Although I'm usually presented as a free education expert -- or perhaps because of that -- I try to start speeches and conversations about it by saying that the concepts of education and freedom are antagonistic. They want to model boys and girls showing that it's not very compatible with freedom, but that's what all educational models do in the essential and fundamental sense, that the educational name and the free adjective form an impossible couple. By itself and in principle.

The will to sculpt the character of children can be more humble or more evident according to the educational model. They also have much to do with the ideology and personality of the educator, for example, when defining the number or set of psychological characteristics to be removed and inserted into the child. However, I do not believe that depending on these parameters it is necessary to try to overcome the contradiction between education and freedom. Because the problem is not wanting to change a child's quality too much, but wanting to change. Or the desire to promote in children the value of obedience, rather than rebellion, for example, but the consent that we give ourselves to impose certain values and the legitimacy that we recognize.
Raising the issue of education as a matter of measures and quality is very dangerous, as it must always be decided on the basis of arbitrary, subjective and cultural criteria, for example, when interventionism is excessive, what are the psychological qualities that must be enhanced in young people, or what conduct and character of children we must consider healthy or pathological. And because it's very debatable, of course.

For educators and educators who are progressive, in any case, this way of understanding education offers us a way to justify and justify ourselves. Because it offers an easy slice, an interventionist inertia or a manipulative trend that we all have within, which can only be attributed to an education that is too directive. Authoritarian adults and facilitators, to believe that they only exist in reactionary realities. Always far from us, of course. Never in our casa.La
the essence of education has changed too much, as it has done now, because the adult imposes on the child its reality, the ways used for it are the ones that have changed the most. Now it is achieved through invitation and motivation, which in its day was done through authoritarianism and coercion. But fundamentally, the main goal remains the same. Let the spirit of the adult prevail and prevail, that it may be achieved in an easier and more effective way by means of sweeter techniques.

The conflict between education and the freedom of children is based on the unethical principle that establishes education as a basis: that the child must cease to be as it is to adapt to the way another has chosen, designed and implanted. To want to educate is the end of the essence of education, which occupies a privileged place in the list of unrecognized objectives of the hidden curriculum. Well, the problem with education is that you want to educate. Think we need to educate. Act as if we had legitimacy to manipulate children at our convenience. To internalize that education is a totally natural and neutral action.

In order to be compatible with the dignity of children, the adult must uproot from his particular education those old and weeds that prevent the flourishing of freedom. Let's see.