Christel Hartkamp-Bakker¹ & Rob Martens¹
DOI 10.1108/OTH-03-2024-0008
Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1074-8121
ON THE HORIZON: THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING FUTURES
Received 6 March 2024
Revised 22 April 2024
Accepted 22 May 2024

‘This author accepted manuscript is deposited under a Creative Commons
Attribution Non-commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC) licence. This means
that anyone may distribute, adapt, and build upon the work for non-commercial
purposes, subject to full attribution. If you wish to use this manuscript for
commercial purposes, please contact permissions@emerald.com.’

¹Department of Conditions for Lifelong Learning, Open Universiteit, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Contact author: christel.hartkamp@ou.nl

Abstract
Purpose – To present the experiences with self-determination and taking ownership of life
in Sudbury model schools that allow students true choice.
Design/methodology/approach – This qualitative study used a thematic analysis
methodology. Semi-structured interviews were analyzed and corresponding meanings
thematized from 14 adult participants from eight different democratic schools in the
Netherlands, Israel, and the U.S.A. These schools were structured in accordance with
the Sudbury model and offered students real choice in the curriculum program. Self-
Determination Theory (SDT) is used as a lens to interpret the findings.

Findings – The findings suggest that an organizational structure that supports own
responsibility in an absence of an imposed program and a culture of no-interference creates
conditions for taking ownership of life and choices (self-determination) and encompasses
taking ownership of learning, education, and one’s future. Taking ownership of one’s life
seems to be related to strongly internally oriented processes with an internal locus of
causality, to find their own motivation and taking responsibility for choices, behavior, and
consequences in a SDT need supportive social context.
Research limitations/implications – This study is part of a larger research that addressed
multiple facets of their experiences with their schools to understand the longer-term effects
these schools had on the adult lives of participants. This limits the scope of this paper to
only explore the conditions that led to the mental state of ’taking ownership of one’s life’.
Originality/value – Conditions that can lead to long-term self-determination of one’s life
and future in a school setting is an unexplored area of research.

1 Introduction

“To recognize that ‘I am the one who chooses’ and ‘I am the one who
determines the value of an experience for me’ is both an invigorating and a
frightening realization.” – Carl R. Rogers (1961, p. 122)

This article presents an exploration of findings that emerged from a larger research
using Thematic Analysis (TA) with a reflexive approach (Braun and Clarke, 2006, 2021) into
experiences and effects on the adult lives of 14 participants who attended Sudbury model
or similarly organized democratic schools (hereafter called Sudbury model schools). These
type of schools offer a place for Self-Directed Education (SDE: Gray, 2023): education that
derives from the self-chosen activities and life experiences of the learner.
One element with long-term consequences that emerged from this analysis was taking
one’s life into one’s own hands. Participants believed that they learned to accept that they
are the protagonists of their lives. This perspective seems related to having an unusually
broad spectrum of choices about how they spend their time, forcing them to ask themselves,
“What do I value?” How would I most like to spend my time?” This led us to
wonder what the relationship is between having a true choice environment, which even
includes the choice to “do nothing”, in the school experience of K-12 (children aged 4 to 18)
and the phenomenon of taking ownership of one’s life.
The findings presented here reveal central themes about how real life and democracy
in these schools lead to taking responsibility daily and ultimately to taking ownership of life,
which was sometimes experienced as overwhelming. These school environments contrast
sharply with conventional school environments where ‘voice and choice’ often means that
teachers allow students to choose from a selected set of options or within a specified
timeframe. In education, there is a continuum between a rigid structure in the strictest
conventional schools, to a more flexible and student-oriented structure in progressive
schools, to complete freedom of choice within a democratic structure of, among others,
Sudbury model schools. How this type of freedom works out in the long term and the
importance of feeling related to the community in these schools has never been properly
investigated. The Self-Determination Theory (SDT: Ryan and Deci, 2017), provides tools to
gain an understanding of these environments from a motivational point of view. SDT studies
people’s natural tendencies toward motivation and growth and the importance of
environments supporting three basic psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and
relatedness—as opposed to undermining them. Therefore, in this study we present the
perspectives of the participants, and then investigate whether there may be connections
between true choice, self-determination and taking ownership. Choice is a concept closely
related to autonomy and self-determination (Reeve, Nix and Hamm, 2003; e.g. Katz and
Assor, 2007; Ryan and Deci, 2017), but seems to have received little scholarly attention in
SDT recently.
First, this article explores the literature on choice within the theoretical framework of
SDT, examining different aspects of choice and decision making and the relationship with
the three basic needs, autonomy, competence, and relatedness. We then define what is
meant by taking ownership of one’s life and differentiate ownership from internal locus of
control and internal locus of causality. We explore what taking ownership means in relation
to choice in conventional school settings. Next, we describe the range of choice inherent in
Sudbury model schools. Then we present the participant comments and analyze the data to
postulate a relationship between true choice and taking ownership in these schools. Finally,
confluences with or divergences from SDT based on the unique, unexplored setting of these
type of Sudbury model schools are explored.

2 Theory and Previous Research
2.1 SDT and conditions for choice
SDT is a metatheory that describes the effects at the psychological level of factors that
influence human well-being by satisfying or undermining three fundamental needs, namely
autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Ryan and Deci (2017) describe choice as central to
the concept of autonomy. Deci and Ryan (1985a) clarified what constitutes true choice,
stating:
“a behavior is truly chosen only if the person could seriously consider not
doing it. The inflexibility of a person having to do a behavior and not being
able to seriously consider other options suggests that the behavior does not
represent true choice, even if it was decided on” (p. 155).
Building upon this definition, Reeve et al. (2003) refer to the concept of an action
choice, a choice which includes considering not to act. They conclude that “’capacity to
choose’ has much to do with an internally locused and volitional sense of causality but little
to do with the attributional experience of deciding between options” (p. 388). In other
words, true choice is about the action or ability to make one’s own decisions based on an
internal locus of causality and from voluntariness (Deci and Ryan, 1985b; Ryan and Connell,
1989).
Environments characterized by the absence of external pressure, in which personal
goals and choices are respected, are optimal for autonomy (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Deci and
Ryan, 2008). A clear distinction is made between choice and decision making (Ryan and
Deci, 2017). Decision making is about selecting between options, also called option choice
(Reeve, Nix and Hamm, 2003). Often, studies that present themselves as choice-related
study forms of decision making or choosing between options. From these studies we know
that having a choice is not in itself a motivation-enhancing factor unless choice has value for
the person himself (Katz and Assor, 2007). Further, choosing between too many options or
making choices that do not match someone’s competency level can lead to reduced
motivation or stress. So, to meet the need for competence, choices should not be too
complex, too easy, or too difficult, but should still involve a challenge, i.e. within the zone of
proximal development (Vygotsky, 1997).
Moreover, to be effective for motivation or internalization, choices, including those
presented as options, must correspond to one’s own interests, will, goals, preferences,
ambitions, and/or values (Deci and Ryan, 1991; Reeve, Nix and Hamm, 2003; Katz and Assor,
2007). In addition, conditions in which choices are made should meet circumstances
involving good relationships with people significant to that person (Ryan and Deci, 2017).
They highlighted the misconception that autonomy is more about independence than
interdependence when it comes to decision-making. They showed that relatedness is as
important as autonomy when making choices. They both play an important role in
maintaining a sense of autonomy and agency. Also, when it comes to carrying out family or
societal duties, relatedness is essential in allowing the sense of one’s own will and choice for
internalization. In short, it is not choice that determines the quality of motivation, but the
degree to which the three basic needs are satisfied in relation to choices.

2.2 How is taking ownership of one’s life defined?
The word ‘ownership’ is frequently used in relation to material possessions, but taking
ownership of one’s life seems to be an undefined but commonly used concept. Although
often used interchangeable, ownership and responsibility are not the same. Ownership is
about possessing and controlling something, whereas responsibility is about fulfilling
obligations and being accountable for one’s actions. An Internet search for “taking
ownership of your life” yielded many returns that dealt with taking responsibility and
control in work and life situations, in contrast with a tendency to blame outside forces for
being stuck in unfavorable circumstances. These descriptions seem to be related to the
concept of locus of control by Rotter (1966), which reflects the extent to which people feel
they have control over a situation or behavior as opposed to feeling like a victim. Accepting
responsibility instead of blaming other people or circumstances and being goal-oriented are
aspects that define self-directedness (e.g. Kose, 2003; Toit-Brits, 2022). The locus of control
concept only describes whether someone feels in control (motivated) in contrast to a state
of amotivation or passivity, without considering the source and associated quality of the
motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2017). The question is whether taking ownership of one’s life
could not be better described from the continuum of motivation as defined by SDT because
this theory incorporates the quality of motivation and the associated perceived locus of
causality (PLOC: Ryan and Connell, 1989). Taking ownership of one’s life assumes an internal
PLOC which is about seeing oneself as the source of initiating and regulating behavior out of
one’s own will and approval (Ryan and Deci, 2017).

2.3 How student choice and taking ownership is limited in conventional schools
Carl Rogers, a forefather of humanistic psychology, emphasized people’s conscious
understanding of themselves and the capacity to make choices on a path to self-
actualization. Taking life into one’s own hands is uncharted research territory in the context
of schools. When ownership is referred to in a conventional school context, it is mostly
related to learning. Even where ownership of learning has been discussed in educational
research, it does not appear to be clearly defined and is often used as a slogan or
synonymous with participation, involvement or engagement (Wiley, 2009).
We wonder to what extent choice can truly be given in the context of conventional
schools, because the student ultimately must meet all kinds of imposed curriculum
requirements, such as tests, exams, or final objectives. Yet, taking ownership in a
conventional school context generally appears to be associated with creating opportunities
to explore interests, set goals, and pursue and sustain ambitions and goals (Conley and
French, 2014). It includes participation “through discussions, choice, responsibility and
decision-making” and it “emphasizes the students’ real actions of choice and control”
(Enghag and Niedderer, 2008, p. 631). It promotes students’ sense of ownership of their
education “by including students in school decision-making processes, by ensuring that
students have the opportunity to express their opinions about the way schools are run, and
by creating school communities that are symbiotic” (Scott, 2010, p. 36). More recently, Toit-
Brits (2022) theorizes how ownership of learning is enhanced by nurturing a sense of
belonging, in addition to creating opportunities for personalized learning and participation,
and supporting a sense of accountability and self-discipline through the promotion of self-
advocacy skills. From these descriptions we postulate that taking ownership of learning or
education can be nourished by belonginess and participation in one’s own environment and
by creating opportunities for following one’s own interests and setting one’s own goals, and
that it involves true choice by the students. Thus, the extent to which a student can
influence his/her education and set goals appears to be an important factor. However, we
also postulate that choice and influence in decision-making will not transcend the goal of
completing tasks or assignments and obtaining degrees within a predetermined curriculum.
Many of the SDT-related studies regarding decisions or choices are conducted in
schools under these conditions and focus on the short term, on option choices and their
direct effect on motivation for tasks or assignments. Achieving goals laid down in the
curriculum is usually mandatory and controlled by means of rewards or punishments,
conditions that potentially undermine the natural tendencies towards motivation and
growth (Ryan and Deci, 2020). Ryan and Deci (2017) emphasize that schools should be more
than learning factories, schools should “shape the development of the whole child, affecting
intellectual outcomes as well as motivation, self-concept, and the validity and integrity of
self-development” (p. 353). They underscore the long-term objective of SDT that
“capabilities for engagement and self-regulation will likely be more serviceable in
subsequent life than any particular facts learned in the schools” (p. 353). We assume that
taking ownership of one’s life encompasses choices that have to do with longer-term
objectives, with giving direction to one’s life and accepting circumstances that are
instrumental in achieving that goal (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Long-term effects of true choice,
as defined by SDT, regarding education are difficult to investigate under conventional
conditions that do not provide true choice. Because this study focused on a school
environment without the imposed curriculum requirements, we can investigate more
deeply how true choice circumstances may lead to self-determination of students and the
effects that this may hold.

2.4 Choice as part of the daily practice in Sudbury model schools
Long before Ryan and Deci advocated the importance of autonomy and warned about
the undermining effects of rewards and punishments on the healthy psychological
development of students, there were educational reformers such as Fröbel, Ferrer and
Dewey, who came to similar conclusions and designed forms of education in which the
autonomy of the student was more central. Pedagogues such as Ferrer, Tolstoy, A.S. Neill
and Greenberg, were founders of what are now called democratic schools (Swartz, 2016).
Although SDT seems to offer every reason to study these types of schools, they have rarely
been the subject of attention in educational studies.
The most radical democratic school model that allows children the freedom to play
and explore freely and use their inherent tendencies to learn is the Sudbury model, which
rejects a predetermined curriculum and imposed lessons (Ellis, 2013). The Sudbury model
refers to the Sudbury Valley School, a day school for children aged 4 to 18 (K-12) in
Massachusetts, USA that has existed since 1968. Sudbury model schools aim to place
responsibility on the student to determine his or her learning path and future, including
whether to obtain diplomas. Learning happens through self-motivation and self-regulation
and through evaluation by self-criticism (Rosenberg, 1973) driven by a free interaction with
people of all ages (Gray and Feldman, 1999, 2004). The foundational assumptions of this
model closely align with SDT-defined human needs for autonomy, competence and
relatedness (Ackoff and Greenberg, 2008), underpinning a philosophical framework and
foundation that enables children to experience a high level of autonomy through free
association with people of all ages and unfettered educational/developmental freedom
(Greenberg, 2016). Daily, these students decide for themselves how to spend their time and
with whom, even to the point that they can choose to do nothing at all. The philosophy is
that boredom is sometimes necessary to delve into one’s own motivation to find a purpose,
instead of being distracted by programs offered.
Treating children as fully equal to adults is perhaps the most controversial starting
point from which this school is built, as Greenberg (2016) writes: “They are fully equal: not
partially equal, not almost equal, not gradually more and more equal as they grow older” (p.
53). Typically, a Sudbury model school is characterized by the absence of authoritarian
hierarchical structures, including subtle inequalities that manipulate or entice students into
adult-preferred (learning) activities (Traxler, 2015; Greenberg, 2016). Adults in these
environments are role models of effective behavior, knowledge and interaction and thus
provide a source of learning (Ackoff and Greenberg, 2008; Rietmulder, 2019). If students
want to take lessons, they can choose to organize that. There are not many schools that
allow children and adolescents this level of choice and control over their life.

2.5 How are Sudbury model schools organized?
A consequence of the foundational principles as described in the previous section is
that “the school is organized as a participatory democracy in which adults and students of
all ages have equal rights, responsibilities and freedoms” (Feldman, 2001, p. 4). Feldman
argues that the democratic community sets the boundaries (rules) to protect the school and
to prevent people from interfering with each other’s activities (norms for living together and
to protect individual freedom). Students have an equal say in all decision-making bodies as
adults do over all aspects of the organization of the school. In addition to control over the
budget and school rules, students can also use their voice in performance reviews and in
annual elections to determine whether employees can stay on next year (Feldman, 2001;
Greenberg, 2016).
Globally, there are about fifty schools that share common characteristics, whether or
not they explicitly identify themselves as a ‘Sudbury school’ (Gray, Riley and Curry-Knight,
2021). Common organizational structures include a school meeting and a judicial committee
in which students have equal voice. In addition, these schools describe other committees
and school meeting-appointed positions with executive responsibilities to deal with the
daily business of running the institution. To carry out shared interests or activities such as
excursions, woodworking, cooking or making music that require management of space,
money or resources, there are sub-associations that are managed as independent bodies,
sometimes by students unaided. For a more elaborate description of the context see Ackoff
and Greenberg (2008), Feldman (2001), Gray et al. (2021) and Gray and Chanoff (1986).

3 Methodology of the present study
The here presented study is exploring findings that relate to taking ownership of life
and forms part of a larger qualitative research using TA with an reflexive approach (Braun
and Clarke, 2006, 2021). The methods of data selection and analysis presented below
mainly describe those of the entire study and how the sample presented here was selected.

3.1 Data collection procedure
We sought graduates from multiple Sudbury model or comparably organized schools
from various countries, thereby minimizing individual school effects and effects of specific
country-related culture on the findings. From a total of 55 schools in 13 countries, 15
schools had operated long enough to provide a possible population of alumni that could
meet the requirements for this research and were contacted. From this group, eight schools
in three countries (USA, Israel, and the Netherlands) finally participated in this study.
The candidate selection process was delegated to a school contact person. Our
requirement was that participants had attended the school for at least five years and had
also gained at least five years of experience in adult life. We accepted two deviations from
this requirement. To minimize potential selection bias, each school was asked to select two
dissimilar types of individuals for the study: people of different genders, backgrounds,
experiences in school and with different educational and career paths after school. Fourteen
participants took part in the interviews. From the eight schools, six schools in all three
countries provided two participants and an additional two schools in the US provided one
participant.
As part of the procedure approved by the ethical commission of the Open university,
signed consent forms were collected of all participants before the interview. Semi-
structured interviews based on a pre-prepared interview guide in Dutch and English (Kvale,
2007) were conducted online using VOIP technology (Microsoft Teams) and audio
recordings were archived. Each interview lasted between 60 to 90 minutes. Several open
questions prompted the participants to recall certain memories about aspects of their
schools and the perceived effects on their lives. Transcripts were anonymized and noted
down using an intelligent verbatim method (Bailey, 2008), focusing on the essence of what
was said with annotations where relevant emotions or interruptions were involved. Capital
letters were used when a word was pronounced with more emphasis. Transcripts were sent
to the participant for member checking as part of data validation (Mero-Jaffe, 2011).

3.2 Who are the Participants?
Out of the 14 participants, five persons identified themselves with masculine gender
(he/him/his) and nine with feminine gender (she/her/hers), other pronouns were not
chosen. The age range of the participants was diverse; the oldest participants were 35 to 40
years old and the youngest were between 20 and 24 years old. Consequently, the number
of years that passed since they left their school also differed, from longer than ten years to
around five years, except for Beth, who left the school more than one year before the
interview (the names used for the participants are pseudonyms). Three of them attended
the school during their whole childhood and two others almost from the beginning, from
the age of six and seven. Three came to the school at the age of ten, one at the age of 11,
three at the age of 12 and one at the age of 13. Stephen was an exception, having started at
age 16 and only experiencing the school for two years. The participants from the eight
schools confirmed by the way they talked about the organizational structure that they had
experienced very comparable contexts.

3.3 Data analysis procedure and the selection of the in this study presented set of findings
The main objective of the larger research, of which this study is a derivate, concerned
corresponding experiences of aspects related to school experiences and effects on the adult
lives of 14 graduates from eight Sudbury model schools in three countries. In analyzing the
interviews, we used TA with a reflexive approach, in which we mainly looked for
corresponding meanings in answers and did not limit ourselves to answers to specific
questions. We were aware of how our own knowledge and background, namely being
familiar with this type of education, on the one hand is important for generating themes,
but on the other hand posed a risk of coding too selectively. We have been reflective by
always asking ourselves the question, “what exactly do the participants say and to what
extent can the meaning between different quotes be compared?”
The analysis was carried out in two phases. In the first phase, we focused on coding
similar meanings in the transcripts using Atlas.ti analysis software. In the meantime, more
interviews were conducted and transcribed, making coding and comparing meanings an
iterative process until no new codes surfaced after 11 cases. Atlas.ti gave the opportunity to
combine codes and analyze groups of quotes in code combinations which helped build
themes. In the second phase, these groups of quotes around a similar theme were then
brought together in a word document. They were again critically examined, and sometimes
moved under a more appropriate theme. In this phase, quotes from the Dutch participants
were translated into English close to the original meaning and expressions. Translation
remains a subjective step in qualitative research because translation itself is an
interpretation of the translator (Temple and Young, 2004), but it is necessary to present
findings. Quotes were reduced to the essence of the meaning it contained and digressions
and overly personal and/or case-specific parts were excluded. Themes that revealed an
interrelationship were selected for further interpretation. One such group of themes that
appear to be related to taking ownership of life have been selected to present here in this
study.

4 Findings
This section presents the four themes with an interrelationship to taking ownership of
your life. These themes are 1) how the school was aiming at mimicking adult life and taking
responsibility, 2) how the structure of the schools facilitated equal rights and responsibilities
for all its members, 3) how the culture of non-interference (respect for personal choices)
supported an agentive, inquisitive attitude and 4) how this structure and culture ultimately
led to taking ownership of your life. We will elaborate below on those themes and use
quotations to reveal how we landed on these themes.

4.1 “This school (is) as an experience of life beginning already”
When participants talked about what the school had meant for them, four participants
spoke generally about how the school’s philosophy aimed at providing a place that mimics
adult life (building life experience). Helen, Ella, and Leo referred to the fact that the school
offered a place where they could practice aspects of adult life. Leo explained, “it’s a demo-
life. You live life in the community and then you go out READY, knowing how to live it.” Ella
referred to the school as “real life” and said, “this school (is) as an experience of life
beginning already.” Helen explained the school as, “It is actually a small society in itself.” In
relation to this, Helen highlighted the aspect of own responsibility as a purpose of the
school to take initiative and prepare oneself to enter society as an adult. She said, “It is
really focused on your own responsibility to be able to do what is interesting for you so that
you can prepare to enter society as an adult.” In fact, Lillian explained the absence of an
imposed program as, “I also think that [this model] sometimes more than being a school, is
the absence of a school.” Lillian refers to how the experiences she had and the interactions
she had with the people at the school affected her, “just that life, that is what really was the
influence.” This demo life at school meant for Leo that he could try out different things and
explore his strengths and weaknesses; “it gave me that experience of trying to be in all kinds
of stuff, building myself, failing, succeeding, realizing what I’m good at and less good.”
The participants emphasized that school in a general sense was a place to practice
adult life and gain life experience. In some excerpts, they make a connection to the school
as a place to explore and take initiative, to develop personal skills by trial and error and
become aware of one’s competencies to prepare for adult life. Also, some referred to
gaining experience by living life in a community or small society, emphasizing a social
dimension of learning about adult life. From these answers we can postulate that in essence
the school is aimed at taking control of life and development in a social context that
functions as a breeding ground for real life.

4.2 “The democratic structure was a means of figuring out how to coexist with people”
In answers about their experiences with the structure of their schools, six participants
described the organizational structure in terms of clear and predictable (clear structure) and
facilitating equal rights and responsibilities for all its members, students, and adults (equal
status in the community).
Claire, Helen, Stephen, and Lillian signified that the structure was clear and
transparent: a predictable environment. Claire said, “The structure and organization of the
school is actually very clear.” A clear and transparent structure is also what Helen and
Stephen refer to when they explain that there was a rule book with all the rules and how, in
Helen’s words, “It was just clear to everyone what the rules were, … no matter how old you
were, everyone had to abide by the same rules and have the same rights.” Lillian said that
meetings were structured places to talk about things that were going on in the school. They
all seemed to refer to a similar phenomenon of a well-defined, transparent, and predictable
structure in the organization of the schools that facilitated an equal status between all
people in their schools.
The school was referred to as a “democratic school” or “a democracy” by Stephen,
Jessica, Lillian, Helen, and Andrew. By their descriptions, the democratic principle of what
Lillian called “one man one vote” is comparable to a participatory or direct democracy.
Jessica clarified the equal status of all people in the school, “everyone from the youngest
student all the way up to the staff members have one vote and they use that vote to
determine how the school is run.” Andrew highlighted that an equal vote doesn’t
automatically mean an equal voice in the school. He referred to the fact that “people have
an opportunity to have an equal voice. … Some people are much more charismatic and able
to get their point across than others, and that is something that people grow into a bit.” He
explained that equal status does not mean equal degree of influence and that people can
learn from each other. Lillian explained how the democratic self-governing structure of the
school was a means of aligning a group of people and is not an end. She said, “The
democratic structure, more than imposing an order or imposing some philosophy or
structure, was more a means of figuring out how to coexist with people.”
From these findings, we assume that opportunities to participate in one’s own
environment increases the sense of ownership and personal responsibility for the values
and norms of the school community that are important for building a culture of respect for
others. The descriptions suggest that the clear, transparent, and democratic structure was a
tool to figure out how to live together with the diversity of people in the school and
supported the equal status in the community. As Feldman (2001) stressed, clarity about
community norms (a clear structure) and being equally responsible for the welfare of the
community (equal status) are means to learn how to live together.

4.3 “If I wanted to do something, I had to do it”
Six participants spoke of a culture of no interference with their activities when
referring to the general atmosphere. This culture can also be described as one of respect for
personal choices. In their view, this culture was important for taking initiative and promoted
their curiosity.
Suzanne, Ted, Philip, and Jessica referred to the culture in terms of no interference
with choices. Ted explained how the freedom to choose what to do and not have anyone
interfere with it was part of the culture:
Everybody is free to do what they want on an individual basis. Nobody is
going to tell you what to do. That was a pretty integral part of the culture,
and that definitely had a big influence on me. Because it was all to me if I
wanted to do something, I had to do it. If somebody else wanted to do
something, they had to do it.
Suzanne makes a connection with this freedom to choose and being responsible as
follows, “One of the greatest aspects is freedom, the freedom to choose. The freedom to be
responsible, too.” Suzanne explained how the freedom to choose what you do is almost
naturally linked to taking responsibility. She describes how the choice of activities entailed a
responsibility to, for example, tidy up, be on time or other responsibilities that were
consequences of the choice. Like Ted and Suzanne, also Helen, Marcia, and Jessica stated
that the effect of this kind of freedom was that they had to take an active role, alone or with
others, in creating their daily pastimes. According to Jessica, the organization offered a lot
of opportunities that one could choose to be active in as well, like in committees and
corporations. Jessica explained further how the freedom to choose was connected to the
freedom to quit and divert into another direction based on her own curiosity. She said:
If I decided I didn’t want to do that anymore, I had the space to be able to
decide that for myself and take a different path based on what I was
interested in, what I wanted to learn at the time.
Helen and Marcia pointed to the aspect of increased curiosity as an effect of this
freedom. Marcia, who was a good and compliant student in her previous school, said: “It
gave me (a message) back not only to do what people expect me to do. Really to do what I
wanted to do. It gave me back (my) curiosity.” Also, Helen reflected on how she was doing
well in her previous school and always did what she was told. Once she started at a Sudbury
model school, she remembered that because no one told her what to do, “You have to think
for yourself, ‘What do I want to do now?’” She also noticed that the other students were
more inquisitive and asked “‘why’ questions”, which encouraged her to ask questions and
look for answers herself. These two participants together with Jessica made a connection
between curiosity and learning. As Marcia elaborated, now that she is an adult, her curiosity
makes that when she must learn something new, she enjoys it to the fullest.
The culture of no interference with personal motivations or choices is about respect
for each other’s autonomy. It seemed to evoke an active attitude towards self-
determination by means of taking initiative and undertaking activities and promoting
curiosity and self-direction. The curious, agentive attitude seems to function as a
prerequisite for personal development and learning. In this sense, the culture of no
interference appears to support competence. The culture of no interference in their daily
activities at school ensured that they learned to focus strongly on their own motivation and
felt the responsibility to make their own choices and accept the consequences. This
experience on a daily basis could we describe as part of the school curriculum, about which
Greenberg et al. (2005) wrote that students are expected to be responsible for their lives
and their communities from the moment they enter school.

4.4 “It sent me the message that ultimately, I am the owner of my life”
Regarding whether there were things hard or challenging about the structure, six of
the participants spoke about the challenge of having to hold responsibility and
accountability for your own life and education and the process of building a sense of
ownership of their life (taking ownership). They here mention the structure as a tool to
learn not to place responsibility outside of themselves (beyond own control) and develop a
sense of ownership. Under conventional educational circumstances, with structure of a
school it is commonly meant the program and time schedule, also called a structured day. In
the context of these schools, participants speak about an underlying structure, a clear
organizational structure that supports the equal status between people in the school. This
difference is best expressed in an answer by Jessica who explained:
The most challenging thing is that there is underlying structure that we
talked about earlier, but there’s not a structured day. As a student, you get
to decide what your day is. If you’re a little kid, that’s usually pretty easy.
Kids just do whatever they want anyway, but as you get older and start to
get bored with all the stuff you did as a kid, it’s up to you to decide what
direction you want to take, where you want to go today, what you want to
do today, what you want to learn, what you want to focus on. Sometimes
that’s very overwhelming, because there are a lot of options and you’re
never told what to do.
Jessica mentioned that structuring her own day was not always easy, and sometimes
was overwhelming, especially when she grew older. Also, other participants talked in more
detail about the challenge of having to deal with structuring their daily life at school.
Claire explained that the process of taking ownership for the structure of the school
was difficult; “The hard part is that you have to find out that you are responsible for it
yourself.” According to her, the “well-defined and clear” structure, referring to the rules
that are the same for everyone (equal status), is a tool for learning to focus on one’s own
responsibility. She went on to say that putting control outside of oneself makes it difficult;
“you can have a lot of resistance to it, but if you like to place it outside of yourself … (you’re)
making it SUPER hard for yourself.” Lilian explained that the organizational structure of the
school can sometimes be difficult in “natural ways” as a tool. She highlighted how one could
blame external forces for “feeling stuck and bored,” but how ultimately the structure
supported a process to understand that it was her own choice and that no restrictions were
placed on her. She concludes, “That could be very challenging to feel the weight of your
own life at a young age, but ultimately definitely beneficial.”
Having to structure her days, Ella said, “it might sound easier in some ways, but I think
it is much harder.” She continued, “I would also see this with my friends that went to other
schools that it is very convenient to have somebody else to blame” and explains how being
responsible for all aspects of life and there is no one else to blame is hard for a kid. She
points out that the school environment offers that challenge and at the same time the
safety to learn to deal with it:
When you’re genuinely responsible for decisions in your life and for the way
your day-to-day looks, and for the way your relationships look, there’s
always so much blaming you can do and that is HEAVY. That can be really,
really difficult for kids to handle. Again, it’s an environment where you can
be challenged in that way and feel protected still and not fall apart. So, I
think that’s an amazing thing about it, but it was VERY challenging.
She continued by giving an example of her experience preparing for exams she chose
to do and explains how difficult it was to deal with taking ownership. She referred to the
fact that no one took her by the hand and that she had to do it herself: “Nobody gave me a
schedule. Nobody was going to say this year we do these subjects, and this is when you start
studying, just nothing. You have to do all of it.” It was up to her how she would succeed; it
was not beyond her control. Leo said, “I want to say everything is challenging. The question
(is) how you go to this challenge.” The process behind structuring his days was expressed by
him as “It’s not served on a platter to you. You need to work for it. So, it makes it hard.”
Rachel echoed building ownership of life as hard, saying that she at times would have
liked to have some direct guidance or instruction by adults. She said, “I think at times I sort
of craved having an adult tell me what I needed to be doing and learning.” The heaviness of
having to deal with overseeing her decisions all the time made her sometimes wish for a
break while she was in school. When asked what these experiences meant for her, Rachel
continued by saying, “I certainly think it sent me the message that ultimately, I am the
owner of my life.” Here she pointed out that the experience of being responsible to
structure her day was hard though important to the process of focusing on herself as an
actor in taking ownership for decisions about her life, saying “Ultimately, I truly felt that it
was my job to decide and to decide well.” She further explained how this structure
contrasted environments in which children are told that they can make their own decisions
but in the meantime adults verbally or non-verbally steer the children’s decisions in a
direction the adults deem desirable.
From what the participants experienced, achieving a state of taking ownership was a
challenging process. They also talked about how the structure supported this process, not
actively, but as an instrument to achieve this state. By the structure in this section, they
emphasize especially the fact that there was no structured day, but an underlying structure
that supported the inward directed process of understanding their own responsibility in
directing their life. It is the organizational structure of the school that facilitates the equal
status of individuals necessary for a culture without interference of personal choices.

5 Discussion
The group of themes presented in this study focused on long-term consequences on
taking ownership of life and forms part of a larger research into experiences of graduates
with Sudbury model schools. The here presented findings gives us an insight into the role of
the structure on self-determination, the support of the need for autonomy, competence,
and relatedness, as well as SDT conditions that lead to taking ownership of life in these
schools.

5.1 The role of structure in these schools
The findings show that overarchingly, the schools are structured in such way that they
allow young people responsibility to practice and prepare for adult life. This goal, preparing
for life as an adult, was achieved at these schools by giving students a far-reaching
autonomy in decisions both about their lives and within their communities. Structure is an
aspect that is in support of self-determination, in contrast to control (Ryan and Deci, 2020).
These authors argue that controlling conditions negatively influence motivation, but that
these conditions should not be confused with structure. They explain that structure, as is
usually provided in schools, provides frameworks within which one can experience
competency satisfaction. Where participants talked about structure in this study, they
mainly referred to 1) a clear, predictable structure that provided equal status between the
people, both students and adults and 2) a democratic structure to organize coexistence with
the variety of people in the school. This structure sets boundaries that determine personal
autonomy as well as the relationship with one’s own (social) environment. Some
participants reported that the structure was experienced as a tool that effectively made
them realize that they could not pass on the responsibility to external forces. By expressing
not being able to place responsibility beyond themselves, they emphasized the intrinsically
oriented nature of how they perceived taking ownership. Essentially, it shows how they
experienced the causality of their motivations coming from within themselves, pointing to
an internal perceived locus of causality (e.g. Deci and Ryan, 1985b; Ryan and Connell, 1989).

5.2 The support for the need of autonomy and competence
The findings show that choice in these schools also means that someone can choose
to stop doing something or choose something else, which determines the degree of agency
these students have. This type of freedom to choose is described by Deci and Ryan (1985a)
as “true choice,” which is an important condition for self-determination. The findings
showed that the opportunity to freely choose how to spend their time generated an active
and inquisitive attitude and facilitated conditions for competence development. It is this
phenomenon that these schools refer to as freedom: the fact that one can determine the
use of one’s time (self-determination) and accept the consequences of choices (personal
responsibility). In this context, Ella spoke about how preparing for exams was hard. Taking
the exams was not a goal that was imposed on her as an obligation; she was able to choose
to do so out of her own will. For autonomous motivation and self-determination, volitional
conditions are important (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Ryan and Deci, 2000, 2020).
The culture of respect for personal choices (no interference) in an age-mixed
community forms the social context that supports autonomy, competence, and relatedness
through free interaction. Gray and Feldman (2004) revealed how the age-mixed
environment is competency supportive, as individuals can communicate freely and find
peers, not necessarily of the same age, to learn from through Vygotsky-style scaffolding and
mutual teaching.

5.3 The support for the need of relatedness
Taking a long-term retrospective stance, these findings show that participants found
the process of taking ownership of their lives in school challenging or difficult. It suggests
that feelings of well-being may have fluctuated during their time at this school, as
participants referred to this process as difficult or hard. The study by Reis et al. (2000)
demonstrates that feelings of well-being are not expected to be constant, but relatedness
plays an important supportive role. Similarly, Toit-Brits (2022) referred to the importance of
a sense of belonging to a sense of ownership for learning in conventional schools. Reis et al.
(2000) suggest that participation in enjoyable social activities leads to greater feelings of
well-being than just feelings of closeness and connection with others. They reported that
feelings of being understood and accepted and being able to talk about matters that are
meaningful with others, as well as being able to interact freely with others and do fun things
together, was important in feeling a connection with others. These conditions that support
relatedness seem to correspond to the environment that Sudbury model schools offer: the
free interaction between people of all ages, the free choice to undertake joint activities, the
extent to which they have a say and can speak about things that are important for them and
in which they learn to take others into account. It seems to correspond with the finding that
because the process of taking ownership took place in a context that the participant felt
connected to, they felt protected.

5.4 Conditions for taking ownership of life
While the participants talked about a culture of no interference in defining daily
pastimes, when referencing taking ownership of one’s life they referred to support from the
underlying school structure. Both themes appear to be linked, although the former theme
describes more short-term effects in the school as provoking an agentive and curious
attitude that appears to function as a prerequisite for personal development (competency
support). The theme of ownership emphasizes a deeper and longer-lasting psychological
effect of the awareness of one’s own responsibility in life-defining choices. Reference was
made to the sometimes-overwhelming nature of this type of decision making, but none
spoke about negative side-effects of this experience.
The findings suggest that the fundamental principles of self-responsibility in an
absence of an imposed program and the culture of no-interference creates conditions for
taking ownership of life and choices (self-determination), which encompasses taking
ownership of learning, education, and one’s future. From this research we theorize that the
far-reaching autonomy that these participants experienced at a young age during their
school years, having real choice over their daily activities within the structure of these
schools, has led to the understanding that they are the protagonists of their lives. In their
answers, taking ownership of life seems to be related to strongly internally oriented
processes of finding their own motivation and taking responsibility for choices, behavior,
and consequences. Deci and Ryan (2000) have extensively described the importance of
finding one’s own motivation in pursuing goals. If we consider that young people are often
sensitive to the expectations of others or the outside world, not interfering with choices
could serve as a pedagogical means to get to their own core, to get to know themselves first
and foremost and secondly, to make mindful self-defined choices. We must note that these
choices are never free from outside influences; we reject the idea that choices are made in
pure isolation. The only thing these participants made clear is that they see themselves as
the source for making well-considered choices. Anyone who makes important decisions in
life will want to make an informed choice and uses advice from others or other external
sources of information to consider in their motivation. Young people of school age are
usually faced with a lot of external guidance, no matter how well-intentioned it is. Under
these circumstances it can be very difficult to learn to distinguish between behavior based
on one’s own motivation or behavior that results from docility or a will-to-please. What the
context of these Sudbury model schools create is an environment in which young people, by
being confronted every day with true choices at their own level of competence, grow
towards a more ‘mature’ state of being and an awareness of their own responsibility in
shaping their lives, with everything that entails.

5.5 Limitations and suggestions for further research
The scope of what could be presented here is limited to findings related to ’taking
ownership of life.” How this ownership of life has affected them in their adult lives is room
for another investigation, as well as its connection with other factors such as the role of the
community, the role of staff, the personal characteristics of the participants and their home
situation on the satisfaction of basic needs. More research into these other factors and how
they interrelate will be necessary to understand the effects of these types of schools, which
is the scope for the entire research. In addition, qualitative research naturally focuses on
understanding the experiences of a small group of people under certain circumstances.
More research, including quantitative research, is needed to explore the scope of these
experiences, including beyond these types of schools. We believe that the far-reaching
autonomy combined with personal responsibility at the age of primary school to 18 years
deserves more attention from the scientific field to better understand human development
under non-compulsory conditions, especially by studies based on SDT, which potentially can
influence educational choices in the future. In other words, Sudbury model and other
democratic schools, although until now seldomly scientifically studied, could make an
unexpectedly strong contribution to the understanding of basic need satisfaction that is
central to SDT, one of the most important motivational theories in education.

6 Funding
This research is partially funded by the IONA Stichting, an international foundation for
project funding located at Herengracht 276, 1016 BX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Donations can be used without restrictions for the goals of the research.

7 References
Ackoff, R.L. and Greenberg, D.A. (2008) Turning learning right side up: putting education
back on track. 1st edn. Upper Saddle River, N.J., U.S.A.: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Bailey, J. (2008) ‘First steps in qualitative data analysis: transcribing’, Family Practice, 25(2),
pp. 127–131. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmn003.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77–101. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2021) ‘Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA?
Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic
approaches’, Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 21(1), pp. 37–47. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12360.
Conley, D.T. and French, E.M. (2014) ‘Student ownership of learning as a key component of
college readiness’, American Behavioral Scientist, 58(8), pp. 1018–1034. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213515232.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985a) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human
Behavior. New York, NY, U.S.A.: Plenum Press.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985b) ‘The general causality orientations scale: Self-
determination in personality’, Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), pp. 109–134.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1991) ‘A motivational approach to self: integration in
personality.’, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation., 38, pp. 237–288. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21026291_A_Motivational_Approach_to_Self_I
ntegration_in_Personality (Accessed: 31 January 2020).
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000) ‘The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior’, Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), pp. 227–268. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2008) ‘Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human
motivation, development, and health’, Canadian Psychology, 49(3), pp. 182–185. Available
at: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801.
Ellis, A.K. (2013) Exemplars of Curriculum Theory. Reprint from 2004. New York: Routledge.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315855318.
Enghag, M. and Niedderer, H. (2008) ‘Two dimensions of student ownership of learning
during small-group work in physics’, International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 6(4), pp. 629–653. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9075-x.
Feldman, J. (2001) ‘The moral behavior of children and adolescents at a democratic school’,
in. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Seattle, WA. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED453128.pdf.
Gray, P. (2023) ‘Self-directed education—unschooling and democratic Schooling’, in. Oxford
University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.80.
Gray, P. and Chanoff, D. (1986) ‘Democratic schooling: What happens to young people who
have charge of their own education?’, American Journal of Education, 94(2), pp. 182–182.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/443842.
Gray, P. and Feldman, J. (1999) ‘Some educational benefits of freely chosen age mixing
among children and adolescents.’, Phi Delta Kapan, 80(7), p. 507.
Gray, P. and Feldman, J. (2004) ‘Playing in the zone of proximal development: Qualities of
self-directed age mixing between adolescents and young children at a democratic school’,
American Journal of Education, 110(2), pp. 108–146. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1086/380572.
Gray, P., Riley, G. and Curry-Knight, K. (2021) ‘Former Students’ Evaluations of Experiences
at a Democratic School: Roles of the Democratic Processes, Staff, and the Community of
Students’, Other Education – the journal of educational alternatives, 10(2), pp. 4–25.
Greenberg, D.A. (2016) A place to grow: The culture of Sudbury Valley School. 1st edn.
Framingham, MA: Sudbury Valley School Press.
Greenberg, D.A., Sadofsky, M. and Lempka, J. (2005) The pursuit of happiness : the lives of
Sudbury Valley alumni. Framingham, MA, U.S.A.: Sudbury Valley School Press.
Katz, I. and Assor, A. (2007) ‘When choice motivates and when it does not’, Educational
Psychology Review, 19(4), pp. 429–442. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-
9027-y.
Kose, S. (2003) ‘A psychobiological model of temperament and character: TCI’, Yeni
Symposium, 41.
Kvale, S. (2007) Doing interviews. 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London England EC1Y
1SP United Kingdom: SAGE Publications, Ltd. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208963.
Mero-Jaffe, I. (2011) ‘“Is that what I said?” Interview transcript approval by participants: An
aspect of ethics in qualitative research’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10(3),
pp. 231–247. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691101000304.
Reeve, J., Nix, G. and Hamm, D. (2003) ‘Testing models of the experience of self-
determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice.’, Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95(2), pp. 375–392. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.375.
Reis, H.T. et al. (2000) ‘Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), pp. 419–435. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200266002.
Rietmulder, J. (2019) When kids rule the school: The power and promise of democratic
education. 1st edn. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.
Rogers, C. (1961) On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Houghton
Mifflin. Available at: http://archive.org/details/on-becoming-a-person-1961-carl-rogers
(Accessed: 3 March 2024).
Rosenberg, A.J. (1973) ‘Educational existentialism and the Sudbury Valley School’,
Educational Leadership, (February), pp. 479–482.
Rotter, J.B. (1966) ‘Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement.’, Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), pp. 1–28. Available
at: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976.
Ryan, R.M. and Connell, J.P. (1989) ‘Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
57(5), pp. 749–761. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000) ‘Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and
New Directions’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), pp. 54–67. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2017) Self-Determination Theory: Basic psychological needs in
motivation, development, and wellness. 1st edn. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2020) ‘Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination
theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions’, Contemporary
Educational Psychology (101860), 61, pp. 1–11. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860.
Scott, J.A. (2010) ‘Student ownership of education: Practicing democracy in schools’,
Education Canada, 49(2), pp. 36–38. Available at: https://www.edcan.ca/wp-
content/uploads/EdCan-2009-v49-n2-Scott.pdf (Accessed: 28 November 2023).
Swartz, R. (2016) From Socrates to Summerhill and beyond. U.S.A.: Information Age
Publishing Inc.
Temple, B. and Young, A. (2004) ‘Qualitative Research and Translation Dilemmas’,
Qualitative Research, 4(2), pp. 161–178. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794104044430.
Toit-Brits, C. du (2022) ‘Exploring the importance of a sense of belonging for a sense of
ownership in learning’, South African Journal of Higher Education, 36(5), pp. 58–76.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.20853/36-5-4345.
Traxler, C.R. (2015) ‘The most democratic school of them all: Why the Sudbury model of
education should be taken seriously’, Schools, 12(2), pp. 271–296. Available at:
http://hands.com/~lkcl/Traxler_POE2014.pdf.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1997) ‘Interaction Between Learning and Development’, in M. Gauvain and
M. Cole (eds) Readings on the Development of Children. 2nd. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman
& Co., pp. 34–40. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(96)79572-3.
Wiley, J. (2009) Student ownership of learning: An analysis. Master’s thesis. University of
Hawai. Available at: https://www.proquest.com/openview/735ff6f1a6935daef060a0bf52746753/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750 (Accessed: 25 November 2023).