הרב
פרופ' נריה גוטל
תחומין כו תשס"ו
עמו' 252-269
ז .סיכום :חרב פיפיות בידי המורה
החכם שעיניו בראשו חייב להכיר את מכלול המקורות, הן אלה
שמדגישים את חובת כיבוד הרב את תלמידיו
והן את אלה שמעניקים לגיטימציה לזרזים שונים, כולל להכלמה, מאידך גיסא, הוא חייב שבעתיים להכיר את
נפש תלמידיו ,שכן חרב פיפיות מסורה בפיו
ובלשונו, להשפיל או לרומם, יש להניח שבדורנו, בסתמא, אהבה ואחווה ושלום ורעות הם שיהיו הדרך הנכונה והמועילה, אם
כי ייתכנו זעיר פה זעיר שם תלמידים, שלהם
תהא נאה גם דרך ההכלמה, יהאפקטיביות' היא אמת-הבוחן 32 הראשית, 'מדד' זה, אסור לו
שייתן חלילה הכשר לכל מה שהמורה הסובייקטיבי רואה כאפקטיבי, המבחן צריך לשלב מימד אובייקטיבי של
נוהגים חברתיים-תרבותיים הרווחים אותה שעה
באותו מקום, עם מימד סובייקטיבי של עולם תלמיד זה שלנגד עינינו, 'עולם ציפיות' התלמיד, שהוא חלק בלתי
נפרד מן העולם החברתי-תרבותי הרווח, הוא
גורם כבד-משקל, אפילו מכריע, מאחר וככל הנראה, בעידן הנוכחי אמצעי זה פוחת והולך מאפקטיביותו, לכן 'למיחש מיבעי',
ומשקל האיסור והשלילה גובר על פי רוב,
והוא המכריע.
LONG POST ALERT! Part 1:
ReplyDeleteI suspect that the Rabbi Dr. Gutel(?) perhaps allowed his ingrained biases to skew his judgment. His "facts" may simply be opinions based on "cultural norms" which are assumed to be facts. The downside of following such advice is that the very children that he wants to help end up much worse off, since they never learn such crucial life-lessons like mastery, resilience, self-efficacy and responsibility. Additionally, I suspect that the emphasis on "love" is making us neglect the intricate and highly skilled work of teaching effectively.
That's right, too much love can be detrimental to your child's health. I'm basing my statement on several factors: A: That's what many educational experts believe. B: That's what they believe in ... France! And lest I forget, C: C. That's also what our Shulchan Aruch says. The end result should be: Once again, there's absolutely no reason to believe that our Shulchan Aruch is outdated...
Let me explain:
A. According to Professor Bandura's very effective theory of "self-efficacy", LASTING feelings of accomplishment don't flow from our children being constantly coddled, but rather from their being faced to face moderately challenging tasks that are slightly above current performance levels and require moderate effort, thereby developing willingness to persist and obtain meaningful achievement. They grow by being taught specific learning strategies that provide a logical sequence of steps for attacking difficult tasks, thereby making task manageable, giving struggling students a starting point & developing optimism about ability to succeed.
I think that an excellent article clearly explaining many of the nuts & bolts of self-efficacy is "Improving Self-Efficacy and Motivation - What To Do , What To Say" by Howard Margolis and Patrick P. McCabe. From: Intervention In School & Clinic, Vol. 41, No. 4, March 2006 (can be downloaded from: http://69.195.124.74/~howardm2/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Confidence-Self-efficacy-WhatToDoSay.pdf)
Moderately challenging tasks are often temporarily painful, but satisfying long-term. I wonder if the Professor include that temporary pain into his equation of measuring effectiveness.........
Long Post Alert Part 2:
ReplyDeleteB. According to Professor Wedge's blog post on psychologytoday.com, the French seem to have different ideas about child-rearing, based on Pamela Druckerman's book "Bringing up Bébé". Here's what she writes:
"There are the vastly different philosophies of child-rearing in the United States and France. These divergent philosophies could account for why French children are generally better-behaved than their American counterparts. Pamela Druckerman highlights the divergent parenting styles in her recent book, Bringing up Bébé...
"From the time their children are born, French parents provide them with a firm cadre—the word means "frame" or "structure." Children are not allowed, for example, to snack whenever they want. Mealtimes are at four specific times of the day. French children learn to wait patiently for meals, rather than eating snack foods whenever they feel like it. French babies, too, are expected to conform to limits set by parents and not by their crying selves. French parents let their babies "cry it out" if they are not sleeping through the night at the age of four months.
"French parents, Druckerman observes, love their children just as much as American parents. They give them piano lessons, take them to sports practice, and encourage them to make the most of their talents. But French parents have a different philosophy of discipline. Consistently enforced limits, in the French view, make children feel safe and secure. Clear limits, they believe, actually make a child feel happier and safer—something that is congruent with my own experience as both a therapist and a parent. Finally, French parents believe that hearing the word "no" rescues children from the "tyranny of their own desires." And spanking, when used judiciously, is not considered child abuse in France....
"The children grow up in families in which the rules are well-understood, and a clear family hierarchy is firmly in place. In French families, as Druckerman describes them, parents are firmly in charge of their kids—instead of the American family style, in which the situation is all too often vice versa.
(from: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/suffer-the-children/201203/why-french-kids-dont-have-adhd?tr=MostViewed)
Long Post Alert! Part 3:
ReplyDeleteC. I'm ashamed to post this last, when it should be first, but based on current day norms I unfortunately felt that I have no choice in the matter...
Here's what it says in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Siman 246 ס"י-סי"א says:
י. הרב שלימד ולא הבינו התלמידים לא יכעוס עליהם אלא שונה וחוזר הדבר כמה פעמים עד שיבינו עומק ההלכה ולא יאמר התלמיד הבנתי והוא לא הבין אלא שואל וחוזר ושואל כמה פעמים ואם יכעוס עליו רבו יאמר לו רבי תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך ודעתי קצרה: יא. ולא יהא התלמיד בוש מחבירו שלמד בפעם ראשונה או שניה והוא לא למד אפי' אחר כמה פעמים שאם נתבייש מדבר זה נמצא נכנס ויוצא לבית המדרש והוא לא למד כלום ועל כן אמרו לא הביישן למד ולא הקפדן מלמד בד"א שלא הבינו התלמידים הדבר מפני עמקו או מפני דעתן שהיא קצרה אבל אם ניכר לרב שהם מתרשלים בדברי תורה ומתרפים עליהם ולפיכך לא הבינו חייב לכעוס עליהם ולהכלימם בדברים כדי לחדדן ועל זה אמרו זרוק מרה בתלמידים לפיכך אין ראוי לרב לנהוג קלות ראש בפני התלמידים ולא לשחוק בפניהם ולא לאכול ולשתות עמהם כדי שתהא אימתו מוטלת עליהם וילמדו ממנו מהרה:
This post is too long as is, but I think people misconstrue Chazal and the Shulchan Aruch. A. Discipline is warranted only if: אבל אם ניכר לרב שהם מתרשלים בדברי תורה ומתרפים עליהם. Therefore, if we clarify the circumstances for what reason the child is being disciplined. The key question should be, that where he's asked to DO something - and he could do that something SUCCESFULLY, and only his unwillingness is holding him back - discipline IS warranted. B. We grown ups need to teach our children how to CLEARLY understand what they're learning, thus giving them self-efficacy. We do this by teaching clear learning strategies and by working incrementally and not moving on to advanced stages before prior stages are mastered. This can be understood from (among other places) עירובין נד: where Rashi explained what the Gemara says "חייב להראות לו פנים", as meaning:
להראות לו פנים. ללמדו לתת טעם בדבריו בכל אשר יוכל ולא יאמר כך שמעתי הבן אתה הטעם מעצמך ...אשר תשים לפניהם. ... צריך אתה לסדר ולשום לפניהם טעם המיישב תלמודם:
In summation, we need to offer moderately challenging tasks, but we also need to teach specific learning strategies to be able to fulfill those tasks successfully. We can and should discipline those children that show a lack of interest in trying.
Truth be told - We're obligated neither to the American way, nor the French way. For the benefit of our children, we should stick to the Shulchan Aruch's way.