There’s a story being told to schools right now. It goes like this: AI is the future, all the good jobs will need it, and kids who don’t learn it will fall behind. Helpfully, the companies making AI will provide the lessons and tools, often for free.
That pitch sounds new. It isn’t.
According to Natasha Singer, an education technology reporter for The New York Times, this is the same script the tech industry has used in classrooms for the past 15 years. Her new book, Coding Kids, lays out how it worked the first time and why it matters now.
Here is what happened before, how it’s happening again with AI, and what to watch for. We will keep the terms plain, so you can follow the pattern without a background in tech or education policy.
The First Version: Learn to Code
Start with the earlier wave. For over a decade, the message was about coding, not AI.
Tech companies pushed the idea that computer science skills were a straight path to high-paying jobs. Learn to code, the pitch went, and your future is secure. Schools listened, and so did parents.
But there’s a catch worth naming early. By the time many of those students finished school and looked for work, the ground had shifted. New technology had changed the field, and the promise looked shakier than it once did.
Along the way, something else happened. The companies helped shape a new group of future workers, and they trained those students on their own products and software. Kids who learned on a company’s tools often became that company’s future customers.
Keep this straight: the first wave was sold as job training. It also built a customer base. Both things were true at once.
How Companies Got Inside the Curriculum
Here is the part most people miss. Tech firms didn’t just donate laptops. They wrote lessons.
More than a decade ago, some of the largest tech companies embedded themselves directly into what students studied. A key entry point was Advanced Placement Computer Science Principles, a college-level course offered in high schools.
Apple and Microsoft each built their own curricula for this space. Those lessons featured their own tools, like Apple’s Swift programming language or Microsoft’s game Minecraft. Students learned computer science, yes, but they learned it through one company’s products.
Singer draws a sharp comparison to make the point. Picture a course called Pfizer AP Biology, or Northrop Grumman AP Physics, or ExxonMobil Environmental Science. Most parents would balk at that. Yet company-branded computer science raised far fewer alarms.
She found the medical world understands this instinct well. One expert offered an example: a medical student trained by a company to implant that company’s device rarely switches to a competitor later. The training shapes the choice.
The takeaway for you: when a company writes the lesson, it shapes the habits. Ask who made the curriculum, not just what it teaches.
The Chromebook Takeover
Google took a different road into schools. Its path ran through cheap hardware.
Google distributed low-cost laptops called Chromebooks, and they spread across schools throughout the 2010s. Singer tracked how common they became. The pace picked up even more during the covid-19 pandemic, when schools shut down and needed devices fast.
Google didn’t stop at laptops. It introduced Google Classroom, an app that lets teachers hand out assignments and post grades in one place. Once teachers built their routines around it, switching away got harder.
Here’s why this matters for the AI story. By the time generative AI arrived, Google was already a core platform for many schools. Generative AI is technology that creates text, images, or code on demand. Google was well-positioned to promote it, because the schools were already inside its system.
Do this to spot the pattern: notice which company’s tools your local school already relies on. That existing setup usually decides what comes next.
The Celebrity Campaign That Went Viral
Not every push came straight from a company. Some ran through nonprofit groups the companies backed.
The clearest example is Code.org. It launched a splashy video campaign built around famous faces. The video featured tech figures like Microsoft founder Bill Gates and then-Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, all urging kids to learn to code.
The video took off. Code.org founder Hadi Partovi had taken a startup-style approach and, Singer writes, had little planned for what to do once the attention arrived. So he channeled it into the “Hour of Code,” a national campaign built around fun, hour-long sessions that introduced kids to the basics of coding.
At the time, there wasn’t much pushback. A few academics tried a different route. One group built its own computer science curriculum the slow, careful way, testing it methodically. Their goal was broader: to bring in a wider range of students and to teach kids to ask big questions about the internet and to question the motives of the people building it.
Keep this straight: a viral campaign spreads fast but plans little. The quieter, careful alternatives got far less attention.
When the Promise Cracked
Every sales pitch eventually meets reality. This one did too.
Some graduates now feel let down. They were told to code their whole lives, only to find that entry-level coding jobs are shrinking, Singer told The Vergecast. The guaranteed path turned out to be less certain than promised.
The hardware story is turning too. Some schools are now removing the once-everywhere Chromebooks. And research from around the world keeps finding the same uncomfortable result: adding more technology to a classroom often doesn’t improve actual learning by much.
That last point deserves a plain statement. More screens did not automatically mean more learning. In many cases, it changed the tools without changing the outcomes.
One thing to remember: a confident promise about future jobs is a forecast, not a fact. Treat it as one input, not a guarantee.
Now It’s AI’s Turn
Here is where the past meets the present. The AI industry is pitching schools with the same force.
The structure is nearly identical. AI is the hot new thing. It’s where the jobs supposedly are. Kids who skip it fall behind. And the companies will supply the lessons, often at no charge.
Singer’s worry is that we’ve forgotten what came before. “I worry we have collective amnesia,” she said. Her question is direct: have we learned anything from past tech cycles that could shape how AI enters schools, make sure it helps, and put safeguards in place now, rather than a decade too late?
This is the heart of the AI education debate. Singer isn’t against technology in schools. Her concern is about who steers the ship.
As she puts it, most parents want more than kids who know how to use tech. They want kids who learn to be informed citizens in a democracy, who figure out their passions and beliefs. If the tech industry heavily influences what happens in schools, she argues, the guiding question becomes “how do we get AI into schools faster?” That’s a product question. It’s not the same as asking what’s most important for kids to learn.
Do this now: the next time you hear an AI-in-schools pitch, ask one question. Is this solving a learning problem, or selling a product?
What’s Different This Time
There’s real reason for some optimism, though. One thing has clearly changed since the coding era.
Parents and school districts are pushing back, and they’re doing it early. In the first coding wave, criticism was rare and scattered. This time, it’s louder and better organized.
The recent bans show it plainly:
- New York City, the nation’s largest school system, banned elementary and middle schools from letting students use AI in class for the coming school year.
- Los Angeles followed a day later with an even broader restriction that included high schoolers.
Beyond official bans, there’s a grassroots movement. Parents and teachers alike are questioning the steady push of screens and AI into the classroom. That energy simply wasn’t there 15 years ago.
Singer sees this as a good sign. “I think schools are beginning to figure it out,” she said, adding that she’s optimistic teachers and students want a broader kind of tech education.
The takeaway for you: early pushback is the biggest difference from last time. If you have concerns, this is the moment they carry weight.
A Better Way to Teach Tech
So what would a smarter approach look like? Singer points toward one.
The goal isn’t to ban technology or pretend AI doesn’t exist. It’s to teach kids to think critically about the tools, not just operate them. That’s a different skill, and a more durable one.
Here’s the kind of thinking that curriculum would build in students:
- Ask how companies use technology to steer our behavior.
- Understand how software and AI are designed to shape our choices.
- Learn to use the tools productively when they help.
- Feel free to push back when they don’t.
The difference is subtle but large. One approach trains kids to use a product. The other teaches them to understand the product and stay in control of it.
Think of it like the difference between teaching someone to drive one specific car versus teaching them how cars, roads, and traffic work. The second lesson lasts longer and travels further.
Try it now: ask a student in your life one question about a tool they use. Not “how do you use it,” but “how does it try to get you to use it more?”
Why This Matters
Step back, and the shape of the story is clear. The tech industry has a long habit of shaping what schools teach, and AI is the newest chapter.
The pattern repeats for a reason. A company that trains students on its tools gains both future workers and future customers. That’s not a conspiracy. It’s a business model, and it’s worth seeing clearly.
But keep the caveats in view. This is not an argument against technology in classrooms. And a ban today doesn’t settle how AI should be taught tomorrow. Those are open questions, still being worked out district by district.
The honest read is this. The coding era offers a warning, not a verdict. What’s encouraging is that parents and teachers are asking harder questions this time, earlier than before.
Pick one thing to do: find out your local school’s current AI policy. Knowing where your district stands is the first step to having a say in where it goes.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the book Coding Kids about?
Coding Kids is a book by Natasha Singer, an education technology reporter for The New York Times. It details how tech companies took a central role in schools over the past 15 years, promoting coding and computer science as a path to high-paying jobs while training students on their own products.
2. How did tech companies get into school curricula?
They embedded themselves in several ways. Apple and Microsoft built their own lessons for AP Computer Science Principles courses, featuring tools like Swift and Minecraft. Google spread low-cost Chromebooks and introduced Google Classroom. Nonprofits like Code.org ran viral campaigns such as the Hour of Code, backed by figures including Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg.
3. Why do some graduates feel let down by the coding push?
They were told for years that coding skills guaranteed strong careers. But entry-level coding jobs have been shrinking, and new technology changed the field. Many finished school only to find the promised path far less certain than advertised.
4. What did Singer mean by “collective amnesia”?
She worries we’ve forgotten the lessons of past tech cycles in schools. Her concern is that AI is now being pushed with the same force as coding was, and that we should add safeguards now rather than waiting a decade to fix problems after they appear.
5. Which schools have restricted AI, and how is this time different?
New York City banned AI use in elementary and middle school classrooms for the coming year, and Los Angeles followed with a broader restriction that included high schoolers. Unlike the coding era, when pushback was rare, there’s now an organized grassroots movement of parents and teachers questioning AI in schools early.
