New survey data from the RAND Corporation shows artificial intelligence (AI) tools are in use by teachers and principals in schools nationwide, but adoption is uneven across subjects and varies by the socioeconomic status of the student body.
During the 2023–24 school year, 25 percent of English language arts (ELA), math and science teachers surveyed through the RAND American Educator Panels used AI tools for their instructional planning or teaching. ELA and science teachers were nearly twice as likely to report using AI tools as math teachers or elementary teachers (40 percent compared to 20 percent).
Meanwhile, nearly 60 percent of principals reported using AI tools for their work. However, across the board, teachers and principals in higher-poverty schools were less likely to report using AI tools than those in lower-poverty schools.
“Teachers who reported using AI were not typically doing so frequently. For example, the majority of teachers who were using AI tools or products in the 2023–24 school year reported using them only once a month or less often for their instructional planning, and only 20 percent of those teachers reported using AI for that purpose at least once a week. Thus, AI is likely not affecting many classrooms in substantive ways at this point,” the RAND report states. “A bigger surprise may be the widespread reported use of AI tools by principals; nearly 60 percent of principals reported using AI in their jobs for a variety of purposes — most connected to writing — including drafting and revising such communications as school announcements to parents, teachers, and students; writing letters of recommendation; and providing teacher feedback. Furthermore, just as with teachers, more principals in lower-poverty schools reported using AI and noted the presence of school or district-provided guidance on its use to teachers relative to those in higher-poverty schools.”
Ensuring teachers and administrators understand the pros and cons of the technology, as well as how to use it safely and effectively in ways that will benefit students, is crucial as local educational agencies continue to see staff use AI tools for various purposes.
Yet, just 18 percent of principals reported that their schools or districts provided guidance on the use of AI by staff, teachers or students, according to the report. And those in the highest-poverty schools were about half as likely as principals in the lowest-poverty schools to report that guidance was provided (13 percent and 25 percent, respectively).
“Only one in five principals reported that their schools or districts were providing guidance on the use of AI to teachers, staff, or students,” researchers concluded. “States, districts, and schools should lean in to help both school leaders and teachers understand which AI tools have the most evidence of supporting good instruction and student learning.”
Among the recommendations included in the report, researchers called on all LEAs to develop intentional strategies for supporting teachers’ use of AI in ways that could most improve the quality of instruction and student learning.
They also recommend that AI developers and policymakers consider what useful applications of AI have the greatest potential to improve teaching and learning and how to make those applications available in high-poverty contexts.
Going forward, researchers should work together with developers to study use cases and develop a body of evidence on effective AI applications for school leadership, teaching and learning to help guide decision-making.
A good place for governance teams to begin looking at resources for AI implementation is CSBA’s AI Taskforce webpages, which offer a number of resources including a roadmap to AI implementation, sample scenarios and resolutions, and promising practices. GAMUT Policy subscribers have access to the latest updated policies in which AI has been integrated. Check out these resources at www.csba.org/AI.
