Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath’s Office Pushed an AI Tool That Could Read Students’ Faces — Here’s How

The Texas Education Agency worked quietly to put an AI teaching program into public school classrooms, despite the State Board of Education rejecting the same technology for charter schools. Emails obtained by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune show Morath and his staff exchanged messages with leaders of companies tied to Alpha School, visited their campuses, and linked district leaders to the program.

Morath responded to an email from associates of Alpha School in September 2025, writing, “I’d love to schedule a follow-up discussion.” Three months earlier, Morath had supported Alpha leaders’ bid to open a charter school in Texas using the same AI technology. The board voted the application down 10 to 3, citing concerns about AI teaching, students’ screen time, and doubts about the drastic test improvements Alpha leaders claimed.

What the Emails Show

During the past twelve months, Morath and his team communicated by email with businesses tied to Alpha, toured their grounds, assisted in drafting a one-page explanation of the initiative, and put district officials in touch with Alpha associates. He also volunteered to personally present an Alpha representative to the superintendent he placed at the helm of the yearslong state takeover of Houston Independent School District, the largest in the state.

Morath’s email contained this passage: “I’d also like to set up another site visit to visit both your Austin secondary and primary with my team… The Superintendent of H.I.S.D. would also like to do a site visit, so l’ll connect y’all separately. And hopefully we can schedule them to happen on the same day.”

At least 10 school districts were approached by state education officials and Alpha affiliates regarding the AI program. Three districts — Houston, Fort Davis in West Texas, and Aldine near Houston — started pilot programs that included the AI tool.

The TEA sent a written statement saying “there is no formal partnership between TEA and Alpha Schools,” but added it “is always interested in promising ways to improve student outcomes in math and reading.” The statement said TEA officials connected district leaders who were interested in Alpha’s program but left the decision up to them.

How the Pilots Differ From Charter Plans

Leaders from Aldine and Fort Davis told the newsrooms that it is not uncommon for the state agency to suggest possible partnerships, and they expressed excitement about the pilot. Of the three districts running pilot programs, all confirmed they plan to use the AI software as a supplement to regular instruction instead of adopting the Alpha School model, which teaches all subjects in two hours a day while human teachers concentrate on motivation and emotional support.

It makes a difference what role AI plays in the classroom. The charter proposals the State Board of Education turned down would have used the AI tool for every subject, leaving human teachers with only an emotional-support function. The pilot programs instead keep human teachers as the lead instructors, with the AI tool serving as a supplement.

What the Test Results Reveal

Texas was among at least nine states that turned down Alpha leaders’ applications to open publicly funded charter schools, according to an Instagram post from the company’s co-founder, according to ProPublica and the Tribune. In Arizona, where Alpha secured one charter approval, students did far worse on state-mandated tests than the leaders had forecast. At a school in Texas that used the AI program last year, the results likewise failed to meet expectations.

His agency was aware of results from at least one of those charters, Texas Preparatory School in Austin. Last year, state test scores put together by his agency showed just 21% of students passed. That same year, the TEA handed the charter its third straight F rating, largely because of those scores.

David DeMatthews, an education professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said it was “disheartening” and “painful” to learn that the TEA was promoting the product when the company has not yet publicly shown its success in public or charter schools. DeMatthews said, “That raises questions about whether TEA is serving its public interest and is being transparent and accountable to us.”

“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,” DeMatthews added.

A Broader Turn Against AI

As government officials nationwide, including those in Texas, grow more doubtful about AI use in schools, the platform is moving into traditional public schools. In the nation’s largest school district, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has banned generative AI for elementary and middle school students.

The Key Facts

• Morath responded to Alpha School associates in September 2025: “I’d love to schedule a follow-up discussion.”
• The State Board of Education voted down the charter application 10 to 3.
• Test scores at Texas Preparatory School showed just 21% of students passed last year; the TEA gave the charter its third consecutive F rating.
• Three districts — Houston, Fort Davis, and Aldine — launched pilot programs.
• Texas was among at least nine states rejecting Alpha’s charter applications, according to the company’s co-founder.

There is an open question about openness tied to the TEA’s conduct. The agency pushed a product whose charter applications were denied by the very board that governs Texas education, and whose test scores in at least one charter have lagged badly. The claim that there is no formal partnership stands true on its face, yet the emails reveal another account entirely: Morath’s staff devoted months to putting the technology into classrooms anyway.

Here we have state officials moving ahead of the very board that oversees them. Morath’s office acted on its own initiative while the board remained in deliberation. This particular ordering of actions calls for examination.

Where the paper stands

The paper backs transparency and disclosure rules for safety failures, and is against any system that freezes today’s leaders in place and locks out challengers. The Texas Education Agency’s push for an AI teaching program in public schools after the State Board of Education rejected the same technology for charter schools fits neither side of that ledger. It is a case of state officials moving ahead of the very board that governs Texas education, acting on their own initiative while the board remained in deliberation — and doing so with test scores from at least one charter showing just 21% of students passed.

The emails show Morath and his staff exchanging messages with Alpha School associates, visiting their campuses, and connecting district leaders to the program. The TEA’s written statement that “there is no formal partnership” is technically correct, but the record of action tells another story entirely. The paper’s concern is not with the technology itself, but with the concentration of power: when one office works alone to bring a product into classrooms, it cuts off the board’s oversight and leaves district officials without a full picture of what they are adopting.

The reader should watch for any pattern of state offices acting outside the board’s process, especially when the product has been rejected elsewhere. The pilot programs in Houston, Fort Davis, and Aldine keep human teachers as the lead instructors, unlike the charter bids that would have left them with only an emotional-support function — but the test results from Texas Preparatory School raise questions about whether the TEA is serving its public interest and being transparent and accountable. The paper wants answers on those questions, not assurances that sound good on paper.

Source material: “How Mike Morath’s agency helped get an AI tool in Texas public school classrooms,” Houston Public Media.

AI education · Alpha School · charter schools · Mike Morath · Texas schools