Why Google, Adobe and Crayola Are All Betting Billions on Creative Education Right Now

There’s a good chance that students are using Adobe Express if you walk into a primary school art classroom in Ohio or a design classroom in New South Wales. Adobe has been discreetly, methodically, and very purposefully integrating its tools into classrooms across six continents for years—not because their teachers selected it on their own or because a curriculum designer included it in the lesson plan. Adobe Express for Education is currently available to over 43 million educators and students worldwide. It is not an accidental number. It’s a tactic.

In general, the approach is this: the businesses that shape the work habits of the upcoming generation of creative professionals will also shape the tools that these professionals utilize throughout their careers. Adobe was the first in the technology industry to realize this. The American company Crayola, which most people associate with the waxy smell of childhood birthday cards, recognized this as well and has been subtly reestablishing itself around the same idea. Google is using a digital literacy framework to do the same thing in parallel to both of them. The same conclusion about where the value lies in the next ten years is reached by three very different companies operating from very different positions in the market.

The fundamental argument is not nuanced. According to Adobe’s own research, the majority of applicants are unable to demonstrate the creative skills required in about half of all job postings. That’s a skills gap big enough to change hiring practices in entire industries, and it’s getting bigger as AI transforms the nature of creative work. In various languages and with various products, Adobe, Google, and Crayola are all arguing that creativity is no longer a soft skill that should be on a resume. It’s what decides whether an individual can effectively collaborate with AI systems or fall behind them. By framing it that way, the investment in education appears more like market development than corporate philanthropy.

The company’s challenge is the most existential, which makes Crayola’s move the most fascinating to watch. The market for crayons does not expand like that of software. The brand is almost completely known, but awareness does not equate to relevance, and children’s relevance changes quickly. Thirteen million students in 120 countries participated in Crayola Creativity Week 2026. In order to reposition itself as an active participant in creativity culture rather than a nostalgic relic, the company has been creating an ecosystem that goes well beyond tangible goods, including apps, digital experiences, and content. The wager has both logic and audacity. The notion that children are inherently creative, that creativity can be fostered, and that creativity matters is the foundation of Crayola’s brand equity. In a world where employers struggle to find workers who can truly think creatively, that brand promise becomes even more valuable.

Adobe has taken a different route. With roughly 58% of the global creative software market, the company already controls the professional end of the market. As Canva and Figma have grown, it has become more aggressive in defending this position. The push for education is not defensive. It’s a generational issue. The company is estimating that students who learn to express ideas visually through Adobe tools will enter the professional market already proficient in Adobe’s ecosystem by offering Adobe Express for free in K–12 classrooms. This could come across as cynical. Additionally, it is simply accurate. After graduating from SUNY, a student who learns how to create infographics, videos, and presentations using Adobe Express is more likely to use Photoshop than another program. This isn’t manipulation; rather, it’s how brand familiarity functions, and Adobe is wagering that classroom familiarity will translate into desk loyalty.

There is genuine tension in all of this, and it is worth mentioning. Some educators have criticized Adobe’s approach, claiming that the company has changed its focus from fostering creative excellence to developing product users. That worry is not irrational. Teaching someone to think creatively is not the same as teaching them to use a specific app creatively, and when the app also covers the curriculum, it becomes difficult to distinguish between the two. Whether corporate investment in creative education will ultimately benefit students or shareholders is still up for debate. Most likely both, in varying amounts based on the program and the school.

It’s evident that someone is stepping in to fill the void left by governments. Companies that require creative workers have begun to fund the education that produces them as public school systems in the US and the UK have pushed arts and design out of their curricula in favor of exam subjects. It’s difficult to ignore the irony: the same companies that hire designers, filmmakers, and brand strategists are also responsible for making sure that the next generation of these professionals survives. It is worthwhile to consider whether that is a healthy arrangement for education or merely a necessary one.