Why Schools Must Teach AI Literacy, Jason Averbook Argues

In a recent LinkedIn post, Jason Averbook discusses a reported Google policy linking schools’ access to web search with whether they opt out of AI tools for children. This article covers Averbook’s argument and examines the priorities he raises; it is not written by him.

“The real risk was never kids using AI. It’s kids using it without anyone teaching them how to question it, check it and do the hard thinking first.”

From banning AI to teaching it

Averbook says he supports Google’s reported move, which he characterizes as “honest” rather than heavy-handed. The policy, as described in his post with reference to The New York Times, makes access to familiar search tools part of a broader debate about AI in schools. His central point is that separating AI from learning may offer a false sense of protection when students encounter the technology beyond the classroom.

According to Averbook, AI already influences how people find, assess and use information. He argues that schools should prepare students to navigate that reality rather than treat AI as something that can simply be excluded. That shifts the question from whether students should use AI to how educators can teach them to use it thoughtfully.

Critical thinking as the safeguard

Averbook’s post frames the main danger as uncritical use, not use itself. He emphasizes that students need guidance in questioning AI-generated answers, checking information and doing their own reasoning. In his view, those habits help students remain active participants in learning instead of accepting a tool’s output at face value.

“Schools stop asking whether to allow AI and start asking how to teach it well.”

The distinction matters for schools weighing restrictions. Averbook’s argument suggests that a blanket opt-out may leave students without structured opportunities to develop AI literacy. His post does not specify a curriculum or define how schools should measure readiness; instead, it points to teaching practice as the essential next step.

Trust and preparation for educators

Safety, families and teacher capacity

Averbook identifies three conditions for responsible adoption: making AI safe for learning and difficult to misuse, earning parents’ trust, and giving teachers time and training. Together, these priorities place responsibility on institutions, not only on students. His emphasis on teacher preparation also recognizes that educators need support to guide classroom use rather than respond to new tools without adequate preparation.

“The future of learning won’t be opted into. It’ll be designed or defaulted.”

That closing warning captures Averbook’s broader concern: AI will shape education whether schools plan for it or not. His post urges educators and families to take part in designing how the technology enters learning. The argument leaves practical questions open, including how to set safeguards and build trust, but it presents intentional teaching as preferable to leaving students to encounter AI without guidance.