ALCs set boundaries to create safe, legal, and supportive environments. Community members commit to upholding certain norms and agreements to participate; communities meet weekly to review cultural  patterns and create new agreements together. To the extent that this question asks whether limits on individual freedom exist, the answer is a resounding "yes." At TCC specifically we nurture connection, practice consent, and honor autonomy. We also view autonomy as something that doesn't exist in a vacuum - all of us are in relationship, all the time. Our personal freedoms, feelings, and needs are constantly interacting with others'. No individual's autonomy is more important than the needs of the community. We emphasize the ways we are connected and encourage consideration for how we affect one another rather than highlighting individual needs. We intentionally practice a version of unschooling that is rooted in consideration and community - not one that prioritizes individual needs and freedoms. A question we often ask one another to consider is, "What will be the impact on the group or community?" and move with that in mind.

On boundaries: we define “boundaries” more broadly than just as “rules". We teach that boundaries are personal limits we may hold, and they are generally for our information (not demands to be wielded at others for compliance). What are we able or willing to tolerate? What do we know about ourselves and a given situation - how can context inform how we move forward in ways that are caretaking of the group, ourselves, and the situation? The topic of boundaries can become an interesting one about priorities and opportunities to practice skills that all of us need to grow into proactive, empowered individuals. In environments where young people don’t get a say in their work loads, levels of physical activity, collaboration styles - so many other things - they don’t have as many opportunities to practice recognizing, setting, or holding personal boundaries. We recognize that these are vital life skills; as such, facilitators are intentional in both modeling boundary management and supporting young people doing the same. 

Part of our culture-building process involves considering how we all want to feel in our community, and then what actions and behaviors we can each exhibit to ensure folks feel comfortable and a part of things. We agree, as a community, to practice ways of being that uphold a culture of compassion and belonging. We take these agreements very seriously. When folks cause harm - and we all do in our relationships - we take a variety of approaches to repair harm, honor the feelings and needs of the folks who may be hurt, to consider the conditions that contributed to the conflict or harm in the first place, and to address and change them as needed. We are dedicated to building a safe and supportive community. Sometimes, simply hearing from their peers motivates a young person to change their behavior. Sometimes more creative solutions may be needed. We rely on the teachings of folks like Mariame Kaba and Mia Mingus to support us in responding with thoughtful intention and through a transformative justice lens. We love Mingus' guide on accountability and apologies, for example.

In general, behavior that looks like bullying is less likely to happen in a space where everyone is honored as a whole person and given autonomy over their lives. Free age mixing in our community also nurtures empathy and care, reducing the possibility of conflicts that often appear in conventional, same-age environments. Still, young people bring various emotional needs and stresses into the space and understanding what their underlying needs are is often the solution to dissolving actions that harm or oppress others.

What if? They might develop relationships with other children of various ages and spend hours deep in conversation. They might learn to navigate conflict in a way that honors their own boundaries while understanding the needs of others. They might learn to imagine, invent, and create. They might exercise and develop coordination and physical agility. They might learn how to organize a group of people towards a common goal. With all that time and space, they might learn who they really are – what makes them tick, what their natural gifts are, what brings them joy, what they need to feel healthy, and so on. We actually cannot know what anyone will learn from a given experience or encounter. We cannot guarantee what someone will learn in a conventional setting, either. We may have learned lots of things in math class, for example - some of which may have been some procedures or formulas (and many mathematicians share that this is not…math) - but we likely also learned things about our relationship to math, about shame, about coercion, about making mistakes, about competition, and so on. 

Where is this question actually coming from? For those of us who grew up with conventional schooling, we have learned to associate schooling (forced activity based around academic learning) with learning. Part of our work here as adults is dismantling that connection and limiting belief. Meaningful learning often happens in spite of school, not because of it. So many of us learned through schooling that we can’t be trusted to decide for ourselves where our bodies should be and what our minds should be focused on. We learned that, above all else, obeying orders is the most important path to success. Eventually, we exited institutional education and began our lives as independent adults and had to begin the process of unlearning all of these things that schooling taught us. Another aspect of this work for us as adults is returning to ourselves. We want to create an environment that affirms and supports young people's wholeness - not a place from which they will need to heal. So - what if your kid just wants to play outside all day?

What if? They might improve their reading and spelling skills, practice problem solving, or exercise their creativity. They might learn to collaborate with others, develop the ability to track multiple moving objects more accurately, or practice reading maps. Maybe they will be inspired to study programming so they can design their own games. Or to attend indie game conferences and write reviews of games in development. Or become interested in a period of history or social justice issue that is explored through a game. Or connect playfully with others in ways they wouldn't otherwise. 

Where is this question actually coming from? Sometimes, an adult in relationship with a young person notices that their kid becomes cranky, easily frustrated, overtired, and so on after spending a large portion of the day playing a video game. In that case, it is valuable for that adult to connect with the young person and offer what they notice, helping them recognize how their choices impact their mood and the household ecosystem or community. Exchanges like this are meaningful in adult-child relationships grounded in mutual respect and trust, and in which the young person doesn't feel judged, less-than, or othered for their screen use. Sometimes the issue is that a parent feels like their tuition money is wasted unless their child tries one or two offerings each week, or is doing something that would be considered conventionally "educational."  Sometimes the parent has anxiety about their own screen-use habits or other subconscious worries.

Facilitators recognize that it is important to help parents identify and voice their specific concerns with their kids in an affirming way, rooted in connection and relationship. The parents, facilitators, and young people may then collaborate on drafting agreements around screen use.

Arthur Brock has an excellent blog post for those concerned about kids’ screen use. A significant consideration for us here is that through attunement, we're eager to know what specific needs a young person may be meeting or trying to meet through their screen use (or anything else they're doing "all day"). Typically, an underlying set of needs is presenting itself, and it's part of the role of the adults to support young folks in reflection and inquiry about what those might be - and various ways to meet them - especially if their behaviors and choices hedge into the realm of hazardous. And, any conversations about those reflections and needs involve connection, partnership, and power-sharing. 

When we talk about diversity here, we acknowledge its many variations and forms: economic, racial, gender, and so on. Our current community composition reflects a wide range of economic classes. Our community does not currently reflect a range of racial diversity, and would be considered predominantly white. We have an expansive representation of genders. A majority of folks in our community are neuro non-conforming. The ages of people in our day-to-day community range from 4 to 48. Some of the young people here have never attended conventional school, others have. Our experiences in the forests and gardens here reinforce for us that all ecosystems are strengthened by diversity of all types; homogeneity and monoculturalism weaken communities. Our values and actions are centered on the idea that our community be affirming rather than simply accepting of diversity in all its forms.  

Decentering whiteness, centering anti-oppression and liberation, making our values and practices visible, increasing access, and intentionally building relationships of all kinds across class, race, gender, and culture are priorities for us. Our current efforts toward realizing these intentions include:

• Offering opportunities to examine, interrogate, and deconstruct histories and impacts of colonialism and resistance

• Making community contributions to mutual aid efforts, both local and afar

• Discussing justice issues with young people, and exploring and imagining forms of activism available to us, most especially the inner work of deschooling and decolonizing

• Engaging with other organizations and community spaces as individuals

• Our tier-based tuition model and commitment to working with all families on making TCC financially accessible

As a currently predominantly white organization, we recognize it to be our responsibility to make ourselves trustworthy. We know that trust is built in relationship, through visibility, consistency, and acknowledgement and repair of inevitable harm. We understand our community to be broader than the families who enroll with us, and we take our duty and responsibility to community seriously. Engaging in deschooling and decolonizing and practicing accountability to all of our relationships is not an "add-on" to our unschooling work; it is the work, and it remains ongoing.

Facilitators witness.

Facilitators model.

Facilitators reflect.

Facilitators facilitate.

Facilitators hold the space.

The role of an SDE facilitator requires a great deal of thoughtful intention, attunement, assertiveness, reflection, passion, humor, humility, playfulness, flexibility, proactive organization of the environment, emotional literacy, various communication and conflict-resolution skills, safety awareness, the capacity to stretch one's own thinking, the capacity for change, for agility, and myriad other skills. Facilitators support young people in the community in clarifying their intentions, getting connected to the resources they need, reflecting on their decisions, engaging with the community, and sharing their learning. They work to keep the space safe, legal, and supportive. They collaborate with young people to develop a powerfully positive culture. Facilitators model clear communication, collaboration, and authenticity. They embody the Agile Roots, and they are grounded in trust. 

Segregating people into same-age cohorts, a practice that really only happens at school, limits their exposure to accessible role models and their opportunities to teach skills they’ve acquired. In an age-mixed environment, older children learn patience and compassion while  supporting the younger children. Younger children watch and emulate older ones. Everyone gets practice both teaching and learning from  people with varying skill levels, learning styles, and attention spans. The results tend to be awe-inspiring.

One word: community. Being at TCC confers all of the benefits of being a part of a dynamic, affirming community. We offer a consistent cohort of folks with whom young people engage day in and day out, communicating, negotiating, solving problems, reflecting, growing, and changing. Facilitators play a significant role in supporting these community experiences and young people in their growth. Based on our own experiences and those of others, this can be difficult to achieve even in an unschooling-at-home environment.

Young people at TCC learn from, inspire, negotiate, and collaborate with each other on a daily basis, enriching each other’s learning and challenging each other to constantly improve their social skills. Because so much learning happens in interactions with others, in particular the same group of folks day after day, the emphasis on creating opportunities for high-quality interactions here differentiates us from unschooling-at-home or homeschooling. We emphasize practicing life together and building the skills to create meaningful lives. See some of our other responses here to gain more clarity - we DO support free and open play, and, so much beyond that happens here on any given day.

Kids, especially older ones, coming from conventional schooling  usually have a “detox” period where they test their limits to be sure that they really aren’t going to be forced to do things or graded on their “performance.” They often come to us understandably wary of adults, and we focus on building relationships grounded in connection, consent, and trust. When it turns out that there isn’t much to rebel against, boredom and positive peer pressure usually motivate them to start trying new things and engaging with the community.

Learning is always occurring. As a result, young people coming from conventional schooling arrive having learned communication styles, value judgements, and assumptions about power dynamics (and their own capacities) that they then often begin un-learning at TCC. Young people who choose to return to conventional schooling have experience communicating clearly, managing their time, and finding information/resources they need to achieve goals. They take these skills with them – along with the knowledge that they’re choosing to go for a reason, assuming they've selected a conventional path of their own volition. As a result, they usually transition smoothly.

Our assessment is that each young person is a capable and powerful human with value to add to the world.

How do we track young people's growth and progress? By developing authentic relationships in which we support young peoples' self-reflection, and bear witness to their unique journeys. We trust in their growth and progress. Young people at TCC may choose to document their reflective work alongside facilitators in various mediums, where both form and content illustrate the evolution of their thinking and skills. Facilitators are constantly engaged in self-assessment as part of their commitment to reflection, change, and growth . We love the prompts adrienne maree brown puts forth in Emergent Strategy to support that introspection. 

If that’s the direction a young person chooses, yes. Colleges have been accepting  young people from homeschooling families and unconventional schools for as long as colleges have existed.

When a self-directed learner decides they want to go to college, they know why they want to go. Many young people unquestioningly spend thousands of dollars and several years of their lives going through college because that’s what they think they’re “supposed” to do. Intentionally entering a learning environment to accomplish a specific purpose - without having been coerced or "strongly encouraged" through external pressures - is more likely to bring about positive outcomes.

We don’t yet have longitudinal data on ALCs, but we do have it on self-directed learning. Most of the kids who want to get into college do. Having alternative forms of record keeping and evaluation has not been an impediment for kids who want to go to college. In fact, there’s a proven advantage for people whose college applications can’t be tidily ranked by GPA and academic track: a human has to actually look at their portfolio. Young people at ALCs often document their learning on shareable platforms, such as Google docs, blogs, and Kanbans. As a result, they typically find it easy to construct a rich portfolio. 

For one parent and former teacher’s perspective on her daughter’s journey from self-directed learning to the college admissions process — check out Karen Hollis sharing her experience in Life Learning Magazine.

If a young person from a conventional high school wants to go to such a college, they have to sit in classes all day, get their homework done, and then somehow find time to solicit recommendation letters, go on interviews, craft their application, and prepare for the required tests.

If a young person at an ALC declares the intention to attend such a college, they can schedule time during the day for work that moves them towards reaching their goal. As during any other project a young person decides to take on, facilitators are available to provide support, resources, and coaching. So young people at ALCs have more time to focus on writing personal essays and studying for entrance requirements, should that be what they decide to do.

This is a bit of a tricky question, because often the discussion around "special needs" pathologizes folks who do not conform to conventional (and oppressive) systems, structures, and expectations. The topic of "special needs" is one that really needs some deschooling! Because what are "special needs"? This language is rooted in deficit-based thinking. Folks who are equipped to conform and survive and fly under the radar in conventional environments do not always demonstrate "special needs." Those who disrupt or struggle in those environments are classified as having "special needs." Interventions and supports are often then tailored to enable that young person to better conform to the constraints of the conventional environment. 

We often say at TCC, "What does the child in front of us need? What are their support needs - social, sensory, cognitive, emotional, and so on?" We look at the given young person, rather than a diagnosis, and consider whether our community can meet their support needs with intention and care to nurture their thriving. We often can.

Many support needs don't manifest as challenges here as they would in a conventional learning environment. It's also true that we may not be able to meet the needs of every young person. Context and nuance are paramount in answering that question. 

TCC facilitators are always eager to collaborate with parents and caregivers, suggest supportive resources, and communicate with therapists and other care professionals in the interest of supporting any given young person. We do this frequently and enthusiastically. We consistently pursue our own learning with the goal of more meaningfully meeting the varying needs of the young people in our care. 

At TCC, young people are encouraged to pay attention to their patterns, strengths, and quirks, and they’re supported in making choices accordingly. As a result, they learn to adapt, to maximize chances to play up their strengths, rather than feeling shamed for and fixating on their limitations. The result is that they keep their confidence and grow their capacities, often even undoing patterns of disempowering self-talk and any self-imposed antagonism that they may have built up in other settings. Ultimately, we engage with every young person here in reflecting on the ways in which they excel, what limitations and challenges they often press up against, which supports are meaningful to them, and how to advocate for and structure a given environment to meet those needs.

We love this question! We often hear curious folks say, "Oh, yes, I think I understand what you're doing. This is pretty much like Montessori/Reggio/Waldorf/the self-directed learning charter school nearby" and so on! We love what our friend Alexander Khost has written about various education models. Self-Directed Education is a political act, and each environment and model brings with it various political beliefs and structures. 

Let's break down some of what is the same and a lot of what's different about what TCC and other ALCs do:

Montessori: Montessori schools and ALCs both practice some age-mixing and support young people in self-directing their learning to an extent. Montessori age-mixing involves grouping children who would  typically be in three different “grades” into a cohort; ALC age-mixing is much broader, usually separating only very young children, sometimes only for meetings. Montessori students self-direct through a prescribed menu of subjects and concepts that changes based on the age range of the students and that is predetermined by adults; young people at ALCs self-direct based on their interests, passions, and the opportunities they see in the world around them with adults as their accomplices, not directors.

Reggio: The basic assumptions informing Reggio education are fairly complementary to those informing the ALC model. AND - the model still differs. Reggio was created based on the belief that humans are born with many forms of "expression languages" available to them. Most forms of schooling only develop literacy in three of these languages: reading, writing, and arithmetic. Reggio seeks to provide acknowledgement of and opportunities to develop as many of these languages as possible through themed “explorations" crafted by adults in the space. The Reggio model recognizes the environment as a powerful teacher; thus, Reggio schools are carefully designed with goals of sparking inspiration, encouraging curiosity, and facilitating interpersonal activities. The ALC philosophy shares a view of the child as powerful, competent, and full of potential. We also share the recognition of the environment as a teacher and the emphasis on the importance of social relationships. However, we’re different in our emphasis on intentional culture creation, our documentation practices, our structures for supporting self-direction, and the role of the adult in the space.

Steiner/Waldorf: In many ways, Steiner/Waldorf schools advocate a single developmental trajectory for all children. These environments operate with a standardized curriculum - a Steiner/Waldorf school in St. Louis and a Steiner/Waldorf school in Stuttgart would be doing and teaching the same content to eight year-olds based on a standardized timeline. It is also true that  Steiner/Waldorf schools and families often speak to the importance of honoring children’s individual timetables for learning. Particularly with literacy, you will find stories of Waldorf students who learn to read in the conventional sense at a wide variety of ages from 5 to 12 years old, and are given time and space to do so. ALCs see “development” as even more complex and expect young people to have different learning journeys. Our facilitators aspire to support young people in creating their own adventures rather than being exposed to specific content at specific times. It's also worth highlighting valid concerns about the underlying beliefs of Waldorf's founder, Rudolf Steiner, which are rooted in concepts of racial hierarchy and other harmful narratives that reinforce oppressive dynamics. TCC's anti-oppression framework is diametrically opposed to these framings. 

Sudbury Schools: Sudbury schools and ALCs are both Self-Directed Education environments that typically include free age-mixing and have no grades, curriculum, or coercion. The culture in both of these models is largely shaped by the people in the specific environments, and, the structures in place in Sudbury schools and ALCs differ pretty significantly. 

Sudbury schools advocate for individual freedom in a democratic community - a system based on majority-rule decision making, community-created rules, and a youth-centered judicial committee (JC) that determines the consequences for those who break rules. JCs are a structural staple in most Sudbury schools. ALCs also value freedom, but with an emphasis on practicing freedom with intention, reflection, and in community. Practicing consent in relationship and creating a culture rooted in care and trust are other key elements. At TCC we practice consent-based decision making rather than voting. We do not have rules. Instead we use a framework of considerations (community, safety, individual needs) to make decisions, and co-create norms to guide us in our ways of being with one another. We practice conflict-resolution and communication, and when conflicts and harm inevitably arise (as they do in all relationships), we address them in a care-centered process of accountability, without blame or punishment.

Democratic Free School: ALCs are similar to Democratic Free Schools in that young people here contribute to decision making at the school, direct their own learning, and participate in meetings. Many of the differences between ALC and Free Schools developed in response to challenges Free Schools commonly face. The main differences between ALCs and Free schools are that young people here focus on creating culture rather than running the school, use structures to support intention-setting and reflection on their learning  journeys, and explicitly aim to keep 90%+ of each day meeting-free so community members can focus on self-directing their experiences.

Unschool: Unschooling always looks different, so it’s difficult to compare a “typical” unschooling experience to an ALC experience. We say at TCC that we unschool in community, operating with Akilah S. Richards' definition of unschooling as a "child-trusting, anti-oppression, liberatory, love-centered approach to parenting and caregiving" as a guide. Both unschooling and Agile Learning's relationships with learning come from trusting that a given person of any age knows best how to design their education and should be supported in doing so. One difference may be that unschoolers often tend to focus on their individual paths, while young people at ALCs engage in active culture creation in a consistent community. Again, we unschool in community here at TCC! This social component is foundational to ALCs: young people learn from, inspire, negotiate, and collaborate with each other on a daily basis, enriching each other’s learning and challenging each other to constantly improve their social skills.

Homeschool: Homeschooling looks different from case to case, but it typically involves conventional subject areas. It may also sometimes involve limited opportunities for social interaction with a consistent cohort or community of folks with which young people engage day in and day out, communicating, negotiating, solving problems, reflecting, growing, and changing. Homeschoolers may be able to set the pace of their studies, but their topics are still often informed by state or parental standards and tend to replicate "school at home" and "schoolishness" is still very much present. ALCs  see people of all ages as self-directed learners in a world where all learning is interdisciplinary. Young people at TCC decide the pace and the content of their days. They also learn from, inspire, negotiate, and collaborate with each other on a daily basis, enriching each other’s learning and challenging each other to constantly improve their social skills. Because so much learning happens in interactions with others, in particular the same group of folks day in and day out, the emphasis on creating opportunities for high-quality interactions at ALCs is one of the main factors differentiating us from homeschooling environments. The emphasis on practicing life together and building the skills to create meaningful lives for ourselves - rather than focusing on school-based skills with the primary goals of college or job readiness - further differentiate ALCs from homeschooling.

We hold a lot of nuance here, always, and want to approach this answer with care and with that nuance in mind. We'll speak to systems, not people or individual circumstances. And offer first what we are for: we are for spaces, environments, and systems that honor the rights of young people. We are pro youth liberation. Many conventional schools and the adults that work in them care for children deeply and move with a desire to transform and shift the current landscape of schooling. In fact, the facilitators here were those adults at one time. We know the system of conventional schooling today serves as a social safety net for many young people and their families - it is a place where children stay while their parents and caregivers work, and it often also provides meals as well as other beneficial social services, at times. In a future we imagine, these basic needs for food and care would be met in other community-centered ways. They would not be tied to compulsory schooling, and compulsory schooling wouldn't exist. Part of our answer here, too, highlights the awareness that "school" and "learning" or "education" are not synonyms. Learning happens everywhere, all the time. We don't actually need school to learn - consider all the learning you've done as an adult, beyond a classroom. How did it happen? In fact, school culture often prevents young people from learning for various reasons. We have so many possibilities for meaningful education without school.

The system of conventional schooling is also a colonial institution, and so we ask - who was it built to serve, and why? Who does it serve now? What is conventional, compulsory schooling's function? Who does it harm? Who does this institution benefit and affirm? Mariame Kaba offers us the reminder that "the purpose of a system is what it does." Conventional schooling purports to do many things. But what does it actually do? We can unpack this, and we do, elsewhere, and we invite you to explore this question, too. The ways the system of conventional schooling harms Black, Brown, Indigenous, neurodivergent, trans, disabled children and others are well-documented, and many. It's also true that many young people have positive experiences at conventional school. This doesn't negate the oppressive nature of the system of schooling, and the ways it is inherently what Akilah S. Richards refers to as "schoolish": “Conventional practices that are rooted in binaries, and generally accepted by adults, but rejected by children and teenagers, either overtly or covertly. A living out of someone else’s goals or narratives of how and what we should be. Schoolishness models an authoritarian approach to adult-child interaction as well as respectability ideas rooted in the notion of adults’ innate superiority in knowledge.” 

We reject the system and culture of conventional schooling, and the coercion, competition, and power-over dynamics central to them. Conventional, compulsory schooling for all is incompatible with the liberation of young people. We also acknowledge that for many young people and their families, conventional schooling brings with it some positive experiences, and offers necessary social services and care. We can acknowledge that many families may not have other options, or want to pursue other options. We can hold multiple truths, and continue our work of divesting from domination and systems of oppression, and instead embrace reflection and connection in all of our relationships.

We imagine a future in which young people are honored as full humans with autonomy over their education and lives, and that we all have a variety of rich, dynamic resources and options that have been determined consensually within our communities to meaningfully meet our needs and validate children as people. We are in favor of liberatory alternatives for young people. We are for youth liberation.

Relationships that are built and nurtured over time are so critical to what we do. Given this, part-time enrollment can affect the extent to which we're able to create those relationships. Part-time enrollment is not something we have supported thus far at TCC, AND, we understand that there are many reasons that reduced days or hours in a program might best suit a young person and their family. When we think through the considerations of a young person attending TCC part-time, though, we also ask the question, "What is the impact on community?" This is a question we begin with when approaching just about every situation! Again, relationship is the heart of the work we do here, and relationships flourish through presence and consistency. We also remain open to conversations about the possibility of part-time enrollment and how we might approach such an arrangement with mutual benefit in mind.

This question - and the answer - hold a lot of nuance! We intentionally don’t refer to ourselves as a school, and are not incorporated as a school. We’re working to divest from schoolishness and conventional educational paradigms. It’s also true that at the start of our work, we referred to ourselves as a “microschool.” We are a small learning community, and, over time, we realized that if we were committed to the work of deschooling, simultaneously labeling ourselves a “microschool” didn’t make much sense - even if that label helped folks find us.

TCC operates as an LLC, and young people attending receive “educational services” from the hours of 9:30 to 3:30. As a legal designation, they are considered homeschoolers, and parents and caregivers are legally responsible for meeting Missouri’s homeschool requirements and documentation. Facilitators here offer weekly narratives and photo albums of what unfolds here, and if applicable, that information can assist in documentation.