After 2-hr Learning, these students should be ready for Father Guido Sarducci - 5 minute University! For those who need to see the Father's proposal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fke1_Hi_ZkA. Thanks Dan for a deep drive!
The brainwashing runs deep with the brainwashers. As a seasoned public school teacher, I'm mortified that innovation is met with such disdain. I applaud 2hour learning and its efforts to reimagine education 👏 This slam article shows why education is in such need of change.
I think this would read better if you actually talked to the school/founder and got some of your questions answered. Sorta comes across as a teacher who doesn't like new models and wants to take this school down.
Maybe reach out to them and write another piece?
Would love to read your opinion if you ever talked to them directly.
A thousand dollars *per student* *for marketing.* Corruption's bad enough but when it's stratifying educational resources for kids that's not even a remotely victimless crime.
To be fair, Khan Academy DID post very similar results in their original studies of blended learning about 15 years ago. When you place students in an environment which is less lockstep, the rate of learning goes up dramatically. Ditto for active learning and immediate feedback. The 2.4x is not atypical. People have good days and bad days, and teachers lecturing need to teach to the bottom, or close to it, or kids will fall off-track ("the bottom" isn't a group of students; we all have good days and bad days, and lockstep instruction needs to hit us at close to our worst, or we'll develop gaps). Self-paced, you go at whatever pace you need.
This model predates Khan Academy -- and even computers -- by a long shot. Before that, we had school models which did the same thing based on books. Kids would work through a book (and the well-designed ones were really good!) and check their own answers on the bottom of a page or in the back of the book.
People predict a technological dystopia each time this is tried, but each time, both the adults and the humans find this a lot more humane. Delivering a lecture is just as tedious as listening to one. Doing active things is a lot better for the students.
This model doesn't have "teachers" in the sense of someone who teaches. It has adults who facilitate learning. This is just as skilled, but it's a different set of skills. Critically, it's a lot more personal too. You handle the pieces a computer can't handle, which mostly means working with kids 1:1 and in small groups. That's the best part of being in a classroom.
I won't comment on the pricing model, business model, conflicts-of-interest, personalities, or any of that stuff. $6500 seems sketchy, but I don't know enough to comment meaningfully. However, the basic model, of self-paced blended learning, guide-on-the-side, and time for project-based work has been validated many times and works really well.
I also won't comment too much on the "public" part, except to say that there are families who want to learn from all demographic backgrounds, and families who don't. This article makes some valid points, but also reflects some of the biases teachers bring to classrooms which lead to the persistent gaps we see. Making this model work with less educated parents takes some work, but not an inordinate amount of work; mostly, it takes some parent upskilling, especially for younger kids, which can be done in reasonable and respectful ways.
Maybe you're aware of studies I'm not but in the largest studies of online platforms like Khan, Zearn, etc, they found their positive results by removing 95% of students from the sample.
In one of the largest studies of personalized learning, the Gates Foundation found pretty meager improvements in math (.1ES) and no significant differences in reading.
It'd be a mis-use of research to point to general research on feedback & active learning (which is often positive) and say, yes, that's the same as what kids are doing when they're on laptops unsupervised for hours every day.
I appreciate the discussion around education. There’s more to the Alpha Brownsville story—especially when it comes to accessibility. Scholarships and subsidies make our model available to a diverse range of families, and I’d love to show you firsthand.
Consider this an open invite to come down and visit, meet our students and parents, and see how we’re rethinking education. Let me know if you’d be open to a visit or a quick chat!
-Paige Fults, Campus Director at Alpha Brownsville
Hi Paige - thanks for the response & invitation. I'm aware from some of Unbound Academy's state-level testimony that particular Brownsville students receive subsidies and scholarships. That's wonderful for those students, but still does not make their achievement gains easily comparable to students in tuition-free schools. They still benefit from selection effects. In any case, I'll be watching the results from Arizona with interest and would love to be surprised.
I was offered one of those high-paying positions at 2-Hour Learning but declined because I couldn’t reconcile their exaggerated claims with what I learned during the interview process. Having worked in EdTech for 10 years since leaving the classroom, I’m familiar with exaggerated educational claims, but this company took it to a new level. When I found out they rely heavily on IXL and Khan Academy, despite charging $40,000 tuition—resources parents could easily access themselves at home, I was taken aback but told myself maybe this was what they were using as a temp measure until they got their system fully up and running.
However, in the final interview with a founder, he asked which AI I’d use to create personalized learning, I optimistically answered assuming he meant which AI I’d choose to power innovative systems like adaptive assessments or personalized activities. I was crushed when he clarified that he meant to ask which AI I’d use to create lesson plans for the week or code a “math game” for an activity. This revealed that they aren’t offering anything unique—let alone worth their tuition price—I fear students may be worse off attending this school compared.
Dan! Thanks for investigating this. I'm a (currently former) volunteer math tutor in WA working with HS students looking for solutions.
In addition to publicly available data (Washington State Report Card Downloads) I also had access to the un-published interim testing done by the schools where I volunteered. The latter were showing (by WAG extrapolation) somewhere between 40-60 percent of WA HS students were lagging 3-6 YEARS behind (pre and post Covid). One high poverty school I volunteered at, about 40% of 10th graders couldn't demonstrated 3rd grade requisite math proficiencies such as the times table. I was working with a mid year Algebra I class.
It appears the top 15%ish have AP; the bottom 15%ish have special ed. It's the 70%ish in the middle that are getting ignored and left behind through policies such as "social promotion" and "alternate pathways to graduation."
I can see AI assisting on the top end (as you seem to argue). Maybe on the bottom (I have not idea). But for the middle 60% to 80%... I just can't see a robotic voice intoning "Good job, Johnny. You solved it!" as a motivator and/or sole solution. Maybe if the interface dispensed a piece of candy or a sandwich... (being sardonically PC here).
Feeding on our students is a system (in WA) that is wholly and completely unaccountable for its performance. AVERAGE teacher salaries adjusted for their 180 day work year run to over $130,000 per year (with some making as much as $150,000 / 180 day work year - fiscal.wa.gov). Salaries are determined by years "of service" and the "Teacher's certifications"... NOT student demonstrated proficiency. Recent legislation may have controlled that somewhat. Even if so, more is critically needed.
Of course, school websites overwhelmingly decline to publish or link to any of this information and proponents of special levies carefully avoid referencing it.
Sorry for blathering on. Again, thanks for the information.
Apples and Oranges: This link describes "offloading". Not sure AI supporting cognitive activity (approaches to applying math and solving math problems) is "offloading".
You could also write about some of the top jobs at 2-Hour Learning, Alpha School, and GT School, all companies started by Mackenzie Price. For example, their GT School Chief Product and Technology Officer position was advertised with an annual salary of $800k about 2 years ago on Crossover (a recruitment platform owned by Trilogy, one of the Price-affiliated companies you named). Several other roles were going for $400k+. But we've yet to see any really innovative digital products coming out of any of these companies. They still rely on IXL + Khan Academy as you mentioned, and they're now getting public dollars to fund expansion. How are they able to afford these eye-watering salaries with tax-payer funded dollars WHILST still having a 1-20 guide-to-student ratio? Is it all just a massive VC-backed scheme that will eventually see investors sour and refuse to pump in more money, leaving states to either bail out the bankrupt entity or see dozens of schools shut its doors on thousands of kids as it becomes apparent that the business model was as broken as the pedagogy?
I'm seeing more of these claims that are simply not valid (e.g., not having teahcers, when ... they do... though I would NOT want to be one of those teachers because I'd want to actually teach.. if there's one thing AI is horrific at it's teaching anything conceptual... and calling online following "community demand," and "serves students from underprivileged backgrounds" who somehow manage to fork over 15K / yr).
I'm also seeing admins and philanthropists make and then enthusiastically defend bad decisions -- making up for the false claims with their enthusiasm....
I live 1 hour away from the Brownsville campus, which is also 30 minutes away from SpaceX. I am wondering if they are trying to market their services to the employees of SpaceX as it continues to grow. 🤔
Another great article. I love how Dan looks behind the curtain and candidly speaks about those "unthought" details.
Makes me wonder why the people who are paid a full-time salary to look into and report on this stuff don't do what Dan does.
After 2-hr Learning, these students should be ready for Father Guido Sarducci - 5 minute University! For those who need to see the Father's proposal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fke1_Hi_ZkA. Thanks Dan for a deep drive!
Amen!
The brainwashing runs deep with the brainwashers. As a seasoned public school teacher, I'm mortified that innovation is met with such disdain. I applaud 2hour learning and its efforts to reimagine education 👏 This slam article shows why education is in such need of change.
I think this would read better if you actually talked to the school/founder and got some of your questions answered. Sorta comes across as a teacher who doesn't like new models and wants to take this school down.
Maybe reach out to them and write another piece?
Would love to read your opinion if you ever talked to them directly.
A thousand dollars *per student* *for marketing.* Corruption's bad enough but when it's stratifying educational resources for kids that's not even a remotely victimless crime.
Just another example of how private enterprise is so much more efficient that government.
To be fair, Khan Academy DID post very similar results in their original studies of blended learning about 15 years ago. When you place students in an environment which is less lockstep, the rate of learning goes up dramatically. Ditto for active learning and immediate feedback. The 2.4x is not atypical. People have good days and bad days, and teachers lecturing need to teach to the bottom, or close to it, or kids will fall off-track ("the bottom" isn't a group of students; we all have good days and bad days, and lockstep instruction needs to hit us at close to our worst, or we'll develop gaps). Self-paced, you go at whatever pace you need.
This model predates Khan Academy -- and even computers -- by a long shot. Before that, we had school models which did the same thing based on books. Kids would work through a book (and the well-designed ones were really good!) and check their own answers on the bottom of a page or in the back of the book.
People predict a technological dystopia each time this is tried, but each time, both the adults and the humans find this a lot more humane. Delivering a lecture is just as tedious as listening to one. Doing active things is a lot better for the students.
This model doesn't have "teachers" in the sense of someone who teaches. It has adults who facilitate learning. This is just as skilled, but it's a different set of skills. Critically, it's a lot more personal too. You handle the pieces a computer can't handle, which mostly means working with kids 1:1 and in small groups. That's the best part of being in a classroom.
I won't comment on the pricing model, business model, conflicts-of-interest, personalities, or any of that stuff. $6500 seems sketchy, but I don't know enough to comment meaningfully. However, the basic model, of self-paced blended learning, guide-on-the-side, and time for project-based work has been validated many times and works really well.
I also won't comment too much on the "public" part, except to say that there are families who want to learn from all demographic backgrounds, and families who don't. This article makes some valid points, but also reflects some of the biases teachers bring to classrooms which lead to the persistent gaps we see. Making this model work with less educated parents takes some work, but not an inordinate amount of work; mostly, it takes some parent upskilling, especially for younger kids, which can be done in reasonable and respectful ways.
Maybe you're aware of studies I'm not but in the largest studies of online platforms like Khan, Zearn, etc, they found their positive results by removing 95% of students from the sample.
https://www.educationnext.org/5-percent-problem-online-mathematics-programs-may-benefit-most-kids-who-need-it-least/
In one of the largest studies of personalized learning, the Gates Foundation found pretty meager improvements in math (.1ES) and no significant differences in reading.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2042.html
It'd be a mis-use of research to point to general research on feedback & active learning (which is often positive) and say, yes, that's the same as what kids are doing when they're on laptops unsupervised for hours every day.
Hey Dan,
I appreciate the discussion around education. There’s more to the Alpha Brownsville story—especially when it comes to accessibility. Scholarships and subsidies make our model available to a diverse range of families, and I’d love to show you firsthand.
Consider this an open invite to come down and visit, meet our students and parents, and see how we’re rethinking education. Let me know if you’d be open to a visit or a quick chat!
-Paige Fults, Campus Director at Alpha Brownsville
Hi Paige - thanks for the response & invitation. I'm aware from some of Unbound Academy's state-level testimony that particular Brownsville students receive subsidies and scholarships. That's wonderful for those students, but still does not make their achievement gains easily comparable to students in tuition-free schools. They still benefit from selection effects. In any case, I'll be watching the results from Arizona with interest and would love to be surprised.
Great insights! Impressed with the details you found.
I was offered one of those high-paying positions at 2-Hour Learning but declined because I couldn’t reconcile their exaggerated claims with what I learned during the interview process. Having worked in EdTech for 10 years since leaving the classroom, I’m familiar with exaggerated educational claims, but this company took it to a new level. When I found out they rely heavily on IXL and Khan Academy, despite charging $40,000 tuition—resources parents could easily access themselves at home, I was taken aback but told myself maybe this was what they were using as a temp measure until they got their system fully up and running.
However, in the final interview with a founder, he asked which AI I’d use to create personalized learning, I optimistically answered assuming he meant which AI I’d choose to power innovative systems like adaptive assessments or personalized activities. I was crushed when he clarified that he meant to ask which AI I’d use to create lesson plans for the week or code a “math game” for an activity. This revealed that they aren’t offering anything unique—let alone worth their tuition price—I fear students may be worse off attending this school compared.
Dan! Thanks for investigating this. I'm a (currently former) volunteer math tutor in WA working with HS students looking for solutions.
In addition to publicly available data (Washington State Report Card Downloads) I also had access to the un-published interim testing done by the schools where I volunteered. The latter were showing (by WAG extrapolation) somewhere between 40-60 percent of WA HS students were lagging 3-6 YEARS behind (pre and post Covid). One high poverty school I volunteered at, about 40% of 10th graders couldn't demonstrated 3rd grade requisite math proficiencies such as the times table. I was working with a mid year Algebra I class.
It appears the top 15%ish have AP; the bottom 15%ish have special ed. It's the 70%ish in the middle that are getting ignored and left behind through policies such as "social promotion" and "alternate pathways to graduation."
I can see AI assisting on the top end (as you seem to argue). Maybe on the bottom (I have not idea). But for the middle 60% to 80%... I just can't see a robotic voice intoning "Good job, Johnny. You solved it!" as a motivator and/or sole solution. Maybe if the interface dispensed a piece of candy or a sandwich... (being sardonically PC here).
Feeding on our students is a system (in WA) that is wholly and completely unaccountable for its performance. AVERAGE teacher salaries adjusted for their 180 day work year run to over $130,000 per year (with some making as much as $150,000 / 180 day work year - fiscal.wa.gov). Salaries are determined by years "of service" and the "Teacher's certifications"... NOT student demonstrated proficiency. Recent legislation may have controlled that somewhat. Even if so, more is critically needed.
Of course, school websites overwhelmingly decline to publish or link to any of this information and proponents of special levies carefully avoid referencing it.
Sorry for blathering on. Again, thanks for the information.
Dan et al., FYI
AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jonathan-boymal-448b5870_a-recently-published-study-authored-by-prof-activity-7281997593633550336-uIb1?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
Apples and Oranges: This link describes "offloading". Not sure AI supporting cognitive activity (approaches to applying math and solving math problems) is "offloading".
My hope for 2025 is that more decision makers read your newsletter!
You could also write about some of the top jobs at 2-Hour Learning, Alpha School, and GT School, all companies started by Mackenzie Price. For example, their GT School Chief Product and Technology Officer position was advertised with an annual salary of $800k about 2 years ago on Crossover (a recruitment platform owned by Trilogy, one of the Price-affiliated companies you named). Several other roles were going for $400k+. But we've yet to see any really innovative digital products coming out of any of these companies. They still rely on IXL + Khan Academy as you mentioned, and they're now getting public dollars to fund expansion. How are they able to afford these eye-watering salaries with tax-payer funded dollars WHILST still having a 1-20 guide-to-student ratio? Is it all just a massive VC-backed scheme that will eventually see investors sour and refuse to pump in more money, leaving states to either bail out the bankrupt entity or see dozens of schools shut its doors on thousands of kids as it becomes apparent that the business model was as broken as the pedagogy?
See https://www.crossover.com/job-roles/software-architecture/south-africa/city/cape-town/c-a0q2j000001Dun7AAC/learnwithai-chief-product-and-technology-officer
I'm seeing more of these claims that are simply not valid (e.g., not having teahcers, when ... they do... though I would NOT want to be one of those teachers because I'd want to actually teach.. if there's one thing AI is horrific at it's teaching anything conceptual... and calling online following "community demand," and "serves students from underprivileged backgrounds" who somehow manage to fork over 15K / yr).
I'm also seeing admins and philanthropists make and then enthusiastically defend bad decisions -- making up for the false claims with their enthusiasm....
I live 1 hour away from the Brownsville campus, which is also 30 minutes away from SpaceX. I am wondering if they are trying to market their services to the employees of SpaceX as it continues to grow. 🤔
TRUTH