Yuyun Lusiyani
A quietly initiated endeavor to integrate an artificial intelligence educational tool into Texas public schools began approximately a year ago, spearheaded by the state’s top education official, Commissioner Mike Morath. This effort has unfolded largely out of public view, drawing scrutiny over transparency, accountability, and the proven efficacy of the technology. The initiative centers on a program developed by Alpha School, a private school chain whose prior attempts to establish publicly funded charter schools utilizing the same AI-driven model were largely rejected across multiple states, including Texas, due to significant concerns.
The timeline of Morath’s involvement reveals a persistent interest in Alpha School’s AI program, even after the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) explicitly rejected a proposal for an Alpha-affiliated charter school. In September 2025, Morath responded to an email from associates of Alpha School, expressing keen interest in discussing the integration of their AI program into Texas classrooms. "I’d love to schedule a follow-up discussion," Morath’s reply indicated, setting the stage for a series of engagements that would bypass traditional oversight channels.
The State Board’s Rejection and Lingering Concerns
Just three months prior to this email exchange, Morath had publicly supported Alpha leaders’ application to open a charter school in Texas that would heavily rely on their proprietary AI technology. However, the Texas State Board of Education, the ultimate arbiter of charter school decisions in the state, delivered a decisive 10-to-3 vote against the proposal. Board members cited a range of profound concerns, including the company’s heavy reliance on AI for core instruction, the potential for excessive student screen time, and unresolved questions regarding the dramatic student test improvement claims presented by Alpha leaders.
The SBOE’s decision reflected a cautious stance on integrating unproven, AI-centric models into the public education system. Board members expressed apprehension about the pedagogical implications of AI largely replacing human teachers for foundational subjects, reducing human educators to "guides" primarily focused on motivational and emotional support. The issue of screen time resonated particularly strongly, as concerns about its impact on child development and learning outcomes are increasingly prevalent among educators and parents nationwide. Furthermore, the SBOE questioned the statistical validity of Alpha’s presented student performance data, demanding more rigorous, independent validation of their claims of accelerated learning and top-tier test scores.
Circumventing Formal Channels: The TEA’s Active Promotion
Despite the SBOE’s clear rejection, Commissioner Morath and his staff at the Texas Education Agency (TEA) did not require the board’s formal approval to facilitate the introduction of Alpha’s AI model into existing public school districts. Over the past year, communications obtained by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune through public information requests expose a robust and coordinated effort by Morath and his agency to promote Alpha’s AI program. This involved a flurry of email exchanges with leaders of companies connected to Alpha, multiple visits by TEA officials to Alpha campuses, assistance in crafting a one-page explainer about the program for distribution to school districts, and direct connections made between Alpha representatives and district leaders.
One particularly striking revelation from the emails indicates that Morath personally offered to introduce an Alpha leader to the superintendent he appointed to oversee the state takeover of Houston Independent School District (HISD), the largest district in Texas. "I’d also like to set up another site visit to visit both your Austin secondary and primary with my team," Morath wrote. "The Superintendent of H.I.S.D. would also like to do a site visit, so I’ll connect y’all separately. And hopefully we can schedule them to happen on the same day." This direct intervention and facilitation by the state’s top education official, especially concerning a district under state conservatorship, raises significant questions about impartiality and undue influence.
Pilot Programs Take Root Amidst Scrutiny
The concerted efforts by state education officials and Alpha affiliates have borne fruit, with at least three Texas school districts – Houston ISD; Fort Davis, a small district in West Texas; and Aldine, near Houston – launching pilot programs incorporating the AI tool. The emails reveal that state officials and Alpha representatives approached at least 10 school districts about the program. Five other districts – Ector County, Fort Bend, Irving, Pecos, and Pflugerville – confirmed they were approached but opted not to pursue an agreement, with Ector County citing an incompatibility with their current school day structure.
The full scope of Morath and the TEA’s involvement, as well as the total number of public school districts currently utilizing the Alpha AI program, remains partially obscured. The TEA has been largely unresponsive to inquiries about its efforts for several months, initially failing to provide some of Morath’s emails in response to public information requests and actively resisting the release of additional communications.
In a written statement, the TEA maintained that "there is no formal partnership between TEA and Alpha Schools." The agency further stated that it "is always interested in promising ways to improve student outcomes in math and reading," asserting that its officials merely connected interested district leaders with Alpha’s program, leaving the ultimate decision to the districts themselves. However, the extensive documentation of visits, facilitated introductions, and the creation of promotional materials by TEA staff paint a picture of active endorsement and promotion, rather than mere neutrality.
District leaders in Aldine and Fort Davis, while acknowledging that state agency recommendations are not uncommon, expressed enthusiasm for their respective pilot programs. They clarified that their current implementation of the Alpha AI software is for supplemental learning for academically struggling students, rather than a full adoption of Alpha School’s comprehensive model, which entails AI teaching basic subjects for two hours daily, with human teachers serving as "guides." Michelle Hartmann, deputy superintendent at Fort Davis, remarked, "We’re excited because we see it as an opportunity to provide an extra layer of intervention," and later reported positive initial engagement from students. Aldine is deploying the platform for approximately 300 middle school students requiring math support. Houston ISD, meanwhile, plans to use the technology for high-achieving students "to evaluate whether this instructional approach can accelerate academic growth," and stated it was not paying Alpha for the pilot, though it is fighting to withhold contract details from public records requests.
A Track Record of Underperformance and Expert Disquiet
The TEA’s enthusiastic promotion of Alpha’s AI platform comes despite a recent track record of underperformance and rejections that raise significant concerns among education experts and State Board of Education members. ProPublica and The Texas Tribune previously reported that Texas was one of at least nine states that rejected Alpha leaders’ applications to open publicly funded charter schools based on their AI model.
Furthermore, the newsrooms uncovered that students at the one approved Alpha charter school in Arizona, as well as at an existing school in Texas where the AI program was used last year, performed significantly worse on state-mandated exams than Alpha leaders had predicted. Crucially, Morath’s agency was aware of these disappointing results, particularly at Texas Preparatory School in Austin. Last year, state test scores compiled by the TEA revealed that only 21% of students passed, leading the agency to assign the charter its third consecutive F rating, primarily based on these poor academic outcomes.
David DeMatthews, an education professor at the University of Texas at Austin, voiced strong criticism, describing the TEA’s actions as "disheartening" and "painful." He questioned the agency’s decision to promote a product that has not publicly demonstrated success in public or charter schools, particularly those serving students with learning barriers or academic struggles. "That raises questions about whether TEA is serving its public interest and is being transparent and accountable to us," DeMatthews stated. "It’d be one thing if they were approved as a charter and they did have a track record and they could show evidence. We don’t have any of those sorts of things."
Broader Context: Growing Skepticism Towards AI and Screen Time
The push for Alpha’s AI platform in Texas schools occurs within a national climate of increasing skepticism and caution regarding AI integration and screen time in education. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani recently implemented a ban on generative AI for elementary and middle school students in the nation’s largest school district, citing developmental concerns. Similarly, leaders in Los Angeles have imposed comparable restrictions. In Texas itself, Governor Greg Abbott, in August, proposed further limiting screen time in public schools, reflecting a statewide concern.
This context adds another layer of complexity to Morath’s actions. Governor Abbott, who has received over $1.5 million in political donations from Alpha co-founder MacKenzie Price, has remained largely non-committal on directly supporting the AI platform in Texas schools. His press secretary, Andrew Mahaleris, issued a general statement emphasizing the importance of "a great teacher in the classroom" and that "any tool a district deploys must keep teachers at the center of the classroom, limit unnecessary screen time, and prove results for students." This statement, while seemingly aligned with broader concerns, sidesteps directly addressing the specific controversy surrounding Alpha School and Morath’s involvement.
Meanwhile, Governor Abbott’s Democratic opponent in the November gubernatorial race, Gina Hinojosa, has explicitly opposed the use of Alpha’s AI program in Houston ISD and has made a campaign promise to fire Morath if elected, politicizing the issue further.
Alpha School’s Stance and Unanswered Questions
Alpha leaders, including co-founder MacKenzie Price, declined interview requests and did not provide detailed answers for this story. However, Price has frequently utilized social media to articulate her vision of bringing the AI model into public schools to enhance accessibility for all families. In past interviews and in responses to the Texas Education Board’s concerns regarding their proposed charter, Alpha representatives defended their model. They contended that the role of human teachers, whom they refer to as "guides," remains significant despite AI delivering core lessons. They also asserted that screen time in their schools would adhere to national recommendations and referenced a self-published paper claiming Alpha students learn twice as fast as their peers, achieving test scores among the nation’s highest. These claims, however, have not been independently validated to the satisfaction of the SBOE or many education experts.
State Board Members Voice Renewed Alarm
The TEA’s continued promotion of Alpha’s technology has reignited concerns among State Board of Education members. Pam Little, a Republican and vice chair of the SBOE, expressed her hope that Governor Abbott’s screen time proposal would lead to the complete removal of screens from classrooms, specifically including pilot programs like Alpha’s AI platform. "I don’t want anything AI in our schools, especially at the lower grades," said Little, who voted against Alpha’s charter application last year.
Gustavo Reveles, a Democratic Education Board member who also voted against the Alpha charter application, articulated worries that the TEA is actively disregarding the SBOE’s apprehensions by facilitating the integration of Alpha’s AI tool into public schools. "It certainly raises a red flag that perhaps there’s ways to circumvent that concern," Reveles noted, highlighting a potential undermining of the SBOE’s authority and judgment.
Deepening Connections and Strategic Moves
Further details from the obtained communications illuminate the extent of the TEA’s engagement. Following the September 2025 meeting, Morath exchanged emails with MacKenzie Price and her husband, Andy Price, who business filings indicate holds various roles, including Chief Financial Officer, at companies related to Alpha.
Morath also connected with an employee from Studient, a company that utilizes Alpha’s AI technology, now frequently marketed as "TimeBack." Studient, which focuses on academic intervention for struggling students, is part of a broader network of corporate entities linked to Alpha, as indicated by its privacy policy and Texas Secretary of State business filings. In his correspondence, Morath expressed interest in learning more about Studient’s intervention work and discussing "1882 partnerships" – formal arrangements where public schools contract with external entities like charters or non-profits to manage campuses, often as a strategy to avert state takeovers for consistently failing schools. As of August, however, the TEA stated it could find no documentation of Alpha or its related companies applying for or operating an 1882 partnership, suggesting a more informal, direct engagement strategy was pursued instead.
The following month, Morath’s staff organized another visit to Alpha’s campuses for the commissioner and six other TEA leaders. This visit was intentionally coordinated to coincide with Houston Superintendent Mike Miles’ visit. The connection between Morath and Miles is significant: Morath appointed Miles to lead HISD in 2023, and the two had previously collaborated at Dallas ISD when Morath was a school board member and Miles served as superintendent. This long-standing professional relationship further underscores the potential for Morath to exert influence on Miles’ decisions regarding educational tools in HISD.
After these high-level visits, emails indicate a shift towards informal pilot programs. Andrew Hodge, Associate Commissioner of System Innovation at the TEA, followed up in November to explore how the state could test Alpha’s AI model. Hodge directly emailed Joe Liemandt, the tech billionaire behind Trilogy, who reportedly pioneered and invested $1 billion into Alpha’s AI-learning technology. "It was great meeting you and learning about Alpha last Monday," Hodge wrote on November 5. "I’d like to schedule a follow up discussion with you/your team to talk through possibilities for piloting a few supplemental (you called this Tier 3 in your outline) instances in the state. What’s the best way to get 30-45 minutes to discuss?"
Hodge later assigned Michael Strange, who oversees the TEA’s blended learning programs, to tour Alpha’s private school in Fort Worth. "I’d like for him to be able to visit your school as we continue to improve our supports for TX districts and better understand the landscape of tech-enabled models in K-12," Hodge communicated. By April, Strange was in regular contact with Andy Price and a Studient employee, actively assisting in the launch of pilot programs in public schools. This included Strange drafting a one-page explainer of the pilot program for distribution to districts, effectively serving as a marketing agent for Alpha’s technology within the TEA.
The unresponsiveness of Andy Price, MacKenzie Price, Studient, Hodge, Liemandt, and Strange to newsroom requests for comment further compounds the lack of transparency surrounding these initiatives.
Implications for Texas Education and Public Trust
The actions of Commissioner Morath and the Texas Education Agency raise profound questions about governance, accountability, and the future direction of public education in Texas. The apparent circumvention of the State Board of Education’s prior rejection of Alpha School’s model suggests a potential disregard for democratic oversight and public sentiment regarding educational innovation. When the top education official actively promotes and facilitates the adoption of a technology with a questionable track record and without rigorous, independent validation, it risks undermining public trust in state education authorities.
The emphasis on AI as a solution for academic improvement, particularly in struggling districts like Houston ISD which is under state control, could be seen as a desperate measure or a bold step towards innovation. However, without transparent data, independent research, and broad consensus, it risks becoming an expensive experiment with potentially negative consequences for students. The significant political donations from Alpha’s co-founder to the Governor also introduce an element of potential conflict of interest, adding to the public’s skepticism.
As Texas navigates the complexities of modern education and the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, the need for transparent processes, robust vetting of new technologies, and clear accountability mechanisms becomes paramount. The current situation with Alpha School and the TEA highlights a critical tension between rapid technological adoption and the foundational principles of sound educational policy and democratic governance. The extent to which these AI pilot programs prove effective, and whether the TEA will ultimately be held accountable for its proactive role, remains to be seen.
Jia Lissa
Joko Widodo
Eva Lovia
Pevita Pearce