“The toothpaste is out of the tube.”

“The horse is out of the barn.”

“The train has left the station.”

I keep hearing these sentiments from parents who don’t want a technology-saturated education for their children but feel like it’s too late to push back.

That’s not true. It’s not too late and we have to say “No.” 

Resignation isn’t progress.

AI tools are being used in schools. They aren’t “coming”-- they are here. But shrugging our shoulders and saying, “Ah, well, we must learn to live with it” is deeply problematic.

First of all, it’s not a gentle roll out of AI. It’s an assault. It’s enmeshment. It’s forcing us to use it because we don’t have an alternative (see: enmeshment) and too many administrators have FOMO. 

Secondly, AI– like “EdTech”-- is just a marketing term (h/t Emily Bender and Alex Hanna). It’s flashy, new, and terrible for kids, but schools are so afraid of being left in the dust that they’re ignoring the fact that the emperor has no clothes. And too many fingers on each hand.

Third, when we talk about “AI tools” in school, what’s really happening is that the EdTech tools currently being used in the form of learning management systems (like PowerSchool’s Schoology or Instructure’s Canvas) are just folding AI processes into already existing platforms. There isn’t a “choice” to use them or not. Refusing AI in school actually means we have to refuse these EdTech tools and their accompanying “need” for 1:1 devices as well. 

We should not go quietly into the night on this. 

We should not shrug and say, “Ok, fine, let’s negotiate the number of minutes students should spend on their Chromebooks each day” or “Let’s only make ChatGPT available to high school students” (!). 

No. As the title of this essay (and Captain Barbossa) proclaims: 

I am disinclined to acquiesce to these requests.

Means “No.”

“No” is a complete sentence.

Why is the burden on parents to prove why 1:1s, EdTech products, and AI “tools” are bad for kids, when schools and companies themselves haven't proven they are effective, safe, or legal? It may have taken nearly a decade to get smartphones and social media out of schools, but we now have concrete evidence of the harm they’ve caused to young people. 

EdTech is just Big Tech in a sweater vest– the same business models, the same harms. Do we want to wait another ten years to see how the degradation of skills will impact children in their working life? We only get one chance to do brain development right– we’re squandering that right now by giving technologists the power to dictate what that looks like (and it looks really, really bad.)

If I designed a highly technical surgical tool and then walked into an operating room and announced that because I had designed the tool I was qualified to perform the surgery, I should hope that I'd be promptly tossed out or immediately admitted for a psych eval.

Yet every single day technologists proclaim to know better than teachers what children need in the classroom, even if they themselves have never spent a day teaching, and shove their wares into the overwhelmed hands of administrators and teachers who have too many problems to solve and never enough time to solve them.

It’s not madness to refuse 1:1s, AI, and EdTech tools in the classroom.

It’s madness not to. 

If you’re a parent who is uncomfortable with the amount of educational technology, AI “tools”, and access to internet-connected 1:1 devices going on in education today, here are three concrete steps you can take:

1. Ask Questions: In order to know what we are refusing, we need to know what products are being used. You can ask these questions via email to school boards or administrators or teachers, public testimony at school board meetings, or in conversation. Pick the path that works best for you. What questions should you ask? See here for a list or download my UnPlug EdTech Toolkit for a longer version. 

2. Utilize Relationships: It’s easy to feel anger and outrage about all of this, but burning bridges won’t build change. What school administrator or teacher do you have a good relationship with? Start with that person– even if it is just to ask them to point you in the right direction. Remember, replace judgment with curiosity. Many teachers are between a rock and a hard place and parent advocacy efforts may really help them, so don’t assume all teachers are “in” on the EdTech scam. 

3. Opting Out is Saying No: This is a more direct action with potentially greater impact. Opting Out can look like a few different things. If you are already a member of our T.I.M.E. Collective, I have an entire webinar called “Opt Out Curious?” that walks you through the various possibilities. Broadly speaking, parents can opt their children out of state mandated testing (because testing is often used as an excuse to justify the 1:1s); opt out of the 1:1 devices; or opt out of some or all EdTech and AI products. There is a lot of nuance to this, such as states that do not allow opting out of state testing. However, we need more courageous parents to say “No” to some or all of this. Our tacit acceptance (even if we’re concerned) is justification to school leaders and EdTech companies themselves that we condone the use of such products. We do not want to convey that message.  

The good news is you are not alone. That’s why our Tech-Intentional™ Movement for Education has a centralized place to discuss these topics and access additional resources. I host weekly Office Hours in our T.I.M.E. Collective where we explore options for parents seeking opt out pathways, as well as strategies for advocacy and policy changes. Collective action is collective change. 

At the end of the day, we have to remember the following:

Kids are not standardized. 

Public schools are not businesses.

And techbros and edu-crats aren’t going to fix education.

We cannot let technologists decide that what might work for running a business will also work for running an education system. It won’t and it doesn’t.

Kids aren’t widgets. Data isn’t the only “output” of school. Relationships can’t be measured by test scores.

We must resist the notion that technologists know better than teachers what is best for children. 

They don’t.

We must stop thinking that it is too late to refuse or that we should find “common ground” to move forward. No. 

Do not believe the snake oil hype that if your children don’t have AI-access in elementary school that they will somehow be “behind.” None of these tech bros had this as children and they turned out just fine.

Be disinclined to acquiesce to their request.

Means “No.”