eba7keb

Hi! I'm Elizabeth (one of the co-founders of Ello). This is an interesting question. I actually think there is more overlap than people might assume, but it's a bit more because adaptability to various approaches to learning is part of the point. While I'm not deeply familiar with the Sudbury School model, I think there are various approaches to teaching kids that are successful because different approaches serve different types of kids and learners. I can see why this approach would be successful for a certain profile of student for whom it's the right fit.

We start from the belief that children are naturally curious. Our job is to build something engaging enough that a child wants to interact with it because it is interesting and rewarding. If a child in a Sudbury environment never chose to use it, I would see that as useful feedback for us, not a problem with the child. There are opportunities for kids to explore and incorporate their interests within our app.

I also think it is completely fine if a child uses it for a while, disappears for months, and comes back. Learning is rarely linear, and technology should be able to pick up wherever the child is.

On reading, we’re firmly grounded in the science of reading, so we teach through explicit phonics rather than whole-word memorization because that is best practice.

On math, we’re much more interested in helping children build intuition and conceptual understanding than simply getting answers. AI gives us the flexibility to use conversation, visual models, stories, or symbolic math, depending on what helps a particular child understand.

One thing AI is uniquely good at is meeting learners where they are. A 10 year old who is learning to read should not have to work through material that feels like it was made for preschoolers. The underlying concepts can stay the same while the language, topics, and presentation become age appropriate.

I don’t think there is one educational model that works for every child. What excites me is that AI makes it much more feasible to adapt to individual learners instead of expecting every learner to adapt to the same experience.

I’m curious why it has to be an either or? Spending 30 minutes with a tutor doesn’t deprive children of interaction with humans. If we can support a child’s learning (perhaps even more efficiently) doesn’t it give them more time to do that?

Totally hear the concern. We have a few thoughts about this: 1). It's an AND not an OR for us. Ello doesn't replace parents at all. In fact, many parents use Ello WITH their kids and report that Ello has opened the doors to the kid reading more with them. 2). Not all parents have the skills to teach their child to read (or the literacy skills), there are also non-native English speakers who use our product and are grateful to have that support. 3). According to data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a nationally representative assessment of student achievement in the United States, about 37% of fourth graders in the United States scored below the "proficient" level in reading in 2021. The scores are disproportionately lower for children of color and those with less resources. I would love for every child to have access to a 1:1 tutor (which runs about $100/hr), individualized education options and high quality education. But right now, we aren't supporting our kids.

It's also worth noting we aren't a full solution or a curriculum. So teaching in other ways still needs to take place. For many parents, it beats Disney plus and YouTube kids :)

Thanks! And thanks again for the feedback.

Great feedback! We will think about this and perhaps do some testing around this language with our audience.

Right now we work closely with parents (checking in with them each month before the books ship out) to help guide them in making the decision around book choice. We also have a form parents can send to the teachers. In the future, we will have a tighter feedback loop to support this decision making that comes directly from the way the child interacts with the app (if we have the permission to analyze that data from the parent).

Thanks for your comment! As of right now, We aren't a tool that diagnoses or assesses in a formal way (though we may move in that direction in the future). Research shows that the number of children who read for pleasure is the lowest it has been in decades. Additionally, many children don't read at home at all, and resist parent (and school) bids to have them read at home independently. Ello's focus is more on making reading for fun a more supported experience where the kids have an opportunity to learn in the moment (using evidence-based strategies). We support comprehension through commentary Ello makes (summarizing and commenting as the child reads) rather than testing or assessing the child's comprehension skills. This was a purposeful choice. Hyperlexia isn't something that can be "created" through reading independently (Elizabeth here, child clinical psychologist and co-founder of Ello). It is a (relatively rare) disorder where very young children decode far above grade level. In most cases, this is flagged in schools, and would be flagged for us if a parent reported a very high reading ability for their child's age (which is usually the opposite profile of our customer). However, you are correct that hyperlexia is a learning difference where there is decoding without meaning. Generally, we send books for children that are at or below grade level in reading for practice with reading fluency. We aren't a full service curriculum (and have designed our program to focus on enjoyment and time in text).

Thanks for the comment! We find that if a parent actually uses the product, and it changes their child's relationship with reading, Ello is quite sticky. Our biggest issues with churn are related to cost of the product and activation (people cancelling without ever using it). In terms of advice: 1) talk to parents about their pain points and iterate again and again, 2) be aware that a product that increases "work" rather than easing it, that causes a lot of resistance and friction.

We took a look at read along - it seems to have fallen off. I think the biggest issue with read along was the approach to supporting kids (it just gave the words rather than coaching the child through decoding them) and the quality of the "books" (the stories weren't that engaging and the illustrations were simple). The quality of the story matters a lot.

We looked at soapbox but for a number of reasons, we want to build our own speech recognition technology and have the team to do it! There are some issues with the time is takes for soapbox to run as well as the accuracy of the model. Thanks again!

Thanks for your input!

There are actually really clear guidelines on what is reportable and what is not. CPS generally can't and won't do anything beyond take a call if the content of the call doesn't suggest a valid safety concern and meet the guidelines. Any parent talking to any service provider (or educator or doctor) will be talking to someone who follows these same guidelines.

Thanks for being honest, and I am sorry you feel that way. You are welcome to learn more about our privacy policy. I have helped countless families through my career, and have an incredibly deep respect for parents who seek support. I also believe that for our service to work, we have to have trust and operate ethically. I would not risk my professional ethics (or my license) for the sake of my business. Our vision is truly to make support more accessible and affordable for families. There is a need, and it's really sad when parents can't get the support they need or want, and don't always have easy access to reliable information.

To clarify, a mandated reporter is a person who has to disclose child abuse if a child is in danger. I think this is an important protection for children. These are the same standards any psychologist, therapist, school, pediatrician etc. are held to. All those service providers are mandated reporters.

Thanks - lots of parents say it saves them a ton of time. We have had parents say 'I don't have time to read 5 contradicting books on sleep and potty training, all saying their approach is the best one.' We can help parents sort through the noise, look at their options, and figure out which approach makes the most sense for them.

Having children is absolutely a valuable experience! We definitely have coaches who have several children. I think this can cut both ways, though. I was a child psychologist before I had my own children. I don't think it dramatically changed the way I support parents. Mostly because I wasn't working from the framework of my personal experience. What I do with my own children is irrelevant when helping a parent (this is the difference between advice and evidence-based information) - and in fact, there is nothing worse than a therapist saying 'well, with MY kids at every turn (it can be helpful, but you have to be careful)....' Having a child gives you lots of experience, but it doesn't make you an expert in child development (it does help when working with parents, and a LOT of parents appreciate when our coaches have several kids of their own). Also, there are often many ways to get to a goal, and it varies by the child, parent and family. Professionals can often speak to a range of choices (think: sleep) rather than just their own personal experience.

I should also say that we have parents on our service who have 5 children, and tell us each is different, and they still appreciate the support and wisdom.