Schools are catching on to Big Tech’s playbook | The VergeSkip to main contentThe homepageThe VergeThe Verge logo.The VergeThe Verge logo.TechReviewsScienceEntertainmentAIPolicyNotificationsNotificationsHamburger Navigation ButtonThe homepageThe VergeThe Verge logo.NotificationsNotificationsHamburger Navigation ButtonNavigation DrawerThe VergeThe Verge logo.Login / Sign UpcloseCloseSearchLightSystemDarkTechExpandAmazonAppleFacebookGoogleMicrosoftSamsungBusinessSee all techReviewsExpandSmart Home ReviewsPhone ReviewsTablet ReviewsHeadphone ReviewsSee all reviewsScienceExpandSpaceEnergyEnvironmentHealthSee all scienceEntertainmentExpandTV ShowsMoviesAudioSee all entertainmentAIExpandOpenAIAnthropicSee all AIPolicyExpandAntitrustPoliticsLawSecuritySee all policyGadgetsExpandLaptopsPhonesTVsHeadphonesSpeakersWearablesSee all gadgetsVerge ShoppingExpandBuying GuidesDealsGift GuidesSee all shoppingGamingExpandXboxPlayStationNintendoSee all gamingStreamingExpandDisneyHBONetflixYouTubeCreatorsSee all streamingTransportationExpandElectric CarsAutonomous CarsRide-sharingScootersSee all transportationFeaturesVerge VideoExpandTikTokYouTubeInstagramPodcastsExpandDecoderThe VergecastVersion HistoryNewslettersArchivesStoreVerge Product UpdatesSubscribeFacebookThreadsInstagramYoutubeRSSThe VergeThe Verge logo.Schools are catching on to Big Tech’s playbookNotificationsNotificationsComments DrawerNotificationsCommentsLoading commentsGetting the conversation ready...PolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyAICloseAIPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All AIPodcastsClosePodcastsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PodcastsSchools are catching on to Big Tech’s playbookEducators were quick to adopt tech-backed coding curricula, but AI appears to face more scrutiny.Educators were quick to adopt tech-backed coding curricula, but AI appears to face more scrutiny.by Lauren FeinerCloseLauren FeinerSenior Policy ReporterPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Lauren FeinerSep 10, 2026, 7:44 PM UTCLinkShareGiftImage: The VergeLauren FeinerCloseLauren FeinerPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Lauren Feiner is a senior policy reporter at The Verge, covering the intersection of Silicon Valley and Capitol Hill. She spent 5 years covering tech policy at CNBC, writing about antitrust, privacy, and content moderation reform.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.“Most parents want more than just getting kids to learn to use tech”“I’m not arguing against tech education or tech in schools,” Singer says. “But what I am saying is most parents want more than just getting kids to learn to use tech. They want kids to learn how to be informed citizens in a democracy, and they want kids to figure out what their passions are and who they are and what their beliefs are… And so if we let the tech industry dictate or even heavily influence what happens in schools, then the question we’re asking is, how can we get AI into schools faster? Which is a product question, and not, ‘What are the most important things we want kids to learn?’”While the AI industry of the 2020s may be pulling from the 2010s playbook, there already appears to be one distinct difference: Parents and school districts are pushing back. Just last week, the nation’s largest school system, New York City, banned elementary and middle schools from letting students use AI in the classroom for the coming school year. A day later, Los Angeles announced an even broader restriction that included high schoolers. And unlike the few-and-far-between critiques Singer documented in the early days of tech’s coding push, there appears to be a vibrant grassroots movement fighting the screen- and AI-ification of the classroom among parents and teachers alike.“I think schools are beginning to figure it out,” says Singer, who’s “optimistic” that teachers and students are looking for a broader kind of tech education. That curriculum could teach kids “to ask deep questions about how companies are steering us with their technology, how software and AI are designed to affect our choices, and what role students have to use the tools productively. But also to push back if they like, and to not feel like they’re in a world where AI is driving them.”Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Lauren FeinerCloseLauren FeinerSenior Policy ReporterPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Lauren FeinerAICloseAIPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All AIPodcastsClosePodcastsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PodcastsPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyReportCloseReportPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All ReportVergecastCloseVergecastPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All VergecastMost PopularMost PopularHands-on with the foldable iPhone DuoOpenAI’s sly mathematical breakthrough sends a chill through academiaiPhone 18 Pro and Pro Max: Our first hands-on impressionsVideoThe iPhone Duo is Apple’s first foldableVerge staffers react to the iPhone Duo: What we love and don’t loveThe Verge DailyA free daily digest of the news that matters most.Email (required)Sign UpBy submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.Advertiser Content FromThis is the title for the native adMore in PolicyAnother big James Talarico interview is punted to YouTube due to FCC threatsPlayWhy the current tech backlash feels differentThe Trump phone just got a $250 price hikeMicrosoft has new AI privacy rules for schoolsAI power users claim Anthropic duped them with subscriptions, and they’re taking it to courtThe White House pulls its racist Tetris cloneAnother big James Talarico interview is punted to YouTube due to FCC threatsStevie Bonifield2:34 PM UTCPlayWhy the current tech backlash feels differentNick Statt, Greg Ott and 1 more2:00 PM UTCThe Trump phone just got a $250 price hikeDominic Preston9:13 AM UTCMicrosoft has new AI privacy rules for schoolsLauren FeinerSep 9AI power users claim Anthropic duped them with subscriptions, and they’re taking it to courtHayden FieldSep 8The White House pulls its racist Tetris cloneEmma RothSep 8Advertiser Content FromThis is the title for the native adTop Stories2:21 PM UTCThe iPhone Duo’s hardware doesn’t look special, but its software might be3:00 PM UTCMeta’s Muse AI works and creeps me out3:00 PM UTCWolverine on the PS5 goes back to a simpler (and bloodier) style of action gameSep 9Hands-on with the foldable iPhone Duo2:00 PM UTCNew standards for masculinity are stacked against men’s healthThe VergeThe Verge logo.FacebookThreadsInstagramYoutubeRSSContactTip UsCommunity GuidelinesArchivesAboutEthics StatementHow We Rate and Review ProductsCookie SettingsTerms of UsePrivacy PolicyYour California Privacy RightsYour Privacy ChoicesCookie NoticeAdChoicesLicensing FAQAccessibilityPlatform StatusPenske Media CorporationThe Verge is a part of PMX Global, LLC, a subsidiary of Penske Media Corporation.© 2026 VM Publishing, LLC. All rights reserved.Our SitesThe American PavilionARTnewsArt in AmericaArtforumArt Week NYCBeauty IncBillboardDeadlineDick Clark ProductionsThe DodoEaterFlow SpaceFNGold DerbyGolden GlobesThe Hollywood ReporterIndieWireLife is BeautifulPopsugarPunchSJ DenimRobb ReportRolling StoneSB NationSHE MediaShe KnowsSourcing JournalSoapsSporticoStyleCasterSXSWThrillistVarietyThe VergeVibeWWDNotifications DrawerThe VergeThe Verge logo.Sign in to see your notifications or create an account to join the conversation.Sign in

Educators swiftly adopted curricula based on technology, but the emergence of artificial intelligence introduces a new layer of scrutiny regarding this adoption. The narrative currently pitched to schools by AI companies differs from the historical methods by which the technology industry has exerted its influence in classrooms over the past fifteen years. This historical dynamic, as detailed by Natasha Singer, involved tech companies embedding themselves directly into educational frameworks, often by offering proprietary curricula, such as Apple's Swift or Microsoft's Minecraft for advanced placement courses, suggesting that specialized knowledge was tied to specific industry pathways. Similarly, Google established dominance through the ubiquitous distribution of hardware like Chromebooks and software tools like Classroom, accelerating this integration, especially during periods like the COVID-19 shutdowns.

This history raises a concern about collective amnesia, prompting reflection on whether previous tech cycles in education yielded sufficient learning. While companies sought to train students to use their products for future employment, this focus has been challenged by the emergence of newer technologies. Furthermore, efforts like Code.org, which promoted coding through celebrity endorsements and accessible programs like the Hour of Code, introduced an attention-grabbing approach that sometimes overshadowed more methodical, academic alternatives. Some academics attempted a different approach, focusing on testing and rolling out their own curricula with the explicit goal of diversifying students and encouraging critical examination of technology builders' motivations.

This initial push led to backlash as some graduates felt constrained by a lifetime focus on coding merely for entry-level jobs, and evidence emerged that integrating technology into classrooms did not necessarily enhance actual learning. Consequently, a broader parental and district movement is now pushing back against the screen and AI-ification of education. This resistance is based on the view that parents desire for their children to develop into informed citizens who understand their beliefs and passions, rather than simply mastering technical skills. Therefore, the fundamental question shifts from how quickly to integrate AI to how to integrate it in a way that serves broader educational goals. The emerging vision for technology education seeks to equip students to question how companies steer them through their technologies and how software and AI shape their choices, thereby empowering them to use these tools productively while retaining the agency to push back against undue influence.