Quick Buzz Feed
A survey indicates that policies and training are lagging in systematically problematic ways.
In June 2023, approximately 20% of US school principals reported teachers using generative AI, a figure that surged to 90% within two years. However, a study by Christopher Campos and John Singleton from Chicago Booth identifies a new form of digital inequality in K–12 schools: not unequal access to AI tools, but unequal development of policies, routines, training, and infrastructure. Their survey, which collected responses from about 1,200 principals nationwide, indicates that AI is primarily used to enhance productivity within existing educational frameworks. Students utilize AI for tasks like homework, drafting essays, brainstorming, and creating study guides, while teachers leverage it for administrative duties, lesson planning, and grading. Principals themselves use AI to streamline busywork and meeting preparation.
A survey of US school principals finds that the share of teachers using AI rose sharply in just three years, but AI use outpaced any formal training in it. Both use and training were lower in more economically disadvantaged schools.
The research highlights that AI integration in schools has been broad but shallow, with adoption by teachers outpacing the development of essential supporting structures. A significant majority of principals (58%) reported lacking a written AI policy, and most (76%) did not have contracts for AI-powered tutoring. Only a third had utilized pandemic-era funds for AI purchases, indicating a weak embedding of AI into instructional practices. The study identified two persistent gaps in AI integration: schools serving economically disadvantaged students scored lower on integration than those with more affluent students, and charter/private schools lagged behind traditional public schools. While factors like principals' belief in AI's learning benefits, teacher advocacy, budget, and principal discretion predicted greater integration, none fully explained these disparities. The most significant variable found was district size, explaining about a third of the disadvantage gap, as public schools are typically part of larger districts. This suggests that individual school-level interventions are insufficient to close the gap, and systemic, district-wide adoption with professional development and guided practices are crucial. The researchers caution that these existing conditions are setting the stage for unequal educational outcomes.