadovljostvo svake vrste počinje u detetu da se razvija od najranijih dana usled nepravilne upotrebe roditeljstva. Ali ljudi u zabludi misle: "Ja sam odrastao i pametniji, ja znam šta je dobro za dete". NE! Ne znaš i nisi svestan koliko ne znaš jer se nisi ni zapitao šta je roditeljstvo. Ova knjiga daje odgovor samo onima, koji istinski žele da se čovek kao biće oplemeni i sa generacije na generaciju prenese svoj oplemenjeni duh kako bi nekoj sutrašnjoj deci bilo bolje. Onaj ko nema osećaja za svoje poreklo, rod i buduća bića koja budu koračala ovom planetom, ne može razumeti ovu veličanstvenu knjigu. Dokle god se ne prekine višemilenijumski pogrešan stav o uzdizanju i slobodi deteta, čovečanstvo neće biti bolje. Ovakvo razmišljanje stvara paničan strah onima koji žele slobodu svoj deci odmah i sada. Znajući da mogu milenijumi da prođu dok se ne stvori takvo slobodno i plemenito društvo kakvo autor u knjizi priželjkuje i predviđa, dolazi se do zaključka da se ovaj naslov može uporediti sa distopijskim knjigama predviđanja Žila Verna i Džordža Orvela. Nažalost mnoštvo se predviđanja obistinilo u stvarnosti, kod gore navedenih autora. "Lako" je predviteti zlo kada dobijate insipraciju od već osakaćenog društva, ali predviđati utopiju i ostaviti uputstvo za njeno sprovođenje, u istim okolnostima kao Orvel, Vern i Haksli, e to je razlog što ću Aleksandra S. Nila više vrednovati.
August 18, 2018
The book is part memoir, part "freedom-based education" manifest. Both were quite enjoyable.
Given that the book was written in the '50s, it suffers from a lot of anachronisms (behavior of "bad" parents is not something that you would encounter today), and school system has improved a lot since Neill started his institution, so he feels less radical today (which is a good sign of overall progress). Also, Freud's influence is abundant throughout, and it seems that the application of psycho-analysis worked for Summerhill back then (not sure if it would still apply today).
The best part of the book for me was listening to a story of a man who decided that after a lifetime of working with children that:
- children should be allowed to be children as much as they can in order to grow into happier persons
- children are not meant to carry responsibilities that are not suited for their age
- trust children and show them respect as individual (democratic environment of the school)
- mis-direction of emotions (love, anger and anything in between) in family will manifest through child's "mis-behavior". Question yourself first (as a parent), then your child
- a free child (based on everything above) will find it's own interests and have enough self-motivation to achieve its own goal in life.
(I'm pretty sure I lost some points, but those were the big ones for me). Parts I could agree on without any discussions (points 1-3), Freudian part (point 4) and completely open approach to sex in order to release frustrations, inhibitions and neurosis is a bit harder to swallow (label me repressed and find hidden meaning in that sentence if you must). After discussing Point 5 with a pedagogue friend, it seems that modern literature on the subject confirmed that internal motivation will usually under-perform (in the aspect of achieving learning goals) when compared to external motivation. As Neill himself commented - Summerhill never gave successful writers, scientists, engineers from it's students (i.e. modern-day "successful people"). They managed to turn frustrated students into happy, well-rounded individuals. That's already impressive.
Given that the book was written in the '50s, it suffers from a lot of anachronisms (behavior of "bad" parents is not something that you would encounter today), and school system has improved a lot since Neill started his institution, so he feels less radical today (which is a good sign of overall progress). Also, Freud's influence is abundant throughout, and it seems that the application of psycho-analysis worked for Summerhill back then (not sure if it would still apply today).
The best part of the book for me was listening to a story of a man who decided that after a lifetime of working with children that:
- children should be allowed to be children as much as they can in order to grow into happier persons
- children are not meant to carry responsibilities that are not suited for their age
- trust children and show them respect as individual (democratic environment of the school)
- mis-direction of emotions (love, anger and anything in between) in family will manifest through child's "mis-behavior". Question yourself first (as a parent), then your child
- a free child (based on everything above) will find it's own interests and have enough self-motivation to achieve its own goal in life.
(I'm pretty sure I lost some points, but those were the big ones for me). Parts I could agree on without any discussions (points 1-3), Freudian part (point 4) and completely open approach to sex in order to release frustrations, inhibitions and neurosis is a bit harder to swallow (label me repressed and find hidden meaning in that sentence if you must). After discussing Point 5 with a pedagogue friend, it seems that modern literature on the subject confirmed that internal motivation will usually under-perform (in the aspect of achieving learning goals) when compared to external motivation. As Neill himself commented - Summerhill never gave successful writers, scientists, engineers from it's students (i.e. modern-day "successful people"). They managed to turn frustrated students into happy, well-rounded individuals. That's already impressive.
October 12, 2010
This book change the way I see parenting and education from that of a discipline controlling one to giving the freedom that a child crave for. It puts emphasis on 'being on the side of the child', being open and honest.
It covers education from different angles; from academic, personality, to the touchy subject of sex and religion. It's interesting to see that most of the students in summerhill school seem to be able to understand clearly that freedom is without consequence and limited to the freedom of their peers.
However, things have changed alot since the 1930s-1970s and some of the techniques may not be as effective, and the author admits that. One has to read this book with a pinch of salt. It not meant to be prescriptive, it meant to broaden up ones perspective.
The book consists of 2 parts, the first part tells the experience on leading summerhill school, whereas the latter tells how the author becomes how he was and came about with the idea. It puts the idea into context.
Well recommended read for all parents.
It covers education from different angles; from academic, personality, to the touchy subject of sex and religion. It's interesting to see that most of the students in summerhill school seem to be able to understand clearly that freedom is without consequence and limited to the freedom of their peers.
However, things have changed alot since the 1930s-1970s and some of the techniques may not be as effective, and the author admits that. One has to read this book with a pinch of salt. It not meant to be prescriptive, it meant to broaden up ones perspective.
The book consists of 2 parts, the first part tells the experience on leading summerhill school, whereas the latter tells how the author becomes how he was and came about with the idea. It puts the idea into context.
Well recommended read for all parents.
October 13, 2019
The book is a whole world build on perception, experience and dedication to Neil's philosophy. It has it's ups and downs, as some parts hit you with self reflection and emotions while other parts seem tedious or outdated.
"Summerhill" is A.S. Neil's attempt to explain and show his philosophy, it's based on 40 years of Summerhill's history, students' and teachers' lives, Neil's thoughts and the world's reaction to this "experimental" school.
There were quiet a few ideas I disagree with, a lot of common sense and some important truths. I've written down many quotes from "Summerhill" and almost forced a friend to read the book so that I had someone to discuss it with.
Overall I think it to be a must read for any to-be or already-am parent and never excessive for those open to reflect on their childhood and teen years.
"Summerhill" is A.S. Neil's attempt to explain and show his philosophy, it's based on 40 years of Summerhill's history, students' and teachers' lives, Neil's thoughts and the world's reaction to this "experimental" school.
There were quiet a few ideas I disagree with, a lot of common sense and some important truths. I've written down many quotes from "Summerhill" and almost forced a friend to read the book so that I had someone to discuss it with.
Overall I think it to be a must read for any to-be or already-am parent and never excessive for those open to reflect on their childhood and teen years.
October 3, 2019
Summerhill je převratný koncept! Proto knize odpustim i drobné nedokonalosti, páč podává zprávu o něčem výjimečném.
Internátní ryze demokratická škola (kde děti nemusí umět číst ve 12 letech, ano, anarchie trochu).
Kniha ukazuje na to, že náš současný systém je stejně pokrytecký jako před 50 lety. Ucime děti zbytečnosti, vyzadujeme morálku, které nevěříme.
Sdělení? Pokud bude dítě chtít byt, jaderným fyzikem nebo dřevorubcem, tak se jim stane. Pokud rodiče budou chtít jaderného fyzika, tak se jim dítě možná stane, ale pokud nebude s touto profesi v souladu, tak bude akorát nešťastný uhoneny zoufalec jako hodně lidi kolem.
Stále aktuální kniha, kterou nemůžeme chápat dohmaticky, ale můžeme se inspirovat.
Internátní ryze demokratická škola (kde děti nemusí umět číst ve 12 letech, ano, anarchie trochu).
Kniha ukazuje na to, že náš současný systém je stejně pokrytecký jako před 50 lety. Ucime děti zbytečnosti, vyzadujeme morálku, které nevěříme.
Sdělení? Pokud bude dítě chtít byt, jaderným fyzikem nebo dřevorubcem, tak se jim stane. Pokud rodiče budou chtít jaderného fyzika, tak se jim dítě možná stane, ale pokud nebude s touto profesi v souladu, tak bude akorát nešťastný uhoneny zoufalec jako hodně lidi kolem.
Stále aktuální kniha, kterou nemůžeme chápat dohmaticky, ale můžeme se inspirovat.
August 28, 2022
El colegio que se nos presenta en este libro es una institución bastante extraña, al menos viéndolo desde nuestra perspectiva más modernas. Su director tiene visiones muy tradicionales, lo cual es bastante normal, y cierto afán por las teorías de Freud que estoy segura dan mucho de que hablar. Pero toda esa “antigüedad” en ciertos pensamientos se ve enfrentada a sus posturas más modernas que creo que encajarían perfectamente a día de hoy. Leyendo este libro creo que te dejan claras las diferencias que existen entre las sociedades de ahora y las de antes y nos da una visión muy buena sobre como hemos avanzado y al mismo tiempo retrocedido en nuestras exigencias con la educación de los niños.
August 2, 2008
Membaca buku ini seperti oase di tengah gurun gersang dunia pendidikan kita yang karut-marut. Konsep sekolah Summerhill ini memang radikal, gak ada peraturan di sekolah ini. Para siswa boleh sekolah, boleh bolos dan bermain sepanjang hari sesukanya. Tp yg pasti sekolah ini berhasil melahirkan pribadi2 yang mandiri, punya sikap dan cerdas. Sudah saatnya mendekonstruksi sistem pendidikan kita yang kaku dan cenderung otoriter.. Tp bangsatnya, pada bab2 akhir buku ini hilang gak tau kemana...
April 26, 2009
This is a great book about a man who started an experimental school where children are treated as equals and freedom is the main objective. It's so hard to explain, and the book is old and dated, but there are some great ideas about child-rearing which also makes me think about how I treat my own friends and family and the children I get to hang out with. Read it knowing that it was written a long time ago and that some of the language and ideas are outdated. Otherwise, I love this book.
February 10, 2016
A pleasure to read. Neill's insights about raising children come from observing them grow in an environment that listens to their needs. It's an opportunity to learn that kids are naturally happy and good. If they are loved and raised according to their needs, they will become responsible productive adults by all means. Sad how much we miss of the kids' childhood by having them adjust to strict environments.
July 2, 2008
A.S. Neill had a great idea for an experiment in education where children were able to learn and discover at their own pace. Since I was one of those children who did not learn to read on schedule, I was particularly taken with his ideas. This book is in no way radical now, and its reliance on Freudian ideas further dates it, but I still feel that in many ways, he was ahead of his time.
January 13, 2017
Atualíssimo!
Qualquer um que pense em chegar perto de uma criança em qualquer estágio da vida deveria ler esse livro.
Qualquer um que pense em chegar perto de uma criança em qualquer estágio da vida deveria ler esse livro.
August 18, 2018
Summerhill and the Fate of Progressive Education
By Don Jordan
When I was in my twenties someone told me to read A. S. Neill’s "Summerhill," which at the time was the bible of progressive education. I did -- and I have never forgotten it. To me it was transformative, as it had been to so many others. So, when I mentioned the book recently to a friend who had just gotten her PhD in education, I was shocked to learn that she had never heard of it. Could something so profound and so influential have disappeared so quickly? Alas yes. Such is the nature of the modern world. With these thoughts in mind, I decided to read it again, and see how I felt about the book and its theories after 45 years of teaching and raising two kids. I did and guess what: My feeling hasn’t changed one bit. A. S. Neill’s revolutionary approach to education seems to me as profound and as fundamentally right as it did 45 years ago. What became clear from all my experiences, however, is that although the concepts in the book are fairly simple, implementing them is actually very difficult. Setting up a school in which children are free and empowered is fairly easy. Making it work on a daily basis is not. I consider this a further endorsement of Neill’s approach, for any method of teaching that doesn’t rely on an intensely personal hands-on engagement is a fool’s errand. The key to reading Neill’s book is to pay special attention to the anecdotes, the stories he tells of his successes and failures as he tries to help children grow, learn and go out into the world. Then it quickly becomes clear that implementing his fairly simple concepts requires a tremendous amount of patience, judgement and, yes, love. Thus, the greatest asset of his approach is also its greatest weakness: this kind of education depends for its success on the people involved. After all, whatever “method” or “system’ you adhere to, education is really a series of personal relationships between teacher and student. And as we know, no two relationships are alike. For this reason, I’ve always felt that no method that is worth anything can – or should – long outlive its creator.
There is another reason, I think, that the Summerhill approach has fallen out of favor. In a certain sense, Summerhill is very dated. It is dated in that it was written in a period when schools were overly strict and authoritarian, and Neill spends a lot of time explaining the problems this attitude causes and his antidotes. Today’s schools suffer from a very different problem. Today’s students are coddled and cuddled, praised and pampered, spoon fed their knowledge, and pretty much always right. Does this mean that the Summerhill idea has taken over? Quite the opposite. For there is an important aspect of Neill’s philosophy that is less emphasized in the book but is made very clear in the many anecdotes and stories he recounts. The “freedom” that each child enjoys at Summerhill must not infringe on someone else’s freedom. It is not a school without rules. It is a school in which the students make the rules, and the students enforce them. At Summerhill, presumably, each child takes responsibility of her own destiny. Today’s students are spoon fed their destiny. To give a quick example: We lament that students today do not understand civics, so we give them lots of lessons about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and make them read lots of soppy novels about unfortunate people who have struggled and prevailed (or not) during our short history. None of this means much to a teenager, no matter how melodramatic we make it. Summerhill students and staff meet once a week, establish the rules the school is run by, decide on and mete out consequences, and change the rules when they deem necessary. Summerhill students learn about civics and their importance to our lives from hands on experience.
What was most upsetting to me on re-reading Summerhill was to see how far we have actually strayed from the principals of progressive education while proceeding under the illusion that we are adopting them. Rather than truly allowing students the choice of whether to take classes or what classes to take, we try to inspire, cajole, and misdirect them into learning. We have become magicians trying to slip some knowledge into students’ heads when they’re not looking. Does this approach really empower students? I don’t think so. Kids are very quick to see when they are being misled. I can’t tell you how often my children have said they don’t want to do their homework because “it’s bogus.” We have also pulled a bait and switch on the goals of education. The biggest problem in discussing different approaches to education is assessing their success. Here Summerhill has some good advice to offer as well. To quote Neill: “I would rather see a school produce a happy street cleaner than a neurotic scholar.” Today we tend to judge our education system by how much info we manage to cram into our students’ minds. This is tantamount to judging someone’s ability to build a house by how fast he can hammer a nail. Neill claims that his goal is to create happy citizens -- people who can go out into the world and lead a happy life. Considering how different people are, and how many different lifestyles and professions there are, this task requires a far more flexible education set-up than what most communities are currently offering. The truth is, learning is very hard to measure. I’m sure all teachers have shared the rewarding experience of having a student come back years later saying “I finally understood what you were trying to teach us!” Yet when we originally sent this student forth from the classroom, we had no idea if this seed had been successfully planted or not. Teachers judge their effectiveness by this kind of personal dialogue with their students. Unfortunately, the bureaucrats who define our schools tend to judge success by things like graduation rates and relative income.
Whether you believe in “progressive” education or not, I would suggest that A. S. Neill’s writings can still provide a treasure chest of insight, wisdom and inspiration to anyone who teaches, has children, or wants to get a bigger picture of what the educational experience is all about. Perhaps the greatest lesson we can learn from "Summerhill" is that education should be entrusted to people, not to methods.
By Don Jordan
When I was in my twenties someone told me to read A. S. Neill’s "Summerhill," which at the time was the bible of progressive education. I did -- and I have never forgotten it. To me it was transformative, as it had been to so many others. So, when I mentioned the book recently to a friend who had just gotten her PhD in education, I was shocked to learn that she had never heard of it. Could something so profound and so influential have disappeared so quickly? Alas yes. Such is the nature of the modern world. With these thoughts in mind, I decided to read it again, and see how I felt about the book and its theories after 45 years of teaching and raising two kids. I did and guess what: My feeling hasn’t changed one bit. A. S. Neill’s revolutionary approach to education seems to me as profound and as fundamentally right as it did 45 years ago. What became clear from all my experiences, however, is that although the concepts in the book are fairly simple, implementing them is actually very difficult. Setting up a school in which children are free and empowered is fairly easy. Making it work on a daily basis is not. I consider this a further endorsement of Neill’s approach, for any method of teaching that doesn’t rely on an intensely personal hands-on engagement is a fool’s errand. The key to reading Neill’s book is to pay special attention to the anecdotes, the stories he tells of his successes and failures as he tries to help children grow, learn and go out into the world. Then it quickly becomes clear that implementing his fairly simple concepts requires a tremendous amount of patience, judgement and, yes, love. Thus, the greatest asset of his approach is also its greatest weakness: this kind of education depends for its success on the people involved. After all, whatever “method” or “system’ you adhere to, education is really a series of personal relationships between teacher and student. And as we know, no two relationships are alike. For this reason, I’ve always felt that no method that is worth anything can – or should – long outlive its creator.
There is another reason, I think, that the Summerhill approach has fallen out of favor. In a certain sense, Summerhill is very dated. It is dated in that it was written in a period when schools were overly strict and authoritarian, and Neill spends a lot of time explaining the problems this attitude causes and his antidotes. Today’s schools suffer from a very different problem. Today’s students are coddled and cuddled, praised and pampered, spoon fed their knowledge, and pretty much always right. Does this mean that the Summerhill idea has taken over? Quite the opposite. For there is an important aspect of Neill’s philosophy that is less emphasized in the book but is made very clear in the many anecdotes and stories he recounts. The “freedom” that each child enjoys at Summerhill must not infringe on someone else’s freedom. It is not a school without rules. It is a school in which the students make the rules, and the students enforce them. At Summerhill, presumably, each child takes responsibility of her own destiny. Today’s students are spoon fed their destiny. To give a quick example: We lament that students today do not understand civics, so we give them lots of lessons about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and make them read lots of soppy novels about unfortunate people who have struggled and prevailed (or not) during our short history. None of this means much to a teenager, no matter how melodramatic we make it. Summerhill students and staff meet once a week, establish the rules the school is run by, decide on and mete out consequences, and change the rules when they deem necessary. Summerhill students learn about civics and their importance to our lives from hands on experience.
What was most upsetting to me on re-reading Summerhill was to see how far we have actually strayed from the principals of progressive education while proceeding under the illusion that we are adopting them. Rather than truly allowing students the choice of whether to take classes or what classes to take, we try to inspire, cajole, and misdirect them into learning. We have become magicians trying to slip some knowledge into students’ heads when they’re not looking. Does this approach really empower students? I don’t think so. Kids are very quick to see when they are being misled. I can’t tell you how often my children have said they don’t want to do their homework because “it’s bogus.” We have also pulled a bait and switch on the goals of education. The biggest problem in discussing different approaches to education is assessing their success. Here Summerhill has some good advice to offer as well. To quote Neill: “I would rather see a school produce a happy street cleaner than a neurotic scholar.” Today we tend to judge our education system by how much info we manage to cram into our students’ minds. This is tantamount to judging someone’s ability to build a house by how fast he can hammer a nail. Neill claims that his goal is to create happy citizens -- people who can go out into the world and lead a happy life. Considering how different people are, and how many different lifestyles and professions there are, this task requires a far more flexible education set-up than what most communities are currently offering. The truth is, learning is very hard to measure. I’m sure all teachers have shared the rewarding experience of having a student come back years later saying “I finally understood what you were trying to teach us!” Yet when we originally sent this student forth from the classroom, we had no idea if this seed had been successfully planted or not. Teachers judge their effectiveness by this kind of personal dialogue with their students. Unfortunately, the bureaucrats who define our schools tend to judge success by things like graduation rates and relative income.
Whether you believe in “progressive” education or not, I would suggest that A. S. Neill’s writings can still provide a treasure chest of insight, wisdom and inspiration to anyone who teaches, has children, or wants to get a bigger picture of what the educational experience is all about. Perhaps the greatest lesson we can learn from "Summerhill" is that education should be entrusted to people, not to methods.
August 12, 2024
Neill was one quirky fellow, and his educational philosophy reflects all his oddities. If one can detach the Freudian from the philosophy, one can learn a great deal from this book. My education was nothing like this — freewheeling, democratic, indulgent —, so it tickles me greatly to read of such student freedoms. Yet, as when reading about anything extreme, I quickly grow skeptical; balancing freedom with structure, democracy with authority, and student interests with societal standards all seem tensions worth navigating more moderately. Of course, Neill says that his graduates all came out well (and how can I ever know whether this is true), but I am left wondering as to the utility of such an education in our modern world. Back then, children played, both alone and together, and they played in all sorts of mixed-age groups; nowadays, children scroll or sit in bovine-eyed rapture in front of screens. One childhood seems much more likely to produce interested, competent, and socially-functional humans than the other.
I think this would be a worthwhile text (well, parts of it, for it is repetitive and perhaps too fixated on sex) for an undergrad survey of education, and it would do splendidly as fodder for a series of debates in education. It touches upon many things we care about as educators, and its extremism and contrarianism would be a perfect foil for modern educational structures.
I think this would be a worthwhile text (well, parts of it, for it is repetitive and perhaps too fixated on sex) for an undergrad survey of education, and it would do splendidly as fodder for a series of debates in education. It touches upon many things we care about as educators, and its extremism and contrarianism would be a perfect foil for modern educational structures.
November 17, 2022
Knjiga govori o skoli iz 1921. godina u kojoj djeca uce da budu slobodna. Ucenici i nastavnici zive i uce u toj skoli, nema uzdrzanosti i nerazumijevanja, religijskih stega, strogih pravila. Djeca raznih profila i iz razlicitih porodica (konzervativnih, liberalnih, problematicnih) dolaze da na sasvim nov nacin sticu znanje i slobodu. Njihova maksima je "biti srecan i slobodan", oni ne moraju da uce ako nece, niko ih ne tjera ni na sta, a svi oni kasnije postanu funkcionalni clanovi drustva. Pisac je okrenut Frojdu, pa uvodi i agresivne i seksualne nagone u ranom razvoju; govori o destruktivnosti, odgoju djeteta, strahovima, ljubavi, razumijevanju, religiji, djecijim i roditeljskim problemima.
"..i mi smo protiv Zivota, а za smrt, ako smo pioni politicara, trgovaca ili eksploatatora. Pioni smo, jer smo vaspitani da gradimo zivot na negativan nacin, pokorno se uklapajuci u neko autoritarno drustvo, spremni da umremo za ideale svojih gospodara."
"..i mi smo protiv Zivota, а za smrt, ako smo pioni politicara, trgovaca ili eksploatatora. Pioni smo, jer smo vaspitani da gradimo zivot na negativan nacin, pokorno se uklapajuci u neko autoritarno drustvo, spremni da umremo za ideale svojih gospodara."
August 1, 2024
più affascinante di quanto mi aspettassi
Nella prima parte l'autore affronta l'educazione a Summerhill, esponendo il proprio modus operandis, che, per quanto interessante, lascia alcune perplessità.
Sono d'accordo su una rimodellazione del sistema scolastico basato su più capacità di movimento, ma ritengo alcune sue posizioni eccessivamente radicali, specialmente quando critica l'utilità pratica della storia e della letteratura; entrambe le discipline (sarò di parte), se insegnate con stimolazione, permettono agli studenti un miglior approccio alla vita.
il fatto che sia tutto dettato da un "continuum" esistenziale permette , a chi si approccia alla materia, una consapevolezza differente.
in ogni caso, mi è piaciuta particolarmente la seconda parte, in cui analizza l'educazione del bambino e il tema della genitorialità; teorie sul determinismo che condivido a pieno, tranne forse quelle legate alla sessualità, a parer mio eccessive, dove riprende in gran parte Freud
Nella prima parte l'autore affronta l'educazione a Summerhill, esponendo il proprio modus operandis, che, per quanto interessante, lascia alcune perplessità.
Sono d'accordo su una rimodellazione del sistema scolastico basato su più capacità di movimento, ma ritengo alcune sue posizioni eccessivamente radicali, specialmente quando critica l'utilità pratica della storia e della letteratura; entrambe le discipline (sarò di parte), se insegnate con stimolazione, permettono agli studenti un miglior approccio alla vita.
il fatto che sia tutto dettato da un "continuum" esistenziale permette , a chi si approccia alla materia, una consapevolezza differente.
in ogni caso, mi è piaciuta particolarmente la seconda parte, in cui analizza l'educazione del bambino e il tema della genitorialità; teorie sul determinismo che condivido a pieno, tranne forse quelle legate alla sessualità, a parer mio eccessive, dove riprende in gran parte Freud
April 6, 2025
This is the second time how I read this book and I must admit that the impression now has taken a whole different direction. I am still fascinated by this revolutionary view and practice of educating children.
Maybe the most important postulate that guides Nille's philosophy is that as long as children are given enough freedom, they will grow into balanced human beings that will be happy - meaning they will be doing what they would be fit for since through the freedom that has been granted to them, they individualize into what are most probably their biggest interests and talents.
The second biggest postulate is that children are born good, there are no bad children only bad parenting and education as Nille would argue.
As much as this experiment of education in the early XXth century seems appealing there are as Nille would implicitly note several problems with growing and educating children in this manner and that is of the remaining society. As much as it seems that children will grow resilience when faced with the rest of society they learn that the world doesn't work in the way they were educated. And because of the same reasons Summerhill remains an experiment isolated on an island, and something that would be equal to Peter Pan's Neverland, a utopian and isolated place.
This still remains for me personally a radically positive overview of the purpose of education about the true nature of children - which if given the proper conditions they will grow into balanced and happy human beings.
Maybe the most important postulate that guides Nille's philosophy is that as long as children are given enough freedom, they will grow into balanced human beings that will be happy - meaning they will be doing what they would be fit for since through the freedom that has been granted to them, they individualize into what are most probably their biggest interests and talents.
The second biggest postulate is that children are born good, there are no bad children only bad parenting and education as Nille would argue.
As much as this experiment of education in the early XXth century seems appealing there are as Nille would implicitly note several problems with growing and educating children in this manner and that is of the remaining society. As much as it seems that children will grow resilience when faced with the rest of society they learn that the world doesn't work in the way they were educated. And because of the same reasons Summerhill remains an experiment isolated on an island, and something that would be equal to Peter Pan's Neverland, a utopian and isolated place.
This still remains for me personally a radically positive overview of the purpose of education about the true nature of children - which if given the proper conditions they will grow into balanced and happy human beings.
April 30, 2020
Pats autorius, ir kaip savo srities specialistas, ir kaip asmenybė, man pasirodė labai ekscentriškas žmogus. Tačiau jo eksperimentinė mokykla, vaiko auklėjimo filosofija, apskritai, jo požiūris į vaiką yra nuostabus ir iš jo turi ko pasimokyti kiekvienas pedagogas ir tėvas. Jis yra už tikrąją demokratiją, už vaiko laisvę ir teisę žaisti, buvimą savimi, už vaiko įgimtą smalsumą, už auginimą be bausmių ir prievartos, už savo laimę, o ne primestą kitų. Apžvalga: https://profesionalimama.wordpress.co...
June 1, 2018
bukvalno jedini razlozi za 2/5 jesu Fromov predgovor i 5 bodova na seminarskom, inače bi 1/5 bila i te kako visoka ocena.
April 4, 2024
Niell expone una educación alternativa basada en tratar a los niños y adolescentes con amor, respeto y libertad (que no libertinaje). Está muy bien estructurado, da muchísimos ejemplos y ahonda bastante en los temas que le interesan, aunque me han surgido algunas dudas que no se han resuelto al acabar la lectura. No es tedioso ni aburrido pero hay que ponerlo en su contexto histórico, ya que algunas de sus afirmaciones son ofensivas.
September 13, 2019
5 Stars for A.S. Neill explaining what Humanism is and what it believes. 1 Star for the content being good, worthwhile, or something anyone should actually agree with.
A summation:
1. Never attempt to teach children religion, morals, or manners.
2. Never teach the concept of authority.
3. Never impose negative consequences for any behavior no matter what it is.
4. Never attempt to make children do anything. Ever.
5. Allow children to masturbate freely and engage in mutual genital play with siblings and friends openly.
6. Encourage children to engage in full sexual acts at any age with anyone they wish be it, child or adult.
7. Encourage group nudity in private and public among children, teachers, and adults, including bathing, playing, working, or leisure.
8. Encourage children to watch parents, adults, or other children engaged in sex acts.
9. Never attempt to restrain behavior such as theft, destruction of property, or even arson.
10. Never attempt to make a child go anywhere, do anything, learn anything, that they do not want to do.
11. Never attempt to teach them that anything as being right or anything as wrong.
12. Believe that children are born good and perfect.
13. Believe that if any child does anything wrong it is because someone has caused them to do the thing that is wrong and perverted their pureness by abuse or otherwise.
14. Believe that children and adults are never responsible for their actions, criminals are victims of abuse and society.
15. Believe that if left alone children will grow into pure, honest, perfect adults that love all and who will only do good.
16. Believe that parents who attempt to make their children do anything at all are evil who hate their children and will be the cause of all their children's evils if any in the future.
17. Believe that a parent or teacher disciplining a child because they "did something wrong" is evil, but hitting a child repeatedly with your hands, fists, or feet, because they are hitting you as an adult, is justifiable and the best way for the child to learn how to act. Because you are treating them as an equal, not as an authority that would punish or discipline.
18. Believe that all authority is illegitimate.
19. Believe that psychoanalysis, as described by Freud, has the answers to all ills of humanity and that almost all problems are the result of sexual repression.
20. Parents that attempt to exert any authority over their children should be understood to be a danger to their children and should be prosecuted.
A.S. Neill was a champion of Humanism and a self-conscious enemy of Christianity and God.
I would like to say that these ideas are the ramblings of a mad man, but these ideas which he penned in the 1950's have become basic tenants of modern early childhood education in America.
This book does a wonderful job of showing how deliberate men are in their war against God and His commandments. A.S. Neill stated that if he was to use religious language concerning God and a devil, then the nature of each child was God and religion and morality were the devil. Heaven was living in a world where mankind was free to do as he pleases when he pleases and hell would be a world where man's desires and actions are restrained by anything and anyone.
A.S. Neill describes a truly disturbing world, but he does it with complete conviction and faith that his ideas a right.
Lastly, he says that to attempt to influence children or adults is evil, and then he proceeds to run a school, and write books about influencing children and adults. He is not against influencing children and adults, he is against Christians influencing children and adults.
He is not against evangelization, he is against Christian evangelization.
A.S. Neill and the ideas behind Summerhill is why Christians Should Become Teachers.
A summation:
1. Never attempt to teach children religion, morals, or manners.
2. Never teach the concept of authority.
3. Never impose negative consequences for any behavior no matter what it is.
4. Never attempt to make children do anything. Ever.
5. Allow children to masturbate freely and engage in mutual genital play with siblings and friends openly.
6. Encourage children to engage in full sexual acts at any age with anyone they wish be it, child or adult.
7. Encourage group nudity in private and public among children, teachers, and adults, including bathing, playing, working, or leisure.
8. Encourage children to watch parents, adults, or other children engaged in sex acts.
9. Never attempt to restrain behavior such as theft, destruction of property, or even arson.
10. Never attempt to make a child go anywhere, do anything, learn anything, that they do not want to do.
11. Never attempt to teach them that anything as being right or anything as wrong.
12. Believe that children are born good and perfect.
13. Believe that if any child does anything wrong it is because someone has caused them to do the thing that is wrong and perverted their pureness by abuse or otherwise.
14. Believe that children and adults are never responsible for their actions, criminals are victims of abuse and society.
15. Believe that if left alone children will grow into pure, honest, perfect adults that love all and who will only do good.
16. Believe that parents who attempt to make their children do anything at all are evil who hate their children and will be the cause of all their children's evils if any in the future.
17. Believe that a parent or teacher disciplining a child because they "did something wrong" is evil, but hitting a child repeatedly with your hands, fists, or feet, because they are hitting you as an adult, is justifiable and the best way for the child to learn how to act. Because you are treating them as an equal, not as an authority that would punish or discipline.
18. Believe that all authority is illegitimate.
19. Believe that psychoanalysis, as described by Freud, has the answers to all ills of humanity and that almost all problems are the result of sexual repression.
20. Parents that attempt to exert any authority over their children should be understood to be a danger to their children and should be prosecuted.
A.S. Neill was a champion of Humanism and a self-conscious enemy of Christianity and God.
I would like to say that these ideas are the ramblings of a mad man, but these ideas which he penned in the 1950's have become basic tenants of modern early childhood education in America.
This book does a wonderful job of showing how deliberate men are in their war against God and His commandments. A.S. Neill stated that if he was to use religious language concerning God and a devil, then the nature of each child was God and religion and morality were the devil. Heaven was living in a world where mankind was free to do as he pleases when he pleases and hell would be a world where man's desires and actions are restrained by anything and anyone.
A.S. Neill describes a truly disturbing world, but he does it with complete conviction and faith that his ideas a right.
Lastly, he says that to attempt to influence children or adults is evil, and then he proceeds to run a school, and write books about influencing children and adults. He is not against influencing children and adults, he is against Christians influencing children and adults.
He is not against evangelization, he is against Christian evangelization.
A.S. Neill and the ideas behind Summerhill is why Christians Should Become Teachers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 202 reviews