I dislike the "crush academics and move on" messaging Alpha's marketing tends to have.
But I also think it's impossible to reach a goal of kids "loving math" or "loving reading" if you don't actually help them develop rigorous skills in those realms. Whatever lofty goal conventional education claims to have re: love and curiosity, the vast majority of kids *don't* achieve that goal—in large part because they don't develop basic, let alone rigorous, skills in anything. Most kids emphatically do not love school, love learning, or love any of the subjects where curiosity is allegedly being fostered.
Assuming the kids at Alpha are actually "crushing" the core skills they're being taught, the students are at least meeting the essential precondition for coming to love any subject.
I second this comment. It ties in with my previous comment, that people often contrast systems like Alpha School and Math Academy with alternative ideal systems where the ideals are not necessarily realized in practice, or are realized only for a small fraction of students. And sometimes the alternatives others suggest are at such a high level of abstraction--"deep, rich, transformative learning", "community", "cooperation", "openness", "curiosity", "contemplation", etc.--that it's difficult to tell what is concretely being proposed and how one might evaluate its success, even qualitatively. (Audrey Watters, whom I'm quoting, is particularly guilty of this.)
I think it's easier to talk about this now, as Alpha's sites are very small and serve very few students. (On a document I found grades seemed to have 15-20 students each.) As they grow, it might become harder to adhere to the 2 hour ideal. Maybe they'd need academic support in the afternoon, or to formally assign more work, or compromise on the MAP scores. So I'd say that there are always compromises to make and I'd expect Alpha's ideal to become abstracted as it grows as well. But of course I can't know that for sure.
Programs like IXL focus on particular math skills at a low depth of knowledge. I think math skills are important, and programs like IXL have their place, but low DOK skills are insufficient by themselves.
I'm cranky that their website now claims that they are a "comprehensive math curriculum", when they used to say that IXL is a "supplement to good quality instruction". IXL isn't a complete curriculum any more than Khan Academy is. This is harmful to students when a teacher decides to put all their kids on the computer for 40 minutes a day -- as if non-social disconnected computer lessons are an effective replacement for all of the things students learn from working together with humans. Teachers might even think this is superior because students who aren't allowed to work together "misbehave less" and because each student gets an "adaptive experience" tailored to their skill "deficits".
I'm also cranky that their dashboards make claims about what students know in a seemingly "comprehensive" way, as if measuring low DOK skills alone is sufficient to give a full picture of a students academic progress in math. Schools use these reports as the "one source of truth" in a way that is harmful to students -- for example, when they see a 5th grade student "at a 3rd grade math level" and conclude that this student should really only be doing 3rd grade math.
I just finished reading "Miracle Children" by Erica Green about the T.M. Landry school scandal. It's interesting -- there has never been any allegation that the SAT/ACT scores the Landry students achieved were obtained by cheating. Kids legitimately did earn those scores. There was some dishonesty around transcripts and courses taken, but the major issue that led to the school's downfall was that it became known that the methods used to achieve those scores 1) were manipulative, at times even abusive, and that 2) were made possible by an extreme narrowing of the academic curriculum to match the test content, even at the expense of broader educational goals/developing college readiness skills. I should be clear: I don't think Alpha is any way abusive, and I think there's room for genuine disagreement about the place for bribery or other incentives to get kids to drill test content. I'm sure kids are happy with their afternoons, and that's a genuinely good thing. But I would absolutely have concerns about the narrowing of academic focus. The focus on accelerating learning/optimizing test performance definitely overlooks some important tradeoffs. (I think Math Academy is an amazing practice platform, but alone kids see those skills as 1,000 trees and not as a forest. Building that forest is slow going and hard to measure--and maybe not something AI can do yet.)
“. . . the methods used to achieve those scores 1) were manipulative, at times even abusive.”
Woody Allen had an old piece about his version of an adult education course catalog, and under the entry for “Principles of Mathematics” was the description “Previously intractable problems will be dealt with by threats of reprisal.”
I don't fault Alpha for trying to move on from standards-based instruction. Standards have had a nice 25 year run since No Child Left Behind, but is increasingly irrelevant in a world where knowledge and most skills are at your fingertips.
The important thing is what to do with your school day when it's not devoted to standards. Making the case that standards-based instruction can be automated is nice, but what's more interesting is figuring out how to build a rigorous curriculum that helps kids navigate the post-AI world.
AI can be a huge help measuring all of the human skills that were previously unmeasurable, which allows schools to focus on helping students grow in so many other important areas. Seriously, how many people think a child understanding the Mean Value Theorem is more important than being curious or self-aware?
My comments based on lots of reading about Alpha School and a year's experience as an adult learner in Math Academy: First, I suspect you're expressing a limited view of what Alpha School students do in the afternoon, a view that admittedly is promoted by their marketing material -- reading a book doesn't make for compelling video. Based on my reading it appears that at least some of them are doing non-trivial personal projects that are not just recreational in nature and for which academic preparation is essential---and it looks like at the GT School, which is based on the Alpha School philosophy and uses the same or similar software, those afternoon activities are more academic focused.
Second, you are absolutely correct that Alpha School and Math Academy have an instrumental view of academic topics--that they are something you learn in order to do other things of interest to you. I think there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not studying in Math Academy because I want to appreciate the inherent beauty of mathematics; I'm doing it because I want to do other things that depend on my knowing calculus, linear algebra, statistics, etc. We see this split in other areas as well, like martial arts: some people are into appreciating the beauty and history behind traditional martial arts, and others are into systems like Krav Maga that prioritize defending oneself effectively and efficiently.
Finally, I think you're contrasting Alpha School with an idealized educational environment that supposedly promotes love of learning, deep understanding, etc. As you note of Trinity, "I have no idea what this looks like in the classroom." It's also possible that schools like Trinity might promote these virtues in a small fraction of students, or for just one or two subjects for any given student, while leaving students underprepared academically in general. Alpha School gets a lot of scrutiny because of its own hype and the surrounding hype about AI, billionaires, etc. I'm curious if there's been similar scrutiny of how well traditional high-end private schools meet their stated goals for students.
I share all your questions/concerns, and yet I'm sending my kid to Alpha School in the Fall for 2nd Grade. I see it as an experiment with a high upside, while the downside seems manageable, and I *think* I know what to look out for. My 2nd grade was pretty useless.
I agree their marketing can be grating. I think they're trying to simultaneously attract parents who are very into academics (me) and those who are more anti traditional school (life skills!). But that's just marketing. From what I can tell from talking to the other parents, the afternoon is more academic than the marketing pitch implies. They learn cursive and do book reports, but that's in the "life skills" section.
We really love our son's current school, and it's the most accelerated we could find. But he's so far ahead in math and reading that he doesn't really learn any of that there (handwriting, social studies, etc., are different). I teach him at home with Math Academy, and while I understand your skepticism, I find it very effective. My goal is to have a well-educated child who loves to read and think about the world, and that's easier when you learn the basics faster.
But to say it again, I agree with the spirit of all your concerns! But the alternatives aren't problem-free, either.
I really enjoyed reading this and all the comments below the line. There is a lot of food for thought here.
What I took from this is a question that can be asked of any school, and should be asked by both school leaders and parents. What's the school's mission, and how does it achieve it? Alpha seems to be based on the belief that core academics can be achieved much more quickly if we use the power of technology, combined with accurate, in-the-moment assessment, which permits children to power through and power up. Nobody has to wait for a peer or a recap, unless it is of value to them. And the fact that we get through those core academics so much more efficiently means we generate time for the other side of school, which seems to be another mix of project-based learning, personal inquiry and character development. That mx is a variation on what many independent and international schools offer under a 'progressive' label.
You can see the logic. We live in a time when many parents are paying for education not because they are investing in the future, but because they believe strong academic performance is the best insurance against the potential hardships of adult life in an economic environment where quality of living is not necessarily guaranteed, as it has been over the last 70 years. I get that too, as a parent of somebody who finds school a struggle.
Personally, I don't think there is one perfect way to do education, schooling and learning. If we are honest, most schools are in the business of schooling as much as learning, if not more so. If you've ever been a leader in a K-12 school, you'll know that what happened in G12 ripples down to every grade level in some distributed fashion. The interesting thing is how much of that ripple effect is intentional by design and execution. For me, really great schools are very similar in a couple of ways. Firstly, they are, as Isiah Berlin would have put it, hedgehogs. They do one thing really well. And secondly, everything and everybody gets that. Go into any space and ask a question, and you'll get a coherent, consistent explanation. That's why Sudbury Valley School works; it is why Michaela in London works; it's why High Tech High works; and it's probably why Alpha is working, each in their own context and framing. If you have ever worked in a school where everybody is pulling in the same direction, at the same rhythm, you might recognise what I am trying to express.
Michael, you also raised the possibility that Alpha may indeed crack the code of schooling and core skills, but then might be outstripped by a world where we no longer have to know linear equations and whatever else we think is important because some imagined benign technology has taken it off our cognitive workload. I think that is a great question and a real dilemma. I go back to Neil Postman and ask myself, 'Which Gods are we following?' Postman said that all Gods 'are imperfect, even dangerous'. Indeed.
I agree with the spirit of your critique, which I would boil down to "a culture that prioritizes speed above all else in academics may negatively affect how kids view academics". I don't really think Alpha is hiding this either, they clearly try to appeal to folks who view traditional K-12 education as fundamentally broken. I appreciate that your post highlights that choosing Alpha or not is primarily about your relationship to standard/core K-12 education.
I do think your post might make the claim more strongly than may be warranted, eg the below:
> This is a school that believes that the “core” of schooling should be taken care of as quickly and painlessly as possible so that the rest of the day can be opened up to things that actually matter. Most schools don’t do this! We instead tell kids that history is a way of understanding ourselves and others. Math, we say, can be an absolute joy, full of logical surprises. We tell kids that a good story can open up your heart and mind.
Do you actually know if Alpha School guides don't tell kids these things, don't encourage kids to do academic-flavored things in the afternoons, or transfer to their more academic-focused GT school, etc? That seems like it would be hard tell either way from just marketing materials.
I think they clearly have a different goal. They've designed the program for their goal. As my son said, sounds like they'll make good little workers bees.
This makes me think of this quote that Dan Meyer surfaced recently from historian David Labaree: "we love to fight about education and that our fights about pedagogy and policy really mask a fight about purpose." The purpose drives the format most likely.
I dislike the "crush academics and move on" messaging Alpha's marketing tends to have.
But I also think it's impossible to reach a goal of kids "loving math" or "loving reading" if you don't actually help them develop rigorous skills in those realms. Whatever lofty goal conventional education claims to have re: love and curiosity, the vast majority of kids *don't* achieve that goal—in large part because they don't develop basic, let alone rigorous, skills in anything. Most kids emphatically do not love school, love learning, or love any of the subjects where curiosity is allegedly being fostered.
Assuming the kids at Alpha are actually "crushing" the core skills they're being taught, the students are at least meeting the essential precondition for coming to love any subject.
I second this comment. It ties in with my previous comment, that people often contrast systems like Alpha School and Math Academy with alternative ideal systems where the ideals are not necessarily realized in practice, or are realized only for a small fraction of students. And sometimes the alternatives others suggest are at such a high level of abstraction--"deep, rich, transformative learning", "community", "cooperation", "openness", "curiosity", "contemplation", etc.--that it's difficult to tell what is concretely being proposed and how one might evaluate its success, even qualitatively. (Audrey Watters, whom I'm quoting, is particularly guilty of this.)
I think it's easier to talk about this now, as Alpha's sites are very small and serve very few students. (On a document I found grades seemed to have 15-20 students each.) As they grow, it might become harder to adhere to the 2 hour ideal. Maybe they'd need academic support in the afternoon, or to formally assign more work, or compromise on the MAP scores. So I'd say that there are always compromises to make and I'd expect Alpha's ideal to become abstracted as it grows as well. But of course I can't know that for sure.
Programs like IXL focus on particular math skills at a low depth of knowledge. I think math skills are important, and programs like IXL have their place, but low DOK skills are insufficient by themselves.
I'm cranky that their website now claims that they are a "comprehensive math curriculum", when they used to say that IXL is a "supplement to good quality instruction". IXL isn't a complete curriculum any more than Khan Academy is. This is harmful to students when a teacher decides to put all their kids on the computer for 40 minutes a day -- as if non-social disconnected computer lessons are an effective replacement for all of the things students learn from working together with humans. Teachers might even think this is superior because students who aren't allowed to work together "misbehave less" and because each student gets an "adaptive experience" tailored to their skill "deficits".
I'm also cranky that their dashboards make claims about what students know in a seemingly "comprehensive" way, as if measuring low DOK skills alone is sufficient to give a full picture of a students academic progress in math. Schools use these reports as the "one source of truth" in a way that is harmful to students -- for example, when they see a 5th grade student "at a 3rd grade math level" and conclude that this student should really only be doing 3rd grade math.
100%. This completely disregards the Standards for Mathematical Practice which are a key component of the Common Core standards.
I just finished reading "Miracle Children" by Erica Green about the T.M. Landry school scandal. It's interesting -- there has never been any allegation that the SAT/ACT scores the Landry students achieved were obtained by cheating. Kids legitimately did earn those scores. There was some dishonesty around transcripts and courses taken, but the major issue that led to the school's downfall was that it became known that the methods used to achieve those scores 1) were manipulative, at times even abusive, and that 2) were made possible by an extreme narrowing of the academic curriculum to match the test content, even at the expense of broader educational goals/developing college readiness skills. I should be clear: I don't think Alpha is any way abusive, and I think there's room for genuine disagreement about the place for bribery or other incentives to get kids to drill test content. I'm sure kids are happy with their afternoons, and that's a genuinely good thing. But I would absolutely have concerns about the narrowing of academic focus. The focus on accelerating learning/optimizing test performance definitely overlooks some important tradeoffs. (I think Math Academy is an amazing practice platform, but alone kids see those skills as 1,000 trees and not as a forest. Building that forest is slow going and hard to measure--and maybe not something AI can do yet.)
Thank you for this comment. It’s very thoughtful.
“. . . the methods used to achieve those scores 1) were manipulative, at times even abusive.”
Woody Allen had an old piece about his version of an adult education course catalog, and under the entry for “Principles of Mathematics” was the description “Previously intractable problems will be dealt with by threats of reprisal.”
I had no idea they're in the process of moving over to Math Academy for all math study.
MA fundamentally is just not what it says on the tin, but neither is Alpha School so I guess they go hand in hand.
PR juggernauts.
I don't fault Alpha for trying to move on from standards-based instruction. Standards have had a nice 25 year run since No Child Left Behind, but is increasingly irrelevant in a world where knowledge and most skills are at your fingertips.
The important thing is what to do with your school day when it's not devoted to standards. Making the case that standards-based instruction can be automated is nice, but what's more interesting is figuring out how to build a rigorous curriculum that helps kids navigate the post-AI world.
AI can be a huge help measuring all of the human skills that were previously unmeasurable, which allows schools to focus on helping students grow in so many other important areas. Seriously, how many people think a child understanding the Mean Value Theorem is more important than being curious or self-aware?
My comments based on lots of reading about Alpha School and a year's experience as an adult learner in Math Academy: First, I suspect you're expressing a limited view of what Alpha School students do in the afternoon, a view that admittedly is promoted by their marketing material -- reading a book doesn't make for compelling video. Based on my reading it appears that at least some of them are doing non-trivial personal projects that are not just recreational in nature and for which academic preparation is essential---and it looks like at the GT School, which is based on the Alpha School philosophy and uses the same or similar software, those afternoon activities are more academic focused.
Second, you are absolutely correct that Alpha School and Math Academy have an instrumental view of academic topics--that they are something you learn in order to do other things of interest to you. I think there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not studying in Math Academy because I want to appreciate the inherent beauty of mathematics; I'm doing it because I want to do other things that depend on my knowing calculus, linear algebra, statistics, etc. We see this split in other areas as well, like martial arts: some people are into appreciating the beauty and history behind traditional martial arts, and others are into systems like Krav Maga that prioritize defending oneself effectively and efficiently.
Finally, I think you're contrasting Alpha School with an idealized educational environment that supposedly promotes love of learning, deep understanding, etc. As you note of Trinity, "I have no idea what this looks like in the classroom." It's also possible that schools like Trinity might promote these virtues in a small fraction of students, or for just one or two subjects for any given student, while leaving students underprepared academically in general. Alpha School gets a lot of scrutiny because of its own hype and the surrounding hype about AI, billionaires, etc. I'm curious if there's been similar scrutiny of how well traditional high-end private schools meet their stated goals for students.
I share all your questions/concerns, and yet I'm sending my kid to Alpha School in the Fall for 2nd Grade. I see it as an experiment with a high upside, while the downside seems manageable, and I *think* I know what to look out for. My 2nd grade was pretty useless.
I agree their marketing can be grating. I think they're trying to simultaneously attract parents who are very into academics (me) and those who are more anti traditional school (life skills!). But that's just marketing. From what I can tell from talking to the other parents, the afternoon is more academic than the marketing pitch implies. They learn cursive and do book reports, but that's in the "life skills" section.
We really love our son's current school, and it's the most accelerated we could find. But he's so far ahead in math and reading that he doesn't really learn any of that there (handwriting, social studies, etc., are different). I teach him at home with Math Academy, and while I understand your skepticism, I find it very effective. My goal is to have a well-educated child who loves to read and think about the world, and that's easier when you learn the basics faster.
But to say it again, I agree with the spirit of all your concerns! But the alternatives aren't problem-free, either.
I really enjoyed reading this and all the comments below the line. There is a lot of food for thought here.
What I took from this is a question that can be asked of any school, and should be asked by both school leaders and parents. What's the school's mission, and how does it achieve it? Alpha seems to be based on the belief that core academics can be achieved much more quickly if we use the power of technology, combined with accurate, in-the-moment assessment, which permits children to power through and power up. Nobody has to wait for a peer or a recap, unless it is of value to them. And the fact that we get through those core academics so much more efficiently means we generate time for the other side of school, which seems to be another mix of project-based learning, personal inquiry and character development. That mx is a variation on what many independent and international schools offer under a 'progressive' label.
You can see the logic. We live in a time when many parents are paying for education not because they are investing in the future, but because they believe strong academic performance is the best insurance against the potential hardships of adult life in an economic environment where quality of living is not necessarily guaranteed, as it has been over the last 70 years. I get that too, as a parent of somebody who finds school a struggle.
Personally, I don't think there is one perfect way to do education, schooling and learning. If we are honest, most schools are in the business of schooling as much as learning, if not more so. If you've ever been a leader in a K-12 school, you'll know that what happened in G12 ripples down to every grade level in some distributed fashion. The interesting thing is how much of that ripple effect is intentional by design and execution. For me, really great schools are very similar in a couple of ways. Firstly, they are, as Isiah Berlin would have put it, hedgehogs. They do one thing really well. And secondly, everything and everybody gets that. Go into any space and ask a question, and you'll get a coherent, consistent explanation. That's why Sudbury Valley School works; it is why Michaela in London works; it's why High Tech High works; and it's probably why Alpha is working, each in their own context and framing. If you have ever worked in a school where everybody is pulling in the same direction, at the same rhythm, you might recognise what I am trying to express.
Michael, you also raised the possibility that Alpha may indeed crack the code of schooling and core skills, but then might be outstripped by a world where we no longer have to know linear equations and whatever else we think is important because some imagined benign technology has taken it off our cognitive workload. I think that is a great question and a real dilemma. I go back to Neil Postman and ask myself, 'Which Gods are we following?' Postman said that all Gods 'are imperfect, even dangerous'. Indeed.
I agree with the spirit of your critique, which I would boil down to "a culture that prioritizes speed above all else in academics may negatively affect how kids view academics". I don't really think Alpha is hiding this either, they clearly try to appeal to folks who view traditional K-12 education as fundamentally broken. I appreciate that your post highlights that choosing Alpha or not is primarily about your relationship to standard/core K-12 education.
I do think your post might make the claim more strongly than may be warranted, eg the below:
> This is a school that believes that the “core” of schooling should be taken care of as quickly and painlessly as possible so that the rest of the day can be opened up to things that actually matter. Most schools don’t do this! We instead tell kids that history is a way of understanding ourselves and others. Math, we say, can be an absolute joy, full of logical surprises. We tell kids that a good story can open up your heart and mind.
Do you actually know if Alpha School guides don't tell kids these things, don't encourage kids to do academic-flavored things in the afternoons, or transfer to their more academic-focused GT school, etc? That seems like it would be hard tell either way from just marketing materials.
I think they clearly have a different goal. They've designed the program for their goal. As my son said, sounds like they'll make good little workers bees.
This makes me think of this quote that Dan Meyer surfaced recently from historian David Labaree: "we love to fight about education and that our fights about pedagogy and policy really mask a fight about purpose." The purpose drives the format most likely.