Artificial intelligence companies are flooding schools with free curricula and resources, promising that AI literacy is the new ticket to high-paying careers. It is a familiar pitch. Natasha Singer, education technology reporter for The New York Times, argues this strategy mirrors the tech industry’s influence campaign of the last 15 years. In her new book, Coding Kids, she details how giants like Apple and Microsoft embedded their proprietary tools into Advanced Placement Computer Science classes. They trained students on specific platforms, creating a pipeline of future customers while positioning themselves as essential educational partners.
The parallels are striking. Just as Google used low-cost Chromebooks and its Classroom app to dominate school infrastructure during the pandemic, AI firms are now leveraging their existing footholds to push generative AI tools. Singer points out the absurdity of this arrangement by comparing it to other industries. We would never accept Pfizer teaching AP Biology or ExxonMobil leading Environmental Science. Yet, when medical experts train students on proprietary devices, those students rarely switch brands later. This lock-in effect was the silent goal of the coding boom, and it is the likely objective of the current AI rush.
Backlash is already forming. Many recent graduates feel misled after being urged to code for years, only to find entry-level tech jobs vanishing. Research increasingly shows that dumping hardware into classrooms does not significantly boost learning outcomes. Some districts are even removing ubiquitous Chromebooks. Despite this, the AI industry pushes forward with little resistance. Singer warns of collective amnesia, asking if we have learned any lessons from previous tech cycles. She urges educators to implement safeguards now rather than waiting for another decade of regret.
Parents want more than technical proficiency. They seek an education that fosters informed citizenship and critical thinking. The alternative academic approaches Singer highlights focused on scrutinizing builders’ motivations and understanding the internet’s societal impact. If schools adopt AI tools without this critical lens, they risk repeating the same mistakes. The question is not whether AI belongs in education, but whether it will serve students or simply serve the vendors selling it.
