It doesn’t raise doubts recognition of a prioritic role of a family in formation of the identity of the child. A great deal depends on a modern family with its tendencies of development and features of family education, its interaction with social institutes of education (kindergarten, school and etc.). Introduction of a new subject «Ethics and psychology of family life», «interaction of kindergarten and family» of pedagogical faculty to the curriculum became far not the casual phenomenon in this regard, though this category as family education is eternal and it is represented as not so simple matter.
Sharp criticism of Ushinsky K.D. worldly conception about upbringing as a simple matter, which doesn’t demand special preparation, hasn’t lost an urgency even today. The Russian classic carried similar views on house upbringing of children to the area of pedagogical ignorance.
Unfortunately, long time was preferred to public education, and the family was considered as an inevitable step, but not main and not solving in formation of the personality. Though in the history of pedagogics there are set of proofs of other points of view: the indisputable priority of family upbringing was mentioned in works of outstanding thinkers of the past.
Two branches of education in a family and public institutions developed in ancient times. They disappear with their roots in history of mankind at the beginning of its existence. There are a lot of common peculiarities in them. It was reflected, first of all, in the statement of different tasks of upbringing. So, problems of upbringing in the conditions of a family and public educational institutions, being concrete – historical, depending on features of human life in society at a certain stage of its development, differ, according to many scientists, a ratio of emotional and rational components: in a family the first prevails, in public upbringing – the second.
Differences are observed in aims, principles, in the content of public and family upbringing. In the first case the purpose is the social order of society for final «model» of the pupil, and in a family there is the specific goal:’ what she wants to grow up the child taking into account his abilities and specific features.
The content of upbringing also differs a little. At school it has scientific and state base, it is formulated for concrete educational institution, differentiated on age categories. In a family, as a rule, it doesn’t exist, and the content of upbringing depends on a number of reasons (valuable orientations, an ethnic origin, unity of a family and etc.).
There is also a difference in methods of upbringing – in choice, in content, therefore, and by efficiency of impact on the child.
According to Kulikova T.A. in family methods of upbringing there is no stamp of premeditation peculiar to educational institutions. But more natural essences, treatment to the child are observed who already has the life experience, interests and habits [1]
In due time Pestalozzi noted that the family teaches life by means of lively, vitally necessary things, instead of the thought-up business, educates by the definite matter, instead of a word.
Each family forms the methods of upbringing which are often optimum, but sometimes wrong.
As it was mentioned above, one can make a conclusion that public upbringing, in comparison with family one, differs much in scientific validity, regularity, purposefulness, and informal character is inherent in family education. It is stood on personal contacts, love, trust, the relative relations, sated with emotionality.
Public education is carried out by society, the state and the organizations. The relations in this system are defined by functions of the teacher, and his relationship with the child is more reserved, than between the child and members of the family in the conditions of house upbringing.
Thus, the modern pedagogical science allocates a number of principial differences between family and public upbringing and calls the reasons of less study of family upbringing:
– many years in the state policy in the country focused mainly on public upbringing that in its turn, depreciated the role of family as social institute;
– lack of an interdisciplinary, comprehensive approach to studying
family functions;
– family education is object of «the increased complexity» for scientific research because life of a separate family represents secret, without the right of intervention of strangers, including researchers.
In our opinion, it is necessary to add to above stated: ignoring national and priority of international , and also the most important task put by the authoritative state on formation of a uniform community – the Soviet people. It led, finally, to withdrawal pains of traditional foundations of upbringing and large-scale leveling of values, to drowsiness primordial, national, traditional that always defined coordinates of ethnos in poliethnic space, making Kazakh-Kazakh, the Yakut-Yakut, Russian-Russian etc.
So for today there was a need to return «to own place» and to make everything in order that family upbringing revives its progressive traditions. In this context solidary interaction of a family and society acts as one of important conditions of the solution of this problem.
Such solidarity will allow to reach harmony and will provide advisable interaction, a mutual supplement of two defining directions of upbringing,coordination of parents and teachers in actions and views on the basis of a community of interests and the purposes.
The history of «family upbringing» grows from roots of national pedagogics. In the research of national pedagogics, professor S.A. Uzakbayeva proves the following definition: «The national pedagogics is a set of knowledge, abilities, skills of the people in the field of upbringing and education on the basis of which certain customs and the traditions are formed promoting to transfer this knowledge, skills from generation to generation in an oral form, through national creativity» [2].
Thus, its way, customs, holidays, ceremonies are focused on an everyday life of the person: to be able to live among people, to glorify oneself and a name of the ancestors with his labour and piety. And in means of national pedagogics (fairy tales, proverbs, games, legends) the main principles and bases of family life are encoded:
«if you want to keep the nation, bring up the daughter if you want to keep a gender, bring up the son»;
«I speak to you, the daughter, but listen you, the daughter-in-law»;
«the root of all problems of society is covered in a children’s cradle»;
«till five years the child hold on position of the khan, till fifteen years – on position of the slave, and after fifteen years – on position of the equal friend»), and etc.
And so in family pedagogics of the people its ideals, the purposes and educational tools are reflected. It allows to form the best lines of national character in children and to prepare them for independent worthy life.
Historical experience of house and family upbringing is assembled in works of country teachers Volkov G.N., Bestuzhev – Lada I.V., Petrova T.N. However, Bestuzhev Lada I.V. warn excessive absolutization and attempts to restore traditional family upbringing as it is more possible in modern conditions. He considers that many values were transformed during centuries ,became another one. Therefore it is necessary to refuse from some negative lines (superstition, prejudices, despotism in the treatment of children and etc.) [1].
The national family pedagogics developed, cooperating with religion. Moreover, both of them ennobled the main universal values in humanbeing, in which a family occupies very important role, and the main categories of ethics: the good, the evil ,happiness, etc. Muslim doctrinal statements appreciate love, fidelity, care of parents, patience, etc.
The family is a small world, small society. The family and school – two public institutes which are at the beginning of our future, but whether school and a family always have mutual understanding, a step and patience to hear and understand each other? [3].
The problem of a family, marriage, the marriage and family relations were also object of close attention of philosophers, scientific researchers in different eras and the people: Platno, in its dialogues «Feast», «State». Aristotle to «Policy», I. Kant considered that «the person is angry by nature, the good is given him as a result of upbringing, and here the important role belongs to school, but nevertheless the family should become primary ethical cell». And also problem of a family and house upbringing drew attention of the progressive Russian public that was reflected in Belinsky’s creativity In.G., Herzen A.I., Pisarev D.P., Dobrolyubov N.A., etc. Authors criticized negative lines of family upbringing, such as suppression of the identity of the child, ignoring of its mental features, corporal punishments and at the same time suggested to improve upbringing of children to a family, to develop their activity and independence.
In the second half of the 19th, beginning of the 20th problems of family upbringing already took an important place in works of known teachers: Ushinsky K.D., Lesgaft P.F., Kaptereva P.F. and etc. Classics of pedagogics considered necessary to study a family as the natural vital environment of the child, house upbringing – a foremost duty of parents, parents should know age and psyhological features of their children, and special preparation is necessary here, first of all, mother’s. The reasons of low level of family upbringing were seen in absence of preparation.
Researchers of the prerevolutionary period in Russia considered a family as a source of formation of national feelings in children, ideals and national values of family upbringing. Kapterev P.F. called such values as religion, work, works of national folklore (the fairy tale, a song). Authors noted that the religion fastens a family spiritually in a single whole, labour unites everyone psychologically, rallying in an everyday life; the folklore going from time immemorial, influences on feelings and the imagination of the child and forms his national individuality.
In modern conditions there were enough works shining different aspects of family upbringing: characteristics of a modern family (Arnautov E.P., Markova T.A.), problems of psychology of a family, tactics of house upbringing (Kovalev St., Petrovsky A.V.), ways of increasing of pedagogical culture of parents.
Modern family upbringing is based on principles of humanistic pedagogics:
– creativity – free development of ability of children;
– humanity – personality recognition as absolute value;
– the democratism based on establishment of the spiritual, equal in rights relation between adults and children;
– civilization, based on understanding of the place «I’m» in the public and state system;
– the retrospektive, allowing to carry out upbringing on traditions of national pedagogics;
– priorities of universal ethical standards and values [5].
Today, when modern families are developed in conditions of qualitative and inconsistent public situation. Process of interaction of a family and school should be directed on active inclusion of parents in teaching and educational process, in extracurricular leisure activities, cooperation with children and teachers.
Efficiency of educational work at school in many respects depends on ability of the teacher to find a common language with parents, relying on their help and support through a number of out-of-class actions: «Creative family», «traditions of a family» and etc.
The family and school put the general main problem – education comprehensively, harmoniously developed person capable to adapt successfully in the difficult social environment and to realize oneself in professional, civil and family aspects.
Thus, interaction of a family and school is an integral part in upbringing of younger generation as the future of our state depends on him. We urge to give particular attention to upbringing of girls, future mothers,as the Kazakh proverb says: «Upbringing of girls – Upbringing of nation».