As a superintendent working within a tight budget, I was excited by what Google’s free tools could make possible for our district. I learned the software and attended intensive training sessions.
The financial constraints made adoption necessary. Yet alongside that enthusiasm was a concern about becoming too dependent on one company. Were we giving away too much control over decisions that should remain ours?
The current dispute in New York City brings that concern into focus. WNYC and Gothamist reported on November 6 that city schools want access to Google Search without the AI features built into it. Google has described search and AI as deeply integrated. The disagreement raises a question that extends well beyond New York: What choices do schools retain when a company changes a tool they already rely on?
The choices that remain
This is the kind of situation I worried about. A product that meets a district’s needs today may later change in ways the district would not have chosen. Once systems and daily practices depend on it, declining a change can become difficult.
A district’s decision to adopt a platform is made within a particular set of circumstances. Leaders consider its usefulness, affordability and fit with existing systems. Staff invest time in learning it. Over time, that initial decision can become part of the infrastructure on which the district depends.
The terms of that relationship deserve continuing attention. An initial approval should not be treated as permanent agreement to every change a company introduces. Schools need to retain meaningful choices as products evolve, including the ability to reconsider whether a tool still serves its intended purpose.
The New York dispute concerns AI within Google Search, not simply whether schools can turn on a separate chatbot. That distinction matters because it illustrates how a change can arrive within a familiar service. The reporting describes an unresolved disagreement about those choices, rather than a completed withdrawal of Search from classrooms.
A shared public responsibility
Technology companies should not dictate what public schools do or determine how children are taught. Parents and educators should help shape these decisions, with school leaders and boards of education exercising oversight.
Their roles are different and complementary. Educators bring knowledge of instruction and the children they teach. Parents contribute an understanding of their children across settings and over time. School leaders and boards are responsible for considering these perspectives alongside district priorities, resources and public obligations.
Meaningful participation requires clear information. Families and educators need to understand what is changing, what choices are available and how their observations will be considered. A conversation held before a decision becomes routine gives their contributions a greater chance to influence what happens next.
Protecting the ability to choose
District agreements should provide clear notice of significant changes, meaningful options to decline new features and a process for reviewing their effect on teaching and learning. Those expectations belong in discussions about contracts and budgets, alongside the immediate benefits a product offers.
The review should also consider what would be required to change direction. If a district concludes that a service no longer meets its needs, the time, staffing and resources required to move to an alternative become educational leadership concerns. Considering those demands early helps preserve choices later.
Legislators should ensure that education leaders retain the authority to choose, question and reconsider the tools used in their schools. Appropriate protections in state law can help establish expectations that individual districts may struggle to secure on their own.
The purpose remains the education children receive. Our decisions should support the development of knowledgeable, capable young people who can reason, create and exercise judgment. Preserving the ability to make those decisions is part of our responsibility to them.
Dr. Judy Benson Clarke
Education Strategist
People | Potential | Possibilities
