As a long-time in-person tutor who met with students in their homes, I’ve had a front-row seat to all sorts of parent-child dynamics: extremely involved parents and completely independent kids, and everywhere in between. Every single parent wanted the best for their kids, so it was pretty hard to figure out what level of involvement that was. There is a good reason for this: you get pushback either way.

Occasionally, parents were involved too much, and it hampered a student's ability to self-manage. In these cases, the parents became the executive functioning process for the child, instead of the child developing those processes themselves. Perhaps an equal number of times, parents were under-involved, trusting their kids to schedule every meeting and take care of the entire college application process themselves. It always struck me as incredibly hard to know the right thing to do. I’ve become particularly interested in this question since having my own son last December. If I’m not careful, with my background in education, I could become extremely involved, and maybe that’s not a good thing. But wouldn’t it also be helpful to guide him using what I know about education and the developing brain?

Reflecting on numerous encounters with this dilemma, a pattern has emerged. Students with more involved parents generally achieve higher academic success, perform better on standardized tests, and fare well during the college application process. Additionally, they exhibit greater emotional security during our sessions. This contradicts my initial belief that as parents, we should primarily foster independence by letting them fail and right their ship on their own. The reason? It’s pretty psychological and has to do with attachment theory. A statement I came across by neuroscientist Dr. Daniel Amen puts it best: "Students hate it when parents get involved in their education, but they hate it more when they do not."

Ideally, a healthy scenario involves an independent student who may resist parental involvement but remains aware of the support available. Maybe this looks like parents who want to see their kids’ papers before they hand them in (and are rebuffed), ask about how studying is going for a particular test (and are told off), always know the names of their kids’ teachers (which annoys them), and offer help when help is needed (which really pisses them off!). You get the idea. This environment is safe enough for a student to rebel against and is therefore essential for their intellectual growth. Conversely, it is a far more daunting and isolating experience if they are compelled to be independent without any form of support. Perhaps, in the best-case scenario, a child over-performs in this environment, which may look great on paper but also may create an unhealthy relationship with work and self later on. And they might still under-perform compared to what could have happened with optimal support.

I am beginning to recognize the early indications of this concept with my own child, who is still a baby at six months old and on the cusp of developing "stranger-danger," which happens at about 7 months. (It’s healthy - to an extent.) We know now that enforcing independence by withholding opportunities for attachment at home may be counterproductive. Current research suggests that a child's confidence and ability to thrive in the world are bolstered relative to the love and positive attachment they experience at home.

So, what should parents do in this complex balancing act? It is undoubtedly one of the most formidable challenges of parenthood, but based on my experience, my advice is clear: stay involved and be prepared to navigate the resistance. In the future, your child will likely look back on these years with incredible gratitude. You just may have to wait a decade or two...