3 ms·

That article mentions family income as possible confounder only once, while in an article of this extent I would expect it to appear dozens of times and be the

That article mentions family income as possible confounder only once, while in an article of this extent I would expect it to appear dozens of times and be the central point. You simply cannot draw conclusions from comparing general populations and kids in schools that cost $500k for a 13-grade education, or that cost any amount. Students from low income households have so many headwinds. They don't come to school because their transportation is unreliable, because their teeth hurt, because they can't afford sanitary pads, they can't sleep because their neighborhoods are too loud, and so on. When this school opened in Brownsville and preferentially enrolled only the children of employed aeronautical engineers, that precluded any possible comparison of outcomes.

skybrian 1y ago
Yes, they are tiny and it has to be considered experimental and unproven as far as scalability goes. They are a long way from trying to educate millions of kids. But it will be interesting to see how far it scales up and into what demographics before it stops working and they reach their limits. So far, it seems they've had success with in-person schools and it didn't work (yet) remotely. Motivation seems like the key factor.
- underlipton 1y ago
  Scalability is the issue, though, isn't it? Any number of esoteric pedagogical approaches have been tested, to great success, with the children of people wealthy enough to fulfill all of their scions' material needs and subsequently move onto purchasing immaterial things like "attention". You have to figure out something you can apply kids in spite of who their parents are. If not, you have to admit that there's no such thing as a meritocracy divorced from what the parents are willing or able to provide (which opens up questions of how much children deserve to have that deficit filled, it if happens to exist in any individual case).
  - skybrian 1y ago
    I don't know anything about private schools beyond reading a few articles, but I think that might be overstated. Even with the same kids and parents, it seems likely that some schools are better than others?
aetherson 1y ago
But you can draw comparisons with other expensive private schools, which is what the ACX article does.
- jeffbee 1y ago
  No, it spends ~2000 words comparing Alpha School to all other schools that give MAP tests, and then says "How does the 2.6x improvement that Alpha is delivering compare to those elite institutions? I have no idea."
  - aetherson 1y ago
    The author's children were going to an elite private school immediately before going to Alpha School.
social_quotient 1y ago
A couple of thoughts based on my own experience, as both of my girls attended Alpha for 4 and 5 years. First, not all the students come from wealthy backgrounds, which is a common assumption. Second, while the school emphasizes 2-3 hours of intensive computer and AI-driven learning, there are other critical aspects to the model. For instance, their approach is based on 100% mastery—students only move forward once they’ve fully grasped a concept. I don’t love the term but it’s called “hole filling”. This prevents the typical gaps you might see with partial mastery, where scoring 75% or 85% on a core concept can lead to challenges down the road. It’s hard to argue with, when are you supposed to make up that 15%? When every next lesson plan builds on it based on you having understood it… I get it but, I think it’s a disservice in the long term. Not all kids are the brightest or best. I will say all kids become the local best of themselves. There’s an affordance for struggle and the time to wallow in it and dig yourself out of it. There is little tolerance for apathy or lack of effort. Since everything is done till failure. My 3rd grader doing 6th grade math actually has no idea she’s good at math. She struggles the same as the kid 1 level behind. Everyone is constantly at the point of growth. My kids also consistently placed in the 99th percentile on MAP testing, often working two or more grade levels ahead. However, what stood out was that Alpha doesn’t foster a sense of comparison between students. The focus is on individual growth—competing with yourself to not only succeed but also recover from failure. The kids honestly have no idea what each of them are learning and at what levels. It’s not a secret, it’s just not talked about. It’s a personal journey between you and your guides (what they call teachers, but aren’t teachers) Now that my kids have transitioned to more traditional schools—one in a top-ranked magnet (#2 high school in Texas) and the other in a prep school—I can see the lasting impact of Alpha. They have zero fear of test-taking, as they’re accustomed to frequent assessments, including weekly STAR tests. Public speaking is second nature to them, thanks to regular presentations and speeches they began preparing as early as Level 1 (think 6 year olds). My 9-year-old, at the time 7, once gave a memorized 5 minute speech on global warming to a crowd of 80 adults… it’s just awesome. Key takeaways as I’ve reflect the last couple months since we transitioned: - No agenda-driven education: Alpha focuses on “how to learn,” not dictating “what to learn.” No politics, no gender or race or religious distractions. Kids just being kids. Guides just trying to unlock them to push them further. - Tech proficiency: Both kids are exceptionally comfortable with tech tools like AI using them to enhance their abilities rather than as cheap shortcuts. For instance, my 9-year-old types at 50 wpm with 95% accuracy, while my 14-year-old is in the 80s. Both girls programmed self driving cars with python and my youngest has deployed to vercel an ai vibe coded project using cursor. It’s not computer lab once a week. It’s computer lab woven in to the culture and everything you do. - Frequent tests: They are unfazed by tests and accustomed to regular evaluations. Weekly STAR tests and Map test 2/3 times a year. Easily for 90+ percent of the kids there is no test anxiety. - everything is measured. They even know if your kids is staring out the window all day instead of getting their work done. No in a creepy way but a hey.. what’s going on, why are you stuck, how do we get you engaged. (It’s why they have guides) - Public speaking: They’ve developed strong public speaking skills, starting at an early age. Every “session” ends with kids presenting to ALL parents what they learned and why. Think of it as a demo day. Called “test to pass”. Not to be cliche it’s pride in accomplishment and responsibility in failure… in a very public way. - Self-driven learning: Alpha helps to instilled in them the mindset to be creators of their own futures and not passive consumers of other people ideas. While there were certainly trade-offs, the core values of self-driven learning, technological proficiency, and adaptability far outweigh any downsides. I would not trade our time there for anything. Ask me anything. Happy to share!

skybrian 1y ago

Yes, they are tiny and it has to be considered experimental and unproven as far as scalability goes. They are a long way from trying to educate millions of kids. But it will be interesting to see how far it scales up and into what demographics before it stops working and they reach their limits. So far, it seems they've had success with in-person schools and it didn't work (yet) remotely. Motivation seems like the key factor.

underlipton 1y ago
Scalability is the issue, though, isn't it? Any number of esoteric pedagogical approaches have been tested, to great success, with the children of people wealthy enough to fulfill all of their scions' material needs and subsequently move onto purchasing immaterial things like "attention". You have to figure out something you can apply kids in spite of who their parents are. If not, you have to admit that there's no such thing as a meritocracy divorced from what the parents are willing or able to provide (which opens up questions of how much children deserve to have that deficit filled, it if happens to exist in any individual case).
- skybrian 1y ago
  I don't know anything about private schools beyond reading a few articles, but I think that might be overstated. Even with the same kids and parents, it seems likely that some schools are better than others?

aetherson 1y ago

But you can draw comparisons with other expensive private schools, which is what the ACX article does.

jeffbee 1y ago
No, it spends ~2000 words comparing Alpha School to all other schools that give MAP tests, and then says "How does the 2.6x improvement that Alpha is delivering compare to those elite institutions? I have no idea."
- aetherson 1y ago
  The author's children were going to an elite private school immediately before going to Alpha School.

social_quotient 1y ago

A couple of thoughts based on my own experience, as both of my girls attended Alpha for 4 and 5 years. First, not all the students come from wealthy backgrounds, which is a common assumption. Second, while the school emphasizes 2-3 hours of intensive computer and AI-driven learning, there are other critical aspects to the model. For instance, their approach is based on 100% mastery—students only move forward once they’ve fully grasped a concept. I don’t love the term but it’s called “hole filling”. This prevents the typical gaps you might see with partial mastery, where scoring 75% or 85% on a core concept can lead to challenges down the road. It’s hard to argue with, when are you supposed to make up that 15%? When every next lesson plan builds on it based on you having understood it… I get it but, I think it’s a disservice in the long term. Not all kids are the brightest or best. I will say all kids become the local best of themselves. There’s an affordance for struggle and the time to wallow in it and dig yourself out of it. There is little tolerance for apathy or lack of effort. Since everything is done till failure. My 3rd grader doing 6th grade math actually has no idea she’s good at math. She struggles the same as the kid 1 level behind. Everyone is constantly at the point of growth. My kids also consistently placed in the 99th percentile on MAP testing, often working two or more grade levels ahead. However, what stood out was that Alpha doesn’t foster a sense of comparison between students. The focus is on individual growth—competing with yourself to not only succeed but also recover from failure. The kids honestly have no idea what each of them are learning and at what levels. It’s not a secret, it’s just not talked about. It’s a personal journey between you and your guides (what they call teachers, but aren’t teachers) Now that my kids have transitioned to more traditional schools—one in a top-ranked magnet (#2 high school in Texas) and the other in a prep school—I can see the lasting impact of Alpha. They have zero fear of test-taking, as they’re accustomed to frequent assessments, including weekly STAR tests. Public speaking is second nature to them, thanks to regular presentations and speeches they began preparing as early as Level 1 (think 6 year olds). My 9-year-old, at the time 7, once gave a memorized 5 minute speech on global warming to a crowd of 80 adults… it’s just awesome. Key takeaways as I’ve reflect the last couple months since we transitioned: - No agenda-driven education: Alpha focuses on “how to learn,” not dictating “what to learn.” No politics, no gender or race or religious distractions. Kids just being kids. Guides just trying to unlock them to push them further. - Tech proficiency: Both kids are exceptionally comfortable with tech tools like AI using them to enhance their abilities rather than as cheap shortcuts. For instance, my 9-year-old types at 50 wpm with 95% accuracy, while my 14-year-old is in the 80s. Both girls programmed self driving cars with python and my youngest has deployed to vercel an ai vibe coded project using cursor. It’s not computer lab once a week. It’s computer lab woven in to the culture and everything you do. - Frequent tests: They are unfazed by tests and accustomed to regular evaluations. Weekly STAR tests and Map test 2/3 times a year. Easily for 90+ percent of the kids there is no test anxiety. - everything is measured. They even know if your kids is staring out the window all day instead of getting their work done. No in a creepy way but a hey.. what’s going on, why are you stuck, how do we get you engaged. (It’s why they have guides) - Public speaking: They’ve developed strong public speaking skills, starting at an early age. Every “session” ends with kids presenting to ALL parents what they learned and why. Think of it as a demo day. Called “test to pass”. Not to be cliche it’s pride in accomplishment and responsibility in failure… in a very public way. - Self-driven learning: Alpha helps to instilled in them the mindset to be creators of their own futures and not passive consumers of other people ideas. While there were certainly trade-offs, the core values of self-driven learning, technological proficiency, and adaptability far outweigh any downsides. I would not trade our time there for anything. Ask me anything. Happy to share!