So here’s part of the trade-off to consider: (great questions and thinking btw you’d be surprised by the number of people that treat education as day care… even at a 40k per year school)
The program is heavily STEM-focused. While my kids perform at the 99th percentile on MAP tests, often two years ahead of their grade level, they would struggle with topics like explaining the structure and role of government. They’re also not exposed to the kind of collective literary analysis you’d find in a traditional classroom—like debating whether Santiago is defeated or victorious at the end of his journey in The Old Man and the Sea and unpacking what “A man can be destroyed but not defeated” truly means. For kids with a natural inclination toward literature or civics, they might gravitate toward those areas independently, but for most, these subjects are entirely overlooked.
Of course, there’s no perfect solution. At the two new schools I’ve observed, the reverse is true—they’re allergic to meaningful tech integration and don’t get me started on the adversarial views on Ai. In contrast, Alpha’s approach leverages apps heavily for core curriculum, which allows for customization per child. The “app and data team” makes strategic decisions about which tools to use for specific tasks (Khan Academy for one concept, IXL for another). It’s not random; it’s deliberate and data-driven.
Extracurriculars like sports or dance fall outside the core structure but offer unique opportunities. For instance, my oldest studied Chinese for two years with a college student from Brown University via Zoom… a fantastic experience that reflects the possibilities when budget isn’t a limiting factor.
As for independent verification, the MAP scores and test results are very real, and the improvement in transfer students is striking. However, their model is still evolving. Right now, they’re in a "move fast and break things" phase, but I anticipate a period of refinement where STEM emphasis gives way to a more balanced inclusion of liberal arts and social studies. The avoidance of certain subjects, though, is a scalability issue—they require instructor-led learning, and apps for reading and writing analysis are, at best, mediocre. As an aside, I love STEM but I almost feel like in education it sucked a lot of the oxygen out of the room. Being a girl-dad it’s obvious. Nearly all of the marketing and agendas in TV programming as about girls in STEM. It’s the only way forward… I think what we see is a value imbalance. Debating old man in the sea isn’t needed “today”… but it’s critical for long term human advancement… the other issue I feel For example, a 3rd grader reading at an 8th-grade level poses challenges in finding age-appropriate digital content. Reading level isn’t the same as content maturity, and that’s a gap they/tech/ed-tech haven’t fully bridged yet. This is not an Alpha model problem, it’s just they are at the bleeding level of what tech and ai are doing. I have no don’t it will be solved.
The program is heavily STEM-focused. While my kids perform at the 99th percentile on MAP tests, often two years ahead of their grade level, they would struggle with topics like explaining the structure and role of government. They’re also not exposed to the kind of collective literary analysis you’d find in a traditional classroom—like debating whether Santiago is defeated or victorious at the end of his journey in The Old Man and the Sea and unpacking what “A man can be destroyed but not defeated” truly means. For kids with a natural inclination toward literature or civics, they might gravitate toward those areas independently, but for most, these subjects are entirely overlooked.
Of course, there’s no perfect solution. At the two new schools I’ve observed, the reverse is true—they’re allergic to meaningful tech integration and don’t get me started on the adversarial views on Ai. In contrast, Alpha’s approach leverages apps heavily for core curriculum, which allows for customization per child. The “app and data team” makes strategic decisions about which tools to use for specific tasks (Khan Academy for one concept, IXL for another). It’s not random; it’s deliberate and data-driven.
Extracurriculars like sports or dance fall outside the core structure but offer unique opportunities. For instance, my oldest studied Chinese for two years with a college student from Brown University via Zoom… a fantastic experience that reflects the possibilities when budget isn’t a limiting factor.
As for independent verification, the MAP scores and test results are very real, and the improvement in transfer students is striking. However, their model is still evolving. Right now, they’re in a "move fast and break things" phase, but I anticipate a period of refinement where STEM emphasis gives way to a more balanced inclusion of liberal arts and social studies. The avoidance of certain subjects, though, is a scalability issue—they require instructor-led learning, and apps for reading and writing analysis are, at best, mediocre. As an aside, I love STEM but I almost feel like in education it sucked a lot of the oxygen out of the room. Being a girl-dad it’s obvious. Nearly all of the marketing and agendas in TV programming as about girls in STEM. It’s the only way forward… I think what we see is a value imbalance. Debating old man in the sea isn’t needed “today”… but it’s critical for long term human advancement… the other issue I feel For example, a 3rd grader reading at an 8th-grade level poses challenges in finding age-appropriate digital content. Reading level isn’t the same as content maturity, and that’s a gap they/tech/ed-tech haven’t fully bridged yet. This is not an Alpha model problem, it’s just they are at the bleeding level of what tech and ai are doing. I have no don’t it will be solved.
Hope this helps clarify things!