Why is Google Holding Schools Hostage?

Cal Newport opens by describing Google’s response to pressure from parents and educators: AI tools in Google’s education apps would no longer be enabled by default for K–12 schools, but schools that did not turn them back on would also lose access to Google Search. The apps are used in more than 60,000 schools. Newport quotes Zephyr Teachout calling this illegal tying and abuse of monopoly power, and a middle-school English teacher who said Google’s AI Overviews make it impossible to assign writing through Google Classroom without students receiving the answers.

Newport examines an NBC News report saying Gemini, Gemini Notebook, Gemini in Classroom, and Google Search would all be off for K–12 student accounts until administrators explicitly enabled them. Google education executive Chris Phillips said schools should control AI in their classrooms, but Newport calls that disingenuous because Google presents Search as inseparable from the AI products. He argues Google has lumped a long-established educational tool—ordinary web search—with newer AI features that parents and teachers are rejecting.

Google’s public explanation is that “Search and AI are deeply integrated,” so it supposedly cannot provide Search without AI summaries and chatbot-style follow-up questions. Newport tests that claim by adding “&udm=14” to a Google search URL, which produces ordinary linked results with no AI Overview. Because Google already operates this non-AI version, Newport calls the claim “shenanigans” rather than a genuine technical limitation.

Newport identifies two likely motives behind the bundling. First, automatically exposing students in 60,000 schools to AI Overviews would increase Google’s reported engagement with its AI products. Second, Google can train children to use its chatbot-style tools instead of ChatGPT or Claude, making Google’s interface their default as they move into college and adult life. Newport concludes that Google is trying to acquire new users and improve engagement metrics through schools, rather than being forced by technology to combine Search and AI.

Newport presents three responses. Schools could sue Google under antitrust law, similar to the 1990s Microsoft case involving Windows and Internet Explorer, although he notes a recent Penske Media v. Google ruling found plaintiffs had not established that Search and AI Overview were separate products. He recommends an immediate practical alternative: use DuckDuckGo, specifically noai.duckduckgo.com, which provides regular results without AI summaries and offers administrators a Chromebook deployment guide. A third route is legislation restricting AI and ed-tech use.

Newport says 2026 has brought a new wave of parental activism over Chromebooks, iPads, and other classroom screens, distinct from 2025’s smartphone restrictions. At least 16 state legislatures have proposed or passed measures limiting ed-tech screen time or requiring explicit school AI plans, threatening an ed-tech industry worth $164 billion annually. He argues Google’s AI Overviews encourage “cognitive surrender” by summarizing homework and offering answers, while its own pedagogical tools attempt to decide how children should use AI. With trust in Big Tech already low, he tells Google to “get out of our classroom.”