The Vergecast 播客，特邀教育技术记者 Natasha Singer，深入探讨了科技行业对公立学校的普遍影响力，追溯其从20世纪初期的愿景到当前人工智能时代的演变路径。这场讨论由 Singer 的著作《Coding Kids》引发，探讨了科技公司采用的“深度游说”策略，以及对学生学习和教育优先事项的影响。 Singer 首先确立了一个历史模式：从 Thomas Edison 在20世纪10年代初期设想投影仪取代书籍，到 Steve Jobs 在1980年代推动 Apple 电脑进入学校，再到近期 Google 的 Chromebooks。她指出，这些富有魅力的创新者始终将他们的产品描绘成具有变革性、能够实现学习民主化并提供基本技能的工具，然而，其背后始终存在着销售更多产品的商业驱动力。她认为，这种循环在人工智能领域仍在继续，聊天机器人被宣传为实现个性化和高效学习的工具。 然而，这种技术沉浸的有效性受到了质疑。秘鲁和乌拉圭关于“每童一机”（One Laptop Per Child）项目的研究发现，学习成果没有改善，只有电脑使用量的增加。联合国教科文组织（UNESCO）的报告进一步证实了这一点，指出“几乎没有严格的证据表明数字技术能改善教育成果”，并强调大多数支持性研究都由销售这些工具的公司资助。 播客随后聚焦于 Code.org，这是一个由微软前高管 Hadi Pratovi 在2010年代创办的非营利组织。Code.org 利用病毒式营销等“创业技术”，制作了一个众星云集的 YouTube 视频，该视频“爆红”，激发了人们对编程的热情。他们的“编程一小时”（Hour of Code）活动吸引了全球数百万儿童参与，揭开了编程的神秘面纱，使其成为一个“家喻户晓的词汇”。Code.org 随后扩大了其工作范围，通过开发课程、培训教师以及游说各州资助并强制推行计算机科学教育，甚至影响了毕业要求。 与此同时，由加州大学洛杉矶分校（UCLA）的 Jay Margolis 领导的“一小群学者”则采取了不同的方法。他们开发了“探索计算机科学”（Exploring Computer Science），一门基础广泛的课程，旨在通过教授纯编程之外的概念来吸引更多元化的学生群体，例如互联网运作原理、数据科学以及技术对社会的影响。国家科学基金会（National Science Foundation）的 Jan Cooney 倡导了这一做法，最终促成了 AP 计算机科学原理（AP Computer Science Principles）课程的创建，该课程旨在为学生，特别是女性和代表性不足的少数族裔，进入该领域提供一个“入门途径”。这与“极其缺乏多样性”且以编程为中心的 AP 计算机科学 A（AP Computer Science A）课程形成了对比。 有趣的是，Code.org 成为了 AP 计算机科学原理课程的主要提供者之一。大学理事会（College Board）采取了对于任何 AP 科目而言都是不寻常的举动，批准了来自 Apple（教授 Swift 语言）和 Microsoft（使用 Minecraft 进行教育）等科技巨头的打包课程，以及大学开发的课程。大学理事会的 Trevor Packer 为这一做法辩护，理由是需要扩大课程规模以及所审查课程的严谨性，而没有区分学术机构和企业提供者。 Singer 介绍了记者 William Greider 创造的“深度游说”（deep lobbying）概念，它描述了大型公司如何资助非营利组织以推动其议程，通过可信渠道洗白影响力。她引用了 Meta 资助 PTA 以促进社交媒体安全的例子，并指出家长团体现在将其定义为“屏幕洗白”（Screenwashing）。她敦促人们批判性地审视科技在教育领域的影响力，类似于对制药行业对医药影响力的审查方式，她认为，在科技领域，此类质疑往往被斥为“批评”。 一个核心主题是科技对“效率”的强调。尽管人工智能承诺能为教师和学生简化任务，Singer 警告说，这可能会绕过“富有成效的挣扎”（productive struggle）——而这正是学习经常发生的过程。她认为，这种对效率的关注引发了关于公立学校宗旨的基本问题：它应该优先考虑“当今最强大的行业”所需要的技能，还是应该培养批判性思维并培养知情的公民？ 对话最终聚焦于当前向“人工智能时代”的转变。Code.org 本身也已发展演变，“代码人工智能”（code AI）现在成为其显著特征。这种快速转变让许多计算机科学毕业生感到被“煤气灯操纵”（gaslighted），难以找到工作，因为就业市场突然间优先考虑人工智能。Singer 质疑学校是否应该承受不断适应行业潮流所带来的“剧烈冲击”，或者它们是否应该专注于教授“持久技能”（durable skills），使学生能够批判性地接触任何技术。最终，她乐观地表示，先驱教师们正在引导我们走向一个“以人为本”（human-driven）的未来，赋能学生对技术做出明智选择，而不是仅仅成为“行业议程的齿轮”（cogs for industry agendas）。

The Vergecast podcast, featuring education technology reporter Natasha Singer, delves into the pervasive influence of the tech industry on public schools, charting a path from early 20th-century visions to the current AI era. The discussion, spurred by Singer's book "Coding Kids," explores the "deep lobbying" tactics employed by tech companies and the implications for student learning and educational priorities. Singer begins by establishing a historical pattern: from Thomas Edison's early 1910s vision of projectors replacing books, to Steve Jobs's push for Apple computers in schools in the 1980s, and Google's Chromebooks more recently. She notes that these charismatic innovators consistently presented their products as transformative, democratizing learning, and providing essential skills, yet always with an underlying business imperative to sell more units. This cycle, she argues, continues with AI, where chatbots are marketed as tools for customized and efficient learning. However, the efficacy of this tech immersion is questioned. Studies from Peru and Uruguay regarding the "One Laptop Per Child" program found no improvement in learning outcomes, only increased computer use. UNESCO's report further supported this, stating "little rigorous evidence that digital technology improves educational outcomes," and highlighting that most supporting studies are funded by the very companies selling the tools. The podcast then focuses on Code.org, a nonprofit launched by former Microsoft executive Hadi Pratovi in the 2010s. Utilizing "startup techniques" like viral marketing, Code.org produced a celebrity-laden YouTube video that "blew up," generating enthusiasm for coding. Their "Hour of Code" initiative, involving millions of kids globally, demystified coding and made it a "household word." Code.org then scaled its efforts by developing curriculum, training teachers, and lobbying states to fund and mandate computer science education, even influencing graduation requirements. In parallel, a "modest group of academics," led by Jay Margolis at UCLA, pursued a different approach. They developed "Exploring Computer Science," a broad-based course designed to attract a more diverse student body by teaching concepts beyond pure programming, such as internet workings, data science, and the societal impact of technology. Jan Cooney at the National Science Foundation championed this, leading to the creation of the AP Computer Science Principles course, which aimed to be an "on-ramp" for students, particularly women and underrepresented minorities, into the field. This contrasted with the "horrifically non-diverse" and programming-centric AP Computer Science A course. Intriguingly, Code.org became a major provider of AP Computer Science Principles curriculum. The College Board, in an unusual move for any AP subject, approved packaged curricula from tech giants like Apple (teaching Swift) and Microsoft (using Minecraft for education), alongside university-developed courses. Trevor Packer of the College Board defended this, citing the need to grow the course and the rigor of the vetted curricula, without distinguishing between academic and corporate providers. Singer introduces the concept of "deep lobbying," coined by journalist William Greider, to describe how big companies fund non-profit groups to promote their agendas, laundering influence through trusted channels. She cites Meta's funding of the PTA to promote social media safety as an example, and notes parents' groups now identify this as "Screenwashing." She urges critical questioning of tech's influence in education, similar to how the pharmaceutical industry's impact on medicine is scrutinized, arguing that such questions are often dismissed as "criticism" in tech. A central theme is tech's emphasis on "efficiency." While AI promises to streamline tasks for teachers and students, Singer warns that this can bypass "productive struggle"—the very process where learning often occurs. This focus on efficiency, she contends, raises fundamental questions about the purpose of public schooling: should it prioritize the skills desired by the "most powerful industry of the day," or foster critical thinking and prepare informed citizens? The conversation culminates in the current shift to the "AI era." Code.org itself has evolved, with "code AI" now featuring prominently. This rapid pivot has left many computer science graduates feeling "gaslighted," struggling to find jobs in a landscape suddenly prioritizing AI. Singer questions whether schools should be subjected to the "whiplash" of constantly adapting to industry fads, or if they should focus on teaching "durable skills" that allow students to critically engage with any technology. Ultimately, she expresses optimism that pioneering teachers are steering towards a "human-driven" future, empowering students to make informed choices about technology, rather than being mere "cogs for industry agendas."