One thing I keep coming back to in this discussion is how narrow standardized tests actually are. They capture a thin slice of what modern standards like common core or NGSS are designed to teach (reasoning, modeling, argumentation, etc). But the tests mostly measure discrete, testable fragments-word problems, text comprehension, graph reading- not deeper mathematical practices or the scientific thinking in NGSS standards.
The strongest schools I’ve seen do this work even if it means cutting back on time spent acing the test. The hard part is of course evaluating whether this work is genuinely getting at cross-cutting concepts or just performative project based learning, but I think you can distill a lot from conversations with your kids over time.
I know you might address some of this in your part 2 on Alpha, but some questions I'm curious about:
1. Does Alpha teach cross-cutting concepts beyond what shows up on tests?
Maybe the apps support Common Core/NGSS - I’m not sure. But so much of Alpha’s marketing focuses on pace and performance that I’m curious whether conceptual through-lines (patterns, systems, causality, scale, argumentation, modeling) are intentionally developed, or whether the focus is mostly on the test-visible layer.
2. Is there something about the afternoon structure that meaningfully improves on IB or high quality project-based learning?
Even with a lot of IB-specific resources, schools near us still have only ~45-minute daily blocks for the six bigger inquiry units each year. I’m wondering whether Alpha’s afternoon workshops improve on this model through longer blocks or a different pedagogical approach , or if they’re primarily about movement, motivation, and fun (which are totally valid!). I just can’t tell from the outside.
3. How does Alpha think about the long-term K–12 trajectory?
Everything is a time tradeoff. Even if there’s no “limit” to what kids could learn, time spent on acceleration is time not spent building broad knowledge foundations (history, geography, literature, civics like you might do in a GT school for example for the various bees) or developing cross-disciplinary cognitive muscles. Does Alpha see this ratio as something that shifts with age? For example: pre-K focused more on socioemotional skills and movement; early childhood on broad guided exposure; adolescence on deeper knowledge-building and autonomy? I haven’t seen much differentiation across years, so I’m curious how Alpha thinks about developmental arc.
Thanks as always for such engaging posts — looking forward to part 2!
It was originally $25K, but they decreased it to $15K part way through the first year. I guess they have not updated it. Or maybe they lead with $25K and then tell inquiring families it is $15K? I also guess they plan on increasing it back to $25K at some point. But definitely $15K now.
This raises an interesting question about what happens when core work becomes optimized. One aspect of the Alpha School model I haven't seen discussed much is student self-direction.
From your description, it sounds like learning decisions are primarily top-down—driven by market demands or parent priorities. I'm curious: At what points during the school day does Everest actually choose what to work on? Even within quiz bowl prep, how much agency does she have in deciding her next focus area?
Self-direction seems closely tied to motivation, but I think it's a distinct skill: When required work is complete, how do you determine what deserves your attention next? How do you identify what genuinely interests you?
These questions will become increasingly important as automation handles more routine tasks. The ability to direct your own learning and work—rather than simply executing assigned tasks efficiently— remains distinctly human.
I just found this quote by Joe on the 1500 sports academies (he says 1000 in Texas):
https://x.com/jliemandt/status/1984248855765102840?s=46&t=CgMP9FQDGPJoJgB7qxo3Dg
I should have included this:
There may be a GT-type school launching in Hawaii shortly -- https://tradewinds.school/
One thing I keep coming back to in this discussion is how narrow standardized tests actually are. They capture a thin slice of what modern standards like common core or NGSS are designed to teach (reasoning, modeling, argumentation, etc). But the tests mostly measure discrete, testable fragments-word problems, text comprehension, graph reading- not deeper mathematical practices or the scientific thinking in NGSS standards.
The strongest schools I’ve seen do this work even if it means cutting back on time spent acing the test. The hard part is of course evaluating whether this work is genuinely getting at cross-cutting concepts or just performative project based learning, but I think you can distill a lot from conversations with your kids over time.
I know you might address some of this in your part 2 on Alpha, but some questions I'm curious about:
1. Does Alpha teach cross-cutting concepts beyond what shows up on tests?
Maybe the apps support Common Core/NGSS - I’m not sure. But so much of Alpha’s marketing focuses on pace and performance that I’m curious whether conceptual through-lines (patterns, systems, causality, scale, argumentation, modeling) are intentionally developed, or whether the focus is mostly on the test-visible layer.
2. Is there something about the afternoon structure that meaningfully improves on IB or high quality project-based learning?
Even with a lot of IB-specific resources, schools near us still have only ~45-minute daily blocks for the six bigger inquiry units each year. I’m wondering whether Alpha’s afternoon workshops improve on this model through longer blocks or a different pedagogical approach , or if they’re primarily about movement, motivation, and fun (which are totally valid!). I just can’t tell from the outside.
3. How does Alpha think about the long-term K–12 trajectory?
Everything is a time tradeoff. Even if there’s no “limit” to what kids could learn, time spent on acceleration is time not spent building broad knowledge foundations (history, geography, literature, civics like you might do in a GT school for example for the various bees) or developing cross-disciplinary cognitive muscles. Does Alpha see this ratio as something that shifts with age? For example: pre-K focused more on socioemotional skills and movement; early childhood on broad guided exposure; adolescence on deeper knowledge-building and autonomy? I haven’t seen much differentiation across years, so I’m curious how Alpha thinks about developmental arc.
Thanks as always for such engaging posts — looking forward to part 2!
GT school tuition appears to be $25k, not $15k: https://go.alpha.school/hubfs/Alpha%20Tuition%20Documents/GT%20School%20Tuition%20Overview.pdf
It was originally $25K, but they decreased it to $15K part way through the first year. I guess they have not updated it. Or maybe they lead with $25K and then tell inquiring families it is $15K? I also guess they plan on increasing it back to $25K at some point. But definitely $15K now.
I know in California they say "founding families" get a 10K discount for a new school, could that be it?
This raises an interesting question about what happens when core work becomes optimized. One aspect of the Alpha School model I haven't seen discussed much is student self-direction.
From your description, it sounds like learning decisions are primarily top-down—driven by market demands or parent priorities. I'm curious: At what points during the school day does Everest actually choose what to work on? Even within quiz bowl prep, how much agency does she have in deciding her next focus area?
Self-direction seems closely tied to motivation, but I think it's a distinct skill: When required work is complete, how do you determine what deserves your attention next? How do you identify what genuinely interests you?
These questions will become increasingly important as automation handles more routine tasks. The ability to direct your own learning and work—rather than simply executing assigned tasks efficiently— remains distinctly human.
Typo: experimine -> experiment
Thanks. Fixed