Google Forces Schools to Use Their AI Tools By Holding Their Search Ransom: Is That So Bad Since Google Search Is Bad Anyway?

Google's decision to force all schools to use that AI or lose search illustrates the problem when a single company is a monopoly over the applications, tools, and email that school districts use. It was a mistake for school districts to turn over e and start everything using Google as a district-wide tool. Now the costs are really great if a district wants to pull the plug and Google the Monopolist knows this, so it can mistreat its customers in any fashion it desires. What will they force down the throats of schools next?

Any school district considering a move to Google and its products should probably put that on hold and think about what power they are handing over to that company. 

On the other hand, taking away Google Search if a district turns off their AI services, might not be that much of a loss. Google Search in recent times is often unreliable and you really spend more time sorting through their "sponsored garbage" than one should have to. So, it might be worth thinking about switching to another search alternative anyway. There are other options out there for students to use.

At the end of the day, when a company like Google has too much power it is really our fault for granting that to them. Schools should learn the lessons here. 

When you turn any massive amount digital tasks over to a company, think hard about the power over you and your district you are handing over. 

Increasingly, it seems we can't trust Big Tech companies. Google certainly wiped from their mind the notion "Don't be evil" on this one. 

Let's Remove Screens from the Center of the Classrooms and Turn Back Teaching and Learning

What to do with devices in schools is the question behind screen limits and screen bans. 

The issue with current devices lies in their engineering; they are designed for productivity and doing worthwhile things, but they are also designed to distract, to addict, to capture attention, especially some of the applications on them.

I think everyone can agree there is no magic in the devices. Just getting them into the hands of children will not cause wonderful teaching and learning.

Way back in 2015, Kentaro Toyama wrote in his book “Geek Heresy,”:

“What happens when children are left to learn on their own with digital gadgets, as so many tech evangelists insist we should do? Here technology amplifies children’s propensities. To be sure, children have a natural desire to learn and play and grow. But they also have a natural desire to distract themselves in less productive ways. Digital technology amplifies both of these appetites. The balance between them differs from child to child, but on the whole, distraction seems to win out when there’s no adult guidance."

This seems to support what many in Ed Tech still say, that is, that the technology is a “teacher-guidance problem” and not a screen availability problem. In other words, if teachers would just do their jobs and keep students focused on production and not distraction, that would produce miracles of achievement from the technology.

But the situation is much more complex when you understand that these devices are engineered for distraction, addiction, and attention capture as well, providing still another force teachers have to battle when it comes to making these technologies work. If students have the choice to use the device for learning and use it for entertainment, they are going to choose entertainment. If the device is engineered to constantly distract and capture one’s attention, then combine both of these, and you have a powerful force built in the device, and for some, this force is much more powerful than any redirection force the teacher applies.

So, what do we do with the devices in schools? I can understand the inclination to ban and limit them. However, I suggest a much simpler approach: de-center devices in the school and in teaching and learning. Instead of designing the classroom around devices; go back to redesigning it around teaching, learning and the people in the classroom. Then devices become the tool sitting at the side of the room to be used when needed not central to the education process. 

In the 1990s and 2000s I recall we were in awe of how strongly our students took to these devices. We were amazed at their intense attention to the tasks we asked them to do on them. We thought, “Let’s redesign teaching and learning and our classrooms around these amazing teaching and learning technologies.” We built student computer labs, moved to one-to-one because of this promise. Never mind that these devices were engineered for other purposes.

But the devices and their applications of the 1990s and 2000s were less engineered for distraction, attention-capture, and addiction. The goals of their makers were different. Today’s devices, powered by attention-capture algorithms and purposeful engineering to keep the user engaged are quite different. They are powered by a different purpose than the earlier devices.

If we “decenter the technologies” we are in effect rethinking where they fit in, and acknowledging that sometimes they do not. We also acknowledge that there is no magical property in these devices that’s going to make learning finally happen. There are simply tools.

Today, we are making the same mistake with LLMs and generative AI. There is a rush to place it at the center of what we do as teachers and educators. Let’s be clear, these technologies are designed for purposes other than teaching and learning. They will not perform miracles. Like devices, we need to learn to keep this technology de-centered and placed on the side of the classroom with other technological tools.

Knowing and understanding technologies means also understanding that most of them are engineered for purposes other than what we do as teachers.To try to build classrooms around them is misguided.

When Big Tech Comes Calling Offering the Fruits of Hyperscale Data Centers, They are Deceptive and Don't Always Tell the Truth

How do Big Tech companies who come calling on local communities, selling their data centers stack the deck in their favor? This has become increasingly important to local communities as tech companies arrive in those communities searching for places to build their massive, resource-hogging hyperscale data centers.

That’s the subject of Paris Marx’s new book “Hyperscale: The Ambition and Excess of Big Tech’s Data Empires.” Every member of every community and city needs to read this one.

When Big Tech comes to local communities, they use a whole array of obfuscation and downright deception to coax local governments to sell out their communities to these massive box-like data center buildings that are ugly, noisy behemoth resource hogging monstrosities.

Marx points out both the tactics they use to get in the door and the often long-term consequences of hyperscale data centers being built in communities and its not a happy ending.

For example, these companies use the “non-disclosure agreement” to ensure that local government lips are sealed and unable to disclose how much water and power their data centers are going to consume.

Personally, I think all citizens should vote out any local city councilmember or county commissioner who signs such agreements. With that signature they are signing a pact of allegiance to the tech company and not the citizens of that community.

 Now, they are legally bound to keep their mouths shut about the conditions of that sale. That means these local government officials are not longer answering to citizens; they are now answering to the tech company. Who wants politicians in office who do that?

If citizens want to know how shady these tech company deals are, just ask or inquire if a non-disclosure agreement is being signed. That’s a pretty good sign of a shady deal for citizens.

Marx’s book captures a great deal more on how companies who build these data centers hide their real negative impacts on communities. He describes how they refuse to report publicly their consumption of water and power resources. They even say they are power or water neutral, yet they hide the real facts.

And, they do not share information about any emissions either, making local communities think they have a neighboring industry that’s non-polluting and quiet. Yet, they cause so much noise that in some communities, people are unable to sleep at night.

What’s worse, Big Tech companies have come to local communities in the disguise of shell companies, hiding behind a mask until after construction is underway and too late for citizens to object. That just plain smells with wrong. Why in the world would you want a neighbor that lies to you?

I would recommend Paris Marx’s book for anyone who has heard that their local governments are negotiating away their community’s future to Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, Apple, or any technology company seeking to build a data center. 

He offers local citizens the tools to interrogate their local governments dealings and path to resistance and ways to force Big Tech to back off their efforts to hold local government’s hostage while they destroy the life of a local community.

Maybe Selling AI Like the Web Won't Work: It Just Does Have the Same Utilitarian Value

Has anyone thought that, just maybe, generative AI or LLMs is one of those tech tools that not everyone needs to use? That maybe it is not a technology that they should use at all?

It seems Silicon Valley and AI boosters are trying to sell it like it is the internet, which definitely has been something most of us have found useful in our everyday lives. 

No doubt, the Web has really changed and transformed a lot of what we do, how we live, and communicate, though clearly not always better. (Just look at how social media has been a tool of division and not connection.) Still, I don’t think AI rises to that level of utility nor will it ever.

Just maybe, generative AI and AI in general is just not something everyone needs and something that they use everyday like the Web. I am still trying to find some way to use Siri AI and have not really found a way where it makes anything easier or better.

The problem with generative AI tools and AI is how it’s being sold is wrong. Let’s start by acknowledging that not everyone needs it or wants it. I don’t need to automate anything in my life right now, and there are lots of other people who are the same. I don’t need to create fake pictures or have chatbots write my emails.

Big Tech and AI boosters want their favorite toy to be THE thing everyone uses, and that just doesn’t need to be. 

Maybe, just maybe, generative AI as a tool is more like a chainsaw or sewer line auger or drain snake. You don’t need to cut down trees everyday, nor do you need to snake out that clog in your drain pipes everyday. You just need it sometimes, unless you are a tree trimmer or plumber. My life is not there to justify AI’s existence; AI needs to justify its use in my own life.

I’ll keep toying with Siri AI most likely, but I don’t see the need to fit my life to make AI work. Good tools are there if you need them, and I just haven’t found a way to need it yet.

That’s what Big Tech and AI boosters don’t get, that maybe, as tools go, AI is not useful for everyone and in every job. But, I realize, that shatters their dreams of world transformation and endless profits. Still, as technologies go, its utility is so different from the internet, and it just might ever be something everyone uses or wants to use.

When Local Governments and Big Tech Hide the True Resource Impact of Their Data Centers Citizens Suffer and Are Asked to Sacrifice

 Why are local governments and Big Tech hiding the real impacts on local resources in their bids to construct their massive data centers? Here's one example from my local community. It is problematic when our local governments are complicit.

In June of 2026 Catawba County Government posted on their website “Joint Statement on Microsoft Data Center Development in Catawba County” apparently in response to all the negative publicity surrounding the construction of data centers in communities around the country.

This statement is a major whitewashing trick of the construction of these data centers in Catawba County by local governments and serves to hide and obfuscate what these will do to our local community and its resources.

What is left out of this joint statement on the development of Microsoft data centers in Catawba County? Sometimes these local government entities and local economic development organizations leave out important information and hope that citizens will miss what’s left out. They purposely leave out details, and they say things without being fully transparent, and Catawba local governments are no different here.

The addition of data centers in any community is going to massively impact that commuity’s resource availability. Resources such as water and power are impacted.

Power consumption and water consumption are the two largest areas of data center resource impact, and this “Joint Statement on Microsoft Data Center Development in Catawba County” leaves out large parts of the resource consumption story.

First of all, this statement says that “Microsoft will pay property taxers based on the full value of the buildings, equipment, and infrastructure located on site.” Sounds reasonable, correct? But what deals and incentives from our local taxes are being given as handouts to Microsoft? Who’s going to pay for the infrastructure needed to connect water, sewer, power, etc. to these facilities? Local governments often hide such costs from citizens and in this statement the entire costs of bringing in these data centers into our communities is not made clear and hidden.

Secondly, the statement says that these data centers “do not typically create significant school enrollment growth, daily commuter traffic, solid waste collection needs, or frequent police and fire calls for service.” What is hidden in this statement? This means that these data centers are NOT GOING TO BE BRINGING IN A LOT OF PERMANENT JOBS FOR THE CITIZENS OF CATAWBA COUNTY. If they were, then it only makes sense that the needs for all these would increase after its construction. Naturally, these data centers do not employ a lot people, hence they need no additional schools, roads for commuters, because there are no additional employees to use them.

Sure, there will be tons of temporary short-term jobs while they are constructed, but there is no long term employment benefit to these data centers.

Finally, the statement addresses water consumption. The statement says that Microsoft will “primarily rely on other cooling technologies” to cool their data centers. Translation: that means they will use air conditioning and that uses more power. One can then conclude that these massive data centers will use more power, driving up electricity costs for all in the area. That’s not to mention consumers having to pay through increase energy costs for the power infrastructure needed.

The entire statement tries to totally whitewash how these data centers are going to impact Catawba County residents. This same pattern has played out across the world as Big Tech companies move into local communities and try to hide their true impacts, and what’s worse, local governments are accomplices. No matter what this statement says, you can bet the citizen consumers of Catawba County are being asked to sacrifice in some way so that the county can have a Big Tech Trophy to put on its marketing brochures.

What's With Idea of Becoming an Effective School Leader in 10 Minutes or in 10 Simple Steps?

I recently reviewed a manuscript for a book that was entitled something like the “Ten Minute School Leader.” It was simply a booklist of ten things that an administrator could do to supposedly become effective. When you see something like that or hear a salespitch with that kind of list, run away as fast as you can before it sucks your money away into oblivion. There  are no simple recipes for the complicated things in life.

Let’s face it, you just can’t reduce the complexity of school leadership to 10 things much less master it in 10 minutes. It takes time to learn about students, about teachers, about the school, about the system and that’s just not going to happen in 10 steps or 10 minutes.

It takes longer that 10 minutes to read such drivel.

Leadership of any kind in my experiences is never, ever that simple. These people are preying on a desire for a quick fix that’s just not there.

We live in a world where we want to sacrifice everything for efficiency and save time. 

Some things that are true and important just can’t possible be said simply.

Sure, No Causal Evidence of Screen Harms to Students, But There Is Enough Data to Pause Full-Speed Ahead Adoption of Technologies

Are screen bans and screen limits warranted? Well…

Sure, there is no causal proof that screens are absolutely "causing" a decline in reading achievement, math achievement and psychological harms.

We as educators have to be careful because cigarette companies used the same defense of lack of causal evidence for years, at least until enough evidence was amassed to show that there was a causal relationship. A lot of harm happened in the interim. We work with kids, and if there is any evidence, even if it is flawed, we need to take notice. There’s is enough rationale to question and move deliberately.

With screens, there are some correlations or associations between screens and harms. Does that mean an outright ban of screens in schools?" I would not call for that. It would make me question and walk more slowly though.

However, I would pause the full-steam-ahead approach to Ed Tech that quickly drives adoption of the latest inventions that come forth from Silicon Valley and tech companies. This massive rush to integrate AI for example, is wrong-headed. It needs a more deliberate and slower approach to adoption because there are quite a few unknowns, including consequences of use over time to cognitive function.

The problem with so much about Ed Tech adoption in schools is the rhetoric of urgency used by Ed Tech boosters. They tell educators that if they don't adopt immediately they and their students will be left behind. They use this urgency pitch like a sledgehammer to force these tools into classrooms, usually for their own benefit.

This urgency needs to be ignored by educators. Rarely is taking time to explore the adoption of a new tool in the classroom a problem. Sales pitches about the end of education and technological revolutions are more about product and self-promotion than reality. This urgency is entirely manufactured and hype.

Should school districts ban screens entirely? Here’s some things schools could do.

-They should ban technologies that are not safe for students to use. No question there. Make the companies pushing the products make their products safe for students to use. Don’t adopt until they do so.

-They should allow exploration and experimentation with controls and data collection. Avoid the run-away-train of widespread adoption and take time to study it.

-They should ban wholesale  adoption of new technologies, and instead focus efforts on experimenting and collecting data first. Take the time necessary.

The great sin of school technologists and Ed Tech advocates is they race from the invention of a technology immediately to its adoption, sometimes just because the seers of Silicon Valley start prognosticating and fostering a false sense of urgency. 

Screen bans, while I can certainly understand the fears and rationale, I am not convinced myself that is necessary. However, I am convinced that we can curtail Ed Tech products that are not safe. Educators, and there are a lot of us, can demand that Silicon Valley and tech companies make their products safer before we wholesale adopt them. 

Screen limits are another story. I am convinced that we have put technology on a pedestal in education. It is literally the always-go-to solution for all problems. 

We need to leap out of the technology-is-always-the-solution box that Silicon Valley and Ed Tech boosters have put us in and widen our horizons and look for solutions beyond the horizons of screens.

Those solutions are there. There is not always an app for those.