Freedom Vs. License

In our house we try to homeschool according to the principles of democratic schooling, or ‘free’ schooling. Many people are aware of what this means since the concept has grown widely lately, but just in case they don’t (and because explaining these things helps me to reinforce them for myself), I will explain them all here again:).
The idea of a free school operates on the principle that the school is a living community. As a community, it must be alert to issues that arise and address every problem ASAP in the context of the weekly all-school meeting. The purpose of this meeting as it exists is to solve problems, review upcoming events, and handle subjects related to school business as they arise. A.S. Neill, the founder of Summerhill in Scotland who died approx. 30 years ago, believed that these meetings were more important to the health of the children than academics or practically any other event that took place at his school. He said that during these get-togethers the children learned to respect each others’ opinions and emotions, bring problems out into the open so that they could be dealt with honestly, and most of all, explore issues that arose so that emotional healing could take place.
The other foundational concept of the free school that is even more important than weekly meetings is the idea of Freedom vs. License. A “free school” is NOT a place where children can cut loose with abandon and do anything anywhere to anyone or anything they please. It is not a place that is rabid chaos 24 hrs. a day either, but an idea that makes a very clear distinction between rules that apply to the individual and those that apply to a group. According to the democratic school view, INDIVIDUAL freedom is sacred. This means that what a child does not want to do he/she should never be forced to do so long as it does not impede on the rights or freedom of anyone else. For example: if Johnny decides that he does not want to learn math or make his bed or attend the party or play baseball, then no one has the right to make him because those decisions are INDIVIDUAL, and affect only him. In another example, if I do not want to eat broccoli with my dinner then it is my prerogative not to have any on my plate because the decision does not affect anyone else but me. The preference for certain foods is my own peculiarity and no one has the RIGHT to tell me to do otherwise.
Freedom regards the rights of the individual specifically. License is another thing, and not at all related to the idea of freedom. License means that in pursuit of your own freedom you tread unfeelingly on the rights or property of someone else. It means that instead of just doing something that is going to affect you individually, you take it upon yourself to do something that is going to negatively affect a group of persons or a single person, OR something inert such as the environment or private property. Deciding that you are not going to wear a blue shirt today is strictly a matter of personal freedom. Deciding to bully/beat up/or manipulate someone falls under the category of License, because you are then encroaching on the right of that person to live happily without fear.
In the town where I live in there are many upscale, boutique-like shops owned by people from NYC that are filled with breakable and expensive things. A huge complaint of many of these shopowners (even the owners of the toy shops), is that children often enter these places and wreak havoc as their parents look on unconcerned. They run around the store, swing on the walls and ceilings, break merchandise, throw tantrums, scream, and generally make holy terrors of themselves, and yet their parents make no attempt to curb their behavior (or just plain leave the store) because they believe that their children should get no restraint of any kind from anyone.
This type of a situation is NOT what freedom is—rather, it is a perfect definition of License. As A.S. Neill might have put it (and did say in several of his books), this is not a free child, it is a spoiled and desperate child. In Summerhill (and other democratic schools such as the Albany Free School, etc.), a child who behaves in a way that threatens or infringes on anyone else would be reported by the victim at the general meeting and a fitting punishment would be meted out by the members of the community in a general vote. New rules might be suggested and voted on as to how to prevent transgressions like this from happening in the future, but adults on the whole generally stay out of these discussions and let the children handle them, though everyone votes at the end and any rule is subject to change.
What is important to note here is that a free school is NOT devoid of rules—–far from it. The difference between this and more traditional models is that children have ownership of the process and participate actively in it at all times, bringing their own charges to bear and then acting to resolve them. People are often surprised to learn that free schools often have long lists of rules, it’s just that these rules are made with personal freedom and the welfare of a community in mind, and are directly controlled by the people who live there.
Essentially, a free child is a child without fear. She is not afraid of authority because she is not subjected to any but her own. She is not afraid of the opinions of others because she has learned to live according to her own opinion. She is not afraid of adults because adults have no more power than she does in her world. They are looked upon as equals first, and an occasional resource second. The argument of Neill, Holt, and others is that when children get respect they learn to give it, and when they have been allowed to live out their childhood impulses in play, natural conflict, messes, dirt, and the pursuit of their own unique interests, they eventually become mature, sociable, mannerly, empathetic, and most of all, independent learners. This is what education is all about, IMO. This is the true definition of what it means to be a well-adjusted, functional human being.
There is SO much more to learn about freedom and license, the concept of self-regulation, raising children without fear, and understanding what all of it means. It is a difficult concept to grasp because the vast majority of us were not raised with freedom—-we were raised with punishment, coercive learning techniques, and the use of guilt to manipulate our every action. As A.S. Neill or any of the people associated with the free school movement would say, we were raised in fear in an oppressive society by anti-social people, and that is a difficult thing to overcome:(.
I have tried to apply alot of the free school concepts to my school-at-home, here. I have found that there are modifications that have to be made due to the nature of a home and family vs. school, but I believe it can be done with quite a bit of success, and we have experienced loads of positive encouragement in the way that our kids have grown up so far. I will try to write more in the future about adapting democratic schooling to the home, raising self-regulated children, and trying to organize life around the complications of HSing in general, LOL. No one method of education is 100% perfect all the time, but there is never any doubt that things are moving forward steadily and there are lots of things to think about for the future. It’s the process, not the product that’s important. This is what we’re striving for.
Anonymom:)