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!
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.
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. 🤔
Think of all those boring old public schools that the media has no interest in, except as a "problem" to be "solved." A million non-grifter people show up for work each day and do their best, and sometimes even succeed at helping kids along to path to learning. Like I said, BO-RING!
My rough guess is about 99% of people in this world aren't grifters, but it's the grifters who get all the attention.
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!
Father Guido Sarducci should be on the board. If nothing else, it would make those charter school meetings more interesting and entertaining.
Amen!
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.
Very interesting.
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.
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
Is everything a grift.....
Think of all those boring old public schools that the media has no interest in, except as a "problem" to be "solved." A million non-grifter people show up for work each day and do their best, and sometimes even succeed at helping kids along to path to learning. Like I said, BO-RING!
My rough guess is about 99% of people in this world aren't grifters, but it's the grifters who get all the attention.