Skip to content
Tech News
← Back to articles

Schools are catching on to Big Tech’s playbook

read original get Coding Kids by Natasha Singer → more articles
Why This Matters

A new book by NYT reporter Natasha Singer argues that AI companies' current push into schools mirrors the tech industry's 'learn to code' campaign of the past 15 years, which promised high-paying jobs while cultivating future customers for vendors' tools. The parallel matters because it suggests schools may again outsource curriculum design to firms with commercial interests, this time around AI. The key question is whether districts install safeguards now rather than a decade later.

Key Takeaways
Worth a Look

Coding Kids by Natasha Singer — This is the book at the heart of the story—Natasha Singer's reporting on how tech companies embedded themselves in classrooms over the past 15 years. If the article's warning about "collective amnesia" around AI in schools hooked you, this is the full argument with the receipts.

See Coding Kids by Natasha Singer on Amazon → Affiliate link — we may earn a commission on purchases, at no extra cost to you. Product picked by AI based on this article; it is not a tested recommendation.

It’s the hot new thing in tech, and it’s where all the jobs are. Students who don’t learn to use it fall behind. And to help them catch up in time, its creators are graciously providing the resources and curriculum for learning it, often pro bono.

That’s the narrative AI companies are pitching schools on right now, but according to New York Times education technology reporter Natasha Singer, it’s also how the tech industry has built its influence in classrooms for the past 15 years.

In a new book, Coding Kids, Singer details how tech companies took a central role in promoting computers and coding skills in education, promising computer science skills were the ticket to high-paying jobs. But by the time many of those students entered the workforce, new technologies had thrown that promise into question. Meanwhile, the companies got schools to help them create a new class of would-be workers, and trained students on using their products and software, making them likely future customers.

“I worry we have collective amnesia”

Now, the AI industry is pitching itself to schools with similar force. “I worry we have collective amnesia,” Singer told me on a recent episode of The Vergecast. “Have we learned any lessons from these past tech cycles in schools that are going to inform the rollout of AI, make sure that it benefits education, and put in the safeguards now — not a decade from now?” Fortunately, in some ways, she believes the answer is yes.

Singer’s book recounts how more than a decade ago, the country’s largest tech companies embedded themselves directly into school curricula through courses for Advanced Placement Computer Science Principles classes. Apple and Microsoft each created their own curricula, featuring their own tools like Apple’s Swift or Microsoft’s Minecraft. “What’s striking about this is you can imagine that parents would not want, say, Pfizer AP Biology, or Northrop Grumman AP Physics, or ExxonMobil Environmental Science AP,” Singer says. She found that those in the medical field would likely understand why — medical students who are trained by a company on how to implant their proprietary device, one expert told her as an example, rarely choose to try another.

Google has also made itself a dominant force in education through its distribution of low-cost laptops called Chromebooks. Singer tracked their ubiquitous adoption across schools through the 2010s, which she says was accelerated even further during the school shutdowns of the covid-19 pandemic. Google also introduced its Classroom app to help teachers communicate things like assignments and grades. By the time generative AI took off, Singer writes, Google was already a key platform provider for many schools, and well-positioned to promote it.

Even when companies weren’t directly involved in education, they backed nonprofit groups like Code.org. Code.org kicked off its viral education campaign with a splashy celebrity-laden video that included tech moguls like Microsoft founder Bill Gates and then-Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, urging kids to learn to code. Code.org founder Hadi Partovi took a startup-style approach to promoting computer science education, and had little planned for how to capitalize on the attention of the video once it took off, Singer writes. He ultimately funneled that attention into a similarly splashy “Hour of Code” campaign across the country, urging schools to engage in entertaining hour-long courses introducing kids to coding building blocks.

At the time, there wasn’t much pushback, Singer found — though there were some attempts at alternatives. One group of academics engaged in a more traditional, methodological approach to testing and rolling out their own computer science curriculum. It had the express goal of diversifying the kinds of students enrolled in such courses, and taught students to think about big questions around the internet and technology, and scrutinize builders’ motivations.

Eventually, backlash arrived. Some recent graduates say they feel let down that they were told to code their whole lives, just to find such entry-level jobs to be diminishing, Singer told me. Some schools are getting rid of ubiquitous Google Chromebooks, and research around the world is finding that adding technology to the classroom often doesn’t have a significant impact on actual learning.

... continue reading