Ari Armstrong's Web Log (Main) | Archives | Terms of Use
Exploring Alpine Valley School
I originally published this three-part article in March, 1999, through the Colorado Freedom Report. The material was offline for many years, and I ported it here on September 7, 2025. All contents copyright © by Ari Armstrong. Please note that my perspectives have changed somewhat in the intervening quarter-century.
Educating Students Sudbury Style
by Ari Armstrong
March 1999
I could observe, but not initiate conversation, I was told. That didn't matter -- as soon as I walked through the doors of Alpine Valley School (between Wheat Ridge and Golden on 32nd Avenue) January 14, three bright, excited students approached me and, knowing my restrictions, said, "We'd like to initiate conversation with the visitor!"
If libertarians critique government schools, they had better be able to point to a better alternative. One such alternative in the Denver area is Alpine Valley, started in September, 1997. The school now holds around 16 students and six part-time staff. Alpine Valley was started primarily by Larry Welshon, an educator in the government system who spends his spare time working to develop the independent school, where he plans to eventually work full-time. I first met Welshon through Ken Riggs, who is on Alpine Valley's advisory board and who also supports The Colorado Freedom Report. Welshon himself holds libertarian views and has pledged to oppose all types of government financing, including vouchers.
Alpine Valley is modeled after Sudbury Valley School of Massachusetts. (The respective web addresses of the schools are http://users.aol.com/alpineval/avs.htm and http://www.sudval.org/.) [Update September 7, 2025: The website now is at https://www.alpinevalleyschool.com/.] Sudbury, which has been operating for over three decades, bases its philosophy of education largely on the works of John Holt. The Alpine Valley web page begins with Holt's words, "Children do not need to be made to learn, told what to learn, or shown how. If we give them access to enough of the world, including our own lives and work in the world, they will see clearly what things are truly important to us and to others, and they will make for themselves a better path into that world than we could make for them."
Thus, Alpine Valley does not structure academic studies for its students. Students may initiate projects with other students and staff members, and they may initiate classes. They are not required to study anything in particular, or even do anything in particular, other than obey the basic rules of the school. And every student has a say in those rules. As described on the web page, "When students arrive at Alpine Valley School they will not be given a class schedule, list of course requirements, or any other form of assignment. Students will, instead, be welcomed warmly by other students and staff, shown around the facilities, and told that they may do whatever they are interested in doing. Students will discover that this is how every day, from the first day through graduation, is structured."
The common reaction to this approach in education is similar to the common reaction to libertarian theory: "But that's anarchy!" The general feeling seems to be that people of all ages must be controlled.
Sudbury, however, boasts highly successful graduates, many of whom have gone on to top colleges. Certainly the young people I met at Alpine Valley were more enthusiastic about their projects than practically any student I've ever seen in government classes. In fact, the only times I can remember students getting excited over their intellectual pursuits in government schools were when the students were involved with extra-curricular or self-chosen activities such as newspaper or debate.
For the first hour or so of my visit to Alpine Valley, I chatted with three of the older students who seemed to be the social leaders of the school. Kelly Nash, Jim Black, and Mandy Rawlins shared their experiences and thoughts on Alpine Valley and growing up in general. (The names have been altered for internet publication.) The three have been involved with writing and producing school plays for the past several months. Nash, who plays softball for a city league and who has recently initiated classes for math, science, and Spanish, said, "If you're bored and you want people to tell you what to do, this isn't the place for you."
I asked Rawlins about her expressed interest in college. She's a Freshman now (by age -- grade levels mean little at Alpine Valley), but she's already thinking about college entrance requirements. Though she hasn't studied math since joining Alpine Valley, she said she would learn more math if she needed it to enter a particular college. "But if I go to college it's because I choose to, not because I have to." Currently, Rawlins participates in the Judicial Committee, which evaluates complaints about students and staff who may have broken the school rules, and she works on her writing.
"WHAT?! No math?" many are sure to wonder. No, nobody in the school suggests to Rawlins that she ought to take a math class. Most of us are trained, usually in government schools but sometimes in equally authoritarian private schools, that without strict requirements, drills, homework, rules, teachers, and the like, we will be colossal failures. However, as I reflect upon my own experiences, I agree with the Alpine philosophy that this simply isn't the case.
First, we don't have to be experts in everything to succeed in life. As the Alpine philosophy suggests, it is appropriate to develop according to our own individual interests. Ask yourself honestly: how much of the information you learned in school do you use in your life or even remember?
Second, we tend to learn what's important to us on our own, not when people are telling us what to learn. I believe a broad knowledge of history, science, and language is a natural part of leading a rich life. Yet I learned most of what I know by reading on my own or talking with my peers. Much of my math, philosophy, economics, and political theory came from my personal reading. I have learned a great deal in a number of classes, but in every case it was when I was enthusiastic about the material and chose to participate.
The essential element of the Alpine philosophy is that students cannot be forced to learn. They must be permitted to make their own choices about their intellectual development. Drawing on my own experiences in education, I agree with this view completely. Learning cannot be forced. A disinterested student can memorize and parrot information and make good grades, but he or she cannot learn.
Alpine Valley promises to allow children to develop in ways the government schools and private authoritarian schools cannot. That said, I question a few of the practices and beliefs at Alpine Valley.
There is almost a paranoia against letting adults influence the childrens' decisions. For instance, the rule against initiating conversations with the children during my visit struck me as unnecessary. (As it turned out, the rule was irrelevant as I was immediately approached by the students.) More significantly, staff members may not even suggest to children what activities might be interesting or useful.
This is simply too restrictive. I'm all for recognizing children as autonomous people and treating them as peers whenever possible. However, in the real world, I often make friendly suggestions to my adult friends. If I know of a class or a meeting I think is particularly interesting, I might tell a friend about it. With The Colorado Freedom Report I offer a calendar of events as well as a list of contacts and resources in the state. Offering an Alpine Valley student a list of classes or activities is taboo -- it is thought that this impinges on the child's autonomy.
The Sudbury Schools' reaction to adult authoritarianism is understandable. In the modern age when teaching is generally seen as synonymous with compelling and controlling, the Sudbury philosophy asks adults to afford children the same respect as other adults. But Alpine Valley goes too far: adult friends do not avoid talking to one another about possibilities and making friendly recommendations. "I saw this great movie the other day you've just GOT to see, too!" "I'm attending this art class and I think you'd really love it!" That's the adult world. We won't help the Valley children develop into autonomous adults by ignoring them. In the real world, adults initiate conversations with one another.
An important concept related to this issue is "rational ignorance" versus "utter ignorance." For example, I am "rationally ignorant" of how to fill out an IRS tax form. I don't want to learn about it, because I'd rather have someone else do it for me. "Utter ignorance" is when I don't even know what I don't know. For instance, had I been born a thousand years ago, I would have been utterly ignorant about the DNA molecule.
Children even more than adults are "utterly ignorant" about different things in the world. For instance, a young child might not even be aware of the careers that use advanced mathematics. In such cases, it is more than appropriate to initiate a conversation with the child about the subject. (A friendly conversation is of course different from a one-sided sermon.) What if a child is utterly ignorant about the existence of Alpine Valley -- should I refrain from telling him or her about the school, for fear of interfering with the decision to attend? As an adult, I am filled with gratitude when others dispel my utter ignorance, and I cannot imagine that younger people react any differently.
A lesser problem with the Alpine philosophy is that the school, like Sudbury Valley, is self-consciously a training ground for democracy. In many cases, a schoolwide vote makes sense. In general, a democracy one voluntarily joins (and may voluntarily leave) can be healthy and just, and Alpine Valley's seems to work out well. For instance, the school children recently voted to implement chores, in which the students must now participate. (Both children and staff members may vote.) The children are also involved with the judicial process, in which students' misdeeds are evaluated. The children vote to accept, or expel, students.
The democracy is taken too far, though. I raised the possibility of a seven year old voting on the appropriation of funds for a new building. The younger children don't have to vote on such issues, and generally don't, I was told, but the mere possibility is a bit silly.
Daniel Greenberg, a founding member of Sudbury Valley, makes several errors about democracy. In his essay, "Subtleties of a Democratic School," printed in The Sudbury Valley School Experience, Greenberg claims that Sudbury Valley is "apolitical," but then he goes on to explain that it supports democratic "universal suffrage," an odd contradiction.
More significantly, he conflates the voting of Sudbury Valley with the democracy of the United States (pages 172-3), when in fact the types of democratic systems are radically different. In the school, children are free to enter and leave the organization. If they don't want to live by a rule, they may simply drop out and attend school elsewhere. In the United States, people are subjected to the rules of the State automatically when they are born, and leaving the system is practically impossible. The democracy of the United States is fundamentally coercive, whereas the democracy of Sudbury Valley is fundamentally voluntaristic.
Within voluntaristic democracy, an initial framework delineating those aspects of the organization open to democratic processes does not run counter to the ideals. In other words, the Sudbury schools could with full consistency say, "If you choose to come to this school, you agree that major financial decisions will be made by the Board, but that minor financial decisions, in-school rules, and even hiring of staff will be accomplished by democratic majority, with each student and staff member holding a vote." Such a structure would be no less voluntaristic than a system in which every decision is made by vote.
To take the analysis further, even a school with rigid rules set down by a single owner, but where children could freely seek to enroll and freely leave, would be voluntaristic, whereas a democratic school a student was forced into would be coercive. It so happens that democracy in circumscribed arenas tends to help students develop responsibility and create an environment they're happy with. That hardly means the students must participate in every decision to experience autonomy.
Alpine Valley is worth considering, despite my (relatively minor) criticisms of it. I don't have children yet, but I'll be sending them to Alpine Valley when the time comes. Correction: I imagine my children may choose to attend Alpine Valley, which makes all the difference.
Understanding Alpine Valley School
a response from Larry Welshon
March 1999
Ari Armstrong has allowed me to respond to his article, Exploring Alpine Valley School. I enjoyed reading his piece because it gave me the opportunity to experience the philosophy of Sudbury schooling through the eyes of a freedom loving person who is questioning the roots of American compulsory education. By confronting a philosophy of schooling that is rooted in the very ideals of American liberty, Ari and others will see that current "traditional" schooling has much more to do with the former Soviet Union and other dictatorships than it does with liberty and our own country's founding.
Generally, the article correctly identifies the philosophical underpinnings of the school and describes accurately some of the daily essence. I would invite the reader of this essay to take the hotlinks to the Alpine Valley School and also to the Sudbury Valley School web sites prior to reading further.
The substantive questions Ari raises need to be answered, and I thank him for the opportunity to do so and applaud his work for liberty. There is no greater cause than that of helping others understand the philosophical roots of America.
* * *
It is true that Alpine Valley School is somewhat "paranoid" about letting adults influence the lives of the students. However, the paranoia is not without good reason and Ari's experience of it gives a misleading picture of the school. Before I make a couple of points about this, I must remark that Ari in fact behaved himself at the school and the following two points are not a reflection on him or his visit.
First, Sudbury schools across the nation are committed to protecting the privacy of the enrolled students. Over the years, all of the Sudbury schools have been deluged with requests from the curious who wish to come in and observe. It would become a circus if outsiders were not controlled. Because adults are accustomed to entering the world of children at will, with little or no regard for the privacy of the children being observed, all adult outsiders at Sudbury Schools are constrained by School Meeting regulations to keep silent until spoken to.
If the adult visitors would use the common decency they use when they visit a friend's house of worship, university, home, or business, these constraints would be unnecessary. But they do not. Most adults believe it is their right to approach students in schools and interrupt them, question them, probe them, and, in the end, invade their privacy. We take principle very seriously. When we say that students are free to engage in their own activities, so long as they are peaceful, we mean it. The fact is that many adults do not behave properly around children. Until more adults learn to treat children with respect, Alpine Valley School will request that visiting adults remain like flies on the wall, to be seen and not heard.
Ari in fact answers his own question in the paragraph after the one in which he raises the issue of paranoia. Adults in the school, who have been elected by secret ballot and hired by the School Meeting, are free to interact with the students and initiate conversations with them. The key is this: staff members should talk to students as they would a good friend. As a staff member, I have no qualms about initiating a conversation with a student. While eating breakfast prior to the daily opening of the school, I have often been engaged in heated discussions with students on any number of topics. Sometimes I initiate these conversations. Other times a student might. The important thing to remember is that I treat the student as I would a good friend. If I start to become pedantic, my adult friends would correctly say, "Larry, this is not a lecture, I've had enough." The students at Alpine Valley School must be free to say, "OK Larry, I've had enough," and be free to walk away without any guilt. In my government job I've seen kids sit and listen to an adult out of "duty" long after their curious probing has been satisfied. One of my saddest experiences is to see those who have had their curious probing so brutalized that they are unwilling to ask a teacher any question for fear of being subjected to a lecture they can't leave.
Another related point is the "taboo" on staff offering lists of classes. The problem with such lists is not that they "impinge on the child's autonomy," but rather that they have been used by parents at other Sudbury schools to control or badger their kids. Sudbury Valley School, the oldest American school based on these ideas, in fact had a bulletin board with class offerings on it. Unfortunately, parents came to look at that board as a curriculum and would quiz their kids, saying, "I noticed that staff member X is offering a math class -- have you signed up for it?"
Ari questions the practice of little kids having an equal vote in the School Meeting (along with older kids and staff members). I see no reason to deny them this opportunity to be full participants in the community. They are free to propose new rules, delete old rules, make purchase requests, form school corporations, hire and fire staff, suspend fellow students, etc. Why not let them have a say in the budget? In the 55 school meetings I've chaired at Alpine Valley School, I've never seen anyone (student or staff) vote on an issue that they were not aware of or intimately involved in. Can the same be true of our Senators and Representatives in Congress? On extremely rare occasions, when certain School Meeting members try to line up votes to support a particular motion, the only ones who end up voting are the ones who actually have an interest in the merits of the motion. By the time debate has ended, people who care little about the merits are long gone.
Regarding Danny Greenberg's alleged errors about democracy I can only help Ari in his understanding of Greenberg's words. When Greenberg claims that the school is apolitical, I believe that he is simply making the statement that the school does not subcribe to any particular political party's platform. Claiming, as Ari does, that being apolitical and endorsing universal suffrage represents a contradiction is not accurate. The idea behind universal suffrage is that all of the people in a self-governing community should have an equal say in running it. At Sudbury schools, the Assembly (parents, students, and staff) makes broad policy decisions such as the amount of tuition, wage scales, the calendar, the granting of diplomas, and approving the budget drawn up and submitted by the School Meeting.
The daily operational decisions of the school are handled by the School Meeting (students and staff members). Ari states that students need not participate in every decision of the school to learn responsibility. The important thing is that all of the School Meeting members are free to participate in the school's decisions. If they could not participate in some of them, they would see the ruse and know that they are not full members of the community. Speak to any member of a so called "student council" at a traditional school. They all know the power structure counts them merely as an advisory board.
Remember that in the original conception of American government, most decisions that affected the lives of people were left to the states and to the people. Ari's complaint that the democracy in the Sudbury schools is inconsistent with the democracy of our nation relates more to the perversion of American Constitutional government by collectivists and businesses in cahoots with bureaucrats than it does to a fundamental contradiction. The "coercive democracy" of which Ari and many other libertarians complain would be a non-issue if we followed the Constitution.
At Sudbury schools, the individual is free to pursue his or her happiness in exactly the way in which Thomas Jefferson meant it in the Declaration of Independence. We recognize that the inalienable right to life and liberty have their fullest expression in the pursuit of happiness. Any action by the "government" of a Sudbury school is guided by the precepts of our Declaration of Independence.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundations on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
To this date, no Sudbury school has abolished its form government. All of the Sudbury schools, including Alpine Valley School, have altered their form of government peacefully and with the participation of all those to whom it matters. Reread the words of Thomas Jefferson and think about what they mean. Students at Sudbury Schools have a unique opportunity to fully understand what it means to live in a society founded on the idea that people have the right to their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness without random interference by an omnipotent government.
Democracy and Alpine Valley School
Ari Armstrong Replies to Larry Welshon
March 1999
I appreciate Larry Welshon's reply to my article on Alpine Valley school. I'm a lot more comfortable with the rules of the school given Larry's description of their historical context. In this back-and-forth discussion, I don't want readers to forget that I really like this school. I work on a daily basis with students, and most of them attend government schools. (My work is through the market, not the government, system.) Alpine Valley is an intellectually and emotionally refreshing alternative to the schools most students attend.
I still question the democratic principles of the school, though. Libertarian circles frequently refer to democracy as "mob rule" or "tyranny of the majority." There is no natural affinity, then, between libertarianism and the vote.
However, libertarian theory does make room for democratic systems into which entry is voluntary and from which exit is a right. For instance, housing covenants are democratic and perfectly libertarian alternatives to coercive zoning laws. Similarly, the voting structure of Alpine Valley is entirely voluntary in that students can freely enter and exit the school. (Entry is of course also contingent upon acceptance.)
Thus, I argued, Alpine Valley "checks out" with libertarian theory. My criticisms of the school were not rooted in my political philosophy, but rather in more pragmatic concerns about the practicality of some of the votes held at the school.
From the perspective of the founders of Sudbury Valley, however, extending the vote on every school issue to every student is a political issue, because the democracy of the school is seen as a model of and preparation for American democracy. This, I still contend, is where the Sudbury philosophy falls apart.
I argued that American democracy is fundamentally coercive, because people cannot choose to leave it and sign up with another system of government. Thus, "democracy" means something entirely different than it does in the context of Alpine Valley. The fact that people vote in both systems is a superficial similarity. What's important is the nature of the voting systems.
Larry grants that American democracy is coercive, but he argues that it would not be if we were to return to the Constitutional form of government implemented by our Founding Fathers. I agree that restricting policy by a stricter Constitutional reading would eliminate many of the worst forms of government interference.
However, a system doesn't become free just because it's guided by a constitution. Even our Constitution is not perfect, after all. It permits the State to tax its citizens, impose tariffs, run the mail and build roads, and interfere with money. And let us not forget that in its original form, the Constitution recognized slavery and counted black individuals as but three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation.
Further, I don't remember reading anything in the history books about the general population voting to implement the Constitution. Many people voted for the delegates who attended the meetings, but the expressed intent of the affair was to revise the existing Articles of Confederation, not dump them completely and start anew. I'd also like to know when exactly the vote was held that established the legitimacy of representative government in the first place. Finally, who first decided that voting is even a legitimate way to govern? (It wasn't "the majority.") It's a strained argument indeed that tries to make out American Constitutional government as a fundamentally voluntaristic system. Alpine Valley School is voluntaristic; the American form of government is not.
My comments should not be taken as anti-patriotic. Certainly I'm a fan of Thomas Jefferson. I feel extremely lucky to have been born in the United States and I believe the system of government under which we live is one of the best in the history of the world. However, if libertarian theory can be sustained, it can be much, much, better.
One thing I like about the Constitution is that it is basically anti-democratic. The main point of it is to tell people what they can't vote on. When the Constitution was enacted, suffrage was anything but universal, day-to-day decisions were not intended to be made by vote, and the signers feared democratic systems.
So Alpine Valley is democratic in the voluntaristic sense, completely unlike American government. Is the voting process still a good idea? I got out my articles on Public Choice economic theory (the school of thought founded by Gordon Tullock and Nobel laureate James Buchanan) to see if any of those arguments might apply.
Public Choice has more to say about coercive democracies than voluntaristic ones. For instance, it cites "significant barriers to entry into political markets" as a factor contributing to "monopoly power in bureaus" ("Monopoly Bureaus and Fiscal Outcomes: Deductive Models and Implications for Reform," by Robert J. Mackay and Carolyn L. Weaver, page 143). That doesn't apply to Alpine Valley, as students can easily enroll in another school. Another concern is that "the bureau may have the power to effectively set the entire agenda and, hence, confront the voters with a take-it-or-leave-it proposal." Again, this doesn't apply to Alpine Valley, as anyone can contribute to the agenda.
There is a problem raised by Public Choice theory that does applies to Alpine Valley. One source of voting failure arises from "a free-rider problem among citizen-voters in putting forth costly proposals." In other words, if putting together a proposal is difficult, students (and staff) will tend to free-ride on the efforts of others to do the work. This is a real problem at Alpine Valley, I suspect, but not a debilitating one. What Public Choice does not explain is how people overcome free-rider problems to contribute to a common goal.
A related problem involves the link between funding and voting. Only one section of voters actually pays the bills: the parents. But the staff and students carry an equal vote. Is there a dis-connect between what the parents want to pay and the staff and children want to spend? The fact that the school runs on a more or less set annual budget helps. The fees cannot be abruptly raised, at least not without the risk of losing parents, who retain the "trump" right to withdraw their children from the school. However, the question remains whether a greater financial burden should bring with it more control over expenditures. (An easy solution would be to let students vote in "School Meetings" but not in "Assembly.")
Larry has convinced me that allowing young children to vote on sophisticated financial decisions hasn't been a problem at Alpine Valley. However, I still contend that, while there is little reason for Alpine Valley to alter this policy, it could in principle offer less extensive voting privileges and retain its fundamentally voluntaristic status.
Larry suggests that, without the right to vote on every school decision, children would not be "full members of the community." I don't buy it. Come to think of it, I'm not a member of any voluntaristic democracy, and yet I'm deeply involved in community. I don't vote in family matters, and yet my family is a tight-knit, loving community. I attend various discussion groups, and hold no (binding) vote in any of them. I don't thereby feel slighted. Sometimes my friends and I hold informal votes on proposed activities, but we rarely do so and the votes never "count." My community of friends is not somehow reduced because of this. There is even a community surrounding my work in education where voting never arises.
I like Alpine Valley because it treats students with respect and it is fundamentally voluntaristic. The fact that the students can vote on matters is a nice, but not an essential, element of the school. The voting privileges extend too far, in my view, but do not create significant problems. Certainly it is a mistake to view Alpine Valley as a training-ground for American-style democracy. The two are distinct and antagonistic. Training children to live by force is the job of the government schools.