This essay first appeared in my newsletter Sign up here if interested in Unf^cking Education.

---

In the last decade, a new mantra hypnotized American schools: “Every child should learn to code.” 

The President said it. Governors echoed it. Tech CEOs funded it—directly or via nonprofits they controlled.

The pitch was surgical. 

It wasn’t just about skills. It was about the future. About equity. About national competitiveness. And it hits every note that makes school boards and superintendents stop thinking critically.

• “Future-ready students!”
• “Closing the equity gap!”
• “Democratizing opportunity!”

These slogans worked like magic spells—triggering reflexive approval instead of rigorous scrutiny. Because who wants to be the person against equity or the future?

But schools didn’t stop to ask the most important question: Is this what students actually need?

Fast forward to today. Computer science graduates face some of the highest unemployment rates of any major (although the art history comparison below is click-baity when you consider art history underemployment and compensation data). AI appears to already be or on the precipice of devouring the very roles this education promised to create. 

And schools? 

They’re, of course, already chasing the next shiny object: AI literacy.

The Activity Trap: Mistaking Motion for Progress

Schools love visible activity. 

It makes administrators feel effective and keeps parents reassured. But there’s a big difference between motion and progress:

• Motion gets mistaken for progress.
• Tools get mistaken for thinking.
• Training gets mistaken for education.

Watch kids type code and it looks like learning. But so does watching them tap through iPad spelling games. It’s an activity masquerading as mastery.

This illusion is supercharged by the Education Industrial Complex—a network of edtech vendors, consultants, nonprofits, and lobbyists that exist to sell “solutions” to problems schools never clearly defined. They offer free training, pilot programs, and research reports. All schools have to do is buy in—with their time, budgets, and students’ attention.

Less Hype, More First Principles

Schools rarely start from first principles. They don’t ask: What is the purpose of education?

If they did, they might center on four timeless capabilities:

• Agency & Self-Efficacy: Helping students believe they can shape the world, not just endure it.
• Critical & Creative Problem-Solving: Teaching them to ask better questions, not just memorize answers.
• Courage & Comfort with Ambiguity: Preparing them to act when there’s no clear right answer.
• Resilience & Adaptability: Showing them that failure is feedback, not a verdict.

Every initiative—tech or otherwise—should be judged against these goals. Most fail spectacularly.

When Tech Pushes, Schools Say Yes

This isn’t the first time the Education Industrial Complex has arrived with shiny solutions that generate immediate, visible activity. 

• Students typing on Chromebooks looks like engagement. 
• Kids swiping through iPad apps feels like personalized learning. 
• Teenagers debugging Python code seems like problem-solving.

Typically, this activity is wrapped in massive claims of educational progress.

• When classrooms have Chromebooks, they call it “democratizing access.” 
• “iPads for everyone” is framed as “unleashing creativity.”
• When tech companies lobby for mandatory computer science requirements, they wrap it in the language of equity and economic competitiveness. 

Schools keep falling for this sleight of hand because visible activity is easier to measure—and much easier to photograph for the local media and parents. 

Governments Want Headlines, Not Outcomes

Politicians are willing accomplices as they love tech-forward education initiatives that sound bold and modern. They’re press-ready and fundable. When Arkansas made CS a graduation requirement in 2015, it made national news. North Carolina, New Jersey, and others followed quickly.

President Obama’s “Computer Science for All” initiative pledged $4 billion and framed CS as “a basic skill, right along with the three Rs.”

Behind the scenes, states funneled millions to curriculum vendors and teacher training firms. In many cases, the teachers knew less about programming than their students.

Now the AI bandwagon is rolling in. “Teach prompt engineering.” “Bridge the new digital divide.” 

Same buzzwords. 

Same vendors. 

Same flawed incentives.

Schools Are Starved for Funding—and Fall for the Bait

Most schools aren’t malicious. They’re desperate. When budgets are tight, students are dangerously disengaged and test scores are stagnant, “free” training, pilot grants, and new tech feel like lifelines.

But nothing is free. 

Every hour spent on the trendy new thing is an hour not spent on deep reading, reflective writing, or meaningful coaching. Every dollar spent on software licenses is a dollar not spent hiring better teachers or making our curriculum more relevant.

We’ve spent billions on tech in schools with almost nothing to show for it.

The Parent’s BS Detector: 6 Questions to Ask

Before your school adopts the next shiny initiative, ask:

✅ What specific, measurable problem is this solving? 

✅ How does this strengthen agency, critical thinking, resilience, or ambiguity tolerance? 

✅ Who profits if we adopt this? 

✅ What gets displaced to make room for it? 

✅ Is there long-term evidence—not just pilot hype—that this works? 

✅ Are our teachers trained and equipped to deliver this meaningfully?

Right now, AI education is being sold to schools with the same fervor as coding was a few years ago. 

• The players are the same. 
• The promises are the same. 
• And unless we start asking better questions, the results will be too.

Final Thought

Schools don’t exist to make tech companies richer. They don’t exist to make politicians look modern. They exist to help children grow into capable, thoughtful, resilient adults.

Let’s remember that.

And remind schools, politicians and tech companies when they’re pushing activity — not progress.