A recent blog post by a dad with kids enrolled in a Sudbury Valley type school (SVS) has prompted me to think once again about how life learning parents relate to their children in a unique way. The blogger was comparing unschooling to the SVS model because someone had once used the oxymoron “unschooling school” to describe a SVS. He came up with two differences between the two: SVS students can “pursue their interests in a context that’s free from any form of (subtle or overt) parental influence” and the SVS structure is democratic in a way that families presumably aren’t.

I should note that I’ve challenged the writer on both points, which I believe are inversely related, but the discussion has yet to unfold. Aside from the jaw-dropping, head-shaking notion of kids needing to be free of (subtle or overt) parental influence, I don’t mean to pick on SVS, since there is much to admire in this school model. However, attendance is compulsory at these schools, which seems to contradict the notion of democracy. In fact, it is a faux-democracy where children have the democratic experience of organizing their school and their school days, but within the broader context of coercion. How can one understand freedom unless one is free? I learned (with disappointment) about this idea of required attendance from one of the founders of the original SVS Mimsy Sadofsky when I interviewed her in 2004 for what was to be a feature article about SVS in Life Learning Magazine (but turned, instead, into an ironic sidebar to an article about this very topic.) The idea is noble: to help the kids make a commitment, to foster cooperation and relationships, and to help them learn about consequences. But, in short, it’s about adults enforcing something on kids because it’s assumed they won’t learn the stuff on their own, that they don’t know what’s in their own best interest, that we have to make them do stuff “for their own good.”

And that brings me to the idea of “influence” and its relationship to democracy, coercion, and freedom. The foundation of life learning (or wholistic unschooling, or radical unschooling, or whatever label-of-the-day you wish to give it) is respect for and the empowerment of children. We aim to nurture and, ultimately, to trust in children’s ability to make their own learning and other life decisions, to be competent human beings. SVS, on the other hand, by requiring attendance, aims to influence children while removing parental influence. Either way, we’re substituting adults’ choices for children’s choices.

Now, clearly, a child’s “choice” to run in front of a truck should not be honored. Preventing that has to be part of the custodial responsibility of parents – and teachers, if/when parents give them that substitute role. We must (and most willingly do) provide shelter, food, safety, love, education (or at least support for development) and so much more. Adults need to protect children, right? Maybe sometimes, but protection can be disempowering and counterproductive if it’s restrictive and paternalistic. Life learning parents try to balance the protection and provision of needs with recognizing their children’s rights, abilities and responsibilities.

That’s not easy in our society, because we tend to drastically under-estimate the level of decision making and responsibility that our children are capable of. And so we think they won’t learn to make commitments, to cooperate with others, or to learn about consequences – much less to keep themselves safe or learn to read – unless we force them into situations designed to create those outcomes. We think we need to influence them (and argue about whether parental or school influence is better). Influence seems like a relatively benign and gentle act. But most definitions of the word “influence” include the idea of power over someone else. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, for instance, defines influence as “the act or power of producing an effect without apparent exertion of force or direct exercise of command; the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways.” Sounds creepy to me!

We all have our own expectations of ourselves and our kids; we all have our own hang-ups, boundaries, and comfort levels in terms of how our kids interact with each other, their surroundings, and society. But I think there is a better way to conceptualize the relationship between members of an unschooling family than “parental influence.” And it revolves around those words I keep using: respect and trust. They’re not easy to actualize, but they’re crucial for those of us who are committed to a style of non-coercive parenting that allows children their right to authenticity and autonomy, as well as safety and education.