With the United Nations and the federal government both pushing to inject Artificial Intelligence into all facets of education, billionaire technocrat Bill Gates’ recent prediction about AI replacing teachers is coming to pass right on schedule. The implications for teachers, children, and education are hard to overstate.
A sleek downtown campus in Chicago has become the latest testing ground for a model that replaces traditional teachers with artificial intelligence for academics. Alpha Chicago, part of a rapidly expanding network of private schools, welcomed its first students last month. Tuition is $55,000 per year. The school markets itself as the city’s first AI-driven, essentially teacher-free operation for pre-K through eighth grade.
Two Hours of AI Instruction, No Traditional Teachers
Under the “2 Hour Learning” model developed by co-founder Mackenzie Price, students spend roughly two hours each day on adaptive software for reading, math, science, and other core subjects. School officials and marketing materials claim the students “crush academics” with just two hours per day using the AI-based program.
The software, drawing on platforms such as Khan Academy and Membean, personalizes pacing so children advance only after mastering material. The rest of the day involves workshops in public speaking, entrepreneurship, financial literacy, leadership, physical activity, and creative projects, school officials say.
Human “guides” — not actual teachers — monitor progress, motivate students, coach “life skills,” and supervise activities. Price has insisted the model does not eliminate teachers but simply “redefines” their role; guides need not be subject-matter experts.
As this writer has warned for years, teachers may be left in the classroom as glorified babysitters to keep the far-left union bosses happy. But going forward, the algorithms will handle most of the indoctrination.
At first, we’ll be most stunned by how it helps with reading — being a reading research assistant — and giving you feedback on writing,” Gates explained in his keynote talk at the 2023 ASU+GSV Summit. “This should be a leveler… Because having access to a tutor is too expensive for most students — especially having that tutor adapt and remember everything that you’ve done and look across your entire body of work.”
Alpha School, founded in Austin, Texas, in 2014, claims its students rank in the top 1 percent nationally on standardized measures. Independent researchers, however, have questioned those figures, pointing to the lack of serious outside verification and the fact that private schools typically attract a more well-off socioeconomic segment of the population.
Whatever the validity of its academic claims, Alpha’s expansion suggests growing parental interest in the model. “At Alpha Chicago, kids love school,” the outfit claims on its website, adding that “kids learn twice as fast” using the AI-driven model. “We’re not just preparing students for tests; we’re preparing them for limitless futures.”
Experts have already expressed criticism. Pointing to the hefty price tag, Northwestern University’s Liz Gerber with the Center for Human-Computer Interaction described the approach as expensive personalized learning that is simply not scalable for most families.
Philosophy professor Joe Vukov of Loyola University Chicago warned that the model changes “the nature of what learning and education, at its best, has always looked like.” Stanford education professor Victor Lee observed that teachers perform sophisticated work well beyond current language models and that evidence for wholesale replacement remains thin.
But the two-hour learning model creator Price, a Stanford psychology graduate, said the traditional classroom produces “boredom, inefficiency and lack of mastery.” Of course, that is true. But it does not follow that replacing teachers with AI is the solution. Still, numerous parents at other Alpha campuses have praised rapid progress.
The network has already expanded to multiple locations across America. With sources reporting more than 1,000 students nationwide so far, the initiative is backed in part by Texas billionaire Joe Liemandt. More than 40 percent of students at the Texas flagship reportedly receive financial aid.
Obviously, the Chicago price tag places the experiment firmly among wealthier families. Illinois officials have drawn boundaries on AI in public institutions, including a law barring AI from replacing instructors in community colleges. Private schools face fewer constraints, for now.
AI Now Targets Teachers Themselves
Even educators are being drawn deeper into the same technological orbit. In July 2026, Anthropic, in partnership with the Gates Foundation, launched Claude for Teachers, a free tool for U.S. educators that aligns with the highly controversial, Gates-backed Common Core academic standards in all 50 states.
Using the program, teachers can feed in assessment data, past lesson plans, and student information to generate individualized materials overnight. Education lead Drew Bent noted that high-quality practices such as differentiated instruction and formative assessment are difficult with 30 students; the tool aims to reduce “toil.”
Far-left American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten welcomed the supposed commitment to “privacy protections” and expressed hope that using more AI would free time for human relationships. Surveys show teacher use of AI jumping from 32 percent in 2024 to 61 percent in 2025.
Who Controls What Children Learn?
Critics continue to raise concerns—and those concerns are growing. They include cognitive offloading, privacy risks with student data, and the possibility that AI gradually assumes instructional design functions once reserved for human educators. The use of AI to effectively but quietly manipulate children’s “affective domain” — attitudes, values, beliefs, and worldview — represents perhaps the greatest concern.
AI systems are increasingly selecting educational materials, evaluating student responses, and determining which concepts require reinforcement. Obviously, this can influence much more than academic proficiency. Consider: What historical interpretations are presented as authoritative? How are moral controversies framed? Which political, philosophical, or religious viewpoints are characterized as acceptable? Can parents determine what values are embedded in the algorithms? Who controls the systems, and can families meaningfully opt out?
In any case, Big Tech totalitarians with views wildly at odds with mainstream America have been predicting these trends for years. In fact, as The Newman Report documented in May of 2023, billionaire technocrat and depopulation zealot Bill Gates has been predicting that AI would soon serve as a competent “tutor” and take over more and more duties traditionally associated with teachers.
Trump’s Executive Order Accelerates the Model
President Donald Trump’s April 23, 2025, Executive Order 14277, “Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth,” formalized the federal push for more AI in schools. The order declares it U.S. government policy to promote AI “literacy” by integrating AI into education, training educators, and exposing children early.
It created a White House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence Education to work with industry and develop K-12 resources. The order also called for expanding federal grants for AI tutoring and teacher training. First Lady Melania Trump championed the effort, too, describing AI as a “great equalizer” and unveiling humanoid robots while arguing that children must be prepared for a future that is “no longer science fiction.”
Technology analyst Joe Allen, a frequent voice on related programs, cautioned that the order risks teaching children to view AI as an authority rather than a tool. “Conditioning the next generation to view AI as an authority is a repulsive strategy,” he said. “It isn’t teaching them to ‘use tools.’ It is training them to be tools.”
The order also expands federal involvement in curriculum-adjacent areas through grant priorities and partnerships with the same technology firms long active in education “reform.” Even under an administration that has challenged other globalist priorities, the measure aligns with longstanding calls for systematic AI integration.
The 2019 Beijing Consensus and the Global Blueprint
Whether Trump knows it, that alignment may not be accidental. In May 2019, governments and stakeholders gathered in Beijing under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for the so-called “International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education.”
The resulting “Beijing Consensus on Artificial Intelligence and Education” — adopted with participation from more than 100 governments with strong pressure from the regime in Beijing — called for the systematic integration of AI into all facts of education. This includes policies, management, teaching, assessment, and lifelong learning systems.
The global AI agreement also urged governments to harness AI for “equitable, personalized learning anytime and anywhere,” to accelerate progress toward the UN’s highly controversial Agenda 2030 “Sustainable Development Goal” 4. That agreement, dubbed the “masterplan for humanity” by top UN officials, calls for indoctrinating children with “global citizenship” propaganda and other controversial ideologies.
Indeed, the UN agreement on AI in education even called on governments to develop “values” and skills suited to the AI era. UNESCO framed it as guidance for achieving the UN’s radical “Education 2030 Agenda.” Mass-murdering Communist Chinese dictator Xi Jinping praised it all and celebrated the final deal.
Of course, as The Newman Report has documented extensively, the UN’s AI in education framework explicitly seeks AI use in shaping attitudes, values, and worldviews consistent with UN priorities on gender, environment, governance, and related topics. AI, the UN hopes, will make its efforts to capture the hearts and minds of young people even more effective.
Technologies that track performance, behavior, and even “affective states” are leading to continuous monitoring far beyond traditional classrooms. Gates and other major funders have long partnered with UNESCO on technology-driven education standards; the Beijing document provided an international template that national and private initiatives continue to echo.
One Agenda, Multiple Vehicles
Alpha Chicago is a private experiment, not a public mandate. Yet it operationalizes the same premises advanced by the Beijing Consensus, Gates’s public statements, and the Trump order: AI as the primary vehicle for core instruction, human adults as facilitators or coaches, personalization through continuous data, and claims of superior efficiency and “equity.”
Public-private partnerships, federal grant incentives, teacher-facing AI tools such as Claude for Teachers, and high-tuition private campuses all move in the same direction. Independent evidence of long-term cognitive, social, and character outcomes remains limited, but even what is known already is deeply troubling to experts.
Amid unprecedented surveillance capabilities and clear algorithmic bias, these systems programmed by parties hostile to traditional American and Christian values are increasingly shaping young minds—and hence the future. And it is all happening with very little public discussion or scrutiny.
This writer has been predicting for almost a decade that teachers would be sidelined in favor of technology. As the social engineers push the limits of what even radical “progressive” teachers are willing to teach young children — transgenderism and genital mutilation, for instance — software, AI, and devices be used instead. It is basically glorified behavioral conditioning for children rather than animals.
The central question is no longer simply whether artificial intelligence can teach children more efficiently than human instructors. It is who controls the algorithms, whose values they transmit, and whether parents will retain authority over the intellectual and moral formation of their children. As AI assumes a growing role in education, those questions may prove far more important than standardized test scores.
Parents who value human relationships, moral formation, and independent thought face a narrowing set of options as these models scale. Yes, Classical and Christian alternatives that prioritize truth, virtue, and real education still exist outside the emerging new consensus. But the new AI school in Chicago is one more data point in a massive effort to place AI at the center of how the next generation is formed. Parents, beware.
