AI in education: Innovation or a predator’s playground?

For years, parents have been warned to monitor their children’s online activity, limit social media, and guard against predatory digital spaces. That guidance is now colliding with a very different message from policymakers and technology leaders: Artificial intelligence must be introduced earlier and more broadly in schools.

When risky platforms enter through schools, they inherit an unearned legitimacy, conditioning parents to trust tools they would never allow at home.

On its face, this goal sounds reasonable. But what began as a policy push has quickly turned into something far more concerning — a rush by major tech companies to brand themselves as “AI Education Partners,” gaining access to public education under the banner of innovation, often without parents being fully informed or given the ability to opt out. When risky platforms enter through schools, they inherit an unearned legitimacy, conditioning parents to trust tools they would never allow at home.

AI in education is being sold as inevitable and benevolent. Behind the buzzwords lies a harder truth: AI is becoming a back door for Big Tech to access children and sidestep parental authority.

Platforms already under fire for child safety

At the center of this debate are three companies — Meta, Snap, and Roblox — all now positioning themselves as AI education partners while facing active litigation and investigations tied to child exploitation, predatory behavior, and failures to protect minors.

Meta is facing lawsuits and regulatory actions related to child exploitation, unsafe platform design, and illegal data practices. Internal company documents revealed that Meta’s AI chatbots were permitted to engage minors in flirtatious, intimate, and even health-related conversations — policies the company only revised after media exposure.

European consumer watchdogs have also accused Meta of sweeping data collection practices that go far beyond what users reasonably expect, using behavioral data to profile emotional state, sexual identity, and vulnerability to addiction. Regulators argue that meaningful consent is impossible at such a scale. Meta has also claimed in U.S. courts that publicly available content can be used to train AI under “fair use,” raising serious questions about how student classroom work could be treated once ingested by AI systems.

Snapchat is facing lawsuits from multiple states, including Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, and others, alleging that its platform exposes minors to drug and weapons dealing, sexual exploitation, and severe mental health harm. In January 2025, federal regulators escalated concerns by referring a complaint involving Snapchat’s AI chatbot to the Department of Justice.

Despite this record, Snap signed on as an AI education partner, promising “in-app educational programming directed toward teens to raise awareness on safe and responsible use of AI technologies.”

Roblox, long flagged by parents for safety concerns, is being sued by multiple states, including Iowa, Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee, and Kentucky, over allegations that it enabled predators to groom and exploit children. Yet Roblox now seeks classroom access as an “AI learning” platform.

If these platforms are too dangerous for children at home, they are too dangerous to normalize at school. Allowing companies with a history of child-safety failures to integrate themselves into classrooms is negligent and dangerous.

The contradiction no one wants to address

The danger becomes clearer when you step outside the classroom.

Across the country, states including Florida, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Connecticut are restricting minors’ access to social media through age verification, parental consent, and limits on addictive features. At the federal level, the bipartisan Kids Off Social Media Act seeks to bar social media access for children under 13 and restrict algorithmic targeting of teens.

For more than a century, the Supreme Court has recognized that parents — not the state and not corporations — hold the fundamental right to direct their children’s education.

When Big Tech gains access to classrooms without transparency or consent, that authority is eroded. Parents are told to restrict social media at home while schools integrate the same platforms through AI. The result is families being sidelined while Big Tech reduces their children to data sources.

RELATED: Why every conservative parent should be watching California right now

Photo by AaronP/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images/Getty Images

This dangerous escalation must meet a clear boundary. Some platforms endanger children, others monetize them, and some expose their data. None of them belong in classrooms without strict, enforceable guardrails.

Parents do not need more promises. They need enforceable limits, transparency, and the unquestioned right to say no. The Constitution has long recognized that the right to direct a child’s education belongs to parents, not Silicon Valley. That authority does not stop at the classroom door.

If artificial intelligence is going to enter our classrooms, it must do so on the terms of families,not tech companies.