Coding Kids Examines How Big Tech and AI Are Reshaping American Public Education

Key Points

• Natasha Singer, a New York Times journalist and author of Coding Kids: Big Tech’s Battle to Remake Public Schools, has examined the growing influence of major technology companies on public education in the United States.
• Technology firms including Google, Microsoft and Apple helped promote coding and computer science education in schools during the 2010s, arguing that students needed digital skills to prepare for future employment.
• According to Singer, technology companies have expanded their influence beyond classroom hardware and software to the subjects taught in schools and the design of computer science curricula.
• The coding movement was driven by several factors, including genuine educational ambitions, commercial interests, concerns about the technology workforce and competition with China.
• Some university computer science graduates are now struggling to secure jobs despite strong academic records and previous experience with programming.
• Singer argues that the employment expectations associated with learning to code have not materialised for every student who followed that educational path.
• Artificial intelligence is changing the debate, with companies that previously championed coding now encouraging schools to teach students how to use AI chatbots.
• The development raises questions about how schools should balance technical education, students’ long-term career prospects and the influence of powerful private technology companies.
• Singer’s account does not suggest that coding has become worthless; rather, it highlights the gap between learning a valuable skill and being guaranteed a high-paying job.

Edition Online (EO) October 9, 2026 – Technology companies have expanded their influence over American public education, moving from supplying classroom computers and software to shaping computer science curricula and promoting artificial intelligence tools. New York Times journalist Natasha Singer has examined this development in her book Coding Kids: Big Tech’s Battle to Remake Public Schools. In an interview with Texas Standard, Singer discussed the ambitions behind the coding movement, the career difficulties facing some computer science graduates and the growing push for AI education. Her account also highlights efforts by teachers to provide students with broader digital knowledge, critical thinking skills and a better understanding of how technology affects their lives.

How Did Technology Companies Gain Influence Over Public School Education?

According to Laura Rice and Michael Martinez Lino of Texas Standard, the growing role of major technology companies in American public education developed alongside concerns during the 2010s that students were not adequately prepared for an increasingly technology-driven employment market.

Coding became a prominent part of the response. Parents and educators supported teaching children computer programming, while companies including Google, Microsoft and Apple actively promoted computer science education.

The initiative was presented as a way to equip young people with skills that could help them participate in the digital economy. Learning to code was also associated with the prospect of creating software, developing applications and securing employment in the technology sector.

However, Singer argues that the industry’s influence has grown beyond its original role as a supplier of educational equipment.

In the Texas Standard interview, she explained that technology companies provide the devices pupils use, the applications through which they complete schoolwork and, increasingly, the educational content that determines what they learn.

Students may use Chromebooks, laptops and iPads in classrooms, while relying on Gmail, Google Docs, Microsoft PowerPoint, Google Slides and Google Forms for everyday academic activities.

Singer’s concern is that these products create a pathway through which private companies can influence multiple parts of the education system. The companies are not simply supplying tools that teachers independently choose how to use; they can also help shape the subjects schools prioritise and the resources used to teach them.

The distinction matters because computer science is an important academic discipline, but decisions about its place in the curriculum have consequences beyond individual products or classroom activities.

When major companies promote a particular subject, schools may feel pressure to adopt it because of the companies’ financial resources, influence and standing within the economy.

Singer said that this dynamic contributed to tens of thousands of schools introducing coding and computer science programmes.

Why Did Google, Microsoft and Apple Promote Coding Education?

Singer’s explanation of the coding movement includes a combination of educational ambitions, business interests and national economic concerns.

She told Texas Standard that her book recognises that individuals working at technology companies, as well as people associated with industry-sponsored non-profit organisations, often believed sincerely that computer science was a valuable skill.

Some technology entrepreneurs had built successful careers through programming and wanted other children to have similar opportunities. Their argument was that introducing coding at school could make the profession accessible to a wider population.

At the same time, Singer described an element of self-interest in the industry’s approach.

Technology companies were concerned about finding enough skilled programmers. Some argued that American schools were not producing sufficient numbers of technically qualified candidates and that more extensive computer science education would help address the problem.

The broader economic context was also significant. American political leaders viewed technological expertise as important to the country’s position as a global economic power, particularly amid competition with China.

Consequently, coding education became connected to several objectives: improving students’ technical abilities, expanding the future workforce and maintaining American competitiveness.

These ambitions were not necessarily incompatible. Students could benefit from learning programming while companies gained access to a larger pool of potential employees.

The issue identified by Singer is the expectation attached to the initiative. The promise that learning to code would lead to well-paid, influential technology jobs was stronger than the employment outcomes experienced by some students who followed that route.

What Did Students Expect From Learning to Code?

The coding movement was accompanied by the expectation that programming skills could provide a route into desirable careers at major technology companies.

Singer said some young people believed that learning to code in secondary school and continuing to study computer science at university would put them on course for jobs at companies such as Google, Facebook and Microsoft.

Programming can provide a foundation for developing software, solving technical problems and understanding how digital systems operate. However, possessing those skills does not automatically guarantee employment with a particular company.

The distinction between acquiring a useful qualification and obtaining a job is central to Singer’s reporting.

According to her account, students were encouraged to view coding as a means of gaining access to professional opportunities that had previously seemed distant. The resulting expectations influenced their educational decisions and their understanding of what a computer science degree could deliver.

The employment difficulties described in the interview are therefore not simply about graduates failing to find work. They also concern the relationship between the messages promoted around technical education and the outcomes students subsequently encounter.

Singer’s reporting challenges the assumption that expanding the number of people who can code will automatically produce high-paying jobs for everyone who acquires the skill.

That distinction is particularly relevant when schools and universities advise young people about future careers. Educational programmes can develop valuable abilities, but their benefits depend on the wider employment market and the particular opportunities available to graduates.

Why Are Some Computer Science Graduates Struggling to Find Jobs?

Singer told Texas Standard that she had spent months interviewing university students who had studied computer science after learning to code in high school.

Some of those graduates had performed well academically and remained enthusiastic about programming. They had expected to find employment developing software, yet were struggling to secure positions after completing their degrees.

Singer described students who had been on their university deans’ lists and, in some cases, had helped teach computer science, but were still unable to obtain the jobs they had anticipated.

Her account illustrates the difference between academic achievement and success in a competitive employment market. A strong university record and an interest in programming do not necessarily translate into an immediate job offer.

The interview does not establish that all computer science graduates are experiencing the same difficulties, nor does it demonstrate that artificial intelligence alone is responsible for the employment challenges described.

Instead, it raises questions about how students’ expectations were shaped, how technology employers assess candidates and whether the opportunities available to new graduates match the ambitions promoted during the coding movement.

The issue also has implications for educational institutions. Schools and universities must prepare students for changing labour-market conditions without presenting any individual qualification as a guarantee of financial success.

For students already committed to computer science, the challenge is to understand how their existing knowledge can be applied in different roles and how to continue developing their skills as technology changes.

How Is Artificial Intelligence Changing the Debate About Coding?

Artificial intelligence has introduced a new dimension to the discussion about technology education.

Singer told Texas Standard that companies that previously advocated coding for all children have increasingly promoted AI literacy and the use of AI chatbots.

Products such as Google’s Gemini, OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Microsoft’s Copilot are now part of the educational technology landscape. Companies have offered teacher training and educational resources intended to help schools incorporate these systems into classroom activities.

This represents a change in emphasis. The earlier coding movement encouraged students to learn how to create software and applications. The newer push also encourages them to understand and use AI tools.

However, the two areas are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Programming remains relevant to software development, while AI literacy can help students understand systems that are increasingly present in education, business and everyday life.

The more difficult question is what schools should teach when technologies and the skills demanded by employers are changing rapidly.

If a curriculum focuses too narrowly on one programming language, application or AI product, students may find that their education is closely tied to tools that evolve or become less widely used.

A broader approach could combine programming fundamentals with an understanding of how AI systems work, their limitations, their uses and their potential consequences.

Singer’s account suggests that the central issue is not whether schools should teach coding or AI. It is whether technology education should equip pupils to understand and evaluate digital systems rather than simply learn how to operate the latest products.

How Far Does Big Tech Influence the Education Supply Chain?

In the Texas Standard interview, Singer explained that the influence of technology companies extends across several connected areas of public education.

These include classroom devices, productivity software, computer science curricula, teacher training, student lessons and efforts to persuade governments and school systems to adopt particular technologies.

She also said companies have lobbied in individual states for requirements involving AI education or the use of their products.

According to Singer, technology firms have trained tens of thousands of teachers to use AI products, including Gemini, ChatGPT and Copilot, while supplying educational materials for students.

This creates a situation in which a company can influence not only the technology available in a classroom but also how educators learn to use it and what students are encouraged to do with it.

The issue is particularly complicated for schools with limited resources.

Singer acknowledged that teachers and schools often need access to free products, instructional materials, videos and training. Such resources can help educators deliver lessons when budgets and specialist expertise are limited.

However, the availability of free resources does not remove questions about who designs them, which products they promote and what priorities they establish.

The concerns raised in the interview relate to the concentration of influence in a relatively small number of powerful companies. Singer argued that the technology industry’s involvement in education is unusually extensive compared with that of other commercial sectors.

The challenge for school administrators is to assess the educational value of a product independently of the reputation or resources of the company supplying it.

What Can Teachers Do to Give Students a Broader Technology Education?

Singer said that her visits to schools revealed teachers working to provide students with a more comprehensive understanding of technology.

Rather than concentrating exclusively on programming or whichever AI product is currently popular, these educators seek to help pupils understand the digital systems that influence their lives.

One example discussed in the interview was Cheri Whalen, a computer science teacher at Cedar Park High School outside Austin, Texas.

Singer said Whalen had taught computer science for years but had struggled to attract girls to her classes, which were predominantly attended by boys.

Whalen subsequently began teaching a broader Advanced Placement course called computer science principles. According to Singer, the course covered subjects beyond programming, including how the internet and computers work, how email operates and how social media platforms are designed.

Students also learned to make applications and games, allowing them to develop technology rather than merely consume it.

Another part of the course examined the ways social media platforms and YouTube can be designed to keep users online, encouraging them to return, click and engage with content.

This approach connects technical knowledge with questions about design, behaviour and commercial incentives.

Students are encouraged to consider how technology works, what information it collects, how that information may be used, who benefits financially and who might face risks.

The approach does not require schools to abandon programming. Instead, it places programming within a wider educational framework that includes digital literacy, critical thinking and an understanding of technology’s social effects.

Singer identified teachers such as Whalen as examples of educators trying to prepare pupils for a world in which software, online platforms and AI systems are increasingly influential.

What Are the Wider Implications for Parents and Schools?

The discussion has implications for parents deciding which skills their children should develop and for school leaders choosing technology programmes.

Parents may reasonably want children to learn programming because it can support logical thinking, problem-solving and the creation of digital products. However, they also need realistic information about the relationship between education and employment.

Schools face a similar responsibility. A course should be evaluated according to what pupils learn, how effectively they develop transferable abilities and whether the curriculum remains useful as technologies change.

The presence of technology companies in classrooms does not, by itself, demonstrate that their products are harmful or that their educational contributions lack value. Digital tools can support teaching and provide access to resources that schools might otherwise struggle to obtain.

The questions raised by Singer concern the balance between those benefits and the influence of the companies supplying the tools.

School administrators may need to examine whether educational decisions are being driven by learning objectives or by the availability and promotion of particular commercial products.

They may also need to consider privacy, the collection of student data, transparency about AI use and the potential consequences of becoming dependent on a single technology provider.

For parents, understanding these issues can help them ask more informed questions about what their children are learning and why a school has selected a particular programme.

For teachers, the challenge is to incorporate technology without allowing it to replace the human judgement, subject knowledge and classroom relationships that underpin education.

What Does Singer Say Gives Her Hope for the Future of Education?

Despite the concerns in her reporting, Singer told Texas Standard that her school visits had revealed reasons for optimism.

She highlighted teachers who were trying to develop a broader form of technology education, giving students the ability to navigate a world saturated with digital systems and AI.

The aim is not limited to helping pupils obtain jobs. It also involves giving them the knowledge to understand how technologies influence their decisions, collect information and shape their online experiences.

Singer’s example of Whalen’s course illustrates this approach. Students learn how to create digital products while also considering how those products function, whose interests they serve and what risks they may present.

Such teaching can help pupils become more informed users and creators of technology.

It also provides an alternative to curricula built primarily around individual products. Although students may need to learn particular tools, they can also develop principles that remain relevant when those tools change.

The broader approach recognises that digital competence involves more than technical execution. It includes the ability to question claims, evaluate information, understand commercial incentives and make informed decisions about technology.

In this respect, Singer’s account presents teachers as important participants in determining how schools respond to the influence of major technology companies.

Their role is not simply to implement new software or prepare students for the next stage of the technology industry. It is also to help pupils understand the systems they will encounter throughout their lives.

Background: How Did Coding Become a Priority in American Schools?

The expansion of coding education developed amid concerns that traditional schooling was not adequately preparing students for an economy increasingly shaped by computing and digital services.

Technology companies promoted programming as a way for children to become creators of technology rather than passive users of digital products. The approach also aligned with employers’ demand for technically skilled workers and political concerns about maintaining the United States’ economic competitiveness.

Over time, the industry’s educational presence expanded beyond coding initiatives. Companies supplied devices, productivity applications, training programmes and other resources used by schools.

In Coding Kids: Big Tech’s Battle to Remake Public Schools, Natasha Singer examines how that involvement developed and how commercial influence became embedded in different parts of the educational system.

Her reporting also addresses the transition from the coding movement to the growing promotion of AI education, alongside the difficulties some computer science graduates have experienced when entering the workforce.

The Texas Standard interview, published on October 9, 2026, was conducted by Laura Rice and Michael Martinez Lino. It discussed Singer’s reporting on the influence of technology companies, the expectations surrounding coding education and the work of teachers seeking a broader approach to digital learning.

Prediction: How Could These Changes Affect Students, Parents and Educators?

The continuing development of AI is likely to keep pressure on American schools to review their technology curricula. The precise direction of that change will depend on decisions by educators, school administrators, policymakers and the companies supplying educational products.

For students, a broader curriculum combining programming, AI literacy, problem-solving and critical thinking could provide more flexibility than training focused on a single application. However, no particular combination of skills can guarantee a job or a specific salary.

For parents, the debate may increase the importance of understanding what a coding or AI course actually teaches, rather than judging it solely by its title or its association with a major technology brand.

For teachers and school leaders, the principal challenge will be assessing whether digital tools improve learning while maintaining appropriate oversight of student information, curriculum choices and classroom practices.

Technology companies may continue to play a significant role because they possess the resources and expertise to develop software and educational materials. At the same time, schools will need to retain the ability to evaluate those products according to their own educational objectives.

For policymakers, the debate raises questions about transparency, curriculum independence and the responsibility of companies that promote particular skills as essential to future employment.

The employment difficulties described by Singer may also encourage educators to communicate more carefully about career prospects. Computer science can remain valuable without being presented as a guaranteed route to a high-paying position at a major technology company.