Overview of The Vergecast: Schools Are Catching Onto Tech’s Playbook
In this Vergecast interview, Lauren Feiner talks with New York Times education technology reporter Natasha Singer about her book Coding Kids and the long history of tech companies trying to shape what happens in public schools. The conversation traces how educational technology has repeatedly been sold as a way to “democratize” learning, from Thomas Edison’s projectors to Apple computers, Chromebooks, coding curricula, and now AI tools. Singer argues that while these efforts often come with genuine enthusiasm and some benefits, they also reflect business interests, move faster than education research, and raise important questions about who gets to define what students should learn.
Key Themes and Main Takeaways
Tech’s recurring pitch to schools
- Every generation of tech leaders seems to claim their product will transform education.
- Historical examples include:
- Thomas Edison pushing film projectors for classrooms
- Steve Jobs promoting Apple computers in schools
- Google and Microsoft backing Chromebooks and digital learning
- Today’s AI companies positioning chatbots as personalized tutors and productivity tools
- Singer argues these efforts combine good intentions with clear commercial motives.
The evidence for ed tech is weaker than the hype
- Studies of laptop programs in places like Peru and Uruguay found that putting computers in students’ hands increased computer use and skills, but did not improve educational outcomes.
- UNESCO has said there is little rigorous evidence that digital technology improves learning overall.
- Singer notes that many ed-tech studies are funded by the companies selling the tools, which makes independent evaluation especially important.
Code.org, “Hour of Code,” and the Tech Industry’s Education Strategy
How Code.org changed the conversation
- Hadi Partovi used startup-style tactics—viral marketing, celebrity endorsements, and audience generation—to make coding feel exciting and mainstream.
- The “Hour of Code” became a huge cultural event, with support from major tech companies and broad school participation.
- This helped make computer science feel accessible to students who might not otherwise see themselves in the field, especially girls and students from underrepresented groups.
From hype to school policy
- Code.org did not stop at awareness; it helped push computer science into schools by:
- Developing packaged curricula
- Training teachers
- Lobbying states to fund and require computer science instruction
- Many states eventually adopted laws requiring computer science for graduation.
The Academic Countermovement: Broadening Computer Science
A more methodical, research-driven approach
- Natasha Singer contrasts Code.org with academics and education researchers who were trying to broaden access to CS through more thoughtful curriculum design.
- A key example is Exploring Computer Science, developed at UCLA.
- That course aimed to:
- Teach students how computers and the internet work
- Introduce data science
- Connect technology to society and ethics
- Serve as an on-ramp for beginners, not just future programmers
AP Computer Science Principles
- Jan Cooney at the National Science Foundation helped fund and support a new AP course because the existing AP Computer Science A class was too narrow and too focused on programming.
- The College Board launched AP Computer Science Principles as a broader, more accessible course.
- It was designed to bring in more diverse students and serve as a gateway into the field.
How Tech Companies Entered the AP Classroom
An unusual level of corporate involvement
- Code.org became one of the largest providers of AP Computer Science Principles curriculum.
- The College Board also approved curricula from tech companies like:
- Apple
- Microsoft
- Others tied directly to the industry
- This is unusual because in most subjects, outside companies do not provide branded AP curricula.
Why that matters
- Singer points out that no one would expect something like “Pfizer AP Biology” or “ExxonMobil Environmental Science.”
- The College Board argues that it vetted these courses for rigor and that schools should have options.
- Singer’s concern is not that these curricula are automatically bad, but that their influence is underexamined.
Deep Lobbying and “Screenwashing”
What “deep lobbying” means
- Singer uses the term to describe lobbying that is filtered through trusted nonprofit groups rather than direct corporate messaging.
- This resembles tactics used historically by tobacco, oil, and pharma companies.
- In the education space, tech companies fund nonprofits, PTA-related groups, and advocacy organizations that promote technology in schools.
“Screenwashing” backlash
- Parents and critics have begun mapping these relationships and calling them out as “screenwashing.”
- The concern is that organizations promoting tech in schools should clearly disclose who funds them.
- Singer argues this is about transparency and asking “follow the money” questions, not about assuming bad faith in every case.
The AI Pivot: Same Playbook, New Product
From “learn to code” to “learn AI”
- Singer says the tech industry is now making the same arguments about AI that it once made about coding:
- It will prepare students for the future
- It will make learning more personalized
- It will improve efficiency
- Code.org has already shifted its branding toward AI.
Whiplash for schools and students
- The rapid shift from coding to prompting to “vibe coding” shows how quickly tech priorities change.
- Singer worries that schools can’t keep redesigning education around whatever the industry wants this month.
- She argues that education should focus on durable skills, not short-lived industry trends.
Education, Efficiency, and Critical Thinking
Why “more efficient” is not always better
- Tech companies often frame AI as a way to make teachers and students more efficient.
- Singer pushes back on that logic:
- Learning often requires friction, struggle, and process
- The act of making flashcards, for example, may teach more than the flashcards themselves
- She suggests tech can help, but it can also skip over the parts of learning that matter most.
The bigger question: what is school for?
- Singer argues the real issue is not whether schools should use tech at all.
- The deeper question is whether public schools should primarily train students for the needs of the most powerful industry of the moment.
- She says parents want schools to teach students to:
- Be informed citizens
- Think critically
- Discover their identities and passions
- Understand how technology shapes society
Bottom Line
Natasha Singer’s core argument is that the tech industry has repeatedly shaped education by presenting its products as solutions to learning problems, while the evidence for broad learning gains is often thin. Code.org and computer science education did expand access and awareness, but they also helped normalize a model in which industry has a powerful role in designing school curricula. As the spotlight shifts from coding to AI, Singer warns that schools should ask harder questions about transparency, evidence, and the purpose of education before letting the next tech wave set the agenda.