In September 2025 the Texas Education Commissioner, Mike Morath answered a request from Alpha School, a private chain that markets an artificial intelligence-driven learning platform. The brief reply, “I’d love to schedule a follow-up discussion,” opened a chain of contacts that would see the state agency nudging public districts toward the tool, even though the same technology had been rejected for a charter-school application earlier that year.
From charter-school rebuff to public-school outreach
Three months before the September email, Morath had backed Alpha’s bid to launch a charter school that would run its AI curriculum full-time. The Texas State Board of Education, which has the final authority on charter approvals, voted the proposal down 10 to 3. Board members flagged concerns about the amount of screen time required, the opacity of the company’s claimed test-score gains, and the lack of independent evidence. Despite that setback, the commissioner and staff at the Texas Education Agency (TEA) did not need board approval to explore the program’s use in traditional public schools.
Coordinated contacts and pilot rollouts
Over the ensuing year, Morell’s office exchanged dozens of emails with Alpha’s founders, MacKenzie Price and her husband Andy Price and with affiliated firms such as Studient (now branded TimeBack). TEA staff drafted a one-page explainer, arranged campus tours, and even offered to personally introduce Alpha leaders to the superintendent Morath appointed to lead the long-running state takeover of Houston Independent School District (HISD). In his messages Morath wrote, “I’d also like to set up another site visit to visit both your Austin secondary and primary with my team,” adding that the HISD superintendent would join on the same day.
These efforts resulted in at least three districts—Houston, Fort Davis in West Texas, and Aldine near Houston—agreeing to launch supplemental pilots. The pilots use the AI tool for students who need extra help in reading or math, rather than replacing teachers or instituting the full two-hours-a-day model Alpha promotes. Fort Davis will deploy the platform in K-8 classrooms for targeted interventions, while Aldine plans to serve roughly 300 middle-school students in math. Houston plans to test the system with high-performing students to gauge acceleration potential.
Criticism, political ties, and unanswered questions
Board members who voted against the charter, as well as education scholars such as David DeMatthews of the University of Texas at Austin, have voiced alarm. DeMatthews called it “disheartening” that the TEA promotes a product lacking proven results in publicly funded settings. Data from the only Texas charter that adopted the tool, Texas Preparatory School in Austin, showed a mere 21% pass rate on state exams, earning the school its third consecutive ‘F’ rating.
At the same time, Governor Greg Abbott—who has received more than $1.5 million in donations from Alpha co-founder MacKenzie Price—has proposed tighter limits on screen time in schools. His press secretary emphasized that “any tool a district deploys must keep teachers at the center of the classroom, limit unnecessary screen time, and prove results for students.” State Board members Pam Little and Gustavo Reveles, both of whom voted against the charter, warned that the TEA’s behind-the-scenes coordination could sidestep the board’s expressed concerns.
In September 2025, Morath also joined U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and Alpha’s MacKenzie Price for a roundtable at an Alpha campus in Austin, underscoring the administration’s public enthusiasm for the technology. Yet, when pressed for documentation on formal “1882 partnership” agreements—state-approved contracts that allow public schools to partner with charter operators—the TEA could find none. The agency’s public-information responses have been delayed, and it maintains that “there is no formal partnership between TEA and Alpha Schools,” while still helping districts connect with the company.
Other districts—Ector County, Fort Bend, Irving, Pecos, and Pflugerville—were approached but declined, citing structural mismatches or reluctance to adopt an unproven model. Meanwhile, nationwide, major districts such as New York City and Los Angeles have moved to restrict generative AI for younger learners, highlighting the growing tension between innovative tech and educational safeguards.
