Listen to thisOne sometimes hears it said that such and such a school for maladjusted children “runs more risks” or in better words allows its pupils more freedom than most conventional schools. It would be a mistake to reply that as potentially explosive material these children must be more generously treated than others. This is only the negative aspect of the truth that too many of us are afraid to allow boarding-school children a degree of freedom which we would think essential for our own children at home, to gain self-respect, learn responsibility and make experiments. As someone said to me the other day : “Most of our institutions seem to be places designed to stop things happening, instead of places where things happen.”
One sees this particularly in the case of freedom of movement. Some schools have an elaborate system of “bounds” intended to isolate themselves from the community outside. Others treat freedom of movement as a privilege which is gradually extended as the child proves himself trustworthy. Not nearly enough places seem to recognise it as a right, which can perhaps be limited, or forfeited for a while, as in any family, but does not have to be earned. Unfortunately the “family” in the residential setting is so large that there are bound to be limitations but these can be kept to a few whose good sense is obvious to the children : no trespassing, do not go out without telling someone, go when there is time to return for the next meal or activity. At times when many of the children may want to go out, and high spirits could lead to mischief, it may be best to make a list in a book, with a child acting as secretary, in which everyone commits himself to what he wants to do, and if he is going out, says where he is going and what time he will come back. When a boy or girl has given an assurance of this kind and knows it has been recorded, it is very seldom broken. Some schools or homes using a similar method not only arrange individual outings, but even send all their children out for a walk in groups of a dozen or so, without any adults, knowing that the youngsters will respond in a much more positive way to the freedom and responsibility than to too much adult guidance.
Restrictions on children's freedom generally come from fear of “what they might get up to” when out alone. But we can help them to plan their going out constructively, and this will be more valuable to them in adult life than a policy of restraint. It is more sensible to let the adults” influence be felt in the formation of groups. Boarding-schools and working boys” hostels should be helping adolescents to know and use what the community offers, but they are often inadequate in this. Most Children's Homes know the benefit to an older child of going out once or twice a week to a Youth Club or a Club specializing in Folk-music, Drama, Judo or some other interest; others will gain more from an Evening Class in a subject of their choice (and even in a country district the choice is wide; we have had boys going in one year to Cookery, Sculpture, Motor maintenance, Shorthand Typing, and academic subjects). Then there are rambling groups, dancing classes, first-aid societies, perhaps even an orchestra. Besides the immediate benefits all these activities will bring, they will also engender a responsible attitude towards conduct outside the setting.
There is a danger in this type of outing. I do not mean the slight risk that this freedom will be abused, which I think is minimised by the type of controls already described, and by effective action when something does go wrong. There is greater danger that the youngster who still needs to come to terms with the demands of the residential setting will use such outings as an “escape”. That is, all through the week he may look forward to his Youth Club or evening class as the place where he has his satisfactions and his friends, and as a consequence he pushes away the claims of the setting as irrelevant to his “real life”. Perhaps it has always been a battle to get him to do his share of work for the rest of the community. So the adults want to point out to him that in one’s home and at work one must be cooperative and helpful in order to be successful, even to be liked. But he replies, to himself if not to them, that he manages to work all right in the class outside, or he manages to make friends in the Club, so he need not bother with this advice. A girl may have problems of adjustment in the Children's Home which need talking out. But because she can thoroughly enjoy herself on her one or two outings a week, she assumes the fault must lie in the place where she is unhappy, and not in herself. I know a rootless boy who had quite a success on an International Holiday Work Camp, where the co-operative atmosphere and his own sense of fun carried him along. But the result of this experience was that he became convinced that he could manage in a working situation, and this belief blocked further insight and nearly led him into great difficulties. One is bound to create similar situations from time to time; but many can be avoided if this risk is recognised. These opportunities should be for children who have already shown what they can do inside the setting and have reached a stage where they need to widen their horizons.
For children who are too young or unstable to take advantage of this kind of outing, something else must be provided. Otherwise they will become jealous of what they see as privileges; and because they cannot clearly see themselves reaching that age and degree of responsibility their own behaviour will deteriorate. Purposeful outings in their case, except in the immediate neighbourhood, will probably require the presence of an adult; but with tact and a clear understanding of his role this adult can give such children the feeling of security they need and still leave them their right to plan, prepare and run their own adventure. The adult should be experienced as a welcome and enriching addition to the group, not a watchdog. This is yet another instance of shared responsibility, which we try to show in action in a later section, describing camping expeditions.
If a consistent policy of this kind is followed, freedom of movement can be seen as a strand in the main educational endeavour of enabling youngsters to be active, valuable and happy in an adult community which does not seem too strange when they enter it. At the moment I want to stress that this effort to link the School or Home with interests outside its doors will bring an added richness to its life, and improve (not detract from) what goes on in its own activities. It is the attempt to isolate the residential setting which creates sterility.
The question of risk is bound to enter the minds of any adults responsible for children. But we cannot and should not attempt to eliminate all risks. Part of the skill of the good residential worker is the calculation of risks, the allowance of room for trial and error, and the provision of opportunity for children to learn by what goes right and what goes wrong, within a setting which does provide basic security.
This feature: Lennhoff, F.G. (1968). Freedom of movement. In Lennhoff, F.G., & Lampen, J.C. Learning to Live: A sketchbook of residential work with children. Shrewsbury: Shotton Hall Publications
