I think your point about the parental influence is important. The relationship between parent and child is by its nature different to that between an older child and younger one in a community, or a non related adult and child. In the non-family relationships the pairing can learn from one another, enjoy each others company, influence to a degree and then part. With a parent/child dynamic it is always emotionally charged is it not? Our children depend on us to keep them safe which perhaps prevents them from taking full responsibility for themselves? They also seek our love and approval, which hopefully we able to give and they feel they receive unconditionally, but still it is a factor in the relationship that is not there in others.

It is a pity that there are not as many choices here in the UK as you have described in the US. Summerhill is the best option yet I think the separation of boarding would be too much for me or my children to bear, and ask someone else described they are quite dogmatic about parents not being involved, presumably so the kids can be completely free of that influence. Personally I think that is taking it too far, but I guess it depends on the kids and their relationship to the parents whether thats a good thing or not. I would love a local school that we could attend/be involved in together part time or for as many hours as seems right for the child.

As many local unschooling families as there are, and as many meetups that we attend its not quite the same as having a community base with shared facilities where you feel comfortable and at home yet also free and with your peers. I remain torn.

. . . HOMESCHOOLING? There is a particular philosophy of homeschooling, often referred to as “unschooling,” which shares many similarities with the Sudbury model. John Holt was its best known proponent, and his writings have been invaluable to us in helping to explain just how learning can happen without teaching, and why on earth a child might choose to learn arithmetic or some other supposedly dreadful subject. Unschoolers believe, as we do, that children are born curious about the world and eager to succeed in life and that kids learn best through experience and experimentation rather than by being told how and what to think. In the words of John Holt: “Real learning is a process of discovery, and if we want it to happen, we must create the kinds of conditions in which discoveries are made. . . They include time, freedom, and a lack of pressure.” But unschoolers, for the most part, see the family environment as the best place for children to grow, while the Sudbury model believes that, as the African proverb states, “It takes a village to raise a child.” Children and parents have complex relationships and interdependencies which make it harder for children to discover true independence within the family. In the environment of a Sudbury school, children face direct personal responsibility for their actions, without the emotional baggage that family-based accountability can sometimes carry. In addition, children are more able to develop some important social skills in a democratic school — the ability to tolerate diversity of opinion, to speak out against inappropriate behavior, and to develop and carry out group projects, for example. In most homeschooling families, the parent sees him or herself as ultimately responsible for the child’s education, while at Sudbury schools, that responsibility rests squarely with the child.

[ Excerpt, “OK, So You’re Sort of Like…,” by Romey Pittman, Fairhaven parent, co-founder and former staff member. http://www.fairhavenschool.com/about/articles/ok-so-youre-sort-of-like
http://sudburyschool.com/articles/ok-so-youre-sort ]

Naomi Aldort is not an unschooler, Dayna Martin is… well, I was raised to be a gentleman so I won’t comment about the Martins beyond saying that they are fame-seeking fakes. If you want to educate yourself about unschooling, read John Holt, Sandra Dodd’s website (http://sandradodd.com/unschooling) or Joyce Fetteroll’s website (http://joyfullyrejoycing.com/).

Free school, democratic school, Hogwart’s, or whatever is simply not unschooling. That doesn’t mean it’s bad, but it is different. Green is not red. Up is not down. School is not unschool.

There’s an old joke about New Englanders. A guy who’s lived there for decades asks the natives why he doesn’t count as a New Englander. Their answer is, “If a cat has kittens in the overn, that doesn’t make ’em biscuits.” Even “being home with the kids” is not necessarily unschooling. Unschooling is unschooling.

And that is my point… you are saying I chose not to be like an unschooler because I respected my daughter’s choice. We started to research free schools or democratic education centers (we were listening to Naomi Aldort’s interview where she talks about them) and she had an interest. IF I said no to her interests, whose autonomy and needs would I be following? I cannot stop her from going to a free school under the label of “protection” because what am I protecting her from? My own fear of not belonging to a label anymore?

I guess if unschooling means following the adults need to define what unschooling “is” rather than supporting my children, then I would rather not associate because I attain to looking for truth and unconditional love of everybody and everything regardless of color creed.

I am at home with my othere children, still following their interests – does this mean I am a fraud? If I am not an unschooler while unschooling my other children; then what am I???

I just found this interview by dayna martin it might be of interest to some people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-NheCjqDMM

Certainly, not everyone can, or wants to, unschool. That’s clearly a matter of choice. Just like it’s a choice to eat meat instead of just vegetables. But when I choose to eat meat I am not a vegetarian. I’m still a perfectly wonderful human being but I am BY DEFINITION not a vegetarian.

Why do you impose the limitation of “cooped up in the nuclear family” on unschooling, thus defining it as necessarily less social than Sudbury et al.? Is your child really “free” if they’re required to go to this (non)school and abide by the (democratic though they may be) rules imposed there? These rules are democraticlly derived but they are rules imposed by an external authority on the student, nonetheless.

My “judgment” is not one of perjorative denigration, although I absolutely do not equate unschooling and Summerhill/Sudbury schooling. It is merely/mostly one of *definitions*. If you’re signed up for and attending a school regularly, a school which has rules and constraints like attendance (democratically arrived at or not), you are not unschooling. Period.

That doesn’t mean that you are an inferior human being, just as meat eaters are not (necessarily) morally inferior to vegetarians; but it does mean that you are not the same, because you have chosen to be something else.

Do whatever you want but you really shouldn’t expect those who do something different to cheerlead for you because you chose to be unlike them.

If you’re not unschooling, you’re not an unschooler. If you consider that being “judged” then yes, I (at least) do judge you, just as someone who chooses to be a Christian can be judged to be Christian, etc.

School, any school, is not unschooling; so IMO unschoolers should *not* be promoting Summerhill, Sudbury, or any other form of brick and mortar school. Your use of “judge” implies superiority and dismissal as inferior. You’re probably right. So what? You’ve chosen to not be an unschooler. If you left vegetarianism or Christianity for something else, don’t you think those groups would judge you, probably in a slightly perjorative sense?

If you’re happy with your choice, embrace it, enjoy it. But don’t expect unschoolers to support it as unschooling.

I do not think a family can be democratic in the way a larger community of people can be. Consider the Judicial Committee used in Sudbury schools, where members of the community not involved in the conflict mediate the case. Discipline and conflict mediation in the home must be navigated by other means, because of how few individuals there usually are, and intimately bound most or all of the family members are in the issue.

Parents have been the ultimate power in a baby’s life. They are the bread winners and make life possible. They are the ones that create democracy (paying tuition for a democratic school, or establishing the “family meeting”), and they can take it away. It is difficult if not impossible for the power relations to be balanced for this reason. The relations are based on love of course, and are well guided. I don’t think parental involvement is a bad thing, but as far as authentic democracy goes there is that issue.

The democracy experienced by students in a Sudbury school is qualitatively different from democratic practices in the home. I, as a staff member, cannot turn off the democracy. I am legally bound to be a member of the democratic body with no special privilege. This differs from some “democratic” progressive schools, where the staff can ultimately say “no” for their own reasons. Even if they only very rarely say “no”, the context is stained by this possibility and it is not democracy.

I only want to respond to that one point. Deep parental involvement is crucial for children. SVS doesn’t want to destroy the family, but simply to make space for an authentic democratic mode as an extra dimension in the life of a child who has (or has not) an involved parent.

They are not required to put in any time at the school unless they so choose. They can earn their high school diploma. The school works with each family to make it affordable for them. (Many or most of the families there are not well off and aren’t paying anywhere near what the suggested tuition is.)

Second Foundation School is celebrating their 40th anniversary this year!
http://secondfoundationschool.wordpress.com/