Pedagogical education of parents in the USSR (ser. 1950s - 1980s): author's approaches and party work

Shik Sergey PhD in Pedagogy Associate Professor of the Department of Social Pedagogics at Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University named after V. P. Astafyev 660077, Russia, Krasnoyarskii krai, g. Krasnoyarsk, ul. Vzletnaya, 20, aud. 311 shik.krsk@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

Pedagogical education of parents is the most important part of the state's concern for a person's private life. Improving child-parent relations is seen as the key to solving many state and public problems. It is not for nothing that the "Strategy for the development of education in the Russian Federation 2015-2025", "The concept of state family policy in the Russian Federation for the period up to 2025" is a priority area of social policy.

Special training of parents is seen as a solution to the problems of family problems and improvement of parental care for the upbringing of a prosperous generation. Pedagogical education based on trust in the family, broadcasting effective advice and recommendations, allows parents to better understand children and themselves, build positive relationships. Effective parenting leads to the growth and development of children, which inspires parents and allows them to experience genuine happiness.

At the same time, education can not only have a positive meaning, but also interfere with the development and frustrate parents. A formal attitude to their needs, forced education, disregard for feelings and opinions, and lack of dialogue alienate the parent from learning. With obsessive control and the threat of punishment, parents completely withdraw and avoid educational activities.

Today, attempts are being made to revive parental universal education (I.S. Vashukova I.S. ^[51]. T.V. Chelpachenko, M.A. Pakhomova ^[52]). In this regard, the appeal to the Soviet experience of education (propaganda, universal education) of parents allows us to detect positive and negative moments of the past, to identify significant aspects for modern practices.

The chronological framework of the study (from the 1950s to the 1980s) is determined by the years of thaw and subsequent stagnation under the domination of communist ideology. The upper limit is the policy of perestroika, when party influence decreases sharply.

The education of parents during this period was touched upon in the works of L.A. Gritsai ^[12], N.H. Abdrakhmanov ^[1], M.M. Shishkova ^[48], Y. Gradskova ^[53] and others. Nevertheless, the holistic practices of educating parents in the USSR are insufficiently described.

If during the Stalinist period the propaganda of pedagogical knowledge among parents was extremely ideologized and required unquestioning compliance with school directives with disrespect for the child and ignoring the feelings of parents and children ^[47], then with the beginning of the Khrushchev "thaw" more humane motives began to penetrate into the education of parents.

At the same time, the liberalization of life and the easing of demands on parents were relative. The Party and the Soviet state continued to attach great importance to education, as parents often protected "old, dilapidated norms of life, traditions and prejudices" ^[40]. Soviet party work was designed to educate parents in new communist norms and values.

However, against the background of the indoctrination of communist ideology, a certain initiative "from below" was allowed, some discrepancy with party attitudes. In such a situation, authorial approaches arise, i.e. created by individuals, not initiated by the authorities. New beginnings appear, their own positions and opinions are expressed. In the works of teachers, publicists, and scientists, with an eye to ideology, the personal experience of educating parents is described and popularized.

Thus, the author's approaches and Soviet party work are developing and coexisting at the same time.

Research methods: theoretical analysis of sources, comparative analysis, generalization.

Research sources: normative legal acts in the field of education, upbringing, development of family relations, the works of teachers, psychologists, publicists, the magazine for parents "Family and School".

Author's approaches to parent education

The thaw has given rise to hopes for improving all aspects of life, including family education. Parents were not only required to fulfill their duty to the Motherland, but also to organize an education system.

An editorial in Family and School (1956) stated a change in the publication's policy and pointed out that most parents, especially young ones, "show confusion and helplessness and make voluntary and involuntary mistakes" in upbringing, and the magazine "comes to your family as your close friend to help you, parents" ^[38]. There are topics related to the respect of children ^[15], the need to take into account their feelings ^[49], the danger of abuse of punishments is pointed out ^[29].

Such expectations led to initiatives "from below", author's practices and original publications appeared, unrelated (or little related) to the communist ideology and reflecting the humanistic aspect of educating parents.

The earliest vivid example of the initiative "from below" is the creation of the parent university in the autumn of 1953 by the trade union committee of Lomonosov Moscow State University and its development in subsequent years. The reception was announced on the radio and in the newspaper Vechernyaya Moskva. Everyone was accepted, regardless of education, place of work and profession.

A group of enthusiasts sought to give parents a coherent system of pedagogical knowledge. In particular, such scientists as V.N. Ivanov, D.B. Elkonin, N.F. Talyzina and others taught at the university. The subject of the students' study was the author's programs on the main areas of family education: child hygiene, child psychology, pedagogy of family education, home economics. The main course was designed for one academic year (once a week for three hours). Classes are held once a week for three hours (from 19 to 22 hours) ^[42].

In the course of child psychology, parents are told how the spiritual life of a child is formed, how his memory, thinking, will, and abilities develop. The pedagogy of family education teaches parents to create a friendly family team, gain authority from children, organize their physical, mental, moral and aesthetic education, encourage and punish the child.

The training was conducted not only in the form of a monologue story, but also the parents themselves shared their personal experiences of raising children, analyzed typical mistakes. For example, adults may misunderstand that their behavior is a living model that children actively imitate.

So, the tone of voice is the most important means of education. When, with a calm, businesslike intonation, the parents "switched to an irritated, rude shout," the child answered the parents in the same way. On the contrary, a calm conversation, clarification, praise change the situation, the general atmosphere in the family improves. Parents learned to act pedagogically correctly, to choose the right words and intonation. The classes were complemented by individual consultations and demonstrations of popular science films ^{[42, 43]}. Thus, parents gained knowledge on the main areas of family education and learned how to act pedagogically correctly.

Another example of the author's approach is a small but informative book by L.V. Pisareva "From the practice of parenting" (1958), a specialist in social education and health. It raises not only the traditional themes of educating parents: the whims, pampering of children, labor education, unity of requirements, the importance of the example of parents, but also new ones – legitimate children's desires and demands, education of self-esteem in a child, sibling conflicts, the relationship between boys and girls, parents' misunderstanding of children's feelings and interests, notation of parents. The positive and negative aspects of parenting are clearly and vividly shown in everyday scenes. Parents are given advice on how to solve such situations, be more attentive to the child, and not abuse criticism. The author believes in the abilities of parents, and does not dictate mandatory requirements. In her opinion, parenting is not so difficult, it is necessary "not to blindly love a child, but to lovingly monitor his development, try to understand his interests and requests, respect his personality, his dignity, and spare his ego" ^{[32, p.44]}.

The famous teacher-innovator, director of Pavlysh secondary school V.A. Sukhomlinsky organizes in his school the education of parents, which he considered to be the most important in the field of human education in a communist society. Despite the fact that a number of his ideas are ideologized, the teacher speaks about the education of humanity: a delicate attitude towards parents, the need for spiritual communication between children and their parents. In the work "One Hundred tips for a teacher" (1965-1967), it is indicated that the foundation of pedagogical theory and practice is parental pedagogy, i.e. "the elementary circle of knowledge of the mother and father about how a being born from a human becomes a human being" ^{[41, p. 572]}. In his opinion, the conversation about education should be conducted tactfully. It is unacceptable to "work out", cheat, humiliate parents who make mistakes and miscalculations ^{[41, p. 574]}. The pedagogical school was designed to work with parents of children of different ages. In her curriculum, along with the usual sections – parental authority, childish whims, mistakes of parents, labor education, respect for elders, etc. – new emotional plots appear: how to ensure that kindness and harmony prevail in the family, how to raise children affectionate, mutually compliant, how to restrain emotional impulses, prevent the callousness of children ^{[41, pp. 572-573]}. Special attention was paid to the education of human feelings, mental subtlety and sensitivity, the ability to respond to goodness and beauty ^{[41, p. 575]}.

Another famous teacher, the innovator Sh.A. Amonashvili, continued and continues to develop humanistic principles in pedagogy. In the 1960s and 70s, he tested a humane and personal approach to children in the country's schools. In the book "Hello, children!" (1983), the author points out that the task of a parent is to make a child an ally and companion in his own upbringing, to direct him on the path of self–education and self-education. To combine the efforts of the school and the family, the teacher has developed "commandments" – recommendations. Based on them, their own experience, parents begin to take care of children, showing creativity and exploring new ways in education. The main ideas of the "commandments": to place the child in the educational process, the child should feel needed and his own, it is necessary to give him the joy of communication, respect the personality, develop and cherish faith in people and himself, combine sensitivity, responsiveness, tenderness with the demands of the educator for himself and the child ^{[2, p.41–42]}.

Famous spouses-teachers B.P. Nikitin and L.A. Nikitina popularized their alternative (official pedagogy and pediatrics) experience of parenting aimed at creating favorable conditions for physical and mental development: "Are we right?" 1963, "We and our children" (1979), "I'm learning to be a mom" (1983) and other publications. Light clothes and a sporty environment at home, freedom of creativity in classes (no special lessons, training), parental indifference (response, participation in games) are the basic principles of education that were not invented in advance, but developed intuitively in communication with children ^{[26, p. 146]}. The same applied to more private things: to take into account the well-being of the baby, to learn to understand the child, not to interfere with his attempts, to teach the ability to fall, to allow crawling around the house, to bring the common table closer to the children's diet, etc. The books do not contain advice to parents, but are stories about family life. According to the authors, parents should "suffer", "torture" their experience, and not take ready-made information, for which teachers were not quite rightly accused of pedagogical nihilism ^[25].

The shortcomings of the existing education system are beginning to be realized. The well-known publicist S.L. Soloveitchik in his book "Pedagogy for all" (1977-1986) describes three outdated models of education and influence: "rules of the road" (a child behaves badly if he is not explained how to behave), "garden-vegetable garden" (in a child it is necessary to weed out weeds-flaws), "whip and a carrot" (to reward for a good deed, for a bad one – to punish, scold, scold). In his opinion, education without upbringing is necessary, i.e. communication with a child without direct means of influence, treating him like a human being. The efforts of parents should be "directed not at the child, not at themselves, but, most importantly, at the attitude towards the child" ^{[39, p. 117]}. At the same time, the scientist underestimated the role of pedagogical education (not only in our country, but also around the world, including in the USA): "no one really knows what to teach parents and how to help them" ^{[39, p.115]}.

The book of the Moscow teacher V.E. Khrapov "Parents ask for Advice" (1983) partly continues Soloveitchik's ideas. "The best way of education is one in which parents do not notice what they are bringing up, and children do not notice that they are being brought up" ^{[46, p. 24]}. It is impossible to build education on some "impossible" adults, because the child will externally adapt, adjust. Here, learning to play games according to strict rules can help, allowing you to make prohibitions an inner conviction of the child. In addition, the author speaks about the need for education: it is necessary to develop a "minimum that would reduce the number of parental mistakes" ^{[46, p.12]}.

In general, the author's approaches, despite their differences, laid the foundations for the humanistic education of parents, asserted respect for parents, offered them useful help and taught humane treatment of children.

Party work with parents

Soviet party work with parents in the field of pedagogical education dominated during this period, was set by communist ideology, was conducted centrally and was the opposite of the author's approaches.

The draft law "On the connection of schools with life" (1958) demanded "to improve pedagogical propaganda among the general population, to increase the responsibility of parents <...> for raising children." At the All-Russian Congress of Teachers on July 9, 1960, the head of the party, N. S. Khrushchev, stressed that "it is necessary that party organizations do not consider the issues of raising children in the family only a "personal" matter of parents, do not take a "neutral" position" ^[44]. L.I. Brezhnev, who replaced Khrushchev in his post, continued this a line aimed at "strengthening the leadership role of the CPSU in communist construction" ^{[50, p.84]}.

The party sought to take care of the family. Parents were usually viewed as ignorant ^{[53, p. 276]}, irresponsible ^{[1, p.11]}, articles and notes about negligent parents who forgot their duty appeared in newspapers and radio broadcasts ^{[20, p. 43]}. From the party rostrums, they called for "bringing to the public court those parents who do not care about the present and future of their children" ^{[3, p. 11]}.

The conductors of party ideas were not only the actual members of the party, but also Soviet, Komsomol, trade union leaders, as well as the so-called public ("advanced" people of Soviet society).

Following the instructions of the Central Committee, grassroots party organizations (district committees, party committees) took over the main care of universal education for parents ^{[24, p. 26]}. In large cities, at the direction of the party, headquarters were created ^{[10, p. 24]} or councils for conducting ^[27] pedagogical education, uniting and coordinating the efforts of all interested organizations.

The parent universities (universities of pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical culture, faculties of family education, parental activism) were taken "under the wing" of the party – the highest form of pedagogical propaganda. They began to train personnel mainly for educational work. Lectures were given by party workers, teachers, scientific and pedagogical workers, united by the society for the dissemination of political and scientific knowledge (since 1963 - the society "Knowledge"). The students received knowledge on the basics of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of communist education, on the theory and methodology of educational work and the connection of the school with the family, on child psychology and hygiene. As a rule, admission to the university was carried out on the recommendations of parent committees and school principals. Therefore, the audience was not so much "ordinary" parents as the public: the parent activists of schools, communist parents, public instructors, members of communist labor brigades, educators - everyone who participated in the education of new people in communist society ^[17]. Those who graduated from the university were involved in pedagogical work with hundreds and thousands of other parents ^{[5, p. 40]}.

Marxist-Leninist pedagogy has been popularized in numerous methodological developments for teachers, educators of schools and kindergartens, as well as for parents.

Thus, in the pamphlet by M.I. Lyubitsina and P.I. Kudryashenko "Pedagogical propaganda among parents" (1962) it was indicated that work with parents should correspond to the party line, it is necessary to "reach every parent" ^[18].

K.Z. Asaturova's book "Letters to Parents" (1964) also reflected the ideological direction of the enlightenment. In her opinion, the "Moral Code of the builder of Communism" approved at the XXII Party Congress (1961) sets clear tasks of education and self-education. "A citizen of a bright communist tomorrow – what will he be like?" ^{[4, p.5]} – the author asks. And answers: It is necessary to instill in children "the glorious features of the builder of a communist society" ^{[4, p.99]}. She advises parents to cultivate an antipathy to ostentatious "prettiness", to teach children from childhood to modesty, since they are subject to alien, Western influences: "young people often adopt some other norms of behavior that are not typical of Soviet people" ^{[4, p.67]}.

Universal parent education programs covering all children's ages are being published. In 1965, the House of Pedagogical Propaganda of the APN of the RSFSR developed an "Exemplary program of pedagogical education", and in 1968 the APN of the USSR developed a "Minimum pedagogical knowledge program for self–education of parents". In addition to general topics on psychology and pedagogy, labor education, education of the will, etc., priority in these projects is given to ideological issues.

The "Exemplary Program" considers the upbringing of children in Soviet society as a "civic duty of parents." The document begins with the words from the CPSU program (1961): "Our children will live under communism." In this regard, children need to be helped to master the spiritual richness of the surrounding reality (scientific and materialistic worldview, communist morality, interest and love of knowledge, development of abilities), to cultivate moral purity (love for the Communist Party and the Soviet Homeland, dedication to the cause of communism), to achieve physical perfection (hygiene, proper regime, physical education and sports, disease prevention) ^[37].

The "Minimum Program" also focuses parents on the awareness of responsibility for the upbringing of their children before society and the state. The training of convinced builders of a communist society goes through certain stages: younger schoolchildren need to cultivate respect for the party, the people, an intolerant attitude towards the enemies of the motherland, teenagers – deepening these views, high school students – class hatred of the enemies of the working people, an irreconcilable attitude towards bourgeois ideology" ^[34].

Later programs of pedagogical education in 1981 ^{[45, p.9]} and 1983 ^{[8, p.20]} were intended for parents of schoolchildren and assumed classroom instruction (seven to nine classes per academic year) in the basics of pedagogy, psychology and physiology with consideration of the problems of communist education of the younger generation, familiarity with the decisions of the party and the government on public education ^{[6, 45]}.

The handbook "The approximate content of the education of schoolchildren" (1976, 1980, 1984), edited by I. S. Marienko, formulates the general tasks of communist education, including for family education. So, parents of first– and third-grade students are recommended to help them join the October students, become pioneers, and establish the work of October stars. Parents of secondary school age students were invited to conduct conversations on socio-political topics. In working with teenagers, an important place belongs to their preparation for joining the Komsomol ^{[21, p.9]}.

Thus, the educational programs of parents were extremely saturated with ideological cliches about the communist upbringing of children, the connection between school and family, and opposition to Western bourgeois influences. They described the extensive system of the party's demands to the family for the upbringing of a new person in a communist society.

On the basis of the considered programs, the practice of party work with parents was built. Each parent should be covered by one form of work or another: classes at the university of pedagogical knowledge, in a group of pedagogical general education or independent work ^{[7, p.28]}. The party sought to attract the maximum number of organizations to pedagogical education: educational institutions, enterprises, cultural centers, clubs, libraries, and house administrations.

However, the main role was assigned to school and production.

At school, the parent committee acted as the party's policy guide. For a member of the parent committee, a non-teacher by position and education, working at school was an important party assignment, a public duty ^{[8, p.18]}. Together with the classroom teachers, the parent activist showed assistance to parents, introduced them to the program requirements of the party for the communist education of children and youth, with the basics of methodology and best practices of education ^{[7, p. 28]}.

The main forms of work are parent seminars, lectures, conferences on topical issues of education (including conferences of fathers), thematic evenings and parent meetings, pedagogical conversations.

Work with parents was complemented by work with schoolchildren. Discussing the relevant ideological concepts with parents and students made it possible to combine the efforts of the school and the family. For example, the class teacher conducts a conversation with parents: "What should children know about communism?", and discusses with schoolchildren the topic: "What would I do if I lived under communism" ^{[16, p.6]}.

The Parent Committee also conducted individual work with the family, which was limited to control, valuable advice to other parents and social impact: combating drunkenness of individual fathers, checking the daily routine of children in the family, tracking how student diaries are signed, patrolling in the evening around the neighborhood so that children do not hang out on the street ^[14,16,36].

For example, the parent committee of the 5th grade "g", headed by the locksmith of the 1st drilling office, the drummer of communist labor G. F. Skorin, took all weak, undisciplined students under careful control, visited the families of these guys, held several meetings of students with communist labor brigades ^{[9, p. 32]}.

To influence particularly difficult families, class teachers and parental activists used measures of psychological suggestion, appeal to reason, to parental feelings (i.e., to shame), public discussion of improper behavior of parents, administrative measures ^{[30, pp.180-181]}.

Some teachers admitted that they were "tormented by a poor knowledge of psychology" ^{[16, p.6]} to work with the family. Often the family found itself out of sight of the school: the parent committee was listed only on paper and did not enjoy authority among parents ^[28], and the work was reduced to rare parent meetings – "pumping" and occasional lectures ^{[35, p. 24]}, working out "lagging" parents with a disciplinary call: Take action! ^{[16, p. 3]}.

Another important area of pedagogical education was working with parents in the workplace. For this purpose, family and school assistance councils were created at large enterprises and institutions – a kind of analogue of the parent committee.

The council included representatives of party, Komsomol, trade union organizations and social activists. His main task was to spread the experience of parenting in the best families among parents. It was considered a great advantage that a colleague was engaged in education – "a friend who works nearby." The members of the council, having no special pedagogical education, but raising their own "good children", revealed the "secret" of education to all parents ^{[3, p.11]}.

For this purpose, the following forms of work were used: lectures in workshops at enterprises, conversations with parent employees, school corners in workshops, together with teachers, the publication of wall newspapers, discussion of education issues on the pages of factory newspapers.

However, the main function of this body was to control and influence negligent parents, drunkards and hooligans who poison family life, and parents who poorly perform their parental duty. Each member of the council took several families for individual patronage in order to strictly, "party-like" demand a change in behavior.

So, the Kalashnikov worker, the father of a large family, treated children very badly, caused scandals at home. The children had nowhere to study. The council called my father to its meetings, to talk to the director of the plant, to the secretary of the party organization. In the end, Kalashnikov was shamed. He began to treat the children noticeably better. Now the children are studying more successfully, and their father has become an advanced worker in production.

Another example. Fourth–grader Yura Nekrasov, the son of a factory worker, did not study well, behaved badly. <...> The parents separated, although they lived in the same room. The boy either watched the quarrels of his father and mother, or was left to himself. He came under a bad influence, had already had many drives to the police children's room. The council was faced with the question: what should be done with Yura? Repeated conversations with parents did not help much. It was possible to send the boy to boarding school, and now Yura is already studying well and behaving better ^{[13, p.13]}.

As can be seen from the examples, mainly repressive and educational effects on problem parents were used: persuasion, shame, appeal to conscience, consciousness, duty to society ^{[8, p. 20]}, placement of a child in a boarding school.

At the same time, in general, the education of parents at school and at work was conducted formally and haphazardly, without taking into account the education, requests and interests of parents, with annoying repetition of information already known to listeners ^{[7, p.28]}. The Board of the Ministry of Education (1970) pointed out that "teachers are mainly interested in the parents of two-year-olds and violators of discipline. But instead of advice and assistance, they are limited to the requirements to "take action", resort to various forms of "study" at pedagogical councils, parent committees, various commissions" ^{[22, p.11]}. The Council for Family and School Assistance in pursuit of external indicators of parental coverage was also often limited to stating the basic truths, and sometimes it was created "for show", for a report ^{[11, 27]}.

A conscientious and executive parent might be puzzled: "I often go to school for parent-teacher meetings, listen to teachers. They say: every child needs a special approach. Which one is it? Where can I find out about this?" To which he could get a lengthy vague answer: "it is necessary to have an idea about the characteristics of the child, and about the basic pedagogical and psychological patterns of education. They are as multifaceted and complex as the human personality is complex, as the tasks of communist education are multifaceted." A great responsibility was imposed on the parent, for mistakes in upbringing he could get a label: "neglectful attitude to his parental duty" ^[31].

In the guiding requirements of the party and the state, the speeches of officials drew attention to the insufficient efficiency of work and pointed out the need to "more closely link the pedagogical education of parents with the living practice of family and school education" ^{[23, p.8]}.

However, despite these directives, the fundamental shortcomings of educational activities persisted until the end of the Soviet period: ignoring the opinions of parents, the edifying tone of teachers, and the lack of specific recommendations on education. For example, the authors of the book "Popular Psychology for Parents" (1988) themselves recognized this, pointing out that "an unsolved mystery remains <...> the process of educating a person's personality" ^[33].

The building of communism did not take place by 1980, there was a "comprehensive improvement of developed socialism", a draft school reform was being developed (1984). However, it was difficult to offer something new in the field of education, except for the slogan "to ensure an increase in the effectiveness of the system of pedagogical universal education of parents" ^{[19, p.6]} against the background of general stagnation, formal attitude to the initiatives of the pedagogical and parental community.

Thus, the party's work in the field of pedagogical education was filled with ideological ideas and was characterized by formalism, lack of connection with life, unnecessary knowledge, petty control over the upbringing of children in the family, repressive and educational measures in case of failure to fulfill parental duty.

Conclusion

The historical and pedagogical analysis of the strategic foundations of pedagogical education of parents in the mid-1950s - 1980s allows us to draw the following conclusions:

1. Two trends of pedagogical education of parents are highlighted: humanistic and formally authoritarian, represented respectively by author's approaches and party work. The first one considers the parent as a full–fledged subject of the educational process with a positive attitude to his abilities and personal experience, friendly and business interaction with the teacher. A different attitude towards the parent is present in the second trend, where he is assessed as incapable and incompetent, he needs to be "worked out", shamed, taught.

2. In the author's approaches, the author's main attention was paid to various aspects of education related to the needs and interests of parents. Thus, the experience of the parent university at Moscow State University is valuable for practical developments, a democratic atmosphere and the desire to give a parent systematic pedagogical knowledge. L.V. Pisareva made interesting and pedagogically significant life observations from the practice of parenting with clear and understandable advice. According to V.A. Sukhomlinsky, the education of humanity is important for a parent, which includes the development of the emotional sphere, the education of feelings, mental subtlety and sensitivity. Sh.A. Amonashvili believes that a parent should position a child to the educational process and make him an ally and colleague in his own upbringing, direct him on the path of self-education and self-education. According to B.P. and L.A. Nikitin, it is necessary to suffer your experience, to be a caring parent. For S.L. Soloveitchik, the ideal is upbringing without upbringing. The efforts of parents should be directed not at the child, not at themselves, but most importantly, at the attitude towards the child. V.E. Khrapov argues that it is impossible to build education on adults alone, because the child will externally adapt, adjust. In this regard, it is necessary to make prohibitions the inner conviction of the child.

The author's ideas considered are still relevant today. At the same time, these practices were local, did not become widespread in the country, and did not become part of the general practice of educating parents.

3. The features of the party's work with parents in the field of pedagogical education were: centralized leadership, ideological content, ignoring the opinions of parents. The parent universities trained personnel for such work. Educational activities were carried out on the basis of the developed programs. It was held everywhere, but the main role was assigned to school and production. At school, the party's policy was guided by the parent committee, and at work by the family and School Assistance council. They introduced parents to the program requirements for the communist education of children and youth. Individual patronage was carried out over negligent parents.

4. Party work was characterized by formalism, boredom, petty control, alienation of parents from the education system, devaluation of author's approaches. The professional activity of teachers was replaced by public influence, assistance to the family and identification of the causes of problematic behavior of parents – public condemnation, repressive measures against parents and children.

In general, the clogging of parents' consciousness with propaganda stereotypes, the obsessive influence of the public did not improve family life, but rather strengthened the authoritarian attitude of parents towards their own children, led not to mutual understanding, but to notations, moralizing, tedious moralizing.

5. Today, when the state is actively conducting educational activities through directive mass free consultations and the presentation of successful family education practices, there is a danger of a formal attitude to the needs of parents, which may encourage them to refuse the offered assistance. On the contrary, the support of initiatives "from below", author's approaches, including those tested in the past, allows us to hope for closer and more effective cooperation with parents.

The author expresses gratitude to the anonymous reviewer for important and constructive comments.