Changing Landscape of AI in Education
For quite some time, parents have been advised to keep an eye on their kids’ online behavior, restrict social media use, and shield them from harmful digital environments. This guidance, however, seems to conflict with a new narrative from policymakers and tech leaders advocating for earlier and broader integration of artificial intelligence in schools.
Initially, this seemed like a sensible objective. But as the push for integrating AI in education gained momentum, it started to raise some eyebrows. Major tech companies are eager to position themselves as “AI education partners,” entering public education under the guise of innovation. Yet, many parents lack adequate information or the option to opt-out. When these risky platforms enter schools, they gain credibility, making parents more trusting of tools they might otherwise keep away from their homes.
AI in education is being marketed as an essential and advantageous development. Yet, beneath this surface of optimism lies a harsher reality: AI could effectively serve as a conduit for big tech to engage with children and bypass parental safeguards.
Platforms Under Scrutiny for Child Safety Issues
This debate centers around three major players: Meta, Snap, and Roblox. Each is currently positioning itself as an AI education partner despite facing ongoing legal issues and investigations linked to child exploitation, predatory practices, and inadequate protection of minors.
Meta is embroiled in a lawsuit concerning child exploitation and insecure platform design. Reports have shown that Meta’s AI chatbot was permitted to engage in flirtatious conversations with minors and discuss sensitive health topics. This policy was only altered after significant media backlash.
European consumer watchdogs accuse Meta of extensive data collection that exceeds user expectations, utilizing behavioral data to profile emotional states and other sensitive aspects. Regulators have asserted that genuine consent is impossible at this scale. Furthermore, Meta has claimed in U.S. court that its published content can be used to train AI under “fair use,” raising critical questions about the treatment of student work used in AI systems.
Snapchat faces lawsuits from states like Kansas, New Mexico, and Utah, alleging the platform exposes minors to dangerous activities, including trafficking and sexual exploitation. In early 2025, federal regulators expressed concerns over a complaint involving Snapchat’s AI chatbot and the Department of Justice.
Notably, Snap has aligned itself as an AI education partner, promising in-app educational programs targeting teens to enhance awareness about responsible AI usage.
Roblox has faced numerous parental complaints regarding safety. Several states, including Iowa and Texas, have sued Roblox due to allegations of child grooming and exploitation. Even so, Roblox is now vying for access to classrooms as an “AI learning” tool.
If these platforms are deemed unsafe for kids at home, they certainly shouldn’t be permitted in school settings. It’s irresponsible and risky to allow companies with a track record of neglecting child safety into the classroom.
A Contradiction We Prefer to Ignore
Outside the classroom, the risks become increasingly clear.
Various states, including Florida and Connecticut, are implementing measures to limit minors’ access to social media through age verification and parental consent. The bipartisan Kids Off Social Media Act at the federal level aims to ban social media access for children under 13 and restrict algorithmic targeting for teens.
For over a century, the Supreme Court has upheld that parents—not states or corporations—have the inherent right to guide their children’s education.
When big tech gains entry to classrooms without transparency or consent, it undermines parental authority. Families are told to restrict social media usage at home while schools embrace the same platforms through AI. This creates a troubling dynamic that reduces kids to mere data points for tech companies.
This troubling trend necessitates clear boundaries. Some platforms endanger children, others monetize them, and many compromise their privacy. None should be present in classrooms without stringent guidelines in place.
What parents really need are enforceable limits, transparency, and the right to refuse participation without hesitation. The Constitution has long affirmed that parents—not tech firms—should steer their children’s education, extending that authority beyond school walls.
If AI is to find a place in our classrooms, it must be on the terms of families, not technology corporations.
