Joe Liemandt

So our standard is in two hours a day, you'll learn twice as much as sitting in class for six.

For that, if you look on growth rate, our growth relative to any other school in the country is off the charts.

There's a sub stack actually that just came out that literally just takes our maps results and feeds it to AI and says, compare this to the best schools in the country.

And they're like, there is no school in the country who can deliver these kinds of results because you can take in kids who are behind.

And if they're learning twice as fast, they're going to catch up.

So you can take a kid at 50th percentile and get them to top 10%.

Or you can take a kid at 99th percentile, which is usually capped out, and all of a sudden put them years ahead.

And so it works on either side because you're just focusing on the growth, which is how do you teach the kids more in less time?

And you also can just sit there.

If you talk to the experts in learning science, they're like, well, theoretically, this has all been predicted for 40 years, but no one's been able to implement it.

oh, okay, I guess we're implementing it and it's working.

My favorite analogy is the sciences, biology, chemistry, and physics, let's take those.

They had their days of wandering in the wilderness, lost in the wilderness where doctors were still bloodletting and chemists were blowing themselves up.

And there was an invention of an instrument, the microscope for biology and

the telescope for physics and the analytical balance for chemistry that allowed more precise measurement.

And that precise measurement is what allowed those sciences to really take off.

And so learning science has sort of been that way.

It's in this wilderness period for 40 years where we still have teachers in front of the classroom in just a bad model.

Teachers are great.

Teacher in front of the classroom is the problem.