Janusz Korczak: Educating for Justice [1 ed.] 9783030592493, 9783030592509

Table of contents :
Preface, Acknowledgements and Dedication
Acknowledgements
Dedication
Introduction
How to love a child
Analogies
The Chapters
References
Contents
About the Author
1 The Ethos: Living with and for Children
1.1 1878: From Henryk to Janusz
1.2 1904: What It Means to Be an Educator
1.3 1912: Living Together
1.4 1942: (To) the Bitter End—And Beyond
1.5 Conclusion
References
2 The Basis: Respect for the Child
2.1 ‘A Child’s Right to Respect’
2.2 Three Basic Children’s Rights
2.3 Conclusion
References
3 The Means: Participative Education
3.1 The Term ‘Participation’
3.2 From Principles to Action
3.2.1 The Notice Board
3.2.2 The Book-Shelf
3.2.3 The Shop and the Broom Stand
3.2.4 Parliament
3.2.5 Little Review
3.2.6 The School
3.2.7 Tutorship
3.2.8 Meetings
3.3 Participation—at All Costs?
3.4 Conclusion
References
4 The Core: Doing Justice
4.1 Striving for Justice
4.2 The Book of Law
4.3 The ‘Republican’ in Korczak
4.4 Conclusion
References
5 Today: Living Together in a ‘Republican’ Fashion
5.1 A Humanistic, Universal Educator
5.2 The Reconstruction of Institutions
5.3 Conclusion
References
6 Afterword: Educating for Justice
References
Appendix

Citation preview

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN EDUC ATION KE Y THINKERS IN EDUCATION

Joop W. A. Berding

Janusz Korczak Educating for Justice 123

SpringerBriefs in Education Key Thinkers in Education

Series Editors Paul Gibbs, Middlesex University, London, UK Jayne Osgood, Middlesex University, London, UK Labby Ramrathan, School of Education, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa

This briefs series publishes compact (50 to 125 pages) refereed monographs under the editorial supervision of the Advisory Editor, Professor Paul Gibbs, Middlesex University, London, UK; Jayne Osgood, Middlesex University, London, UK; and Labby Ramrathan, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa. Each volume in the series provides a concise introduction to the life and work of a key thinker in education and allows readers to get acquainted with their major contributions to educational theory and/or practice in a fast and easy way. Both solicited and unsolicited manuscripts are considered for publication in the SpringerBriefs on Key Thinkers in Education series. Book proposals for this series may be submitted to the Executive Editor: Nick Melchior E-mail: [email protected]

More information about this subseries at http://www.springer.com/series/10197

Joop W. A. Berding

Janusz Korczak Educating for Justice

Joop W. A. Berding The Hague, the Netherlands

ISSN 2211-1921 ISSN 2211-193X (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Education ISSN 2211-937X ISSN 2211-9388 (electronic) SpringerBriefs on Key Thinkers in Education ISBN 978-3-030-59249-3 ISBN 978-3-030-59250-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59250-9 © The Author(s) 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Thanks to theory—I know; as a result of practice—I feel. Janusz Korczak Children are not future human beings, they are already human beings. Yes, they are human beings, not dolls; we speak to their reason and they will answer; we speak to their heart and they will feel us. Janusz Korczak

For Wouter Pols and Inge van Rijn

Preface, Acknowledgements and Dedication

In the mid-80s, I encountered the name ‘Janusz Korczak’ for the first time. And, like others, I wondered: ‘Janusz who?’ This wonder was the beginning of a search into the life and works of this strange and captivating man, that goes on until today, and continues to bring me new insights and questions—endless questions, and some answers too. The questions that Korczak raises are primarily about children and their place in society, which makes him a social pedagogue and educator par excellence. It is to him that we owe the pedagogical specification of such concepts as ‘participation’, ‘respect’, ‘justice’, and children’s rights that are part and parcel of our language of pedagogy today. He was not only a forerunner, and ahead of his time, but also a true experimenter and innovator, who always sought new ways to do justice to children. During a time—the last quarter of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth—when adults were scarcely provided with political and social rights, this Polish-Jewish doctor, educator and prolific writer had the audacity to stand up for children and ask for, no: claim their rights. As a children’s advocate, he truly was a revolutionary and a radical. He was no philosopher or theorist of education, though, as I said, he probably single-handedly invented some of the most important ideas and ideals of today’s education. He was a storyteller, a poet, a man of music and of plays, and some of the best children’s books of the twentieth century came from his imagination, and through his pen on paper. He was a person for whom lived experience was the alpha and omega of education. Children were his example for this experience, since they are ‘feelers’, while adults are ‘thinkers’. His published works in Polish comprise novels, poems, essays, diaries, prayers, plays, short notes and letters.1 The titles of his major works unveil a programme: How to love a child (without a question mark!) from 1919 to 1920, and ‘A child’s right to respect’ from 1929, an essay about the ‘status’ of children in society that is as topical today as in the time it was written. From his novels I’d like to mention When I am little again

1 Still

not everything is translated. In German there are Sämmtliche Werke (Collected Works, 17 volumes), in Hebrew a selection of nine volumes; a smaller selection in English, and a still smaller choice in other languages. ix

x

Preface, Acknowledgements and Dedication

(from 1925) and the two novels for children about the Child-King Matt (both from 1923). But this short list could easily be extended with dozens of other works.2 In all of these, the main idea or thread is formed by questions such as: What, or rather: who is the child? What makes her/him human? What is humanity? What makes a society worthy of this heading: a ‘human society’? Korczak thus combines in an illuminating way different levels of experience: the individual level, the level of the community and of the society as a whole, and even of humankind as a universal phenomenon. This also makes clear that Korczak is not the child-centred pedagogue that is sometimes made of him, far from it, I would say. The fact that he has written much about individual children, and indeed there are dozens, if not hundreds of these portraits in his works, should not distract from the fact that he always writes about children in context. And what counts in social contexts is: justice. Korczak believed that the world could be a better place. One can only look with admiration at the way he tried to convey, and ‘live’ this ideal in the most horrific of times. He was a political pedagogue (if one is willing to interpret the term ‘political’ in a specific sense, which I will defend in this book), but he never tried to reach his political goals at the expense of the children. He tried to strengthen their resilience, as we would now call it, to cope with a world on fire. It is a great challenge to live together with others whom you have not chosen yourself, as was the case in the orphanage Dom Sierot in Warsaw of which Korczak was the director for 30 years (1912–1942). For educators it is a great challenge not to resort to authoritarian ways of education and upbringing, to ‘rule’ all those ‘unruly’ boys and girls, and this is precisely why Korczak experimented with democratic, and as I will explain, ‘republican’ ways of living and working with children. And adults, I might add. For us, adults, parents, educators, teachers, group leaders and tutors, the plurality of the world, as Hannah Arendt called it, is both a challenge and a commitment. Korczak knew all about plurality: he was up to his neck in it, every day. Korczak was a man, and a human. He therefore had his faults. For instance, although on first sight it seems that he was the ideal, ever-patient, ever-compassionate educator we all strive to be (or do we?), he had his moments of impatience, of resistance against children’s wishes and demands; he suffered from moods of gloom and even depression. His worldview was not just optimistic; he knew, he wrote, that in every human there sits, waiting for its release, the homo rapax, the rapacious one, who does not hesitate to make his fellow-humans suffer or even die. History, unfortunately, is at Korczak’s side here. Also, in our own days it is evident that layers of culture, and cultivation, are only thin, and only ‘this’ has to happen to be broken through, as the multitude of child-abuse cases and the child-unfriendliness of the world at large prove every day. Although it would be easy to write a book on Korczak as a happy man who always saw the sunny side of things, this would be unfair. His ‘darker’ sides must be acknowledged, not only to do justice to him but also because they are our own darker sides (the darkness of the soul, Arendt calls it somewhere). 2 Janusz Korczak. A bibliography 1939–2012 (Eds. Medeveda-Nathoo and Sanaeva, 2012) contains over 350 entries of works in English by and about Korczak.

Preface, Acknowledgements and Dedication

xi

This book is in some part based upon the work I have written and published earlier, mostly in Dutch, and some in English. I have reworked and reorganized all previous texts, to fit the form of this short book, and added much new material. In the last few years there has been an increase in publications on Korczak in the English language, and also there are new translations of some of his major works. As far as possible, I refer to these works. If Korczak is new to you, then I hope you will enjoy this book as an introduction. If you are familiar with him, I hope this book will nevertheless shed some new light on him. And if you are an expert, I hope you will examine my work critically.

Acknowledgements Since the 1990s, I am actively engaged in the national and international Korczak world. As a Board member of the Dutch Janusz Korczak Association for almost 18 years, until May 2014, I have come into contact with many fellow countrymen and women, and children, whose life and work in education, child care and welfare is inspired by Korczak. Especially I want to thank Theo Cappon, Arie de Bruin and René Görtzen for our many stimulating conversations, and the activities we undertook together. Korczak also has a definite international, if not cosmopolitan meaning. He ‘took’ me, so to speak, to Russia, Poland, the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, Israel and Japan. I was able to see and hear about the work done there. In most cases I was invited to give a lecture or do a workshop, which was most gratifying. In particular, I want to thank, in no specific order: Tatyana TsyrlinaSpady, Batia Gilad, Avi Tsur, Irit Wyrobnik, Irina Demakova, Rosa Valeeva, Marek Michalak, Kristin Poppo, Mark Bernheim, Malgorzata Kmita, Kelvin Ravenscroft, Jadwiga Bi´nczycka, Basia Vucic and Marc Silverman for our interesting talks and exchanges. I also want to thank the editors of Springer, and the reviewers for their illuminating comments on the manuscript of this book.

Dedication This book is dedicated to my dear friends Wouter Pols and Inge van Rijn. Wouter and I met in 2000, shortly after he’d read my dissertation on Dewey and reviewed it favourably, and a friendship developed that is both intellectual and spiritual. When Wouter asked me to join him in writing a new textbook on education for the teacher education institutes in our country I agreed, and this became the widely used Schoolpedagogiek. He introduced me to the work of Hannah Arendt, which has become very important to me, and on which (he and) I have published extensively. For Wouter, Korczak’s view became the sort of pedagogy we desperately need as a

xii

Preface, Acknowledgements and Dedication

way of looking at (and doing) education, a field that is so dominated by the reductionist social sciences. With Inge, whom I met around the same time as Wouter, I did a lot of practical work, especially in day care centres, where Korczak’s ideas became a guide for many workers. We published a booklet about our courses, that is still used, in Dutch, English, German and French editions. Inge really is the Dutch expert where the application of Korczak’s ideas to day care is concerned. Her own publications are witness to this. So I am very happy to dedicate this one to both Wouter and Inge. The Hague, the Netherlands August 2020

Joop W. A. Berding Independent Scholar

Introduction

How to love a child His greatest writing, and indeed considered as his magnum opus, How to love a child dates from a century ago, 1919–1920. It consists of four parts: The child in the family; the orphanage; the summer camps; and the orphan’s home.3 It is one of the most original contributions to pedagogy, child psychology, and the science of children’s health of the twentieth century. Although it offers anything but theory in the strict sense, it does offer important insights into what and who children are; it gives impressions of their hearts and their souls: their longings and dreams and a clear picture of what it takes to be(come) an educator. Korczak did not write in a scientific fashion about these subjects, take this example: ‘All tears are salty. One who understands this, can become an educator; one who doesn’t cannot’ (Korczak 1979, 119; transl. by me, JWAB). Elsewhere he writes, ‘Be yourself, seek your own path. Know yourself before wanting to know children’ (Korczak 2018a, 107). As it will become clear, Korczak was trained as a physician, and he specialized in child health care. This means that he had a thoroughly scientific and empirical outlook. This can be seen in many places in his works, when he describes how he monitors children’s health (weight, height, lung capacity, diseases, etc.), and he deliberates what the best practice or intervention (or non-intervention) would be. But other than pedagogues for whom scientific ‘evidence’ is the alpha and omega of their actions, Korczak has severe reservations: he takes nothing for granted. Here are some quotations that show this. How, when, how many—why? I sense a great many questions awaiting answers, doubts seeking explanations. And I respond: ‘I don’t know’ (Korczak 2018a, 2). I do not know, and cannot, how unfamiliar parents under unfamiliar circumstance can raise a child with whom I am also unfamiliar—can, I say, and not wish to, nor should (Korczak 2018a, 2; emph in or.).

3 It should be noted that the second and fourth parts deal with the same subject: life in the orphanage

Dom Sierot, then on Krochmalna [Street] 92 in Warsaw. xiii

xiv

Introduction We have tens of thousands of measurements, some not entirely consistent charts of average growth, we know nothing about what purpose the observed accelerations, delays, and deviations in growth serve (Korczak 2018a, 47–48). We do not know the child—worse, we know her through our prejudices (Korczak 2018a, 155).

Korczak’s pedagogical ‘mission’ is to do away with every pedagogical (pre)judgment that does not rest upon authentic observation and reflection on the part of the educator. Strahlberg (2012, 20) states. ‘Since he [Korczak] was a doctor by profession, he wanted to diagnose. The difference between him and today’s doctors or educators is the amount of time Korczak spent before he treated. Observe, listen, dialogue, treat … are the steps he used in his practice’. By laying so much stress on the educator-as-researcher, Korczak seems to manifest himself as a naïve empiricist, but this is far beside the point (Efrat Efron 2018, 382). Korczak is the first to acknowledge that it is hardly possible to derive any prescription for action from allegedly ‘hard’ empirical facts. Despite all scientific knowledge and accumulated insights, children, every child, remain a mystery. He writes: Thanks to medicine I learned to link—arduously—scattered details and contradictory symptoms into the logical picture of a diagnosis. And enriched by an experienced awareness of the might of nature’s laws and the genius of scientific human thought I stand before the unknown—the child (Korczak 2018a, 153).

In other respects too, Korczak deviated and still deviates from mainstream pedagogy. He does not develop (a) theory, and is hardly interested in it. Korczak gives us, his readers, access to the world of children, through his stories, his ‘narratives’. Most of what he has written, consists of stories: all his novels, and even his essays, his prayers, and his ghetto diary, are made up of little stories.4 This makes him part of a qualitative tradition in the human sciences, and especially in pedagogics, that does not seek the truth in randomly controlled test trials, but in what the DutchCanadian pedagogue Max van Manen so eloquently calls ‘lived experience’ (Van Manen 2015). Lived experience is what one experiences, or goes through, and which incites joy, or pain or frustration, and calls for thinking and reflexion (and perhaps for a judgment). One’s experiences, as a human, as an educator, as …, get a place in stories, that stay as close as possible to what ‘really’ happened. No reductions, no cramping into a (theoretical) framework, but written from an open and honest and, in the case of Korczak, also self-critical stance towards one’s own actions, feelings, emotions, in short: experiences. It will become clear that where Korczak’s stories are concerned, no detail was too small to be insignificant. In other words: everything counted, like, say, in the case of a child who collects anything in his trouser-pockets (Korczak 2018a, 199).

4 Of

Alone with God. Prayers of those who don’t pray (from 1922) there is still no comprehensive English translation. Five prayers were published in Dialogue and Universalism, XI, no. 9-10, 2001, 68-73, a few others in The Newsletter of the Janusz Korczak Association of Canada. See the Appendix for ‘the prayer of an educator’.

Introduction

xv

Analogies Korczak was of course not the only one who tried to redevelop the institutions for the young, and in close cooperation with them. The nineteenth century and especially the second half of it, saw the rise of educational and youth movements in many countries in Europe. Experimental schools were initiated, new methods were tried out and some Western European pedagogues such as Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746–1827) and Friedrich Froebel (1782–1852), and in the United States John Dewey (1859–1952) rose to fame, and founded schools for the new pedagogy. The new outlook gave much attention to the child’s own initiative, and to spiritual and bodily development, and child’s play first became an important activity, and then a distinct field of study. There are probably both differences and analogies between Korczak and other towering figures of educational renewal.5 He has been called the Polish Pestalozzi, which, although not completely accurate, is understandable because there are similarities between the latter’s activity-principles and Korczak’s ideas of the active participation of children. According to Lifton (2005, 36) Korczak ‘considered Pestalozzi one of the greatest scientists of the nineteenth century’. And indeed, Korczak writes favourably about the Swiss pedagogue: his ‘letters about his time in Stanz are the most beautiful work of a caregiver-practitioner’ (Korczak 2018a, 121).6 And like Froebel, Korczak stresses the importance of play, and music, stories and gatherings for children’s wellbeing and development.7 Between Korczak and Dewey, lastly, there are many similarities with regard to their child-views, and their longing and practical actions to reform educational institutions along democratic, participative lines (Berding 2020; Kirchner 2020). Froebel, Dewey and Korczak share a fascination for children’s play. It is interesting that they advocated play in three different educational settings, the kindergarten, primary school and the orphanage, respectively. Important differences in their conceptualization of play, however, must not be neglected. In Froebel’s ‘idealistic’ view play was a means for the child to attain a symbolic sense of the universe, nature and God. For Dewey it was a ‘realistic’ way to explore the world, without (economic) pressure. For Korczak play is a ‘space’ where children are to a certain extent independent from adults (Korczak 2018a, 61). For Korczak there was an intrinsic relationship between education, children’s rights, participation, the strife for justice, and life in general.8 This book aims to show what 5 See

Silverman (2017) for a select overview of both gentile and Jewish influences on Korczak. conspicuous difference between the two is that Pestalozzi failed as a practical educator, also in his own estimation, while Korczak was successful, although perhaps not by his own standards. 7 There is a well-known picture of Korczak, taken in 1923 in front of Dom Sierot, where he plays a little trumpet, among other players of musical instruments. On a serious note, it is in a way shocking but also consoling that a few days before the orphanage was deported to the trains, Korczak had the children rehearse and actually perform Tagore’s play The post office, which is a tale about death and loss, and acceptance. See Doron 2018; Felix 2018. 8 To be sure, there are certainly educators who had and have a comparable commitment. For a comparison of Korczak and thinkers-activists such as Neill, Weineken, and Makarenko see Cohen 1994, 297-312. 6A

xvi

Introduction

this relationship looked like, what it meant for Korczak, and for the children and what we may learn from it for our own practices today.

The Chapters This book is divided into six chapters. Chapter 1 is biographical in nature, and describes the life and works of Korczak in four phases: first, his youth and becoming Janusz; the second and crucial phase when he joined the summer camps for deprived children as a group leader, and learned what it means to be an educator; the third phase, beginning in 1912, with the commencement of his works as director and doctor in the orphan’s home, ends in August 1942 when he, the orphans and his co-workers were marched off to the trains, to be gassed in Treblinka. In the sixties, a new phase began when his work was rediscovered, and people all over the world heard his name for the first time. Chapters 2 through 4 contain the bulk of the presentation of his principles-putinto-action, starting in Chap. 2 with ‘respect’, the basis as it were; then in Chap. 3 the means, children’s participation, to culminate in Chap. 4 in the ideals and workings of and for justice: Korczak’s unique experiment of the children’s court. Throughout these chapters, works by Korczak and others are used as (primary and secondary) sources, to present or to illuminate his ideas. In Chap. 5 the question of the topicality of these ideas, and practices will be discussed. What are we to think about children’s courts, are such practices still relevant, and more importantly, what is the value of the underlying idea of doing justice in educational settings? A short Chap. 6 (Afterword) and an Appendix conclude this book.

References Berding, J. (2020). Janusz Korczak and John Dewey on re-instituting education. In T. TsyrlinaSpady & P. Renn (Eds.), Nurture, care, respect, and trust: Transformative pedagogy inspired by Janusz Korczak, 192–202 (E-Book). Gorham, ME: Myers Education Press. Cohen, A. (1994). The gate of light. Janusz Korczak, the educator and writer who overcame the Holocaust. London and Toronto: Associated University Presses. Doron, S. (2018). Korczak and Tagore at the history point: The pedagogy of The post office. In M. Michalak (Ed.), The rights of the child yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Korczak perspective. Part II, 474–529. Warsaw: Office of the Ombudsman for Children. Efrat Efron, S. (2018). Janusz Korczak: The legacy of a practitioner-researcher. In M. Michalak (Ed.), The rights of the child yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Korczak perspective. Part I, 370–405. Warsaw: Office of the Ombudsman for Children. Felix, M. (2018). Korczak and Tagore or The king’s letter. In M. Michalak (Ed.), The rights of the child yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Korczak perspective. Part II, 450–473. Warsaw: Office of the Ombudsman for Children.

Introduction

xvii

Kirchner, M. (2020). John Dewey und Janusz Korczak: Routine oder Erfahrung? [John Dewey and Janusz Korczak: routines or experience?]. https://www.korczak-forum.de/wp-content/uploads/ 2020/03/Pa%CC%88dagogische-Rundschau_Dewey_Korczak.pdf. Retrieved August 6, 2020. Korczak, J. (1979). Wer kann Erzieher werden? [Who can become an educator?] in Von Kindern und anderen Vorbildern [Of children and other examples], 118–119. Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn. Korczak, J. (2018a). In A. M. Czernow (Ed.), How to love a child and other selected works (Vol. 1). London and Chicago, IL: Vallentine Mitchell. Korczak, J. (2018b). In A. M. Czernow (Ed.), How to love a child and other selected works (Vol. 2). London and Chicago, IL: Vallentine Mitchell. Lifton, B. J. (2005). The king of children. The life and death of Janusz Korczak. S.l.: American Academy of Pediatrics. Silverman, M. (2017). A pedagogy of humanist moral education. The educational thought of Janusz Korczak. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Strahlberg, M. (2012). Theory and methods of J. Korczak in the pedagogical practices today. In 2012 Janusz Korczak Year. An international perspective on children’s rights and pedagogy, P. Jaros (Ed.), 19–23. Warsaw: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland. Van Manen, M. (2015). Pedagogical tact. Knowing what to do when you don’t know what to do. Walnut Creek CA: Left Coast Press.

Contents

1 The Ethos: Living with and for Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 1878: From Henryk to Janusz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 1904: What It Means to Be an Educator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 1912: Living Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.4 1942: (To) the Bitter End—And Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2 The Basis: Respect for the Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 ‘A Child’s Right to Respect’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Three Basic Children’s Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 15 17 20 21

3 The Means: Participative Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 The Term ‘Participation’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 From Principles to Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 The Notice Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 The Book-Shelf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 The Shop and the Broom Stand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4 Parliament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.5 Little Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.6 The School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.7 Tutorship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.8 Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Participation—at All Costs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23 23 24 25 26 27 27 28 29 32 32 33 35 36

4 The Core: Doing Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Striving for Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 The Book of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 The ‘Republican’ in Korczak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39 39 40 42 xix

xx

Contents

4.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 5 Today: Living Together in a ‘Republican’ Fashion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 A Humanistic, Universal Educator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 The Reconstruction of Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45 45 46 47 48

6 Afterword: Educating for Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

About the Author

Joop W. A. Berding was born in 1954, in The Hague, the Netherlands. He started his career as a teacher in primary schools. Meanwhile, he trained as an advanced educationalist and philosopher of education (B.A., M.A., Ph.D.). During the second part of his career he worked as a civil servant for youth policy and welfare on both the municipal and state level, as an educational councillor, and, before retiring, 11 years as an assistant professor, manager and researcher of education and youth at the Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences (teacher education and social studies, B.A.s and M.A.s). From 1990 onwards Berding has published extensively, mostly in Dutch but also in other languages (English, German) on topics educational, and on qualitative research methodology. In his writings he seeks to link insights from education, philosophy and ethics with everyday practice in families, schools, day care and youth work. Three major sources of inspiration are the works of Janusz Korczak, John Dewey and Hannah Arendt, on whom he has published a number of books and many (reviewed) articles and book-chapters, and gave many lectures, in different parts of the world. His latest book (November 2019, in Dutch) is on patience and impatience in upbringing and education. A new book on Arendt is in preparation. From 1996 to 2014 Joop Berding was a member of the Board of the Janusz Korczak Association in the Netherlands, and from 2011 to 2013 Vice-presidentelect of the International Korczak Association. He is still active in the international Korczak world. A comprehensive list of Joop Berding’s publications may be found on his website www.joopberding.nl (with an overview of publications in English).

xxi

Chapter 1

The Ethos: Living with and for Children

1.1 1878: From Henryk to Janusz I am not ambitious. I have been asked to write my childhood memories – and refused (Korczak 1967, liv).1

On July 22, 1878 or 1879,2 Janusz Korczak was born as Henryk Goldszmit into a Jewish family in Warsaw.3 His father Jozef Goldszmit was a lawyer and the family was doing well. That changed when Henryk was 17 or 18 years old. His father died, probably as a result of alcohol abuse. Also, ‘insanity’ seems to have played its part, which led the son not to want to become a father himself. Henryk was not physically strong: he played a lot indoors, in the drawing room, under the care of women, his mother and grandmother.4 He didn’t like going to school, he thought it was an ‘artificial life’ (Korczak 1979, 51). The gymnasium also weighed heavily on him, and he only blossomed during his studies at university. He took the name ‘Janusz Korczak’ in a writing competition in 1898, and won a prize for a short story. Poland was not an independent state at the time5 and there was much hidden social and political tension. Korczak became a member of the so-called ‘flying university’, an alternative to the official courses that came together as a kind of flash mob. Within 1 The

quotations that head each section in this chapter are taken from Korczak’s short note ‘Application’ from February 9, 1942, of which the first sentence goes: ‘Kind friends have asked me to write my last will’ (Korczak 1967, li). 2 There is uncertainty about the exact year, due to negligence on the father’s part. The birth certificate has been lost. Most scholars use 1878, and so do I. 3 Korczak’s father, Jozef, and his uncle, Jakub, belonged to what Lifton calls ‘the narrow stratum of society made up of Polish and Jewish liberal intelligentsia’ (Lifton 2005, 23). Silverman (2017, 23–45) gives a picture of both Korczak’s ‘Polishness’ and ‘Jewishness’. 4 Korczak’s mother died in 1920. He was very much saddened by this loss, and wrote 19 ‘prayers’, or perhaps better: conversations with God. One of them, the prayer of an educator, is in the Appendix of this book. 5 Poland was part of the Russian (Tsarist) Empire, and only became an independent state in 1918. © The Author(s) 2020 J. W. A. Berding, Janusz Korczak, SpringerBriefs on Key Thinkers in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59250-9_1

1

2

1 The Ethos: Living with and for Children

the political spectrum of those days, Korczak was to be found on the left side: in him socialism and patriotism were united.6 Already in 1901 his first novel, Children of the Street, was published, which was set in the slums of Warsaw. More introspective was The Child of the Drawing Room, from 1906, in part an autobiographical work in which Korczak’s sensitivity to the disadvantaged position of children is already visible. In the years that followed, more works appeared, including plays with a clearly socially critical approach. After obtaining his doctor’s degree in 1904, Korczak went to work in a Jewish children’s hospital. Less than a year later, however, he had to stand up for conscription, and worked as a physician during the Russo-Japanese War. Back as a citizen, he started a private practice and made a name for himself as a general practitioner. He picked up the thread of his work for children again by specializing in paediatrics. He studied in London and Berlin and became even more sensitive to the relationship between health and society (Lifton 2005, 54–55). In 1904, Korczak was only modestly equipped— paediatrics, a socially critical stance and a literary talent—but then a decisive, and in fact life changing moment came for him, still as a student: he went as a leader with a group of children to a summer camp.

1.2 1904: What It Means to Be an Educator As an organizer – I cannot play the big boss (Korczak 1967, liv).

In How to love a child, first published in 1919, Korczak writes, almost 15 years after he first went to the summer camps as a group educator: I owe a great deal to the summer camp. Here it was that I first met with a flock of children and got to know the ABCs of practical childrearing in independent work (Korczak 2018a, 160).

Between 1904 and 1908, Korczak participated three times in such a summer camp. In particular, the description of the first summer camp will continue to be documented as an important pedagogical writing, due to the varying, often unsuccessful attempts of a novice educator to get a grip on what he is actually doing.7 Korczak’s confusion in a world that he knew little about or did not understand, and to which he had no access, left him bewildered. This part of How to love a child is especially exceptional because on the one hand it is a ‘confessional’: Korczak examines himself, his own actions and motives critically, and honestly admits his failure, and at the same time it is also a report about the ‘Bildung’ of a young and inexperienced educator. 6 Already

in 1899, in a short essay, Korczak (2018b, 95–98) shows his interest in social questions. He devotes attention to Christ’s saying ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’, and he applies this to three oppressed groups in society: the poor, women and children. For an illuminating commentary on Korczak’s social pedagogical view in this essay, see Wyrobnik (2020). 7 Smolinska-Theiss (2018, 26) makes an interesting and important remark about (Korczak’s) being a ‘novice’, when she says that everyone already has some experience related to upbringing; and indeed, we’ve all been children.

1.2 1904: What It Means to Be an Educator

3

In its rich detail, it is a self-critical account of a very personal quest to find out what it means to be an educator (Berding 2004). Korczak found out ‘the hard way’ that all his attempts to win the children’s affection, his indulgence but also his nonchalance and lack of seriousness, were counterproductive, and even provoked violence, both with the children and himself. Slowly, Korczak came to the realization that educating children does not mean that you give them their way in everything, but that you mediate, talk, discuss and adjust, and above all that you and your children work together again and again. The whole work of Korczak is immersed in this pedagogical ethos (Berding 2017). When Korczak was put in charge of about 30 children in that summer of 1904, he did have some practical experience with upbringing. He had given private lessons for 10 years, and as a doctor he had a lot of experience with sick children. And, not without pride, he writes that he had read many books about the psychology of the child (Korczak 2018a, 166). At the beginning of the summer camp, Korczak undertook to treat all children equally. He wanted to give them as much freedom as possible. Full of enthusiasm and idealism, he prepared, bought a gramophone and some records, collected games and found a magic lantern somewhere. He was not concerned about order in the dormitory, or getting to know the names of the children and such practical matters. He believed, he writes, that it would ‘come naturally’ (Korczak 2018a, 161). And also: ‘Naively trusting in how easy it would be, I clung to the charm of the task before me’ (Korczak 2018a, 161). When Korczak looked back on that time, he comes to the following insights: With my wealth of illusions and poverty of experience, sentimental and young, I thought that I would be able to do much because there is so much I wish to do. I believed that it’s easy to win the love and the trust of the child world, that one ought to give children free reign in the country side, that it is my duty to treat them all identically, that good will quickly brings out remorse in every juvenile sinner. For these children, ‘of basements and attics’, I wished to make the four-week stay at the camp ‘a ribbon of happiness and joy’ without a single tear (Korczak 2018a, 160).

How different the practice of living in a group turned out to be! Korczak’s ideas about freedom, equal treatment and what is important in life totally did not match with the life world of these disadvantaged children. They spoke a different language: the language of the street and of survival. Korczak did not realize that with highminded ideals and sophisticated theories one didn’t get very far with these children. The journey by train from the city of Warsaw to the countryside, and then by horse and cart and on foot was already chaotic. Things went wrong already on the train when children threw each other’s luggage out. At the camp house, Korczak had no idea what to do with all the clothes, pocket money and toothbrushes the children brought with them. He left it to the manager of the house. He did let the children— convinced that they could manage without him—choose their place at the table: ‘How should children sit at the table? I didn’t foresee this either. I hastily decided at the last minute, in keeping with the prevailing principle of freedom: let them sit where they want’ (Korczak 2018a, 165). Choosing the sleeping places also amounted to a mess, numerous fights broke out. After a lot of fussing it was finally calmer in the evening, and Korczak pondered what had happened that day, with a ‘vague appreciation of

4

1 The Ethos: Living with and for Children

my own failures’, but, he writes, ‘I was too bewildered to seek out their sources’ (Korczak 2018a, 165). When a brawl broke out that night, he felt ‘helpless against the mystery of the collective soul of the society of children’ (Korczak 2018a, 166)—an experience that many educators, teachers and group leaders probably have had early on in their careers. He experienced ‘how powerful and threatening’ children can be, ‘when they attack one’s will in united effort, aiming to burst the dam – not children, but an elemental force’ (Korczak 2018a, 316). It was a disappointment for this educator, who meant so well and was so good to the children. After some boys got Korczak almost to the point of threatening to use force, he came to the following insight: The whole crystal edifice of my dreams had come crashing down, had fallen to rubble. Anger and thwarted ambition: I’ll be a laughing stock to those whom I surpass in feeling, those whom I wanted to convince, to attract with my example, maybe to impress (Korczak 2018a, 168).

In these words, the first signs of self-reflection become visible: the educator’s reflection on his own motives has begun. But it took an incident to really get to the core. It became clear that the riots would repeat and that some boys had taken sticks out of the forest to fight with each other and also with Korczak. He now abandoned his sentimental attitude. He took the sticks for the night and said they would talk about it the next day. This was the turning point that to my mind is one of the defining moments in the history of modern education. The realization, finally breaking through, that education is not about the fun and ease of the educator, but about how to build and maintain a just community. Korczak realized that raising children is (sometimes) hard work, because all people, including children, have their own motives and interests and make their own decisions and choices. The resistance that arises makes an undeniable appeal to the educator (Meirieu 1995). Korczak puts it this way: The following day, as we were talking in the woods, I spoke for the first time not to the children, but with them; I spoke not about what I want, but about what they want to and can become. Perhaps this is when, for the first time, I became convinced that one can learn a great deal from children, that they both assert their own demands, conditions, and stipulations, and have a right to do so (Korczak 2018a, 169).

Children’s participation was born at that decisive moment. From that moment on, Korczak organized ‘meetings’ or ‘discussions’ with the children, in which he discussed all kinds of subjects. In Korczak’s own development from a novice to an educator it is a ‘Pauline moment’,8 with the kairotic release that is characteristic of it: the flash of the insight that education and upbringing imply talking with children but that adults can also learn from children. The dialogue took the place of the monologue; educator and children were placed in a clear position towards each other, and it was clear to everyone under what conditions they participated in the summer camp. During the following summer camps, Korczak put these lessons into practice. To begin with, he dealt much more directly with the children; after a few days he 8 By

3–9.

this I refer to the conversion of Saul to Paul, on his way to Damascus, as described in Acts 9:

1.2 1904: What It Means to Be an Educator

5

knew all the faces and names, so that he could address the children personally.9 Korczak no longer let the children mess around, but created a structure of tasks and responsibilities. He defined his own role as an educator as responsible for the whole, but realized that he could not, and did not have to do everything himself. All children were given a task: one with meals, the other in the kitchen or cleaning the toilets (a task that Korczak himself often took care of). From now on, taking notes was an important pedagogical tool for Korczak: about the appearance of children, about their active or more passive character, about their playing, about every meeting or quarrel or whatever he wrote. These observations became his ‘working material’, just like a librarian dabbles in a new pile of books (Korczak 2018a, 17510 ). He learned to look at children the way an insect expert looks at his beloved beetles (Korczak 2018a, 190). Throughout his life, Korczak kept the exact outlook of the natural scientist. At the summer camp he kept statistics; for example, he drew a ‘Curve of children’s fights at camps.’ July 5 – thirty children – twelve fights; a meeting to stop fighting; next day – three fights only; again eight and ten – then six fights. Second meeting on the subject of accord, held in the woods. Next day only two fights. Again seven, five – three fights. Meeting to agree on: ‘One day without fights’. As a result of collective effort – the next day one fight only (Korczak 1967, 36911 ).

This approach is interesting for several reasons. Firstly because of its exactness and sequence over time, but secondly and mainly because of the deliberate efforts that Korczak made to bring the children to different, non-violent behaviour through consultation. It also shows Korczak as a ‘realistic’ educator: he acknowledges that there will always be fights and arguments, that it is common for children to fight (every now and then) and it is unrealistic to prohibit this. He writes: ‘I’m no advocate of fights. But as an educator I need to have an understanding of them. And I do. I don’t condemn them. I accept them’ (Korczak 2018b, 60). Korczak does not say it, but I think that with the result of only one brawl, he would have been very content. Another consequence of the meetings in the woods was that Korczak experimented with a form of justice: the children’s court (Görtzen 2007, 51–56). At first, he took the initiative himself, for example to sit in a room with two arguing children to talk it over. In view of the public nature of the later children’s court in the orphanage, it is interesting that during the summer camps Korczak still believed that it is better to handle cases behind closed doors, because that makes ‘more impression’ [on the children] (Görtzen, 2007, 51). The court in the summer camp consisted of three children, and the hearings took place in the forest. Both the accuser and the defender were adults, which is also an interesting difference from the orphanage, as we shall see in Chap. 4. During the summer camps, it turned out that Korczak’s main ‘sanction’ 9 Every

teacher knows the difference between saying ‘you there!’ to a student, and addressing him or her with their own name. And every student also knows the difference. 10 Although much of this material is lost, there still remains so much that gives us insight into Korczak’s views, and working method, and also to his own inner, spiritual life. 11 Unfortunately, this story and its corresponding chart are not reprinted in the new English edition of Korczak’s works.

6

1 The Ethos: Living with and for Children

was forgiveness (Görtzen 2007, 53). Korczak also kept statistics on court hearings, so that he ended up with an immense amount of material at the summer camps. His practice was and continued to be for the rest of life one of observing, noting and studying. At night before bedtime, Korczak told stories to the children, for example about who slept in bed number so and so the previous year. He had a suitable way for every child to wish him or her good night. He got to know the group as a whole and each child individually. Of course, there were troublemakers. He did not speak to them about morals, but took a business-like attitude: these are the conditions under which you can participate in the camp, or else you can go home. ‘Anything but insipid sentiment’, says Korczak, because the child will laugh at you: he or she will respect you less for it (Korczak 2018a, 180). He took his responsibility as a group leader and gave structure to the group, for example by dividing the tasks, but also by giving children joint responsibility and having them take care of each other. When a small child cried, he sent an older child to comfort him, because ‘he’d do a better job of it’ (Korczak 2018a, 176).12 Korczak also experienced the ‘practice shock’ that the children could do some things better than he did. What did he learn from it; what did this shock bring him as an educator, as a person? In his own words is the following: What looks like the most beautiful assumption has to be tested. The most obvious truth, difficult to execute in its practical application, should be examined diligently and critically. We are significantly more experienced than children, we know a great deal that children do not, but children know better than we do what they are thinking and feeling (Korczak 2018a, 182).

The message is clear and is clearly communicated to the educator by the children: let go of that ‘pedagogy of good intentions’, and be open to what children have to offer and to ask you. You cannot know children from theory; this requires practical experience, including the practice shock described by Korczak. There is really only one way to get to know, understand and trust children, namely by constantly observing, trying and starting over with a lot of patience and from a respectful attitude. This is the core of the ‘pedagogy of respect’, which I will discuss in the next chapter. Korczak returned from the summer camps as a different man: he realized that education cannot be without guidance nor institutions (Berding 2020). The gathering in the forest and in the footsteps of it the children’s court emerge from this period in Korczak’s life as the institutions that made the conversation possible, which offered possibilities for and set limits to the freedom of both children and educator. It was the educator who took the initiative for this and guaranteed a fair course. In the next period, that of the orphanage, from 1912 onwards, the traces of this can easily be identified. In the orphanage, the conversation about mutual problems, quarrels and fights also played an important role. Korczak, however, took a decisive step during this period, perhaps the most radical step in the history of education, by connecting public speaking and judgments in the children’s court. This ‘republican’ approach is discussed in the next section, and, as said before, in Chap. 4 in detail. 12 On

the responsibility of educators, see Wyrobnik (2017).

1.3 1912: Living Together

7

1.3 1912: Living Together Clumsy, therefore impetuous if upset; tediously developed self-control – has made me able to engage in team work (Korczak 1967, lv).

It was discussed in Warsaw: the well-known and beloved doctor Goldszmit would start working in October 1912 in the newly opened Jewish orphanage Dom Sierot at Krochmalna [Street] number 92.13 Why did he give up his promising career? An important motive lay in Korczak’s already mentioned social involvement. He realized that medicine alone was not enough for a full life and certainly not when it came to children. The new orphanage, financed by well to do Jews, would be an example of how orphans could be housed in a dignified way and be prepared for life in society. The children, aged 7 to about 14, came from several outdated orphanages. With them, Korczak’s only permanent co-worker in the 30 years after that, Stefania Wilczy´nska, usually affectionately called ‘Mrs. Stefa’, came to Dom Sierot (Sachs 1989; Lifton 2005; Talmage-Schneider 2015).14 The children, 107 to be precise, were orphans and semi-orphans, and in part what we would now call ‘disadvantaged children’ or ‘at-risk youth’. At least they weren’t little darlings, as many testimonies and life reports show (Talmage-Schneider 2015). Initially, the organization therefore did not run smoothly. In addition, in August 1914 Korczak was called up for conscription15 and started working as a medical doctor in Russian service at the front. He had to leave the care of the children to Stefa, with the utmost confidence. At the front Korczak wrote his magnum opus How to love a child, from which I already quoted in the previous section. In it he incorporated his experiences as a general practitioner and, as we saw, his development as an educator in the summer camps. He also wrote about what he had experienced until then in the orphanage and that was no small feat. Korczak had decided, clearly on the basis of his previous experiences and failures, not to run the orphanage as a kind of sole ruler. His commitment was to involve the children in everything, and he took a number of measures to this end (he ‘instituted’ a number of pedagogical practices, you might say), from the seemingly very simple, such as well-stocked bookshelves, a separate drawer for every child and a notice board, to more complex ones, such as the duties-roster and the establishment of a parliament (for all these 13 It is a miracle that this building (present address Jaktorowska 6), which now houses a beautiful exhibition on Korczak, has survived the demolition of Warsaw. The famous author Isaac Bashevis Singer lived in the same street, on number 10, and has written about it in his memories A day of pleasure (Singer 1969). 14 Stefania Wilczy´ nska was born on May 26, 1886 in Warsaw, and together with Korczak and the orphans from Dom Sierot was murdered in Treblinka on August 5 or 6, 1942. In recent years there is, especially in her homeland, a growing interest in her person and work; it is evident that she was more than the stereotype ‘woman behind a great man’. 15 All in all, Korczak served, as a medic, in three wars: the Russian-Japanese war of 1905, the First World War (1914–1918) and the Polish-Soviet war (1919–1921). As Medvedeva-Nathoo (2018b, 332) writes: ‘Then, in 1939, the winds of the Second World War swept across Europe – for Korczak the fourth and last war.’.

8

1 The Ethos: Living with and for Children

matters and more, see Korczak 2018a, 190–250, and for a practical translation to our time Berding et al. 2010; Berding 2013). The most appealing, however, was the children’s court, which I now want to briefly consider. The children’s court16 is unique in the history of education (Görtzen 1992). Never before had there been such a way of working with children for a just community, at a time when even most adults did not have any (political) rights. The children’s court took a step beyond the already revolutionary approach to the ‘gatherings in the forest’ during the summer camps. The uniqueness of the children’s court lies in the idea of the ‘mediation’ between (interests of) people that is typical of the ‘republican’ form of living together.17 The essence is the recognition of mutual interests, wishes and motives, as well as the recognition that everyone has the right to pursue what seems best to him, but that this also has its limits. Those limits lie in the pursuit of others, who also want the best. Korczak’s work with the children’s court was aimed at taking the confrontation of interests, wishes and opinions out of the ‘private’ sphere—where the ‘law of the strongest’ prevails—and making it public. Disagreement, quarrels and conflicts between some individuals always have an effect on the community— positive or negative—but as long as the community does not ‘see’ it, it cannot judge it. With the children’s court, Korczak introduced public speaking and judgments about matters that seemingly concern only a few individuals, but in reality, affect the entire community. That is his unique contribution to thinking about and actually doing education (Berding 1994; Berding 2018). In the 1920s and 1930s, the living conditions for the Jews became increasingly acute due to the increasing anti-Semitism. Korczak and his orphanage also suffered from this. However, that did not stop him from working on many different fronts at the same time. With his help, a second, non-Jewish orphanage, Nasz Dom (Our Home), opened its doors in 1919 and Korczak was appointed as a lecturer at the Institute of Special Pedagogy in Warsaw. It was also important that a piece of land, called ‘Ró˙zyczka’ (‘Little Rose’), was made available to the orphanage just outside the city, so that it now had its own holiday colony (Vucic 2018, 522). Korczak was asked to become an expert in legal proceedings concerning children, and overall became a kind of national education authority. His name will always remain connected as initiator and co-editor to the world’s first independent children’s newspaper, ‘Mały Przegl˛ad’ (Little Review). The editorial team, consisting of children and with the editorial address at Dom Sierot, had a network of child correspondents all over Poland, who reported on what children were going through. Their stories were published in Little Review, often with a short response from Korczak himself (Lifton 2005, 176–180). The children’s newspaper can also be regarded as an important educational institution, and as a means of communication between children and their educators. It is 16 In

the new edition (Korczak 2018a, 207) it is translated as ‘collegial court’, but this has the disadvantage that the core idea—a court consisting of children—disappears out of sight. I therefore will continue to use ‘children’s court’. 17 I want to stress that ‘republican’ throughout this book does not refer to any political party, but to the (ancient) idea of the ‘res publica’, the common cause or good. It is very meaningful that Korczak’s orphanage Dom Sierot was known as the ‘children’s republic’.

1.3 1912: Living Together

9

one of the many ways in which Korczak was involved with language on a daily basis: he wanted to share as much of it as possible with the children. Conditions worsened in the 1930s; the orphanage had to survive, and Korczak’s work increasingly consisted of scraping together the necessary resources, not only money but also food. When Nazi Germany invaded and occupied Poland in September 1939, Korczak and his children entered the last phase of their lives and work.

1.4 1942: (To) the Bitter End—And Beyond I am sixty-four (Korczak 1967, li). I feel old whenever I recall the past, years and events gone by. I want to be young, so I make plans for the future. What shall I do after the war? (Korczak 2018b, 267).18

The end came in the summer of 1942. The orphanage was already housed in the so-called small ghetto of Warsaw at that time and terrible conditions prevailed. On 5 or 6 August, the orphanage was evacuated, in the context of the complete destruction of the Jews of Warsaw by the Nazis. All inhabitants had to line up; leading the way were Korczak and Stefa and a child with the green flag of the orphanage.19 A few eyewitness accounts tell that the march to the railway station (‘Umschlagplatz’) was very dignified. From there, trains took them to the Treblinka extermination camp, some 60 kms northeast of the city. It has been said that when Korczak, Stefa and the approximately 200 children were gassed in Treblinka, ‘a legend’ arose and ‘a martyr’ was born (Chiel 1975, 364). This view played an important role in the creation of the image of Korczak after World War II. He was a hero, because he had rejected the opportunity to escape.20 He was a saint, you could even hear, in some quarters.21 This first phase of the reception of Korczak’s work with its picture of him as a saint began—not surprisingly—in Germany, in the late 50s. A copy of the diary that Korczak had kept in the ghetto during the occupation and the final period, and which had been bricked into a wall by his secretary Igor Newerly, was retrieved (Korczak 2018b, 257–330).22 Former students and pupils from the orphanage who had left or escaped long before, began to tell their stories. It took several more years for a general awareness of the destruction of the Jews and other minorities to surface. In 18 This is taken from Korczak’s diary (aka ‘ghetto diary’ or ‘memoirs’) which he kept from May till August 4, 1942, the day (or two days) before the orphanage’s inhabitants were marched away. 19 The green flag comes from the King Matt stories, and is still used by many korczakian youth groups around the world. 20 It is, up to this date, unclear whether Korczak really was offered freedom, by the side of the train, by a Nazi officer, who allegedly had read his children’s books, as some narratives suggest (see Lifton 2005, 351; Medvedva-Nathoo 2018a, ix). 21 ‘For the world today, Janusz Korczak is a symbol of true religion and true morality’, Pope John Paul II, quoted in Joseph 1999. 22 See Newerly (1967) for an account of the history of this copy.

10

1 The Ethos: Living with and for Children

addition, the dichotomy between the East and the West played a role in Germany. It is noteworthy that the first publications on Korczak include texts by East German educators, for whom Korczak was the communist educator par excellence.23 Others saw him primarily as a representative of the so-called laissez-faire pedagogy. In the 1970s, Korczak was even drawn into the camp of the so-called anti-pedagogy (Berding 1990). After the attention for Korczak as a person, a second phase began when an interest arose in his pedagogical ideas: important works were translated into several languages, and foundations and societies were set up in several countries to spread his ideas. Also, Korczak’s name and fame was spread via plays, and later feature films.24 Much has been published in the form of translations, but even (much) more in the form of studies of his life and works, and also a number of books for younger and older children are devoted to him.25 From the 1970s, the professional fields of youth care, primary education and childcare became familiar with Korczak’s pedagogy, marking a third phase. This has led to many publications, workshops and lectures given and practical support provided in developing Korczak-inspired practices. An International Korczak Society was created in 1978 by the Polish government. This coincided with the UNESCO Year of the child, which was also declared the Year of Korczak. Many national societies joined the independent International Korczak Association (IKA). The IKA organizes international meetings and conferences, and strives to influence policies for youth care and education on the international level.26 Korczak’s life and legacy are researched both at academic and professional levels.27

1.5 Conclusion Although Korczak knew many happy days, most of his life was one of hardship, and much suffering. He was fully aware of the fragility of life, and was very sensitive to the needs and sufferings of others, especially children. His formative years in the summer camps, and the subsequent 30 years of living with orphaned children made him a children’s advocate, who stood up for their rights. His influence extended widely beyond the orphan’s home in Warsaw, at first and already during his lifetime, 23 For a retrospective of the reception of Korczak and his pedagogy in Germany, see EngemannReinhard (2013). 24 Two famous examples of these are Korczak and the children, by Erwin Sylvanus, 1957 (or. German), and Korczak, the film by the Polish director Andrzej Wajda, from 1990. 25 To name just a few, from three different languages: Bernheim (1989), Stoffels (1996), Meirieu (2012), and most recent Shepard (2015), and Gifford (2018). 26 The IKA is on Facebook. 27 In many countries academic and professional research on Korczak is being done within institutions for higher learning, as part of research and/or teaching programmes (see, i.e. Tsyrlina-Spady 2018); in some, such as Poland and Israel there are research institutions exclusively devoted to his life and work.

1.5 Conclusion

11

in his homeland, and later on in a still growing number of countries around the globe. It seems that the pedagogy he developed in part intuitively, in part deliberately, in a specific timeframe and in a specific place, appeals to anyone dealing with children, no matter what the circumstances, culturally, economically or otherwise. His thought has something universal to it, without becoming superficial nor meaninglessly abstract. The fact that he did not theorize, but laid down his experiences and thoughts in the form of stories, is probably the most important factor in this appeal. Any novice will recognize in an instant the problems and despair that Korczak went through when he was new to education, and how he found a way out. Despite that, sometimes dark overtones, this makes Korczak essentially hopeful reading. As stated, Korczak’s aim to let children participate as much as possible in the daily governance of the community and to have them share responsibility for this, took its most radical form in the children’s court. In Chap. 4, I will discuss this in more detail. But first we have to look more closely at what motivated Korczak to live and work in this way. This brings us to two foundational concepts: respect, which I will discuss in Chap. 2, and participation, which is the subject of Chap. 3.

References Berding, J. (1990). De veelzijdige pedagogiek van Janusz Korczak [The multi-faceted pedagogy of Janusz Korczak]. Tijdschrift voor Pedagogiek, 15, 6–15. Berding, J. (1994). To live with children. Janusz Korczak’s pedagogy of respect. Edmonton: University of Alberta, Human Science Research Project. Berding, J. (2004). Janusz Korczak—What it means to become an educator. Encounter. Education for Meaning and Social Justice, 17, 1–6. Berding, J. (2013). Becoming a citizen. The inspiration of Janusz Korczak. In R. Godel-Gassner & S. Krehl (Eds.), Facettenreich im Fokus – Janusz Korczak und seine Pädagogik. Historische und aktuelle Perspektiven [Multifaceted in focus—Janusz Korczak and his pedagogy. Historical and current perspectives] (pp. 381–388). Jena: Garamond Verlag. Berding, J. (2017). Introduction on Janusz Korczak. Retrieved August 6, 2020, from https://korcza kusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Introduction-on-Janusz-Korczak-by-Joop-Berding-May 2017.pdf. Berding, J. (2018). Janusz Korczak and Hannah Arendt on what it means to become a subject. Humanity, appearance and education. In M. Michalak (Ed.), The rights of the child yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Korczak perspective. Part II (pp. 432–449). Warsaw: Office of the Ombudsman for Children. Berding, J. (2020). Janusz Korczak and John Dewey on re-instituting education. In T. TsyrlinaSpady and P. Renn (Eds.), Nurture, care, respect, and trust: Transformative pedagogy inspired by Janusz Korczak (pp. 192–202) (E-Book). Gorham, ME: Myers Education Press. Berding, J., Smit, I., & van Rijn, I. (2010). Janusz Korczak for workers in childcare and after-school care. Amsterdam: Janusz Korczak Stichting. Bernheim, M. (1989). Father of the orphans. The story of Janusz Korczak. New York: E.P. Dutton. Chiel, S. (1975). The making of a martyr. The History of Childhood Quarterly, 13, 363–372. Engemann-Reinhard, B. (2013). Mein Weg mit Korczak [My path with Korczak]. In R. GodelGassner & S. Krehl (Eds.), Facettenreich im Fokus – Janusz Korczak und seine Pädagogik. Historische und aktuelle Perspektiven [Multifaceted in focus—Janusz Korczak and his pedagogy. Historical and current perspectives] (pp. 33–48). Jena: Garamond Verlag.

12

1 The Ethos: Living with and for Children

Gifford, E. (2018). The good doctor of Warsaw. London: Corvus. Görtzen, R. (1992). Een leven voor het kind [A life for the child]. In R. Görtzen (Ed.), Een leven voor het kind. Janusz Korczak 1878–1942 [A life for the child Janusz Korczak, 1878–1942] (pp. 9–66). Kampen: Kok. Görtzen, R. (2007). De tover van het opvoedingswerk: Korczak en de zomerkolonie (1904–1908) [The magic of educating children: Korczak and the summer camps (1904–1908)]. In J. Korczak (Ed.), Het recht van het kind op respect [A child’s right to respect] (pp. 12–63). Amsterdam: SWP. Joseph, S. (1999). A voice for the child. London: Thorsons. Korczak, J. (1967). In M. Wolins (Ed.), Selected works of Janusz Korczak. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Korczak, J. (1979). Wer kann Erzieher werden? [Who can become an educator?]. In Von Kindern und anderen Vorbildern [Of children and other examples] (pp. 118–119). Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn. Korczak, J. (2018a). In A. M. Czernow (Ed.), How to love a child and other selected works (Vol. 1). London and Chicago, IL: Vallentine Mitchell. Korczak, J. (2018b). In A. M. Czernow (Ed.), How to love a child and other selected works (Vol. 2). London and Chicago, IL: Vallentine Mitchell. Lifton, B. J. (2005). The king of children. The life and death of Janusz Korczak. S.l.: American Academy of Pediatrics. Medvedeva-Nathoo, O. (2018a). Foreword. In J. Korczak & A. M. Czernow (Eds.), How to love a child and other selected works (Vol. 1, pp. ix–x). London and Chicago, IL: Vallentine Mitchell. Medvedeva-Nathoo, O. (2018b). Afterword. The man and the mission. In J. Korczak & A. M. Czernow (Eds.), How to love a child and other selected works (Vol. 2, pp. 331–353). London and Chicago, IL: Vallentine Mitchell. Meirieu, P. (1995). La pédagogie entre le dire et le faire. Le courage de commencements [Pedagogy between speaking and doing. The courage to begin]. Paris: ESD éditeur. Meirieu, P. (2012). Korczak. Pour que vivent les enfants [Korczak. So that the children may live]. S.l.: Rue du Monde. Newerly, I. (1967). Memoirs. In J. Korczak & M. Wolins (Eds.), Selected works of Janusz Korczak (pp. 569–574). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Sachs, S. (1989). Stefa. Stefa Wilczy´nskas pädagogische Alltagsarbeit im Waisenhaus Janusz Korczaks [Stefa. Stefa Wilczy´nska’s everyday pedagogical work in Janusz Korczak’s orphanage]. Weinheim and München: Juventa Verlag. Shepard, J. (2015). The book of Aron. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Silverman, M. (2017). A pedagogy of humanist moral education. The educational thought of Janusz Korczak. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Smoli´nska-Theiss, B. (2018). Janusz Korczak and reflective learning. In M. Michalak (Ed.), The rights of the child yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Korczak perspective. Part II (pp. 12–31). Warsaw: Office of the Ombudsman for Children. Singer, I. B. (1969). A day of pleasure. New York: Schocken Books. Stoffels, K. (1996). Mosje en Reizele [Mosje and Reizele]. Amsterdam and Antwerp: Querido. Talmage-Schneider, M. (2015). Janusz Korczak: Sculptor of children’s souls. S.l.: The Wordsmithy, LLC. Tsyrlina-Spady, T. (2018). How to become a reflective, innovative, and self-critical educator. In M. Michalak (Ed.), The rights of the child yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Korczak perspective. Part III (pp. 164–178). Warsaw: Office of the Ombudsman for Children. Vucic, B. (2018). Bobo in today’s kindergarten—Korczak’s practice in early childhood education. In M. Michalak (Ed.), The rights of the child yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Korczak perspective. Part I (pp. 508–533). Warsaw: Office of the Ombudsman for Children. Wyrobnik, I. (2017). Das Recht des Kindes auf Achtung – Gedanken zur Verantwortung bei Janusz Korczak [A child’s right to respect—Thoughts about responsibility in Janusz Korczak]. TPS (Theorie und Praxis der Sozialpädagogik) Leben, Lernen und Arbeiten in der Kita, 7, 22–24.

References

13

Wyrobnik, I. (2020). Janusz Korczak als Sozialpädagoge – oder: Wie lautete für Korczak die Soziale Frage? [Janusz Korczak as a social pedagogue—Or: What was the social question for Korczak?]. In B. Birgmeier, E. Mührel, & M. Winkler (Eds.), Einsichten von außen, Aussichten von innen: Befunde und Visionen zur Sozialpädagogik (pp. 250–256). Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.

Chapter 2

The Basis: Respect for the Child

In Chap. 1 we were introduced to the person of Janusz Korczak, with his drives and motives, and to the way in which he developed into an educator. I showed how much the context of working and living with children determined this. Becoming an educator, I concluded, can only be done through dialogue, and sometimes in clashes with the children entrusted to one. The most special feature, and perhaps the core of Korczak’s existence as an educator, was that he always found the (moral and physical) strength to start over. Korczak is like no other the embodiment of educational authority.1 At the same time, ‘starting over’ was only possible in collaboration with the children, and not over their heads. He was deeply rooted in everyday practice and derived a lot of practical wisdom from it. Although scientific thinking and knowledge in the field of natural sciences and the medical profession were important to Korczak, they only helped him to shape and think through his own practice to a limited extent. In this chapter, I will highlight the core concept of respect for the child, which for him was the basis of any action worthy of the name education. His passionate plea for this is, at the same time, a fundamental social criticism (Sect. 2.1). Korczak elaborated on this in two steps: in the three so-called fundamental rights of the child (Sect. 2.2) and in the work of the children’s court, which was based on an extensive code. This, however, will be the subject of Chap. 4, because we need the intermediary step of participation, discussed in the next chapter.

2.1 ‘A Child’s Right to Respect’ In the previous chapter, we saw how Korczak ‘invented’ and shaped children’s participation during meetings in the forest. When the orphanage opened on October 6, 1 The

word ‘authority’ has Latin/Roman roots, that go back to the verb ‘augere’, which means ‘to augment’, or to extend, building upon a foundation (i.e. Rome).

© The Author(s) 2020 J. W. A. Berding, Janusz Korczak, SpringerBriefs on Key Thinkers in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59250-9_2

15

16

2 The Basis: Respect for the Child

1912,2 he was determined to found a democratic miniature society in which, as he put it, children would be protected against the arbitrariness of educators (Korczak 2018a, 207 even speaks of their ‘despotism’). In his view, the arbitrariness with which adults treated children was one of the greatest ailments of society (Liebel 2018, 206). In his pamphlet ‘A child’s right to respect’ of 1929 (Korczak 2018a, 307–330), he held a passionate plea for respecting children, which in effect amounted to a frontal attack on the adults who were unable to do so. Korczak’s argument is dominated by criticism of the idealization of adulthood, the idolatry of ‘bigness’, at the expense of the appreciation for ‘the small’ (Korczak 2018a, 308–309). Both idolatry and underestimation have become part and parcel of society and language. Children compare each other on how big they are: being unable to reach something is experienced as demeaning. ‘What is large, takes up more space, inspires respect and admiration. Small is ordinary, uninteresting. Small people have small needs, small joys, and small sorrows’ (Korczak 2018a, 308). According to Korczak, children are being talked into the belief that they are only small and can do little or nothing, and that they should therefore grow up as quickly as possible. Being an adult is what counts in life. In fact, adults can also do what they want with children, which leads to a feeling of powerlessness in the latter (Korczak 2018a, 308). Over the heads of the children they are constantly talked and gossiped about, and being decided upon. ‘The young have little market value’ (Korczak 2018a, 310) and that is why adults eagerly wait for their ‘investment’ to pay off. At the same time, adults are outraged when children do not comply: do adults not want the best for the children, do they not know the way to happiness? The children only have to fulfil their assignments (Korczak 2018a, 310). After all, they are still small, ‘one does not have to court a child’s opinion, for she [the child] cannot vote: she does not threaten, demand or speak. A child is weak, small, poor and dependent until he becomes a citizen’ (Korczak 2018a, 312). Therefore, many people draw the conclusion: A tiny tot, just a kid – a future person, not one right now. Not real until later (Korczak 2018a, 312).

And children experience this themselves, as Korczak expresses with unparalleled psychological insight in his novel When I am little again: … it’s inconvenient to be small. You always have to raise your head. Everything occurs high up somewhere, above you. As a result a person feels less important, degraded, weak, and somewhat lost. Maybe that is why we want to stand beside grownups when they are sitting: then we can look straight into their eyes (Korczak, 1992, 30).

Elsewhere, Korczak had already made it clear that, in the eyes of adults, children are sometimes not considered as humans. Adults should therefore be constantly on the lookout in the company of children, as there is always danger lurking. The message is clear: children cannot be trusted; they constantly shame our confidence, so they must be subjected to our permanent control. Incidentally, this control takes different forms, as Korczak shows: ‘We need to caution, guide, drill, contain, rein in, correct, 2 The

newly founded orphanage that replaced several older, obsolete ones, came into being after months of struggle about every detail, as Korczak describes (2018a, 192–193).

2.1 ‘A Child’s Right to Respect’

17

warn, prevent, impose, and combat’ (Korczak 2018a, 312). But, says Korczak, with foresight to the control and risk reduction mechanisms that have developed in our own time: ‘We know that the greatest caution offers no absolute guarantee, and are the more suspicious for it: so that our consciences remain clear, so that in times of sorrow we find no fault in ourselves’ (Korczak 2018a, 313). The bottom line, according to Korczak, is that there are two kinds of life: ‘one serious and respected, another forbearingly tolerated and less valued’ (Korczak 2018a, 319). Children are ‘future’ people, but because we don’t allow them to live in the here and now, they feel oppressed. Children – these are future people. And so it’s a matter of their becoming, it’s as if they don’t exist yet. But indeed, we are; we live, we feel, we suffer. Our childhood years – these really are the years of life. Why? For what reason do they tell us to wait? (Korczak 1992, 155).

As strangers, children have to find their way through life, they need others to help them find their way. Let us finally respect the child’s ignorance, says Korczak, instead of constantly judging children by it. Let us respect the hard work that growing up entails, let’s respect the work the child has to do to gain knowledge, and show respect when s/he fails and the tears flow (Korczak 2018a, 322). Respect for each individual moment, for these will die and never come again. Always treat these seriously, for a wounded moment will bleed and the ghost of a murdered one will haunt a person with bad memories (Korczak 2018a, 323).

Korczak was deeply aware of what you might call the ‘absolute’ value of childhood: the realization that this time not only derives its meaning from the preparation for the so-desired adulthood, but has its own meaning. He wanted to protect this value against threats from society in general and educators in particular. His main weapon in this struggle (Defend the Children!, is the title of one of his essay collections; Korczak 1983) was to initiate new practices, new institutions and show that it could be done differently and that a way of living together that did justice to children could be maintained. This was based on a radical view of the rights of children.

2.2 Three Basic Children’s Rights Korczak strongly attached to institutions. These make it possible for very different people to live together, because they offer possibilities and rights, but also limitations and obligations. Korczak can therefore be called an ‘institutional educator’ (Berding 2020).3 For Korczak, however, there is still a layer ‘underneath’ the institutions and that is the law of respect, which provides the basis for living together. In How to love a child this constitution, the Magna Carta Libertatis, as Korczak called it, appears quite suddenly in the text. In the first part, ‘The child in the family’ (Korczak 2018a, 2–101), Korczak is in full conversation with the parents of young children, based 3 More

on institutions in Chaps. 3 and 4.

18

2 The Basis: Respect for the Child

upon his experiences as a family doctor.4 From the beginning, he makes it clear that despite his skills in medicine, he has to keep trying to find an answer to the many questions that come to him: ‘How, when, how many—why. I sense a great many questions awaiting answers, doubts seeking explanations. And I respond: ‘I don’t know” (Korczak 2018a, 2). Despite this doubt, Korczak makes one thing clear: a child is not the property of the parents; when a parent talks about ‘my child …’, Korczak responds: ‘No, even in the months of pregnancy and the hours of labor, the child is not yours’ (Korczak 2018a, 4). The ‘mine’ in ‘my child’ is also inappropriate because the child is the next link in a long chain of parents, grand and great-grandparents and further ancestors (Korczak 2018a, 5). Korczak criticizes parents who, to put it in a modern phrase, see the child as an ‘investment’: ‘Is love [for the child] a service for which you demand payment?’ (Korczak 2018a, 6). The following sections of How to love a child are devoted to the myriad questions that parents ask themselves and the concerns they have about the child: is s/he healthy? Is s/he really clever? Is s/he a beautiful child? There is a fever, s/he has a cold. And then that crying!—‘the despotic wail of the child, who demands something, is complaining about something, needs help’ (Korczak 2018a, 10). Nevertheless, as a doctor, Korczak also expects a lot from parents, especially from the intuition and expertise of the mother: these should never be replaced by bookish wisdom (Korczak 2018a, 14–15). And then, after paragraphs with beautiful, almost phenomenological observations of children,5 one might say: after the ‘soft’ and empathetic Korczak, there emerges, out of nowhere it seems, the sharpest critic of education we can imagine. Attention. Either we come to an understanding now, or we part ways forever.[…] I am calling for a Magna Carta, for the rights of a child. There may be more; I have dug out three basics: 1. A child’s right to die. 2. A child’s right to the present day. 3. A child’s right to be what a child is (Korczak 2018a, 30).

I find this passage very emotionally appealing. A doctor who speaks about the child’s right to die? I feel myself resisting to this claim; children and death do not belong together. But Korczak’s plea for this right can be understood against the background of his experiences as a general practitioner (and therefore well placed in this part of How to love a child). In the families he visited, he observed how the children suffocated under the care of their parents, were not given freedom because

4 Both Wyrobnik 2009 and Vucic 2018 give, both based on Korczak’s short story ‘Bobo’ of 1914 (not

yet translated to English), a very clear picture of Korczak’s profound interest in and involvement with young children, younger anyway than the ages of the children that were admitted to the orphanage (7–14). It is also evident from his many descriptions of new-born babies and young children in the first part of How to love a child, ‘The child in the family’. 5 And, I might add, the most beautiful and insightful descriptions of the pleasures and pains of breast-feeding ever written by a man.

2.2 Three Basic Children’s Rights

19

freedom was ‘danger’ and ‘risk’.6 After all, so much can happen and go wrong, as Korczak shows in a terrifying list: A door – she’ll pinch her finger, a window – she’ll lean out and fall, a pebble – she’ll choke, a chair – she’ll topple it onto herself, a knife – she’ll cut herself, a stick – she’ll poke her eye out, she’s picked a box up off the ground – she’ll catch an infection, a match – fire, she’ll burn up. ‘You’ll break your arm, you’ll get run over, the dog will bite you. Don’t eat plums, don’t drink water, don’t walk around barefoot, don’t run in the sun, button your coat, wrap your scarf. You see: you weren’t listening. Look: a cripple, look: a blind man. Help, blood, who gave you scissors?’ (Korczak 2018a, 31–32; quotation marks in or.).

However, raising children without risks is impossible, according to Korczak; we must accept it, to the utmost consequence. That is the core, according to Korczak: we cannot accept that a child, our child, is mortal and that is why we try to protect it with all our might: In the fear of having one’s child snatched away by death, we snatch the child away from life; not wanting him to die, we do not allow him to live (Korczak 2018a, 32).

Because we do not dare to accept the ‘dangerous’ present, we flee into the future, which is why we tell children: ‘You have time. Wait until you’re older’ (Korczak 2018a, 33). In conclusion, a warning: this complex right, and Korczak’s requirement, should not lead to adults claiming the right to neglect the child, far from it. According to Korczak, the child is entitled to death, but also to life—and especially today. For educators today this right provides a real challenge. It is sometimes said that we live in a society that tries to prevent risks at all costs. At the educational level we can see this in parents who bring their children to school by car; by bike this would be too dangerous, because of all the cars on the road…. Another example of this is the possibility for parents to survey their child, even when it is in a day care centre. There is an abundance of apps available for this. The school system demands that teachers take every bureaucratic step available, when a student shows signs of a learning problem or of behaviour disturbance, to put this in writing (in specific digital formats), just be sure that at one point they can say, I told you so… A protectionist culture seems to have emerged that puts such a premium on children’s lust for adventure and experiment, that it becomes detrimental to their wellbeing and development. And all because of ‘our’ fears. The second right, the right to live in the present today, also questions pedagogical practices in Korczak’s time and in ours. Educators, Korczak argues, tend to sacrifice the present for the future—compare what was previously said about the big versus the small. The ideal of adulthood has become so overwhelming that we no longer have an eye for the here and now, for what, who and how children are now. The question, ‘can a child still be a child?’ also expresses this point. In education and teaching, the ideal of adulthood often translates into almost compulsively stimulating the development of children and little attention to what has been achieved, and what can be enjoyed 6 This probably also has a basis in Korczak’s own childhood which was, as I wrote, mainly an indoor

experience.

20

2 The Basis: Respect for the Child

today. It sometimes seems that developmental psychology has replaced pedagogy and brought a rushed and hurried, and impatient dynamic to education. About this Korczak says provokingly: ‘What is that ‘If only he [the child] already walked, talked?’—what, if not the hysteria of anticipation?’ (Korczak 2018a, 32). The third fundamental right—to be what a child is, in other words: to be who you are—that Korczak had ‘dug out’ can also be regarded as an anathema in pedagogy. After all, accepting children as they are, is at odds with a long tradition in parenting and (formal) education, and schooling that focuses on the changeability, learning abilities and flexibility of the (young) child. Korczak, however, takes a sharp stand against the omnipotence attributed to the educator to mould the child to his ideal, and against the idea of malleability that lies behind this. I may foster a tradition of truth, order, diligence, honesty, sincerity, but I will not remake any of the children into something different from what he or she is. A birch will remain a birch, an oak an oak, a burdock a burdock. I can awaken what slumbers in the soul; I can create nothing. I’ll be ridiculous if I get cross at myself or the child (Korczak 2018a, 146).

Although here Korczak departs from what may be called the standard-paradigm of Western education ever since Kant, Herbart, and other educators of the Enlightenment formulated the thesis of the child’s proneness to formation (‘Bildungsfähigkeit’), he obviously does not depart from the possibility of the self-formation of children (Berding 2018). It is noteworthy that Korczak describes himself as ‘a sculptor of a child’s soul’ (Korczak 2018b, 279) but with what seems to be a kind of remorse, and perhaps even a feeling of uselessness. It must be said that he takes definite sides in the debate on ‘nature vs. nurture’, in that he stresses the importance of what is transmitted through the genes. Yet at the same time, Korczak’s entire pedagogy is all about change, but not at a pace dictated exclusively by adults. Kristin Poppo, in a reflection on Korczak-as-sculptor, writes: ‘.., he was a sculptor a very special kind. He did not mandate what children should believe, but rather, he worked like a fine sculptor who studies each piece of marble as unique and beautiful, complete with both potential and flaws’ (Poppo 2006, 2). In his novel When I am little again Korczak articulates the attention for the present day as follows: ‘Children are needed in the world, and exactly as they are’ (Korczak 1992, 36).

2.3 Conclusion ‘The idea that children have rights—unconditional rights that are part of their human dignity—is a modern phenomenon’, says Shner (2018, 272). And indeed, it took well into the twentieth century to establish an agreement, which in 1989 developed into the Convention on the Rights of the Child, on the basic rights of children. This Convention is a legal framework, which binds parties (i.e. states) to protect children, to enhance their participation in society, and to provide provisions for education, wellbeing, sports and so on (protection, participation, provisions, the so called three p’s).

2.3 Conclusion

21

Although there is no lack of enthusiasm and support for the idea of children’s rights, in reality these are massively violated by countries (states) all over the world (Shner 2018, 274–278).7 Korczak’s view, however, was pedagogical, not legal. Although it is tempting to see Korczak as one of the ‘founders’ of children’s rights in their legal sense, I think Shner’s thesis that ‘Korczak is a link in the chain of educationalists, social philosophers, and political leaders who fought for the emancipation of children in modern times’ (Shner 2018, 296) gives a more adequate picture. ‘A’, not ‘the’ link. He did not think about sanctions to enforce the first three rights, or the others that he added in later years. In fact, ‘sanctions’ and ‘enforcing’ were totally out of step with Korczak’s spiritual life world. As Silverman (2017) has shown, and will be elaborated in Chap. 4, forgiveness and the hope for a change to the better was his almost standard reaction to faults committed by children. As Liebel (2018, 208) rightly states, with Korczak, ‘rights’ have to do with ‘a regulation of social relations based upon mutual agreement’. ‘Regulation’ has multiple meanings here. One of them is making it possible for children to act, to deploy agency, in a way that is compatible with being a child (Liebel 2018, 210; Poppo 2020). Another is that regulation—as a deliberate dialogical practice—takes the place of non-dialogical practices such as bullying, the use of violence and so on. And lastly, rights, at least for Korczak, are social, and perhaps even political rights (more information in Chap. 4 about this). They are not individualistic, but demand for a mutual recognition of each other’s rights. Seen in this way they are part and parcel of a community that strives for justice, equality and deliberate, democratic ways of living together. The constitution of respect was the foundation of the work in the orphanage, where this ‘living together’ was a real challenge. To this end, Korczak extended his three rights into an extensive code that gave direction to the functioning of the children’s court. In Chap. 4, I will go into detail about this still astonishing experiment. But first, in Chap. 3, I will describe the intermediary step between rights and justice; that is, the ideal, and the conviction that children matter, and must have a voice, and get the opportunity to use it, and be heard and taken seriously: in other words, children’s participation.

References Berding, J. (2012). The first annual report and the first annual children’s rights monitor of the Dutch children’s ombudsman: Some reflections from a Korczakian point of view. In P. Jaros (Ed.) 2012 Janusz Korczak year. An international perspective on children’s rights and pedagogy (pp. 31–36). Warsaw: Ministry of foreign affairs of the Republic of Poland. Berding, J. (2018). Janusz Korczak and Hannah Arendt on what it means to become a subject. Humanity, appearance and education. In M. Michalak (Ed.), The rights of the child yesterday, 7 The

behaviour of states with regard to the Convention is monitored on an international level by the Committee in Geneva and, in many but certainly not all countries, by national (children’s) ombudsmannen (for an example from the Netherlands, see Berding 2012). In addition, in many countries, but again not in all, NGOs like Amnesty International and Save the children keep a watch and report on violations.

22

2 The Basis: Respect for the Child

today and tomorrow. The Korczak perspective. Part II (pp. 432–449). Warsaw: Office of the ombudsman for children. Berding, J. (2020). Janusz Korczak and John Dewey on re-instituting education. In T. TsyrlinaSpady & P. Renn (Eds.), Nurture, care, respect, and trust: Transformative pedagogy inspired by Janusz Korczak (pp. 192–202) (E-Book). Gorham, ME: Myers Education Press. Korczak, J. (1983). Verteidigt die Kinder! [Defend the children!]. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn. Korczak, J. (1992). When I am little again. In E. P. Kulawiec (Ed.), When I am little again and the child’s right to respect (pp. 3–158). Lanham, ML: University Press of America. Korczak, J. (2018a). In A. M. Czernow (Ed.), How to love a child and other selected works (Vol. 1). London and Chicago, IL: Vallentine Mitchell. Korczak, J. (2018b). In A. M. Czernow (Ed.), How to love a child and other selected works (Vol. 2). London and Chicago, IL: Vallentine Mitchell. Liebel, M. (2018). Janusz Korczak’s understanding of children’s rights as agency rights. In M. Michalak (Ed.), The rights of the child yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Korczak perspective. Part I (pp. 204–239). Warsaw: Office of the Ombudsman for Children. Poppo, K. (2006). A pedagogy of compassion: Janusz Korczak and the care of the child. Encounter:Education for meaning and justice 19, 1–8. Poppo, K. R. (2020). From despair to agency: The call from Janusz Korczak. In T. Tsyrlina-Spady, & P. Renn (Eds.), Nurture, care, respect, and trust: Transformative pedagogy inspired by Janusz Korczak (pp. 212–220) (E-Book). Gorham, ME: Myers Education Press. Shner, M. (2018). Why children have rights: Children’s rights in Janusz Korczak’s philosophy of education. In M. Michalak (Ed.), The rights of the child yesterday, today and tomorrow: The Korczak perspective. Part I (pp. 272–321). Warsaw: Office of the Ombudsman for Children. Silverman, M. (2017). A pedagogy of humanist moral education: The educational thought of Janusz Korczak. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Vucic, B. (2018). Bobo in today’s kindergarten—Korczak’s practice in early childhood education. In M. Michalak (Ed.), The rights of the child yesterday, today and tomorrow: The Korczak perspective. Part I (pp. 508–533). Warsaw: Office of the Ombudsman for Children. Wyrobnik, I. (2009). ‘Bobo’ oder Janusz Korczak und die frühe Kindheit [‘Bobo’ or Janusz Korczak and early childhood]. In W. Kunicki, J. Rzeszotnik, & E. Tomiczek (Eds.), Breslau und die Welt. Festschrift für Prof. Dr. Irena Swiatlowska-Predota zum 65. Geburtstag [Breslau and the world. Commemorative for Prof. Dr. Irena Swiatlowska-Predota on her 65th birthday] (pp. 493–500). Wroclaw and Dresden: ATUT Verlag/Neisse Verlag.

Chapter 3

The Means: Participative Education

3.1 The Term ‘Participation’ In this chapter I will highlight some of the participative practices Korczak initiated. But first, I want to take a look at the term participation. ‘Participation’ has as its core: to take part, to be part of, to share or engage in activities with others, the partners. It is a thoroughly social concept—one cannot participate with oneself—and it also has political associations. Regarding this latter, we speak of a participative society, that is a society in which citizens are actively involved in all kinds of undertakings, and are committed to a cause. This may be a particular cause, for instance arguing or demonstrating for or against the settlement of a refugee centre in the neighbourhood (in the latter case, many people use the so-called ‘NIMBY’ argument, ‘not in my backyard’), or it may be aimed at more general interests, such as the uplifting of the quality of education in a city or country. In a society that claims to be a democracy, citizens who are committed to such causes have many means at their disposal to draw attention to their beliefs, needs and demands. A free press, the right to gather and protest, the right to speak at political gatherings, to elect their representatives and so on. These are all important avenues of political participation. If they do not ‘help’, there are other means: upheaval, blockades, street fights, terror. But by then we have probably stepped outside of what is generally considered to be ‘good citizenship’.1 Besides the political perspective, participation also has a more social meaning. Many people are active members of a religious community, they engage in (club) sports, do volunteer activities, and/or help others, in or outside of the institutions of education, health and welfare. The value, in a practical and moral sense, of this type of participation should not be underestimated. As the sociologist Robert Putnam (2000) has shown, participation works as a kind of ‘bonding’ between people—a

1 Countries vary enormously in what is considered as ‘good citizenship’. Under totalitarian regimes

‘citizenship’ and ‘participation’ lose any meaning as political concepts. © The Author(s) 2020 J. W. A. Berding, Janusz Korczak, SpringerBriefs on Key Thinkers in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59250-9_3

23

24

3 The Means: Participative Education

sort of social ‘cement’—and is potentially also ‘bridging’, which means that it can connect people from very different backgrounds, ethnicities, cultures and lifestyles.2 Besides the political and the social, there is a third kind of perspective on participation which is worth mentioning, and that is the linguistic outlook. By engaging children in activities, for instance playing with a ball, and speaking about it—‘look where the ball goes’—we not only have fun, which is nice, but we also ‘pull’ them into a language, in other words: a linguistic system or order. Education is in an important sense the process of having newcomers—children—join in the order of language. At first, our talking to and with children has no meaning for them, it’s just sounds that we utter, which they register. But gradually, after many repetitions, the sounds acquire their meaning(s), and this enables a more refined, ‘richer’ conversation, that also influences subsequent actions. Meanings are keys that enable actions and give us access to the world. Educational activities are always ‘more’ than ‘just’ doing things, if and when they are accompanied by language. It is language that enables humans to ask questions, to clarify, to illuminate, to understand and to explain, and in general both to communicate (with others) and to think (for ourselves). Ideally, we all participate in one or more language systems that make interactions with our fellow human beings possible, even though it is sometimes necessary to clear up misunderstandings.3 To sum up: participation, the taking part in activities, has social, political and linguistic meanings. As we will see, all three of them were of the greatest importance to Korczak.

3.2 From Principles to Action Principles, also the principles of participation, have to be put into practice—this was Korczak’s conviction, and this is what he did, by trial and error. He was convinced that education in any humane sense is impossible without the active cooperation and participation of the children themselves. As we saw, he co-created active participation with children, already in 1904, many years before participation became one of the cornerstones of education and youth policy. From 1912, in the orphanage, the participation of the children became the practical cornerstone of his work, the means by which he managed to live together. In this section I will discuss some of the measures he took. But instead of the term ‘measures’, with its technocratic ring (bureaucracies take ‘measures’), I want to call them ‘institutions’. Institutions are practices that are ‘instituted’, which means that 2 ‘Potentially’,

because as Putnam (2015) also shows, Western societies are becoming more and more pillarized along socioeconomic lines. It is possible, especially in the larger cities, to live only some minutes away from a neighbourhood with socioeconomic groups that are totally different from your own, and never meet. 3 Many words have multiple meanings, and much is dependent on the context. There is always an interpretive side to the use of language, so it’s not just about the transport or transmission of thought from one head to another.

3.2 From Principles to Action

25

someone takes the initiative to initiate a new relationship, that is between people, and/or between people and ‘the world’.4 Parliament for instance is an institution, because it regulates the relations between the people in a nation through the election of representatives. In a classroom, instruction, a meeting or a working group are institutions because they regulate the relations between the students among themselves, and between them and the teacher, with regard to a certain task or assignment that has to be completed, or with regard to a certain central value, such as meeting each other and discussing some subject in a democratic way. It must be said that institutions run the risk of petrification, and then only continue to exist because they once were initiated. So institutions must, on the one hand, structure the activity they are initiated for, and on the other be flexible enough to be adapted to new circumstances. Korczak himself did have this flexibility: he always observed how things went with his initiatives, and sometimes put an end to them, or gave them another twist.5

3.2.1 The Notice Board Of the institutions in the orphanage, one of the most important, the mailbox, will be discussed in the next section. It is one of many in which language plays a central role. This is also the case with the notice board (Korczak 2018a, 195–196). It hangs somewhere in the hall of the building, and the primary goal is to help the educator, and the children, to remember things. (Understandably, because they had so much on their minds.) Examples of notices were: ‘Has anyone found or seen a small key with a black ribbon?’ ‘It will be Easter in one month. We request that the children offer ideas and suggestions for how to spend the holidays pleasantly.’ ‘Whoever wants to change his place in the dormitory (or at the table), should report to his classroom at eleven o’clock’ (Korczak 2018a, 195).

For Korczak the notice board is the working area for educators and children. ‘A calendar, a thermometer, important news from the daily paper, a picture, a riddle,

4 Notice

the link between institution and constitution, with as a root the Latin constitutus, past participle of constituere: to cause to stand, set up, fix, place, establish, set in order; form something new or resolve. 5 Observing how things are going: isn’t that typically the physician’s stance? The children’s court, which after some time after its inauguration did not work well at all, is an example of how Korczak kept in touch with reality. He terminated it for a while, to think it over, and then started anew. See Chap. 4.

26

3 The Means: Participative Education

the graph of fights,6 a list of damages, the children’s savings, weight, height.7 As before a shop window display, a child will stand before it when he has time and desire—he’ll stare’ (Korczak 2018a, 196). One might argue that such a notice board is interesting only for children who are able to read, but that’s not Korczak’s view: Even where the majority of children don’t know how to read, I would hang up an announcement board: not knowing the letters, they’ll learn to recognize their names, they’ll feel the need, they’ll sense their dependence upon those children who do read (Korczak 2018a, 195).

This is very characteristic of Korczak’s social stance as an educator: he uses every opportunity for children to interact and communicate, and in that way (learn to) participate in what I called the language system in Sect. 3.1. So his conclusion, ‘You won’t anticipate everything’ (Korczak 2018a, 196), meaning: it offers so many more opportunities than you’d expect, is quite to the point.

3.2.2 The Book-Shelf Another institution, and one that complemented the board, was a shelf with books, among which a dictionary and an encyclopaedia, notebooks, games, and a log on events in the orphan’s home, to which Korczak himself contributed. There was also room for what Korczak called a ‘notary book’ (Korczak 2018a, 198), in which the children wrote about the items they exchanged among each other: a pen knife, or a magnifying glass, or anything they’d like to trade. It is another example of Korczak’s psychological insight into the lives of children: he knew how tempting it was to betray each other, and by putting, ‘in the middle’, as it were an intermediary like the notary book, he tried to soften this. Between brackets Korczak quotes from the log an entry he made himself (and which shows that betrayal and other unsocial behaviour did occur in the orphanage): ‘Another theft. I know that where there are a hundred children one must find one—or more?—who’s dishonest. And yet I cannot resign myself to it. I might as well resent the lot of them’ (Korczak 2018a, 198). Even in such short notes Korczak the educator comes out in a characteristic fashion: he knows that it is inevitable that between so many children there must be at least one who is dishonest, but he feels he must resist this thought, in order not to give up on the whole community.

6 It

looks like Korczak continued his practice to keep statistics of fights. In one of his essays in his collection Humorous pedagogy, Korczak also allows fighting between children, but on definite conditions, like being matched in strength, no gloating and mocking, nasty moves are forbidden, ‘like going for the throat or the stomach, twisting the neck, breaking fingers… Or ripping cloths’ (Korczak 2018b, 59). See also Chap. 1. 7 It is known that for thirty years Korczak collected data about his pupils’ height, weight, health etc. All this material is lost.

3.2 From Principles to Action

27

3.2.3 The Shop and the Broom Stand Besides a more practical institution such as the lost and found department (Korczak 2018a, 199–200), there are some more of a truly social, and participative nature. Take for instance the shop. His ideas are modest: ‘a small room or perhaps a wardrobe, even just a cabinet’ (Korczak 2018a, 200), which supplies small items at a low cost or even for free to the pupils: shoelaces, buttons, or soap.8 A remarkable, and an unexpectedly much loved institution was the broom stand. The two-and-a-half pages Korczak devotes to this can really be called an ode to household. Again, the way he introduces this practical subject, is very characteristic: ‘… duties are worthless if we do not at the same time win respect for the broom, washcloth, bucket, garbage pail’ (Korczak 2018a, 200). And he put these and other instruments like the hammer not tucked away in a dark cellar or something, but in clear view: ‘in a place of honour [! JWAB] next to the dormitory’s front entrance’ (Korczak 2018a, 201).9 It took Korczak several months of hard work to get the children, at that moment around a hundred, organized in order to fulfil all the tasks at hand. He introduced a form of division of labour, with ‘supervisors’, and gave lighter tasks to the younger ones. Also, he created morning and evening duties, and made rosters so that the children knew what and when. But, again, something special happened: children applied (by letter…) to perform certain tasks: ‘I want toilet duty and to give out the food at Table 8’ (Korczak 2018a, 201). There was competition among the children for favourite tasks. Korczak’s final remarks on this subject are also worth quoting, an unexpected plea to pay children for doing these duties: ‘Wanting to produce good citizens, we don’t need to create idealists’ (Korczak 2018a, 201).10

3.2.4 Parliament For the ‘producing’ of citizens a parliament was a core institution (Efrat Efron 2020, 175). Interestingly, in How to love a child, Korczak’s ideas of the home’s parliament are described after those of the court. This has to do with the only short history of its initiation. The model was simple: there were ‘twenty delegates. Each has a constituency of five children; whoever gets four votes becomes a delegate’ (Korczak 2018a, 244). The parliament had several tasks: to ratify laws, to approve days on 8A

picture of the shop (Medvedeva-Nathoo 2012, 99) indeed shows a small room, with a cabinet filled with all kinds of objects. 9 Without knowing it (I suppose) Korczak here connects to a school of philosophy, i.e. phenomenology, that pleads for, and gives attention to ‘the things of the world’ in their dignity. One might detect in these philosophers (think of Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Arendt) and in Korczak an early concern for the now highly urgent topic of sustainability. 10 Elsewhere, Korczak repeated this plea for (financial) rewards for the efforts of children, without of course pleading for child labor. In many of his books, also those for children, Korczak paid attention to the economic and financial aspects of living.

28

3 The Means: Participative Education

the calendar11 and to hand out commemorative postcards (more on these in the Afterword). Korczak was deliberating to slowly attach more tasks, and authority, to the parliament, for example in the admittance or removal of pupils to or from the home, but ‘caution is advisable’ (Korczak 2018a, 245). Another sign of how carefully and thoughtfully Korczak acted.

3.2.5 Little Review An overview of Korczak’s pedagogical institutions would not be complete without the children’s newspaper, Little Review.12 The seeds of this first independent newspaper for and by children were already sowed in 1915. Because of the war, Korczak was in Kiev and there he met Maryna Falska (1878–1944), one of the other significant women in his life. In 1919, the first newspaper was issued from ‘her’ orphanage Nasz Dom in Warsaw (of which Korczak was director besides Dom Sierot). The edition consisted of one; it was a notebook in which the news was written down with a pencil.13 Korczak himself continued to write about children, and his texts were published in others children’s magazines. But his plan for an independent magazine, not only for but also by children got off the ground, when in 1921 he wrote a pamphlet about school’s newspapers (Korczak 1967, 501–523). It was a plea for the active involvement of children, and equally important: a plea to give attention to what occupies the lives of children, their questions and problems. Towards the end of 1926, the new children’s newspaper was ‘born’ (October 9). Every Friday it appeared as an annex to the ‘big’ ‘Nasz Przegl˛ad’ (Our Review), a newspaper that aimed at modern progressive Jewish culture within Polish society. Korczak described the goal of Little Review as follows: ‘The paper will go into all problems of pupils and also all problems at school. And it will be edited in such a fashion that all interests of children may come to the fore. The paper will scrutinize that in all things JUSTICE will prevail’ (Görtzen 2010, 258; capital letters by Korczak; transl. by me, JWAB). Every edition was between two and six pages, depending on among others the moods of Our Review, and economic factors like the availability of printing paper. It was not a success from the start: for the first issue the editors only received a handful of letters from children, but this would change dramatically over the years, reaching numbers of thousands of letters every year. Very characteristically Korczak kept and archived every bit of paper. The editorial office consisted of three, a boy and a girl, and ‘a somewhat older man, bald, with glasses, to keep order’. They were 11 These involved among others a sort of carnival day, on which everything that was forbidden was allowed for one day, e.g., ‘not worth going to bed’ – day, July 22 (coincidentally, or not, Korczak’s birthday). 12 One might fill a book about this endeavour alone, as has been done by Görtzen (2010). I will only give some highlights, informed by his thorough research. 13 In this Korczak was not the first. Already in 1890 the Dutch schoolmaster and reformer Jan Ligthart (1859-1916) began a handwritten magazine in his school in The Hague. It was called ‘Onder een dak’ (Under one roof). All in all he produced eight editions, all of which have survived.

3.2 From Principles to Action

29

assisted by a network of correspondents—children of course—all over Poland (at its height 2,000). Like the Membership of Parliament and the children’s court, being an editor was a temporary job. Twice a year there was a gathering of the newspaper’s personnel and a selection of its writers; they were feasted by Korczak, who took them to the movies. The newspaper, as a form of children’s literature, became a sort of social movement, but the problems of children remained the main focus. The stories that children sent to the paper had to come out of their own experiences, and not second-hand. Many of the children’s complaints were about school-life. In his answers Korczak displayed an advocacy for the rights of children, which was in the context in which he and they lived a form of bravery. ‘Parents beat you when they have problems and lose their patience. Tell them they don’t have to hit you right away; give them half an hour if you don’t stop immediately. With that you give them time to calm down’, Korczak wrote (Görtzen 2010, 279; transl. by me, JWAB). The continuation of the paper wasn’t easy, and sometimes Korczak lost his patience, over the bad quality of the paper, the misspellings or technical failures. Also, some of his impatience towards bigots can be seen in his reaction to (in his eyes) bad writing: ‘In your Polish text I found 23 errors. You know what—translate it into English and send it to America…’ Or he responded: ‘That’s not interesting at all’ (what you write, JWAB), or even: ‘Your talent is wasted on children, write for adults’ (Görtzen 2010, 282, transl. by me, JWAB). In 1930, Korczak stepped down as editor-in-chief, because he felt that a younger and more energetic person should take the lead. Igor Newerly (1903–1987), a catholic, who was already four years his secretary, took over, albeit not without argument and disagreements between the older and the younger man. Also, Korczak was finishing writing his play ‘Senate of madmen’, which premiered in 1931. The end came, as so much came to an end, on September 1, 1939: on that day Nazi-Germany not only invaded Poland, but also the last issue of Little Review appeared. For 13 years the newspaper had been a means for children to express themselves on things that mattered to them. Korczak found content and originality more important than correct style or spelling (unless it became too bad). The newspaper connected children all over the country, and was an important institution of participation, especially in language.

3.2.6 The School The school is an institution not described by Korczak in his How to love a child. The reason is simple: at the time when he wrote the book, 1919, there wasn’t a school attached to the Dom Sierot orphanage. It wasn’t until the 20s that a school became part of it, and in 1932 a school was added to his other orphanage, Nasz Dom. In both cases they were short-lived experiments, only some years. However, Korczak had definite and critical ideas about the quality and level of the schools in Poland, and also about what an ‘ideal’ school should look like. A glimpse of the first can be seen in his When I am little again (Korczak 1992), the story of a teacher who becomes a child again, goes to school and wonders why things happen the way they do. The

30

3 The Means: Participative Education

children were afraid of the teacher, because of the physical punishments, and the lack of respect for their ‘inner’ world. Elsewhere, already in 1905, he criticized the school system for the ‘yoke of militarism’ it has to endure (Korczak 2018b, 112), and pleads for the school as ‘a smithy where the holiest watchwords are forged, all that is life-giving ought to flow through it—[…]. This can only be done by a school that is not repaired, patched together and refreshed, but a school built from the ground up, from the ground—not from the Moon—not the kind we see everywhere today’ (Korczak 2018b, 113–114).14 With his reference to the moon Korczak probably hints that all the beautiful theories and ingenious philosophies are of relatively little value when it comes to organizing a real, concrete school. This should be ‘a school for life’, as Korczak called his piece from 1908 (Korczak 1982, 26–65).15 Much of his ideas are in tune with what educational and social reformers, both in Europe and the United States were striving for, at the turn of the century. In this school the pupils would remember everything, because ‘they think not in names, but in images’ (Korczak 1982, 28). The whole didactic concept was based on three pillars: ‘to look, to ask questions, and answer these—that is the content of our lives, that is the content of our education’ (Korczak 1982, 30).16 Korczak takes his experiences in the summer camps into account when he says that the children learned a lot there: ‘to wash themselves, to dress, to make up their beds, to clean their clothing and shoes, to take food at the dinner table’, in this way they get to know ‘the plan of a school for life, and the tasks it sets before them’ (Korczak 1982, 41).17 Korczak sought to combine a school with other social institutions like the hospital, the people’s kitchen, and the community house. He stated that ‘as long as we don’t feed people and give them a roof over their heads, and supplement this with spiritual perfection, […] we don’t deserve the name of a “human community”’ (Korczak 1982, 49). He gave special attention to what he called ‘the science department’, with which he paid homage to the vast, in fact unlimited sources of knowledge of mankind. In order to bring children into contact with these resources, Korczak wants to start, as we have seen, from their questions; he gives an example: why does a sick person have blue lips? (Korczak 1982, 52–53). To answer this question, we know some things, other things we only surmise, and still other things we don’t know yet. School books only give the first, ‘the stupid belief in dogmas, which has completely paralyzed the creativity, the initiative and the autonomy of children’ (Korczak 1982, 53; also see Rogalski 1991, 188). This, however, did not lead to an expulsion of books from Korczak’s school, on the contrary. Like in the orphanage, there was an abundance of books, dictionaries, atlases, worksheets and so on (Rogalski 1991, 202–203). Korczak stresses the social factor in 14 Despite his criticism, Korczak acknowledges the importance of the fact that ‘we have schools’ (Korczak 2018b, 129-131; emph. in or.). 15 This text has not been published in English so far; I translated from the German edition (which is a translation from the Polish). 16 This shows how close, in this respect, Korczak was to the school reformers around 1900 or even before that: the educational psychology of Johann F. Herbart (1776-1841) was built on these principles. 17 Again, a striking analogy with John Dewey’s ‘realistic’ education, see Berding 2020.

3.2 From Principles to Action

31

schools, learning is a community task, in which there is a difference between pupils and teacher, to be sure, but it should not be overstated. Educator and students may learn together, and from each other. In his actual experimental school at the Nasz Dom home, former teacher Stanislaw Rogalski recalls, there were 20 students. There was no school signal, but the students came in time, in order to get the ‘best places’, Rogalski says (1991, 191). Without asking, children were allowed to leave their desks, and move around freely. (‘Asking children to sit for hours at a totally unsuitable desk is a torture.’) Also, there was no bell to announce the start or the beginning of the lessons, and students were free to leave. When the teacher noticed that the children had worked very hard, he allowed them a break, and together they went to the garden. One of the reasons to leave the classroom was that children needed a rest (see Sect. 3.3). Korczak asked the teachers to take notes of individual students, and also of the atmosphere and special events in the classroom. According to Rogalski, Korczak himself attended lessons and made notes (Rogalski 1991, 193). Although all of the above might lead to the conclusion that there were no demands on the children, this is not the truth. Looking at the demands of other schools—in the first year to be able to count to 20, sing 10 songs, know 12 plays and the colours— Korczak went beyond them. This was because Nasz Dom’s children had attended kindergarten where they learned much of these things. Korczak wanted the children to be able to read fluently. He even devised a test: a two-minute test, in order to establish how many words a child could read aloud (Rogalski 1991, 194).18 Korczak devoted much time to manual labour19 ; a metal workshop, and costume department were at disposal. Not surprisingly, music and play made up an important part of the activities. Music lessons took as long as everybody was having fun. On a more theoretical note, Rogalski states that ‘the motor of our educational activities were the actual interests of the students’. He (and Korczak) detested an ‘artificial curriculum’ that had no connection to real life (Rogalski 1991, 199). And ‘real life’ was sought after, outside of the school: to a farmer, a bakery (in the middle of the night), to a leather workshop etc., all together on what was called the ‘practical day’ of the week. This was also meant to bring the students in contact with adult life, since there were only few professional schools. It will be no surprise that Korczak was against giving marks (A, B etc., or 4, 7 etc.). But the students did get ‘points’ for their work; for example, 1 point for a beautifully written page, or reading a new piece of text; 3 points for learning a long poem, or working on a difficult task (Rogalski 1991, 204). On Mondays all points were made known, and children put an effort in getting higher upon the list (i.e. collect more points). As a forerunner of the now widely used portfolios in schools, the children made albums with their best work (Rogalski 1991, 205). The school was terminated, for reasons unclear, in 1934. There had been some changes in personnel; about this, Rogalski makes the interesting (and still valid) remark that ‘it has been shown 18 Rogalski

(1991, 194) states, unconfirmed, that students of Korczak’s first class, so six year olds, were one or even two years ahead of students of other schools. 19 Again, a subject he has in common with most reformers.

32

3 The Means: Participative Education

that the same principles, realised by different persons with differentiated gifts, lead to different results’ (Rogalski 1991, 207). Beyond its rather idiosyncratic features the school was, certainly in comparison with contemporary education, a haven of student’s initiatives and participation, not only a ‘school for life’, but also of life.

3.2.7 Tutorship Two other examples of the participative and communicative education that Korczak tried to realize which I will briefly discuss are the tutorship and the meetings. Newcomers in the orphanage were assigned a tutor or mentor, with whom they were in frequent contact, and with whom they could discuss questions and problems. As Efrat Efron (2020, 169) rightly states, ‘[t]he basis of the cross-age peer-mentoring program was Korczak’s belief that children understand each other better than anyone else can’.20 Many pupils wanted to be a tutor. They were required to introduce the newcomers to the comings and goings and the daily routines of the home, and they had to write reports, as objectively as possible, about the newcomer. And tutor and newcomer corresponded. From a journal: [boy]’I would like to be a carpenter. Because when I’m gearing up to travel I’ll be able to make a case, and I’ll be able to put different things in that case—clothes and food, and I’ll buy a sabre, and a shotgun. If wild animals attack, I’ll defend myself. I’m deeply in love with Hela, but I’m not going to marry a girl from the Orphan’s Home.’ The response of his tutor[a girl]: ‘Hela likes you, too, but not so deeply because you’re a troublemaker. Why don’t you want to marry a girl from our institution?’ ‘I don’t want to marry anyone from our institution because I’ll be embarrassed.[…]’ (Korczak 2018a, 203).

Korczak’s endnote to these journal notes: ‘The boy was nine years old, his tutor— twelve’ (Korczak 2018a, 205).

3.2.8 Meetings Finally, the meeting or ‘sit-down discussions’. Korczak had definite ideas about what a meeting was not: scolding children nor praising them; lecturing children or stirring them up neither; ‘noise, havoc—slapdash voting—is a parody of a discussion’ (Korczak 2018a, 205). So, what is it? It should be practical, and children should be listened to ‘carefully and honestly’—‘and no unfeasible promises!’ (Korczak 2018a, 206).21 Korczak also makes clear an intuition that probably many educators of today 20 As

we have seen in Chap. 1, this was one of the lessons learned from the first summer camp. promises to children that cannot be fulfilled, e.g. because of financial restrictions, is an avenue to disappointment and drop-out. It still is one of the pitfalls of children’s participation. 21 Making

3.2 From Principles to Action

33

recognize: that it can be hard work to communicate with children, and also that ‘[a] discussion demands a pure and dignified moral atmosphere’ (Korczak 2018a, 206). And: children have to learn to discuss in this way.

3.3 Participation—at All Costs? Korczak was in many ways a very patient man, who devoted endless attention to his pupils. As will be discussed in Chap. 4, his way of striving for justice through the children’s court asked a lot of patience of everyone involved. After all, for educators it’s much easier, and faster, to punish children, and be over with, than setting up a court that hears defendants, and witnesses and other parties, and takes its time to come to a balanced conclusion (verdict). This raises the question whether Korczak did not sometimes tired of what might be called the permanent participation of the children in the orphanage. We must not forget that the sort of self-governing ‘children’s republic’ that Korczak strove for, made it virtually impossible to hire a large staff of paid co-workers. In all of the 30 years of the existence of his orphanage Dom Sierot, Korczak had only one ever-present co-worker, the already mentioned Mrs. Stefa, the de facto director of the orphanage; and sometimes a secretary, and for the rest only a small staff, and students (trainees or interns, the so-called ‘Bursa’).22 Most of the work was done by the children, and this included the cleaning and maintenance of the entire building, dormitories, toilets, kitchen and so on (Korczak himself took part in this, like he did in the summer camps.) For a lot of hours every day children were busy with any kind of tasks, or assignments, besides activities like reading, writing, making music or repetitions for a play.23 He writes, at the very beginning of the part about the orphanage in How to love a child: ‘Everything that follows here is the children’s work, not our own’ (Korczak 2018a, 194). In fact, Korczak himself was busy too; he did his weekly radio talks, met with the editors of the children’s newspaper, acted as a witness at the court or taught paediatricians in the hospital, and in later years tried to collect money or obtain foods (Korczak 2018b, 225). The demanding work as head and doctor of the orphanage he actually ‘added’ to these other occupations. So: how did Korczak manage with all the demands aimed at him, how did he deal with children who wanted to play with him (he was much loved for his openness and playfulness24 ), or wanted to ask him something or make a complaint? His ‘solution’ was as simple as perhaps surprising: he created time for himself. He was certainly not always available for the children; in fact, sometimes he rejected them outright

22 As

pictures show, mostly there were ten of them. children went to schools outside the orphanage. In the 1930s a school was part of Dom Sierot itself, but this was a discontinued experiment. 24 For an account by a former pupil see Talmage-Schneider 2015, 53–54. 23 Older

34

3 The Means: Participative Education

because he didn’t want to spend time with them. Here is an example of how he dealt with an assault on his attention: I read. Children play nearby. A boy comes to me. ‘What are you reading?’ ‘A book, can’t you see that?’ ‘Fairy tales?’ ‘No, about minerals. Do not disturb me.’ […] ‘Do you want to box with me?’ I, with an angry face: ‘Go away now, I don’t feel like talking to you.’ ‘Are you angry?’ ‘No, but I’m reading. And I want to have two hours of rest, not just five minutes’ (Korczak 1979, 170–171; translated and reworked by me, JWAB).

Educators have to create time for themselves, otherwise they will experience being overwhelmed by the demands of individual children and the group as a whole.25 Korczak created this space for himself, but at the same time used it in a pedagogical way. An example of this sheds light on both his pedagogical stance, his need for his ‘own’ time and his fascination for language (Berding 2019a). He lived in a little room at the top of the orphanage, and was not always available for the children. His solution for that was, again, as simple as it was ingenious: if you have something to tell me or something to ask, or to complain, write me a letter and put it in the mailbox. And he pondered: In the evening you remove a fistful of papers unskilfully scrawled over, and just as you’re reading them attentively in peace and quiet you’ll think about what you would have discounted for lack of time and thought during the day (Korczak 2018a, 196).

He found everything on those cards: a request for a different place to sleep, complaints about other children or a request for an interview. Korczak took the time: preferably tomorrow a thoughtful response than a meaningless one today. He organized stillness and attention for himself because he was convinced that he would be better equipped to bear the many tasks of the day. Moreover, there was one clear pedagogical aspect of this approach: the children learned to wait for an answer (what you might call ‘educating for patience’, see Berding (2019b) for more examples), they learned to distinguish between important and unimportant or trivial issues, they learned to think and argue and it taught them something about themselves: I want something and I am able to do it, although perhaps I have to be patient. The last major advantage of this method of communication was, he said, that the notes facilitated the conversation as it were. ‘I choose the children with whom a longer, confidential, sincere, or serious conversation is necessary; I choose a moment that suits myself and the child. The box saves me time; because of it, the day becomes longer’ (Korczak 2018a, 197). As Dror (1998, 288) rightly states, ‘written communication did not replace word of mouth, and personal informal contact with his wards [pupils] went on all the time’. But, not literally, all of the time. Korczak himself sometimes withdrew from participating in the daily life and strife of the orphanage, but on the other hand, he invented a means of communication between him and the children that made a sort of delayed, or relaxed communication and participation possible. 25 Like Freud, Korczak knew about how children may ‘occupy’ or even try to ‘possess’ their educators. In the first part of How to love a child (‘The child in the family’) and also in other works Korczak devotes many pages to the child’s and the adolescent’s sexuality.

3.3 Participation—at All Costs?

35

Finally, Korczak was very much aware that not only he himself needed time and space, but the children as well. So for the ones who needed some relaxation, he created a quiet room. And the extravert, energetic ones? They went to the cellar, to the room with the boilers that heated the orphanage, and there they could chop wood with the janitor. Pupils who did not feel like joining a meeting were not forced: ‘There are children who do not want to take part in deliberations’, that’s okay: ‘Children have the right to live in groups and individually, and by their own effort and their own thinking’ (Korczak 2018a, 206). So, participation, at all costs? Certainly not.

3.4 Conclusion Participation can take many forms. In the orphanage it did, from hands-on activities by the children to meetings in which issues were discussed. ‘Behind’ the forms is the mission: a just community in which each may contribute, and also benefit from the efforts of others. From the standpoint of the hierarchical ordering of participative activities as devised by Hart (Hart 1997; also see Jarosz 2018), one may say that without a doubt in Korczak’s orphanage the highest level was reached: a self-governing community, in which the children were fully responsible, or better: co-responsible for everything that was important to the life of the community and the individual in it. It is important to stress the co in co-responsibility. In all his childfriendliness Korczak, true to his law of respect, did not demean himself. He too, like anyone, had the right to be, to exist, and have his interests, longings and dreams. Korczak was sensitive to the needs of others, but also to his own. The orphanage was not the possession of the children nor of Korczak or his assistants, it was a common enterprise, but with marked differences in responsibilities. As an educator, Korczak stood up as a guarantee for the wellbeing of the home as a whole; in other words, he embodied the authority that is necessary for any education to carry that name. In fact, as we have seen, this was the most important lesson learned from the first summer camp. And since we do not ‘possess’ authority, we are ‘awarded’ it—we are ‘authorised’ by others—it is something that has to be achieved, which can be hard work; like with everything else in education there is no automatic pilot. Therefore, although a culture of participation pervaded everything, it is important to stress that it was not a permissive or a laisser-faire culture. Korczak writes: ‘So then is everything permissible? Never: of a bored slave we’ll make a bored tyrant’ (Korczak 2018a, 33). Community life knew freedoms, many even, but also distinct boundaries and limitations. Korczak somehow found the middle ground between authoritarian ways of upbringing and education—which was the dominant mode in his time—and an education of extreme ‘child-centeredness’.26 For him, as I said 26 Although there are more innovators of education who adopted practices such as meetings, demo-

cratic decision-making etc., the important difference between Korczak and child-centred educationalists remains that the former acknowledges and even stresses the limitations of an individual’s actions.

36

3 The Means: Participative Education

in my foreword, a child is always a child-in-context. A participative culture needs both freedom and restrictions. And it was precisely this what motivated Korczak to base education upon a law, or better: a constitution, in which these freedoms and restrictions were laid down, a public document, to which everyone involved had access. It was the basis for Korczak’s enterprise, small in number and locations, but great in its impact on educational thinking, to develop a community in which justice ruled. And it is exactly here that the political aspect of participation on an educational level comes to the fore. In Chap. 4 I will present in detail this unique experiment: the children’s court.

References Berding, J. (2019a). Patience as a pedagogical virtue—and impatience as well? Janusz Korczak’s lived experience. Lecture at the Conference ‘The School of Life in the 21st Century’. Tel Aviv: Cymbalista Jewish Heritage Center, November, 28. Berding, J. (2019b). Opvoeding en onderwijs tussen geduld en ongeduld [Upbringing and education between patience and impatience]. Apeldoorn and Antwerpen: Cyclus. Dror, Y. (1998). Educational activities in Janusz Korczak’s orphans’ home in Warsaw: A historical case study and its implications for current child and youth care practice. In Child & Youth Care Forum (Vol. 27, pp. 81–298). Efrat Efron, S. (2020). Responsibility for self, others, and the community: Practical implications of Korczak’s educational vision. In T. Tsyrlina-Spady & P. Renn (Eds.), Nurture, care, respect, and trust: Transformative pedagogy inspired by Janusz Korczak (pp. 165–180), (E-Book). Gorham, ME: Myers Education Press. Görtzen, R. (2010). Korczak en de kinderkrant Kleine Revue [Korczak and the children’s newspaper Little Review]. In J. Korczak & R. Görtzen (Eds.), Hoe houd je van een kind. Het kind in het gezin [How to love a child. The child in the family], (pp. 247–296). Amsterdam: SWP. Hart, R. (1997). Children’s participation; the theory and practice of involving children in communities. London: Earthscan. Jarosz, E. (2018). Social participation of children—A study in interdisciplinary discourse development. In M. Michalak (Ed.), The rights of the child yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Korczak perspective. Part II, (pp. 284–303). Warsaw: Office of the Ombudsman for Children. Korczak, J. (1967). Selected works of Janusz Korczak. M. Wolins (Ed.) Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Korczak, J. (1979). Wer kann Erzieher werden? [Who can become an educator?] In Von Kindern und anderen Vorbildern [Of children and other examples], (pp. 118–119). Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn. Korczak, J. (1982). Begegnungen und Erfahrungen [Encounters and experiences]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Korczak, J. (1992). When I am little again. In When I am little again and the child’s right to respect (E. P. Kulawiec, Ed., pp. 3–158). Lanham, ML: University Press of America. Korczak, J. (2018a). In A. M. Czernow (Ed.), How to love a child and other selected works (Vol. 1). London and Chicago, IL: Vallentine Mitchell. Korczak, J. (2018b). In A. M. Czernow (Ed.), How to love a child and other selected works (Vol. 2). London and Chicago, IL: Vallentine Mitchell. Medvedeva-Nathoo, O. (2012). May their lot be lighter… Of Janusz Korczak and his pupil. Poznan: Poznan University Press. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York etc. : Simon and Schuster.

References

37

Putnam, R. (2015). Our kids. The American dream in crisis. New York etc.: Simon and Schuster. Rogalski, S. (1991). Das Schulexperiment Dr. Janusz Korczak [The school experiment of Dr. Janusz Korczak]. In F. Beiner & E. Lax-Höfer (Eds.), Janusz Korczak. Von der Grammatik und andere pädagogische Texte [About grammar and other pedagogical texts] (pp. 187–207). Heinsberg: Agentur Dick. Talmage-Schneider, M. (2015). Janusz Korczak: Sculptor of children’s souls. S. l.: The Wordsmithy, LLC.

Chapter 4

The Core: Doing Justice

4.1 Striving for Justice The children’s court was created by Korczak to uphold the law of respect, and to work towards a just community, and put this principle into practice. Korczak paid a lot of attention to the work of the court because he saw it as a tool against the educator’s arbitrariness, or as we saw, even ‘despotism’. It was also, he wrote ‘the seed of a child’s equal rights, [and] it leads toward a constitution, it compels one to an announcement—a declaration—of the rights of the child’ (Korczak 2018a, 207). The main premise of the law, in itself a sort of ‘declaration’ that precedes the actual ‘codex’, is forgiveness of offenses: If someone does something bad, it’s best to forgive him. If someone has done something bad because he didn’t know, then now he knows. If he has done something bad unintentionally, he’ll be more careful in the future. If he does something bad because he’s having a hard time adjusting, he will try. If he has done something bad because he was talked into it, next time he won’t listen. If someone does something bad, it’s best to forgive him, to wait for him to straighten out (Korczak 2018a, 208).

As Valeeva (2018, 102) rightly states: ‘Its [of the children’s court] main purpose was first to understand and forgive, only later – to pass judgment’. The task of the court was to create order in this miniature society with between 100 and 200 children aged 7 to about 14. No small task, but as we have seen Korczak explicitly chose to make the children co-responsible. And his justification of this was clearly derived from a social and respectful perspective: … the court must defend the quiet children so that they’re not harmed by the aggressive and the impudent ones; the court must defend the weak so that they’re not tormented by the strong; the court must protect the conscientious and the diligent so that they’re not held back by the careless and the lazy; the court must see that there’s order, for disarray is most harmful to good, quiet, and conscientious people (Korczak 2018a, 208).

The residents of the orphanage were given the opportunity to file complaints about others. The notice board was used to this end; one of the educators then collected © The Author(s) 2020 J. W. A. Berding, Janusz Korczak, SpringerBriefs on Key Thinkers in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59250-9_4

39

40

4 The Core: Doing Justice

the complaints (Korczak 2018a, 208). Korczak had arranged for the court to consist of a varying group of children as judges. In order to perform this (temporary) task they should not have been brought before the court in the previous week. In addition to the court, there was also a Court of Justice, consisting of an educator and two children-judges, who issued judgments and drafted laws. The general task of the court, according to Korczak, was ‘taking care of people, property and health’ (Korczak 2018a, 210). The court met weekly to deal with ‘cases’. All convictions were recorded. Korczak makes a sharp distinction between ‘the court’ (as an institution, see Chap. 3) and ‘justice’: ‘The court is not justice, but it should strive for justice; the court is not truth, but it desires the truth’ (Korczak 2018a, 208). According to Korczak, and true to his vision of pedagogical responsibility, the court had a definite pedagogical task: The court is not pleasant – that much is true. But it also hasn’t been introduced for fun. Its task is to stand guard over law and order – the court’s goal is for the caregiver [i.e. Korczak] not to be forced, like a cowherd or farmhand, to force others into obedience crudely, with the cane and yelling, to consider, advise, and evaluate calmly and judiciously, with the children, who often have a better sense of who is right or to what degree they are wrong. The court’s task is to replace the brawl with the work of thinking, to exchange outbursts with pedagogical impact (Korczak 2018a, 234).

In other words, Korczak attempted to tame, or at least mitigate the workings of the homo rapax, that he knew not only slumbered in adults, but also in children.1

4.2 The Book of Law In order to give content and structure to the work of the children’s court, Korczak wrote a book of law that contained numerous articles. These were applied as verdicts after hearing-sessions of the conflicting parties involved. As stated before, the main sanction was forgiveness and the hope of betterment. Another core characteristic was that all proceedings took place in openness, in the public ‘light’ so to speak. The law consisted of a great number of articles, from 1 to 1000, from the lightest sentence to the most serious. Most articles did not pronounce punishment in the usual sense, but indicated that the defendant was aware of his offense and was trying to rectify himself. Here are some examples, starting with § 100.2 § 100 - The court says that he [the defendant] is not at fault, offers no reprimand, doesn’t get angry, but, regarding § 100 as the minimum punishment, includes it in the table of court verdicts. § 200 – ‘He [the defendant] has behaved inappropriately.’ Tough, it happened. It can happen with anyone. We ask him not to do it again. 1 His

realism: ‘There are as many bad people among children as there are among adults, only they have neither the need nor the opportunity to show it. Everything that happens in the filthy world of adults happens in the world of children’ (Korczak 2018a, 146). 2 Nos 1–99 speak only of acquittal or of the decision of the court not to act (Korczak 2018a, 214–217).

4.2 The Book of Law

41

§ 400 – Serious guilt. Four hundred says: you’ve done a very bad thing, or: you’re behaving very poorly. Article 400: this is the final attempt, the final willingness to spare the guilty party shame, the final warning (Korczak 2018a, 212).

A ‘final warning’? Not at all… The articles 500 to 900 are roughly the same as 400, but every time something is added: the verdict is announced by name in the newspaper of the orphanage, the perpetrator is mentioned on the notice board and the family is informed. Article 900 means that you may only stay if someone takes care of you within two days and wants to act as a mentor. If that did not help either, then article 1000, removal followed. However, after three months a child was allowed to knock on the door again, and request to be admitted. As far as is known, the highest sentence has been pronounced only once or twice in the orphanage’s 30-year history. The court’s work and its verdicts were written in a special newspaper. In the first five weeks, Korczak writes, 261 cases were heard (Korczak 2018a, 219). Most of them, incidentally, applied either forgiveness or Article 1, that is the complaint was withdrawn. Korczak defended himself against the accusation that these were insignificant matters (as the reader may be aware by now, for Korczak everything in life had meaning). For example, there were children who had suffered insults and bullying. The descriptions of cases show that the orphanage children sometimes gave each other a hard time. Case 52. A girl is walking on stilts. A boy walks up to her: ‘Give me your stilts.’ She doesn’t want to give him her stilts. The boy starts to beat her up, tears the stilts away, pushes her, hits her in the face. The girl cries – instead of a happy game, she has sorrow. What for? Why? She takes the boy to court, but then she forgives him. § 1 (Korczak 2018a, 223).3

What was it like to be a member of the children’s court, to be a judge of other’s actions? A former pupil, Sarah Kremer, remembers. She had entered the home at age 7, not long after World War I had ended. ‘I remember giving out easy punishments and one favouring the children themselves. People make mistakes, and they should be given another chance—that was the main idea. […] I was always on the side of the “bad” child. I thought that he or she could correct their actions…’ (TalmageSchneider 2015, 104). As for how the verdicts worked out on the children and their behaviour is not unambiguously clear. There are reports about stubbornness and unwillingness to adapt, but also of children who were better off in this system than in the older, authoritarian system (Lifton 2005; Talmage-Schneider 2015). With his usual honesty, Korczak himself writes that things did not go smoothly at all. In fact, at a certain point, everything went wrong. The children were dissatisfied with the work of the court. Some felt that there was no point in making a complaint after all. Others found the court biased. Still others, according to Korczak, were simply too lazy: it was easier to get angry or argue. Korczak thought that the children no longer respected the work of the court. The children filed complaints about each other for the most silly things. They were pitted against each other to complain and the work of the court ‘drowned’ in all the cases it had to deal with. 3 ‘§ 1. The court declares that A has withdrawn her complaint.’ Korczak gives dozens of descriptions

of these kinds of events.

42

4 The Core: Doing Justice

Ever the precise chronicler, Korczak had counted that in the first year there were 3,500 cases… (Korczak 2018a, 238).4 This completely overshot its target. Korczak remained convinced that ‘in about fifty years there will be not be a single school, a single institution of learning without a court’ (Korczak 2018a, 228). But the way it now went, it was harmful to the orphanage, and Korczak halted the court’s work for four weeks. As an interim measure, a number of cases were referred to the Court of Justice. Were the goal (living together in a just way so that everyone can be her/himself) and the means (the work of the children’s court) still in balance? It seemed that a small group of children had abused the court to achieve their own goals. Korczak made a number of changes. He appointed Mrs. Stefa as secretary. He added some points to the statutes. Anyone who disagreed with the verdict had the right to appeal a month later. Some cases went directly to the Court of Justice. Finally, the children were also allowed to file complaints against the staff. This happened to Korczak according to tradition at least five times (he turned himself in). Once because he had slid from the railing in the home’s staircase, which was forbidden; also because he would have struck a child; at another occasion he had spoken in an unfriendly manner to a boy (himself a bully); another time because he wrongfully accused a girl of theft, and once because he had put a girl on a high tree-branch and did not want to release her (Talmage Schneider 2015, 69, 88). He was convicted, but in the spirit of the children’s court with a relatively mild punishment (probably § 100). One of the effects of this procedure was that according to Korczak the caregiver (educator) was educated by the child (Korczak 2018b, 138–140). With respect to this, Arnon (1983, 33) stresses Korczak’s ‘strong believe that there could be no double standards for morality in education’.5

4.3 The ‘Republican’ in Korczak The political thinker Hannah Arendt6 (1906–1975) has written about ‘politics’ as the ‘human condition’ of acting, gesturing and speaking, taking initiatives, to bring something new into the world. To this uniquely human phenomenon she attaches the concept of natality: by bringing something new to the world, which is accepted by our peers, we are born over and over again. Ás acting beings, she says, we ‘appear’ in the world, before each other, not as objects, but as subjects. On the stage7 that is the world, humans appear in all openness before each other as equals, to speak about, 4 This

amount was also caused by some children having to appear for multiple cases, such as ‘a certain B. … eight cases in one week’ (Korczak 2018a, 232). 5 Joseph Arnon (1911-1978) was a teacher who became interested in Korczak’s work, and worked as a teacher in the orphanage’s school from 1929. 6 In the 50s Arendt wrote two epoch-making essays on education, and its relation to politics (‘The crisis in education’, and ‘Reflections on Little Rock’, respectively). For an interpretation of Arendt’s view on education, see Pols and Berding 2018. 7 Arendt uses different metaphors for the world: a stage, a space/square and a table.

4.3 The ‘Republican’ in Korczak

43

and discuss important issues that regard all: the common cause, the res publica. In our equal-ness we are all different, says Arendt, and she attaches the notion of plurality to this phenomenon. Gathering together in this fashion ‘makes’ people free, temporarily as it were, before the group dissolves, and everyone goes about their own personal daily businesses again (Arendt 1959). A comparison between Arendt’s approach of ‘the political’ and Korczak’s practices in the orphanage shows clear analogies (Berding 2018).8 The most striking aspect of the work of the children’s court, and everything that surrounded it, and made it possible, like the book of law, the proceedings, the reports and so on, is surely its publicness. Individual, conflicting interests are dealt with, not in backrooms, but in openness, for all to see and hear. Seen from the perspective of Korczak’s own development as an educator, this was, as I have already said, a great step forward in comparison with how he dealt with fights and so on during the summer camps. There they were mostly resolved in a conversation between the two competing camps, and Korczak acted as a sort of mediator. In the orphanage this mediating role was taken over by the children’s court, which conducted its work in openness, and with that gave a totally new dynamic to the question of how to deal with children’s fights and conflicts. The essence of this is the recognition of mutual interests, wishes and motives, as well as the recognition that everyone has the right to pursue what seems best to him, but that this also has its limits. Those limits lie in the pursuits of others, who also want the best. Korczak’s work with the children’s court was aimed at taking the confrontation of interests, wishes and opinions out of the ‘private’ sphere—where the ‘law of the strongest’ prevails—and making it public. Disagreement, quarrels and conflicts between some individuals always have an effect on the community— positive or negative—but as long as the community does not ‘see’ it, it cannot judge it. With the children’s court, Korczak introduced public speaking and judgments about matters that seemingly concern only a few individuals, but in reality concern the entire community. This way of thinking and acting is very typical of a ‘republican’ approach to the question of how to live together with people one has not chosen oneself. In such an approach there is continuous debate about what counts as a good life in a gathering of people, that is in and by itself not (yet) a community. There is no automatic mechanism that will bring about community life that is worthy of this term. A lot of work has to be done for that, as Korczak’s efforts show.9 His continuous stress on the question of what it means to live together in a human and humane fashion, and on his willingness to continuously take new initiatives, and do unexpected things, to bring something new into this world, to take into consideration the unique abilities of his pupils, and the plurality of the world small and at large, do make Korczak a political pedagogue of a unique kind. 8 It

must be said that for Arendt any connection between ‘politics’ and ‘children’ was anathema (see, e.g. Arendt 2006). On my view, she was wrong to apply ‘the political’ to adults only, children may be (and are, e.g. as young climate activists show) political actors as well. 9 In the specific case of Dom Sierot, which replaced older homes, this was a pressing problem from the start: at the beginning there was no community, just a bunch of unruly kids.

44

4 The Core: Doing Justice

4.4 Conclusion In Korczak’s work we see an interesting blending of pedagogy and politics (in the Arendtian sense described above). Within the framework of the orphan’s home (which, it must be said, was not a totally public institution), he put pedagogical principles into action, not on automatic pilot so to speak, but in a tentative, deliberate, and always careful way. He was flexible enough to deal with setbacks, as the process with the children’s court shows, but never let go of his ideal: to work together with the children toward a more just society. In doing this, both he and the children were allowed to make mistakes. In education that is a great good, for this makes it possible to learn and adapt. But making mistakes is one thing, to be able to try anew is another. In Korczak’s pedagogical practice of the orphan’s home the children were not pinpointed or labelled for their mistakes, but got a new chance to try and do, or be better. And another chance, and again another. Beginning again, over and over. Precisely this is the embodiment of Hannah Arendt’s idea of natality. Korczak’s pedagogical translation of this idea is his unique contribution to thinking, and doing education.

References Arendt, H. (1959). The human condition. New York: Doubleday. Arendt, H. (2006). The crisis in education. In Between past and future (pp. 170–193). New York etc.: Penguin Classics. Arnon, J. (1983). Who was Janusz Korczak? Interchange, 14, 23–42. Berding, J. (2018). Janusz Korczak and Hannah Arendt on what it means to become a subject. Humanity, appearance and education. In M. Michalak (Ed.) The rights of the child yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Korczak perspective. Part II (pp. 432–449). Warsaw: Office of the Ombudsman for Children. Korczak, J. (2018a). In A. M. Czernow (Ed.), How to love a child and other selected works (Vol. 1). London and Chicago, IL: Vallentine Mitchell. Korczak, J. (2018b). In A. M. Czernow (Ed.), How to love a child and other selected works (Vol. 2). London and Chicago, IL: Vallentine Mitchell. Lifton, B. J. (2005). The king of children. The life and death of Janusz Korczak. S.l.: American Academy of Pediatrics. Pols, W., & Berding, J. (2018). ‘This is our world.’ Hannah Arendt on Education. In P. Smeyers (Ed.) International handbook of philosophy of education part 1 (pp. 39–48). Cham: Springer. Talmage-Schneider, M. (2015). Janusz Korczak: Sculptor of children’s souls. S.l.: The Wordsmithy LLC. Valeeva, R. (2018). Janusz Korczak’s philosophy of education and Russian humanistic pedagogy. In M. Michalak (Ed.) The rights of the child yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Korczak perspective. Part II, (pp. 92–113). Warsaw: Office of the Ombudsman for Children.

Chapter 5

Today: Living Together in a ‘Republican’ Fashion

5.1 A Humanistic, Universal Educator As explored before, Korczak developed his thought and practices in a specific timeframe and in a specific place. Isn’t it odd that educators not only in Europe, but in countries with such a diversity in cultural systems as Japan, in North and South America, and in Africa, are captivated by these ideas, and try to work them out in their own situations? In many European countries this has led to, again, a diversity of activities in schools, and youth organizations, summer camps and teacher education institutions on all levels. In Japan, Korczak’s message made people aware—not on a grand scale, but also not without significance—of the harshness of the school system and its concurrent high rate of suicides among young people. In North America, Korczak’s works are intensively studied from the viewpoint of remembering the Holocaust, and making new beginnings. In South America, Korczak’s ideas are put into practice in work in the favelas of Sao Paulo, Brazil. In Africa, they have played a role to enhance the quality of schooling for boys and girls.1 What is it that comes to the fore, and that appeals to people? Korczak is unmistakably a humanistic educator for whom childhood has, as was said before, an absolute or ‘internal’ value (Valeeva 2018, 92). Korczak’s recognition of the subjectivity of the child—a being with his or her own wants, needs, desires and dreams, and a being who can take responsibility, not only for him/herself but also for the greater good—is the kind of pedagogy that goes beyond an admiration or even adoration of the child, towards a genuine respect. But his pedagogy also goes beyond a likewise adulation towards the renewal of society; it opposes the idea that education is the best means to arrive at a better world. Korczak ‘politicizes’ education in a very different way. For him education has to do with the question how to live together now, not tomorrow, or somewhere else, ‘later’, when you’re grown-up, but in the 1 Many

of these and other activities are presented on the websites or Facebook-pages of national associations.

© The Author(s) 2020 J. W. A. Berding, Janusz Korczak, SpringerBriefs on Key Thinkers in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59250-9_5

45

46

5 Today: Living Together in a ‘Republican’ Fashion

here and now, in this concrete and tangible situation. This question is too complex to be answered by anyone individually, it can only be dealt with through continuing conversations, dialogues, arguing, and perhaps fighting (but not too much). There is no pre-given answer, there is no fixed point, or an authority that we may turn to, and say: solve this for us! That is really Korczak’s ‘republicanism’: we have to do it ourselves, but we are not alone. Korczak’s book of law, his constitutional approach with its institutions—the parliament, the children’s court, even the broom stand— gives definite guidelines for what might be called a participative, democratic, and just life form, a ‘mode de vivre’, a way of living. Structure and culture are intertwined, and congruent with each other.

5.2 The Reconstruction of Institutions From a pedagogical point of view, Korczak’s idea of a group of children, under the guidance of an adult, teacher or educator, conceived as a ‘republican’ form of living together is not only very stimulating, it is also very much needed (Berding 2018). More than ever in our (Western) societies, and in our formal institutions, we are confronted with a great diversity (plurality) of individuals who somehow have to live together in a peaceful way, or at least as peaceful as possible. Living together with others, who are not like oneself, is perhaps the greatest challenge today. It is indeed a challenge for educators, who may be inspired by Korczak’s example. However, it is not a ‘model’ to be copied, as Korczak himself already made quite clear to his co-workers and students in the orphanage: Be yourself; seek your own path. Know yourself before wanting to know children. Come to terms with what you’re capable of before you begin plotting the extent of the children’s rights and responsibilities. Of them all, you yourself are the child you must first get to know, raise, and educate (Korczak 2018, 107).

Every school, every classroom, every educational institution and every group is a unique space where teachers and children may discover in their own unique way what ‘living together’ means to them. Their ‘wisdom of practice’ needs to be articulated, not as the alpha and omega of ‘the’ solution, but as the starting point of a joint research. This may mean that forms of speaking about justice and practicing it are developed along lines of mediation, or by consulting children, or by having children do research into subjects that are important for them (Jarosz 2020, 96). In some countries, such as Russia, Poland and the Netherlands, there is a tradition of summer camps, organized along Korczakian lines (Demakova 2020). There are also examples of working with children’s or youth courts in the framework of restorative justice (i.e. Pataki 2020). In many childcare and afterschool care centres in the Netherlands, group life is a subject for discussion: in a circle, or small working groups children contribute to what goes on, and have a co-responsibility for the program (Berding et al. 2010). To be sure, one need not install a children’s court in a play group with

5.2 The Reconstruction of Institutions

47

four-year-olds, and may still devote attention to ‘how to live together’ in a respectful and just way. It’s part of the worker’s professionalism to find ways to do this. The most decisive issue is whether children’s voices may not only be expressed, but also listened to, in accordance with one of the founding articles, number 12, of the Convention of the rights of the child: 1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. 2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law (emph. added).2

Whatever activities are performed: in educational settings the teacher or educator is to guarantee that the ‘law of respect’ is upheld for everyone, including herself, so that each member of the community may come to his or her right. That is what the ‘ethos’ of the educator is about. It was what Korczak lived, through and through.

5.3 Conclusion Living together, or at least trying to, in a ‘republican’ fashion means hard work—for everybody. This is lightyears away from the easy-going attitude Korczak displayed as a novice group educator. Taking care that everyone can come into his or her own demands not only an observant, caring, and, if we may believe Korczak, even a loving attitude towards children, it also demands that we turn this attitude into concrete participative actions. Many educators feel that this is really the hard part, and maybe that’s true. But then they forget that in many cases the children are natural partners who are willing to think and act as well. Korczak says: Years of work have made it ever more clear that children deserve respect, trust, and kindness; that they enjoy a sunny atmosphere of gentle feelings, cheerful laughter, lively first efforts and surprises; of pure, bright, loving joy; where work is dynamic, fruitful, and beautiful (Korczak 2018, 317).

And if it doesn’t work, if the ‘first efforts’ don’t lead to success, we may be consoled by Korczak’s deep-felt and hope-giving reflexion: There are mistakes that you are always going to make, because you’re a person and not a machine (Korczak 2018, 122).

2 https://www.unicef.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/UN-Convention-Rights-Child-text.pdf.

Accessed August 3, 2020.

48

5 Today: Living Together in a ‘Republican’ Fashion

References Berding, J. (2018). Janusz Korczak and Hannah Arendt on what it means to become a subject. Humanity, appearance and education. In M. Michalak (Ed.), The rights of the child yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Korczak perspective. Part II (pp. 432–449). Warsaw: Office of the Ombudsman for Children. Berding, J., Smit, I., & van Rijn, I. (2010). Janusz Korczak for workers in childcare and after-school care. Amsterdam: Janusz Korczak Stichting. Demakova, I. (2020). Nash Dom camps: A unique space of childhood. In T. Tsyrlina-Spady & P. Renn (Eds.), Nurture, care, respect, and trust: Transformative pedagogy inspired by Janusz Korczak (pp. 271–276) (E-Book). Gorham, ME: Myers Education Press. Jarosz, E. (2020). Echoes from Korczak: Children’s participation today. In T. Tsyrlina-Spady & P. Renn (Eds.), Nurture, care, respect, and trust: Transformative pedagogy inspired by Janusz Korczak (pp. 92–101) (E-Book). Gorham, ME: Myers Education Press. Korczak, J. (2018). In A. M. Czernow (Ed.), How to love a child and other selected works (Vol. 1). London and Chicago, IL: Vallentine Mitchell. Pataki, I. (2020). Youth courts and postcards: Incorporating Korczak and principles of restorative justice in a school youth court. In T. Tsyrlina-Spady & P. Renn (Eds.), Nurture, care, respect, and trust: Transformative pedagogy inspired by Janusz Korczak (pp. 295–299) (E-Book). Gorham, ME: Myers Education Press. Valeeva, R. (2018). Janusz Korczak’s philosophy of education and Russian humanistic pedagogy. In M. Michalak (Ed.), The rights of the child yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Korczak perspective. Part II (pp. 92–113). Warsaw: Office of the Ombudsman for Children.

Chapter 6

Afterword: Educating for Justice

Before me lies a collection of reprints of 27 postcards with a diversity of pictures on them: nature scenes; views of Warsaw: the river, and the town hall; ‘romantic’ scenes of boys or girls, and scenes that seen to come straight from the bible. One of them attracts extra attention: I’m looking at a flowery arrangement, and a date: 21-3-30. And furthermore: ‘+ 100 / − 4 / o 16’. Hieroglyphs? They do have a serious meaning. Korczak issued commemorative postcards to the children when they had performed certain tasks very well, or when they left the home. The numbers have to do with the points children were awarded. When he wrote about it in How to love a child, the ‘temporary statute on commemorative postcards’ had not yet been legislated by the orphan’s home parliament (Korczak 2018, 246). The idea was that every pupil could apply to receive a postcard, by showing that he had done something right, that is ‘peeling 2,500 lb of potatoes’—this would be rewarded by ‘the flower postcard’. At the back of the postcards are texts, in Polish. Although I can’t decipher everything, one name pops up on every card: B (for Berl) Gluzman, and different dates are visible: from 1923 through 1930. Every card has an imprint: ‘Dom Sierot – Krochmalna 92 . Luckily there is much more information about these cards (Medeveda-Nathoo 2012; Medeveda-Nathoo 2012–13). Leon, as Berl was known, was a pupil of Dom Sierot: he entered in June 29, 1923, and left on March 21, 1930. This explains the date on the card: it was his farewell day. The Polish text on the rearside was written by Korczak: ‘Forget-me-nots farewell postcard, for B. Gluzman. God bless. Warsaw 21/III [1]930.’ And now the meaning of the figures becomes clear: all pupils gave their opinion on Leon: he got a hundred ‘pluses’ which means that a hundred children liked him and were sad to see him leave, there were only four ‘minuses’, and 16 abstained from a judgment.1

1 Much

material on Gluzman (1914 or 17-2012), who in 1930 departed for Canada, and became a businessman there, may be found in the archives of the Ghetto Fighters Museum in Israel, and is represented in Medvedeva-Nathoo 2012.

© The Author(s) 2020 J. W. A. Berding, Janusz Korczak, SpringerBriefs on Key Thinkers in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59250-9_6

49

50

6 Afterword: Educating for Justice

In my opinion the issue of postcards is one of the most moving practices in Korczak’s orphanage, and perhaps it is again allowed to call this practice an institution. But Korczak, as always, was a realist: ‘Some children will lose it [the postcard] on the road, others will keep it for a long time’ (Korczak 2018, 247). In the above example we can see what an impact these cards could have on children: Leon kept them as long as he lived. I’d like to conclude this book by a quote of Korczak’s which sums up his philosophy of education perhaps as no other: Unfortunately, words are meagre and weak. We don’t give you anything. We do not give you GOD, for you must seek Him in your own soul, in a lonely battle. We do not give you a FATHERLAND, because you have to find that out of your own feeling and thought. We do not give you LOVE, because there is no love without forgiveness and forgiveness – is difficult, a burden that everyone must bear. We give you one thing: the longing for a better life that does not yet exist, but will exist someday, a life in truth and justice. Perhaps this desire will bring you to GOD, a FATHERLAND and to LOVE. Goodbye and don’t forget it (Korczak 2007, 94; transl. by me, JWAB).

References Korczak, J. (2007). Het afscheid (Afscheidsbrief in kinderkrant, 1919) [Farewell. Letter of farewell in the children’s newspaper, 1919]. Het recht van het kind op respect [A child’s right to respect]. In R. Görtzen (pp. 93–94). Amsterdam: SWP. Korczak, J. (2018). In A. M. Czernow (Ed.), How to love a child and other selected works (Vol. 1). London and Chicago, IL: Vallentine Mitchell. Medvedeva-Nathoo, O. (2012). May their lot be lighter... Of Janusz Korczak and his pupil. Poznan: Poznan University Press. Medeveda-Nathoo, O. (2012–13). The Korczak collection in Canada. The Newsletter of Janusz Korczak Association of Canada, 8, 66–77, 157.

Appendix

Prayer of an educator (1920) Translated from Dutch by Joop W.A. Berding.1 I do not offer You long prayers, oh Lord, nor numerous sighs. I do not bow in deep humility, and will not make any sacrifices to praise and honour You. I do not desire to unnoticeably share Your mighty grace, nor long for sublime gifts. My mind has no wings to carry a song after heaven. My words have neither fragrance nor colour nor blossom. I am tired and sleepy. My gaze is clouded, my back arched under the heavy burden of my duty. And yet I make a heartfelt request to You, O God. And yet I own a gem that I do not entrust to my brother – man. I fear that man does not understand it, does not feel it, does not notice it, laughs about it. Though I am drab humility before You, oh Lord, I stand before You with my request – as a flaming demand. Although I whisper softly, I pronounce this request in the voice of an unyielding will. I fire a commanding look which reaches above the clouds. With my head held high I demand, because I ask nothing for myself. Be kind to the fate of the children, support their efforts, bless their endeavours. Do not lead them along the easiest way, but along the most beautiful. And take as my deposit for my request my only gem: my sadness. Sadness and work.

1 There

are two Dutch editions of Korczak’s prayers, the first by Wim Blok (1982) from the Polish edition, and the second by René Görtzen (2003), who, dissatisfied with the first edition, re-translated them from the German Sämmtliche Werke (Collected Works) (1997), and the Polish edition of Korczak’s collected works. An English translation of this prayer is in the new edition of selected works by Korczak (Volume 2, 2018, 210–211), but I have decided to translate it myself.

© The Author(s) 2020 J. W. A. Berding, Janusz Korczak, SpringerBriefs on Key Thinkers in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59250-9

51