| A couple of thoughts based on my own experience, as both of my girls attended Alpha for 4 and 5 years. First, not all the students come from wealthy backgrounds, which is a common assumption. Second, while the school emphasizes 2-3 hours of intensive computer and AI-driven learning, there are other critical aspects to the model. For instance, their approach is based on 100% mastery—students only move forward once they’ve fully grasped a concept. I don’t love the term but it’s called “hole filling”. This prevents the typical gaps you might see with partial mastery, where scoring 75% or 85% on a core concept can lead to challenges down the road. It’s hard to argue with, when are you supposed to make up that 15%? When every next lesson plan builds on it based on you having understood it… I get it but, I think it’s a disservice in the long term. Not all kids are the brightest or best. I will say all kids become the local best of themselves. There’s an affordance for struggle and the time to wallow in it and dig yourself out of it. There is little tolerance for apathy or lack of effort. Since everything is done till failure. My 3rd grader doing 6th grade math actually has no idea she’s good at math. She struggles the same as the kid 1 level behind. Everyone is constantly at the point of growth. My kids also consistently placed in the 99th percentile on MAP testing, often working two or more grade levels ahead. However, what stood out was that Alpha doesn’t foster a sense of comparison between students. The focus is on individual growth—competing with yourself to not only succeed but also recover from failure. The kids honestly have no idea what each of them are learning and at what levels. It’s not a secret, it’s just not talked about. It’s a personal journey between you and your guides (what they call teachers, but aren’t teachers) Now that my kids have transitioned to more traditional schools—one in a top-ranked magnet (#2 high school in Texas) and the other in a prep school—I can see the lasting impact of Alpha. They have zero fear of test-taking, as they’re accustomed to frequent assessments, including weekly STAR tests. Public speaking is second nature to them, thanks to regular presentations and speeches they began preparing as early as Level 1 (think 6 year olds). My 9-year-old, at the time 7, once gave a memorized 5 minute speech on global warming to a crowd of 80 adults… it’s just awesome. Key takeaways as I’ve reflect the last couple months since we transitioned: - No agenda-driven education: Alpha focuses on “how to learn,” not dictating “what to learn.” No politics, no gender or race or religious distractions. Kids just being kids. Guides just trying to unlock them to push them further.
- Tech proficiency: Both kids are exceptionally comfortable with tech tools like AI using them to enhance their abilities rather than as cheap shortcuts. For instance, my 9-year-old types at 50 wpm with 95% accuracy, while my 14-year-old is in the 80s. Both girls programmed self driving cars with python and my youngest has deployed to vercel an ai vibe coded project using cursor. It’s not computer lab once a week. It’s computer lab woven in to the culture and everything you do.
- Frequent tests: They are unfazed by tests and accustomed to regular evaluations. Weekly STAR tests and Map test 2/3 times a year. Easily for 90+ percent of the kids there is no test anxiety.
- everything is measured. They even know if your kids is staring out the window all day instead of getting their work done. No in a creepy way but a hey.. what’s going on, why are you stuck, how do we get you engaged. (It’s why they have guides)
- Public speaking: They’ve developed strong public speaking skills, starting at an early age. Every “session” ends with kids presenting to ALL parents what they learned and why. Think of it as a demo day. Called “test to pass”. Not to be cliche it’s pride in accomplishment and responsibility in failure… in a very public way.
- Self-driven learning: Alpha helps to instilled in them the mindset to be creators of their own futures and not passive consumers of other people ideas. While there were certainly trade-offs, the core values of self-driven learning, technological proficiency, and adaptability far outweigh any downsides. I would not trade our time there for anything. Ask me anything. Happy to share! |
It also seems like the lessons are centrally planned, there doesn't seem to be any flexibility or adaption to students abilities which seems being antiquated unless you are only recruiting high achieving students or quietly kicking out low achievers.
I noticed that most if not all of the achievements you listed seem very STEMy or businessy. Is there any focus on the arts? Any support for artistic skills (ie. dancing, drama, vocal, instrumental, writing), social sciences or biological sciences? Do they learn work and communicate in a team and work through team challenges?
If the schools are so good why do you think they haven't allowed or sought any independent verification of the academic performance of the students at the school? It sounds like the scientific thing to do for a presumably sciencey oriented school.