I'm William Brangham, and this is "Horizons."

Putting technology into schools was sold as a critical educational revolution, one that would help kids learn and set them up for work in the 21st century.

But as companies like Google and Microsoft exert greater influence over how and what tech is used, many are now wondering if all that screen time is doing more harm than good.

From Chromebooks to artificial intelligence, how technology is shaping education, coming up next.

♪ Narrator: Support for "Horizons" has been provided by Steve and Marilyn Kerman and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Additional support is provided by Friends of the News Hour.

♪ This program was made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you.

From the David M. Rubenstein Studio at WETA in Washington, here is William Brangham.

Welcome to "Horizons."

If you've been in a public school classroom recently, you have seen this change.

Computers and other tech devices have proliferated.

Fueled by a big influx of federal money and in partnership with major tech companies, school districts nationwide have spent millions of dollars purchasing computers and tablets and software for classrooms and trying out new artificial intelligence tools.

Proponents argue these devices are an essential part of the modern world and, when used appropriately, can help teachers engage kids in new and creative ways.

But a revolt has emerged.

Parents' groups have sprung up all over the country, pushing back on this development, arguing that all the AI chatbots and screen time has gone too far and that this so-called ed tech is just a Trojan horse for corporations who want to lock in the next generation of consumers.

This transformation of America's schools and the pushback against it are all chronicled in a new book.

It's called "Coding Kids, "Big Tech's Battle to Remake Public Schools," and its author, Natasha Singer, joins us today.

Singer is a reporter for The New York Times, and she has covered technology in schools for over a decade.

Natasha, so nice to have you on the program.

This book is really a tremendous piece of reporting.

Before we get into the critiques of all of this and the revolt against it all, remind us, what was the initial argument that was made as to why we need to get more technology into classrooms?

So tech companies for more than a decade have been pitching schools and parents with a very similar argument.

And the argument goes something like, "Schools, if you just give every student their own iPad "or their own Chromebook, or if we just give "every student math apps and reading apps, "or if we just give every kid coding lessons, "it will transform education, "it will democratize access to learning, "and it will teach kids really valuable career skills."

I mean, that sounds like, depending on exactly what year that's being rolled out, that sounds like a legitimate argument.

I can understand schools saying, you know, "That sounds right."

It's a really altruistic argument.

Of course, schools want to equip kids to be able to use the latest tech and to have career skills.

The problem is that it ended up with a lot of tech flooding into schools and not a lot of evidence that it benefits students' outcomes.

So, for example, UNESCO put out a report a couple of years ago, UNESCO, right, the United Nations Education Agency, and it basically said that there was not a lot of rigorous evidence showing that there was an added value of technology in schools for student education.

Were they also making the argument that this was a way to address the so-called digital divide, where wealthier schools and wealthier kids will automatically, because their parents will pay for them, have computers and tablets and better phones, and rural kids or poorer kids will not have it?

And this would be a way of leveling that field a little bit.

So, I think that the equity argument is really important.

In the part where we want kids to be able to use the devices that are ubiquitous in society and we want them to learn digital skills.

But if we're arguing that every kid needs their own Chromebook to take home and use all the time, and it's going to be good for learning when there's limited evidence that it is good for learning, that's not really equitable.

So, once the decision is made and the school districts start to say, "Ok, we are going to start doing this," how did that unfold?

What were the companies involved?

How did the schools start to go about that process?

You know, one of the interesting things I found in reporting my book is this really dates to the early 1980s, when Apple was a fledgling company and Steve Jobs wanted to try to get Apple's new desktop computers into every school.

And so the arguments date from there with Steve Jobs saying, like, "The kids can't wait.

"It's urgent.

They've got to learn to use computers.

"We've got to get computers in all the schools "because it will improve kids' creativity "and access to learning and it'll be fun "and they'll make stuff and they'll be prepared "for the workplace."

And so, you know, starting in the 80s, IBM and Apple and then later Microsoft come in and compete to try to get their devices into schools.

More recently, you know, in around 2012, Google emerged with Chromebooks, which, you know, are these kind of sturdy, low-cost laptops that run on Google's Chrome operating system.

And Google basically captured classrooms with this device because they were cheap.

Google argued that, if you gave every kid their own Chromebook, that, again, they'd have access to the Internet, they'd be able to learn online, you'd better be able to customize learning.

But this was going to be a real huge benefit to kids to have their own Chromebooks.

But it was also a huge benefit to Google because you have kids using Google Docs and Google Slides and Gmail and using Google Search and getting used to the Google operating system.

And that's really one of the ultimate goals of big tech pushing their products into schools, is give kids training wheels in sixth grade or second grade.

And maybe they're going to be in your operating system.

Maybe they're going to be an Apple customer for life or a Google customer for life.

And so there's a kind of tension between the altruistic motives.

We want kids to be equipped to use the devices and software that are prevalent in society, but also big tech companies are not education companies.

They are... some of them are like digital advertising giants like Google or their enterprise software providers like Microsoft.

And so we're listening to big tech companies tell us what schools should do.

But their goals are not related to education, right?

Education is a side business for them.

Right.

They are customer acquisition companies at their core, according to their stock.

And they have... Their fiduciary duty is to stockholders, not to democratic institutions like schools that serve schoolchildren.

Right.

Yeah, I know that this is a broad question.

It would really depend on what school district and what state and what county you were talking about.

But let's just say I were to drop in to a fifth grade classroom or a kindergarten classroom.

What does the modern classroom look like with regards to technology?

What are kids using?

How does it look?

What does it look like?

So you're absolutely right.

It depends not only from school district to school district, but from school to school.

And, you know, the best part of my job at The New York Times is when I get to spend a day at a school and talk to students and teachers and see what's happening.

And sometimes I'll go to a middle school and kids will get out their Chromebooks when the bell rings and they'll look up their assignments on a platform called Google Classroom.

It's like a virtual classroom where teachers tell kids what they need to do that day.

And then, you know, they'll research something online.

They might watch a YouTube video in chemistry.

They're going to write their essays in Google Docs.

They might collaborate on making a presentation in Google Slides, right?

And sometimes even kids are using laptops or tablets in gym to like, you know, chart their speed or their reps.

You know, in other schools, I went to a school in Kansas this year called McPherson Middle School.

And the principal felt they'd overdone it on Chromebooks and she pulled back.

So in 2016, they'd given middle school students their own Chromebooks to take home to use freely all day long in school and freely all night long at home.

And the school did some research and discovered that like kids were spending a huge amount of time on YouTube and playing video games on their school issued devices and not doing schoolwork.

And also that it was distracting during school.

So they took the Chromebooks back.

They now use Chromebook carts, which are these docking stations that, you know, you leave the Chromebooks in there until the teacher says, "Students, you know, get a Chromebook "and do a specific assignment."

And I call the phenomena "Chromebook remorse" because these districts that went all in on the belief that this was democratizing and going to improve education feel like they went overboard.

And this school, McPherson Middle School, they said their approach now is called "intentional technology use."

Like they're not not using tech.

They're not not using Chromebooks.

In fact, I went to a computer science class where kids were programming on Chromebooks.

But what they feel is the laptops should be used for a specific purpose that would clear benefits kids and not like the fallback to use all the time.

Like, I think one of the changes is schools felt like they were trying to make schools like offices.

Right?

So like a classroom is like an office where every worker has their own device and spends most of their day on their device, emailing and writing presentations and whatever.

And like, actually, kids need childhood and kids need to play and kids need to go outside.

And so I think schools are pulling back on that and saying, "Actually, a classroom is a classroom.

"It's not a mini business "and kids are not mini entrepreneurs."

What a radical concept that sounds like.

I mean, on the one hand, again, going back to what you were saying about the original argument that was pitched.

I can understand that on some level, that kids need to be... understand how these... how the software works, how these computers work, because they might end up in jobs that require that.

There was also this concurrent push that you report on quite a bit about, "We're going "to teach kids how to code "so that they can develop the software themselves "and have jobs that are going to be essential for the future."

That kind of gets transformed as you really lay out in your reporting into, with the advent of artificial intelligence, that kind of "get kids to code" kind of goes out the window.

Tell us that story.

How did that evolution take place with AI's invention?

So it dates back to around 2011, 2012, when chief executives of large tech companies like Google and Microsoft started saying publicly and to governors and to the president of the United States, like, "We are some of the biggest growth engines "of the American economy "and we are having difficulty hiring "enough talented computer programmers "and software engineers.

"And the problem is that public schools "aren't offering enough computer science.

"And so to fix this, we need every school "to teach computer science."

And, you know, it's an argument that's economic, right?

It's a jobs argument and it's about the good of American competitiveness.

And they were doing... what big tech companies do is kind of a traditional top down, like, "Let's try to convince legislators to pass laws "to get computer science in schools."

And then a brilliant, charming entrepreneur named Hadi Partovi, who had worked at Microsoft, came along and he had also worked in startups and been an early investor in startups like Facebook and Uber and Dropbox.

And he had seen firsthand that companies were competing to hire really good software engineers.

And so he started with his brother, a startup nonprofit called Code.org, and their mission was to get kids in schools excited about computer science and get it into schools.

And they used the tools they'd learned in the tech industry, like how to grow an audience and how to make something viral to generate this mass audience for computer science in schools.

First, they made a YouTube video that starred Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg and others that urged kids to code.

And it's a really compelling video.

And the argument is like, "Kids, "if you just learn computer science, "like, it's fun and it's lucrative.

"And you too could be the next Mark Zuckerberg "or Bill Gates, and you will have "a much better opportunity at getting a high paying, "high powered tech job."

And, you know, Code .org with this video and then subsequent programs made coding a household word in schools.

And I have to say here, like, my book argues in favor of computer science, right?

I think it's a really important discipline.

I think it teaches logic.

It teaches problem solving.

It teaches fun stuff like how to make apps.

Like, overall, it's a really good thing that tech industry funded efforts got more computer science in schools.

However, there were also consequences, which is some of these programs, you know, were really focused on the nuts and bolts of coding.

And not some of the larger context that we want kids to think about, like, what is the impact of social media?

What is the impact on society when we have these trillion dollar companies with more money and power than most nations?

How is this, you know, YouTube or TikTok steering my behavior as a child?

Like, how do I feel about this?

What is it using to keep me glued and keep me coming back?

And what are all these notices doing to me?

And how is this affecting my community?

Like, when you have industry sponsored education, it tends to favor the values and worldviews of industry.

So, you know, there are pros and cons and tensions around industry funded efforts in schools.

And then, as you point out, AI comes along suddenly in 2023, right?

Suddenly, ChatGPT becomes this huge thing.

And these generative artificial intelligence chatbots are not just able to generate texts like student book reports or emails.

Software engineers increasingly are using these AI tools to generate code.

And this means a number of things.

First of all, we saw big companies like Google and Microsoft and others that have pushed for computer science in schools.

Suddenly, they're pivoting.

They're spending hundreds of billions of dollars building data centers to fuel the growth of AI services.

They're laying off thousands of people.

And suddenly, these kids who were told that, "If you just learn to code, you will get this powerful, "high paying tech job," they're having trouble getting jobs.

And that was really hard for me as a reporter to cover because I spent a few months last year talking to college grads who had majored in computer science and who loved programming and believed the message that the tech industry sold them.

And suddenly, they're back in their childhood bedrooms with their Legos, with their skateboards, with their Matrix posters.

And they're sending out resumes and AI is reading their resumes and rejecting them before they can get a job.

And one student said to me, you know, "Every adult I spoke to practically from the time I was in first grade said, 'Just learn to code and you'll be set for life.'"

And so, one of the questions is accountability.

When you have an industry that can influence the subjects schools teach, as well as like training teachers and providing lessons, and then the industry suddenly has a different need, what are our obligations to those kids who spent 10 years learning to code and now are struggling to get jobs?

And now, of course, we have the companies that once supported computer science pivoting and saying, "We just have to teach every kid AI, "because it will customize education "and democratize learning, and also, "they'll be able to get much more lucrative, "high paying jobs if they can use AI."

And so, part of the reason I wrote this book is, it feels to me like collective amnesia, that the tech companies have been pushing different products, or different kinds of tech education in schools, and we see these cycles of different products and different subjects that are suddenly important.

And what have we learned from all those cycles?

We're about to push for AI across the country in schools, and some schools are already using AI with students.

And have we learned lessons from the speed that we use social media with kids?

Have we learned any lessons from giving every kid a Chromebook?

Like, I just felt like the purpose of my book is, it's not anti-tech, it's not anti-tech company, it just says, "This is the history "of how tech gets into schools.

"And here's the playbook that tech companies use "over and over again to make schools feel "that the latest tech tool is urgent."

Right.

You write near the end of your book that a lot of this playbook by these companies goes under the term "corporate capture."

That there is a sense that by providing the hardware and the software and the, as you're describing, the "Here are the lesson plans that you need to be teaching," that these corporations have in many ways gotten the schools hooked, and by proxy, the children hooked on this technology as well.

Tell us a little bit more about that.

I mean, is that really how you see what has gone on over these last few years?

You know, corporate capture is an economic and political science term, right?

And it means that an industry has a huge influence over public systems that are meant to regulate it.

And so the question, like, if you look at, for example, the pharmaceutical industry, and I used to cover the pharmaceutical industry for the New York Times before I started covering school tech, you know, we all know that drug companies like Pfizer and Merck and Johnson & Johnson and medical device companies have a huge influence on medicine.

They also have a huge influence on medical education.

And so you see, for example, drug companies have lots of training sessions for medical students and doctors.

Also, you know, medical device companies will have sessions while they are, say, to, like, young physicians, like, "We'll fly you to Indiana.

"We will provide you, you know, with corpses to use, "and you can implant our artificial knees "or artificial joints in these cadavers, "and you can practice using these tools."

And when you talk to folks in the medical research establishment, they have studied the impact of big pharma influence on medicine.

And it's like, well, if you are a medical student who, you know, goes on this program and implants these joints, you're going to implant those joints for the rest of your life.

Right.

It's obvious that this is a method of the company getting you hooked on its products.

Right.

And so these are the questions you naturally ask among medical researchers and also journalists who cover pharma.

And so all I'm doing is asking the same questions about tech influence in schools.

Only when you ask it about tech influence in schools, you're perceived as a critic, as opposed to, like, we should just be asking these questions about what are the benefits of tech industry expertise helping schools and what are the drawbacks.

Like, how does it skew what kids learn, what teachers learn and what we might not learn because we're privileging the tech industry view of the world and not a broad view of what might benefit students.

Right.

Your book also documents this nationwide revolt that is going on where parents organizations are saying enough.

Is that revolt driven by this corporate capture that you're describing?

Is it driven by their concerns over cheating?

Is it driven by concerns over screen time?

What are... what is the gist of their beef?

So I think that we're just in this extraordinary moment where big tech is facing a global reckoning.

And you've covered it yourself.

I saw your episode about data centers.

And so I think that, like, the parent pushback against tech in schools is partly connected to concerns over data centers, rising concerns about flock surveillance cameras on the streets, a pushback against meta glasses, which some people call spy glasses or surveillance glasses because they have cameras in them.

And I think that the parent pushback against tech in schools is also partly about control, that there's this feeling that big tech has had runaway influence on society globally and specifically in schools.

And I hear parents saying, like, "Show me the data that these products "improve my kids' education "and also don't harm my kids by making them distracted "or in the case of AI, "like hindering critical thinking."

I think they're fundamental questions that parents are asking.

And, you know, we saw it this week, New York City schools, the largest school district in the country, made an announcement that they are going to bar student facing AI tools in schools, in elementary and middle school.

And, you know, it's an incredible turnabout for a school district that has been very enthusiastic about tech.

And the mayor of New York came out and said, like, "The tech industry is telling us "that AI is fundamental to learning "and it's inevitable.

"And we don't agree with that."

And, like, that was a stunning thing for the mayor of New York City to say, because for years, mayors and governors and superintendents have been saying, "We must get as much tech "as we can in the schools "because tech is the future "and we need to future proof kids."

And the mayor of New York said, "We need to make sure that kids have a human environment "and develop human relationships "and figure out where the tech will benefit."

And that's a completely different thing than school leaders and education leaders and government leaders have been saying for the last decade.

In the last minute or so that we have left, on a previous episode, I also talked with Sal Khan, the creator of Khan Academy, who also has a new AI software educational program.

He acknowledged all of these problems, that sometimes kids using AI get spoon-fed answers and he says that's not great, doesn't help them learn.

But he argues that the technology can evolve to be better, to challenge kids, to make them reason their arguments, to make them think more deeply.

And that it's not just, we're in this interim period, but that it will get better with more intelligent design behind these tools.

What do you make of that argument?

So, first of all, you know, I really appreciate Sal Khan, and they at Khan Academy did a lot of work to develop a school-specific chatbot, right?

It's not ChatGPT or Google's Gemini.

Khan Academy built a specific product for students with guardrails.

So, I think that's a whole different animal than some other AI tools.

But I also think that, like, we have to think about what parents and Americans think of as the purpose of public schools.

And so, if the purpose of public schools is to train kids for the prevailing industry of the day that wants to make an AI-driven world, then the question we should be asking is, how fast can we get AI into schools and how much can we use AI to improve education?

But if the purpose of schools is something bigger, we want kids to have a well-rounded education.

We want them to be knowledgeable citizens in a democracy.

We want to teach them to ask deep questions.

We want them to discover their passions.

We want them to be able to help their communities.

Then the question we should be asking is, what is it that we want kids to learn today and how do we want them to learn it?

And does AI have a role in that?

And if so, what is the evidence for that role for AI?

And, you know, again, Sal Khan invited me to the Khan Lab School in California.

I spent a day there.

Kids were doing fascinating things with AI.

But also, Tennessee just did a study on Khan Academy.

And it found that Khan Academy's regular math lessons benefited kids, but kids were, in the main, not interested in the Khanmigo chatbot, right?

It just was not interesting to them to have an AI help them with their work.

And when they did turn to Khanmigo, they wanted to do off-task things or they tried to get it to give them the answer.

So I'm optimistic.

I think that we might find much better uses for AI in schools and we might find narrow uses that really benefit student outcomes.

But right now, AI in schools is kind of a giant experiment on kids whose outcomes we don't know.

And I have to say, your book does such a beautiful job of capturing this moment of the middle of this remarkable experiment that we are doing in American education.

Natasha Singer, so great to have you.

The book is called "Coding Kids, Big Tech's Battle to Remake Public Schools."

Thank you so much for being here.

Really appreciate it.

Thank you so much for having me.

And that is it for this episode of "Horizons."

Thank you so much for watching.

We'll see you next week.

Narrator: Support for "Horizons" has been provided by Steve and Marilyn Kerman and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Additional support is provided by Friends of the News Hour.

♪ This program was made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you.

♪ You're watching PBS.