This is one of the clearest and most digestible critiques of Alpha that I’ve seen. I lost patience with the model—and its boosters—once I learned that a student could attend an Alpha school through 12th grade without ever being required to read a complete book.
I’m aware that students have choice time in which many of them read. But there is a reason choice-driven, minimally instructed literature circles do almost nothing for student growth. They are not an adequate substitute for a coherent, teacher-led literature curriculum.
I wrote about a related concern last November: even if we don’t believe Alpha’s model should become the spine of an entire school, large parts of its underlying philosophy have already spread through public schools in the form of programs like iREADY, IXL and Kahn Academy. They have been propelled by similarly dramatic claims of rapid growth, along with the ease and low cost of implementation for administrators.
"In addition, several people have questioned whether Alpha’s model would work with students from less affluent and highly educated families. Tuition at Alpha can run as high as $75,000 a year."
Appreciate all of the precision within this piece, but it feels like this should be a bigger point: shouldn't the comparison point be how Alpha compares to other private schools with similarly-lofty tuitions?
That feels like more than just a small detail to include, especially when extrapolating whether this "model" would work on a broader scale.
Alpha says it compares quite favorably to similar private schools--that its scores put it in the top 0.1% of schools globally, comparable to such elite institutions as Philips Exeter, Dalton, and Trinity. You can read more here:
That's impressive but, of course, as I say in the post, test scores may not tell us everything.
And I'm not sure I take your point about how important that detail is when considering whether the model would work on a "broader scale." To me, a broader scale means other quite different contexts, not ones that are (relatively speaking) pretty similar.
Exeter and Dalton would never use MAP as a relevant benchmark for academic accomplishment. In fact, they probably wouldn’t position the SAT this way either. There is no data on the number of students who took the SAT, and no verification of the data.
Yes, I was wondering about that too. If you look at Alpha's Mid-Year Report, which is where it makes these claims, you find this explanation:
Elite schools like Phillips Exeter Academy (NH), The Dalton School (NY), and Trinity School (NYC) do not publish NWEA MAP scores, but they do publish SAT averages. We can use NWEA concordance studies to project Alpha’s standing.
Elite Private School Average SAT: ~1450–1510 (Total)
Alpha Projected Performance:
Math (RIT 278): A Math RIT of 278 is virtually off the charts. It projects to an SAT Math score of 780–800 (Perfect).
Reading (RIT 246): Projects to an SAT EBRW score of ~720–760.
Composite Projection: Alpha’s high school data suggests a cohort average SAT of 1500–1560.
Conclusion: Alpha’s academic performance is fully competitive with, and likely exceeds, the averages of the most expensive and exclusive boarding schools in the world.
Appreciate that statistic, though again the reporting inconsistency among top-tier private schools makes it an easy thing to claim—especially if you aren't opening your doors to invite scrutiny.
My point regarding "broader scale" is that, from the vantage point of a public school teacher, if any private school with a tuition between $40k-$75k went on mass media tour proclaiming a new model/solution for education, my immediate response would be an eye roll. The presumption that what works for a selective, high-tuition private school offers anything for the typical school to learn from is quite frankly laughable from the outset.
Yet in much of the coverage of Alpha School, even thoughtful and critical coverage like this piece, it feels like this quite-unique context is a minor bullet point, rather than the major acknowledgment that I believe is deserved.
(Again, just my opinion—but I do appreciate the various critiques you lay out here, too.)
As I say in a footnote to the post, Alpha has opened a school in a relatively low-income area, Brownsville, where it says students learn twice as fast as average. So, not 2.6, but still impressive. But as far as I can tell, they don't provide any data about the particular students at their school, so it's not clear they're low-income, even if they live in a low-income area.
Here is a video on the curriculum from an Alpha student. It’s pretty reductionist. There is also really no “AI” at Alpha. Khan Academy and IXL are not AI. Nor is an I-Ready-style reading program.
“AP courses are usually about curation over creation. There's a bunch of AP resources out there. So, our academic teams find the best ones and we'll get this super energetic guy who's already embedded learning science into his Youtube videos.”
“The lessons are basically video, reading quiz, video, reading quiz.”
“I went to a lecture-based school and hated it.”
“I hate English.” (No surprise, look at how they teach it).
As a teacher I have been wondering about the leading edge of AI in schools and found this article very interesting. I will be retiring in 1-2 years and am not expecting to see huge changes in education within this time frame. Beyond that who knows. I am curious about using high quality AI in math instruction. My school currently uses I ready as a supplemental / remedial program and I have not been too impressed with it.
I also think it’s worth challenging the idea of individual “level” in various subjects. When I interviewed Tim Shanahan, he was extremely skeptical of the idea of reading level as a real, measurable thing.
I certainly don’t think we can find a true “level” for all content. Math Academy, which AFAIK is what Alpha currently uses for math, does a great job of mapping prerequisite concepts, but that idea doesn’t really carry over into other subjects very well.
I agree. Shanahan has done a lot of work on the dearth of evidence for reading levels, but I would also question the idea of a “level” for history and maybe science, as well as literature. There are standards at various grade levels, but translating that into “grade level” or “individual level” seems tricky to me.
Extrinsic motivation may fade when the rewards are no longer there, but what's learned doesn't; if the rewarded learning serves as a prerequisite for higher learning, the mission has been accomplished. Almost nobody truly has the intrinsic motivation to work through an entire structured sequenced curriculum they didn't choose, and it looks like consistent extrinsic reinforcement gets them through the interesting and uninteresting parts alike. You say minimizing the time spent on schoolwork sends a message about school being something to be gotten through quickly, but I don't see cause for concern. Most of someone's life will not be spent formally learning, reinforced with good scores and grades; a greater portion of one's life will be spent informally learning through exploration and producing output whose value is assessed, and it takes a lot of time to get good at anything. A model that produces solid scores in core skills *and* leaves plenty of time to get good at other things is a great idea. I thank you for taking the time to show us where this idea seems to be working and where it seems to be falling short.
"Extrinsic motivation may fade when the rewards are no longer there, but what's learned doesn't; if the rewarded learning serves as a prerequisite for higher learning, the mission has been accomplished." My reading intervention program is definitely dependent on the industrial-sized prize chest lurking in the corner. This is what motivates students to read to their 'print partner' at home. If it helps students get through their home reading--and end up reading at grade level--my mission has been accomplished.
I do have access to IXL through my school, and anyone who calls this a comprehensive curriculum, especially through the upper grades, either doesn’t know very much about teaching students or is purposefully exaggerating. Like Kahn Academy, it provides supplementary practice that is useful but isn’t comprehensive. In terms of exams, I’m most familiar with AP Lang and Comp, and somewhat with AP Literature. If students do phenomenally well on the multiple choice questions, they could receive high scores (3 or 4) on the exam overall as long as they write three basic if not particularly effective essays. Someone well trained in analyzing short texts (including historical texts) and multiple choice response may be able to accomplish this. However, if students don’t do phenomenally well on the multiple choice questions, they must at the least create a thesis statement (no need for an effective overall introduction) for each essay prompt and create a line of argument with more than one point. All points would need to be supported by specific evidence and effective analysis of that evidence. Higher scores would require logic, some degree of background knowledge, and deft writing, accomplished quickly. This kind of timed writing requires specific skills, but doesn’t require all the writing skills one must have to be a successful writer in college or outside of the academic world. I guess my point here is that students can be trained to do well on these exams but can still lack crucial skills and comprehensive knowledge that those of us who care about the humanities value.
Thank you for this comprehensive analysis. This 90-minute video The Alpha School Debate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzKpI09UWyg&t=4s) has left me with more questions than answers, but it's definitely worth listening to.
High-achieving schools almost always achieve their success by selecting students likely to perform well. Alpha’s report says, “Alpha’s academic performance is fully competitive with, and likely exceeds, the averages of the most expensive and exclusive boarding schools in the world,” which probably means they have been pretty selective and the students are hardly representative—and any school that expensive already has a student body that is extremely unrepresentative. In any case, AI tutors for math and science probably work well at raising test scores, but I wouldn’t want my kid to go to that school!
I haven't been to an Alpha school either, but surely their success is in ARITHMETIC not mathematics. Arithmetic, meaning executing varied processes to arrive at a straight forward solution. At this current time, one still needs a teacher to note pattern recognition, reasoning, appropriate and elegant tool use and more. Arithmetic. Not math.
Excellent recap of the field and reflection on the promise of Alpha. I don't understand why it's hard to see their results if it's as remarkable as they say it is?
I do certainly believe great efficiencies as compared to standard schooling are possible. Our daughter understood all arithmetic by 5 and was quite proficient at 6 and learning basic algebra in a Montessori setting. No computers.
Regarding your comment about the instruction, "Write a set of sentences using the conjunctions ‘because,’ ‘but,’ and ‘so.’"
I would worry that the student thinks everything character inside the single quote character needs to be used in their sentence. That is, many will write "Drums are an essential part of a band because, they make a lot of noise". I'd prefer to teach such grammar rules separately from the lesson about conjunctions.
Thinking about this more, the two hours of academics isn’t so different to “normal schools” I have worked in, just packaged differently. I expect most students spend a similar amount on basic English, maths, social studies and science (not including the practical part since experiments are presumably not part of the two hour block either). However, it is interspersed with music, art, PE etc rather than the computer block plus exciting workshop model. The idea of working through an individual checklist and tools for motivation are interesting… most schools couldn’t afford the level of rewards but I think some extrinsic motivation doesn’t hurt to get started.
This is one of the clearest and most digestible critiques of Alpha that I’ve seen. I lost patience with the model—and its boosters—once I learned that a student could attend an Alpha school through 12th grade without ever being required to read a complete book.
I’m aware that students have choice time in which many of them read. But there is a reason choice-driven, minimally instructed literature circles do almost nothing for student growth. They are not an adequate substitute for a coherent, teacher-led literature curriculum.
I wrote about a related concern last November: even if we don’t believe Alpha’s model should become the spine of an entire school, large parts of its underlying philosophy have already spread through public schools in the form of programs like iREADY, IXL and Kahn Academy. They have been propelled by similarly dramatic claims of rapid growth, along with the ease and low cost of implementation for administrators.
https://www.middleschoolliteracyproject.org/p/ai-schools-are-selling-a-dangerous
"In addition, several people have questioned whether Alpha’s model would work with students from less affluent and highly educated families. Tuition at Alpha can run as high as $75,000 a year."
Appreciate all of the precision within this piece, but it feels like this should be a bigger point: shouldn't the comparison point be how Alpha compares to other private schools with similarly-lofty tuitions?
That feels like more than just a small detail to include, especially when extrapolating whether this "model" would work on a broader scale.
Alpha says it compares quite favorably to similar private schools--that its scores put it in the top 0.1% of schools globally, comparable to such elite institutions as Philips Exeter, Dalton, and Trinity. You can read more here:
https://alpha.school/blog/alphas-mid-year-report-card-is-in-heres-what-the-data-actually-says/
That's impressive but, of course, as I say in the post, test scores may not tell us everything.
And I'm not sure I take your point about how important that detail is when considering whether the model would work on a "broader scale." To me, a broader scale means other quite different contexts, not ones that are (relatively speaking) pretty similar.
Exeter and Dalton would never use MAP as a relevant benchmark for academic accomplishment. In fact, they probably wouldn’t position the SAT this way either. There is no data on the number of students who took the SAT, and no verification of the data.
Yes, I was wondering about that too. If you look at Alpha's Mid-Year Report, which is where it makes these claims, you find this explanation:
Elite schools like Phillips Exeter Academy (NH), The Dalton School (NY), and Trinity School (NYC) do not publish NWEA MAP scores, but they do publish SAT averages. We can use NWEA concordance studies to project Alpha’s standing.
Elite Private School Average SAT: ~1450–1510 (Total)
Alpha Projected Performance:
Math (RIT 278): A Math RIT of 278 is virtually off the charts. It projects to an SAT Math score of 780–800 (Perfect).
Reading (RIT 246): Projects to an SAT EBRW score of ~720–760.
Composite Projection: Alpha’s high school data suggests a cohort average SAT of 1500–1560.
Conclusion: Alpha’s academic performance is fully competitive with, and likely exceeds, the averages of the most expensive and exclusive boarding schools in the world.
Appreciate that statistic, though again the reporting inconsistency among top-tier private schools makes it an easy thing to claim—especially if you aren't opening your doors to invite scrutiny.
My point regarding "broader scale" is that, from the vantage point of a public school teacher, if any private school with a tuition between $40k-$75k went on mass media tour proclaiming a new model/solution for education, my immediate response would be an eye roll. The presumption that what works for a selective, high-tuition private school offers anything for the typical school to learn from is quite frankly laughable from the outset.
Yet in much of the coverage of Alpha School, even thoughtful and critical coverage like this piece, it feels like this quite-unique context is a minor bullet point, rather than the major acknowledgment that I believe is deserved.
(Again, just my opinion—but I do appreciate the various critiques you lay out here, too.)
As I say in a footnote to the post, Alpha has opened a school in a relatively low-income area, Brownsville, where it says students learn twice as fast as average. So, not 2.6, but still impressive. But as far as I can tell, they don't provide any data about the particular students at their school, so it's not clear they're low-income, even if they live in a low-income area.
Fascinating read - learned an incredible amount in this article. And well balanced.
Here is a video on the curriculum from an Alpha student. It’s pretty reductionist. There is also really no “AI” at Alpha. Khan Academy and IXL are not AI. Nor is an I-Ready-style reading program.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-xBQE8A-3E
And some rough quotes from the video:
“AP courses are usually about curation over creation. There's a bunch of AP resources out there. So, our academic teams find the best ones and we'll get this super energetic guy who's already embedded learning science into his Youtube videos.”
“The lessons are basically video, reading quiz, video, reading quiz.”
“I went to a lecture-based school and hated it.”
“I hate English.” (No surprise, look at how they teach it).
As a teacher I have been wondering about the leading edge of AI in schools and found this article very interesting. I will be retiring in 1-2 years and am not expecting to see huge changes in education within this time frame. Beyond that who knows. I am curious about using high quality AI in math instruction. My school currently uses I ready as a supplemental / remedial program and I have not been too impressed with it.
Great take, Natalie.
I also think it’s worth challenging the idea of individual “level” in various subjects. When I interviewed Tim Shanahan, he was extremely skeptical of the idea of reading level as a real, measurable thing.
I certainly don’t think we can find a true “level” for all content. Math Academy, which AFAIK is what Alpha currently uses for math, does a great job of mapping prerequisite concepts, but that idea doesn’t really carry over into other subjects very well.
I agree. Shanahan has done a lot of work on the dearth of evidence for reading levels, but I would also question the idea of a “level” for history and maybe science, as well as literature. There are standards at various grade levels, but translating that into “grade level” or “individual level” seems tricky to me.
Extrinsic motivation may fade when the rewards are no longer there, but what's learned doesn't; if the rewarded learning serves as a prerequisite for higher learning, the mission has been accomplished. Almost nobody truly has the intrinsic motivation to work through an entire structured sequenced curriculum they didn't choose, and it looks like consistent extrinsic reinforcement gets them through the interesting and uninteresting parts alike. You say minimizing the time spent on schoolwork sends a message about school being something to be gotten through quickly, but I don't see cause for concern. Most of someone's life will not be spent formally learning, reinforced with good scores and grades; a greater portion of one's life will be spent informally learning through exploration and producing output whose value is assessed, and it takes a lot of time to get good at anything. A model that produces solid scores in core skills *and* leaves plenty of time to get good at other things is a great idea. I thank you for taking the time to show us where this idea seems to be working and where it seems to be falling short.
"Extrinsic motivation may fade when the rewards are no longer there, but what's learned doesn't; if the rewarded learning serves as a prerequisite for higher learning, the mission has been accomplished." My reading intervention program is definitely dependent on the industrial-sized prize chest lurking in the corner. This is what motivates students to read to their 'print partner' at home. If it helps students get through their home reading--and end up reading at grade level--my mission has been accomplished.
I do have access to IXL through my school, and anyone who calls this a comprehensive curriculum, especially through the upper grades, either doesn’t know very much about teaching students or is purposefully exaggerating. Like Kahn Academy, it provides supplementary practice that is useful but isn’t comprehensive. In terms of exams, I’m most familiar with AP Lang and Comp, and somewhat with AP Literature. If students do phenomenally well on the multiple choice questions, they could receive high scores (3 or 4) on the exam overall as long as they write three basic if not particularly effective essays. Someone well trained in analyzing short texts (including historical texts) and multiple choice response may be able to accomplish this. However, if students don’t do phenomenally well on the multiple choice questions, they must at the least create a thesis statement (no need for an effective overall introduction) for each essay prompt and create a line of argument with more than one point. All points would need to be supported by specific evidence and effective analysis of that evidence. Higher scores would require logic, some degree of background knowledge, and deft writing, accomplished quickly. This kind of timed writing requires specific skills, but doesn’t require all the writing skills one must have to be a successful writer in college or outside of the academic world. I guess my point here is that students can be trained to do well on these exams but can still lack crucial skills and comprehensive knowledge that those of us who care about the humanities value.
Thank you for this comprehensive analysis. This 90-minute video The Alpha School Debate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzKpI09UWyg&t=4s) has left me with more questions than answers, but it's definitely worth listening to.
High-achieving schools almost always achieve their success by selecting students likely to perform well. Alpha’s report says, “Alpha’s academic performance is fully competitive with, and likely exceeds, the averages of the most expensive and exclusive boarding schools in the world,” which probably means they have been pretty selective and the students are hardly representative—and any school that expensive already has a student body that is extremely unrepresentative. In any case, AI tutors for math and science probably work well at raising test scores, but I wouldn’t want my kid to go to that school!
I haven't been to an Alpha school either, but surely their success is in ARITHMETIC not mathematics. Arithmetic, meaning executing varied processes to arrive at a straight forward solution. At this current time, one still needs a teacher to note pattern recognition, reasoning, appropriate and elegant tool use and more. Arithmetic. Not math.
Excellent recap of the field and reflection on the promise of Alpha. I don't understand why it's hard to see their results if it's as remarkable as they say it is?
I do certainly believe great efficiencies as compared to standard schooling are possible. Our daughter understood all arithmetic by 5 and was quite proficient at 6 and learning basic algebra in a Montessori setting. No computers.
Regarding your comment about the instruction, "Write a set of sentences using the conjunctions ‘because,’ ‘but,’ and ‘so.’"
I would worry that the student thinks everything character inside the single quote character needs to be used in their sentence. That is, many will write "Drums are an essential part of a band because, they make a lot of noise". I'd prefer to teach such grammar rules separately from the lesson about conjunctions.
Nah, I'll take that $75k and pay the finest human tutors for my children! :)
FYI - The AAP identified himself: https://everestera.substack.com/p/the-alpha-school-the-review
Thanks--good to know!
Thinking about this more, the two hours of academics isn’t so different to “normal schools” I have worked in, just packaged differently. I expect most students spend a similar amount on basic English, maths, social studies and science (not including the practical part since experiments are presumably not part of the two hour block either). However, it is interspersed with music, art, PE etc rather than the computer block plus exciting workshop model. The idea of working through an individual checklist and tools for motivation are interesting… most schools couldn’t afford the level of rewards but I think some extrinsic motivation doesn’t hurt to get started.