As U.S. schools invest billions in artificial intelligence, many districts are left to evaluate safety, privacy, and educational value on their own, with limited state or federal guidance and a fast-growing market of competing products
As the new academic year begins, school districts across the United States are investing heavily in artificial intelligence (AI) tools aimed at improving classroom performance, monitoring attendance, and supporting student learning. However, many district leaders say they are struggling to determine which products are safe, effective, and worth the significant financial commitment, especially as the market for AI in education expands rapidly.
While some states and districts have started to offer guidance on evaluating AI purchases, most of the responsibility for vetting these tools still falls on individual school systems. This has left administrators facing a complex and fast-changing landscape, with billions of dollars at stake and limited external support.
Districts Navigate a Crowded AI Marketplace
The U.S. education technology sector generated nearly $48 billion in revenue in 2024, according to Grand View Research, with the AI segment alone reaching about $2.5 billion last year and projected to exceed $15 billion by 2033. School leaders say the pace of innovation often outstrips their ability to keep up, making it difficult to assess which tools genuinely benefit students.
In Sumner County Schools, Tennessee, Superintendent Scott Langford said the district piloted an AI-powered literacy tool called Coursemojo to address stagnant middle school reading scores. The district began with a five-day trial in one sixth-grade classroom before expanding the pilot to half of its sixth-grade classes. Langford emphasized that the most valuable AI tools are those that help teachers quickly identify where students are struggling, rather than attempting to replace educators.
Other districts, such as Allentown School District in Pennsylvania, have developed multi-phase review processes for AI programs, prioritizing student safety and data security. Allentown requires vendors to guarantee that all user data remains the property of the district and is not used to train AI models or sold to third parties. Superintendent Carol Birks noted that while her district has built internal capacity to manage these reviews, clearer state and federal guidance would be helpful.
Privacy, Security, and Legal Concerns
Before approving new AI tools, most districts require vendors to sign data processing agreements, complete security questionnaires, and pass legal and privacy reviews. Some states have laws governing traditional education technology and student data protections, but best practices for AI-specific contracts and bidding processes are still emerging.
Legal challenges have already surfaced. In Arizona and Kansas, lawsuits have been filed over the use of Gaggle, a student-safety monitoring platform, with plaintiffs alleging violations of constitutional rights. In Los Angeles, the school district faced controversy after spending $3 million on an AI chatbot from AllHere, a company that later filed for bankruptcy and whose founder was charged with fraud.
State education agencies are beginning to fill some gaps. The Pennsylvania Department of Education advises schools to scrutinize who controls data entered into AI tools, limit data collection, and ensure a human remains involved in grading and discipline decisions. New York City Public Schools now requires vendors to disclose AI tool capabilities and prohibits the use of student data for AI training. Chicago Public Schools has released an AI guidebook and blocks unapproved third-party AI products from its network.
Calls for Clearer Guidance and Evidence
Despite these efforts, many districts remain overwhelmed. The Southern Regional Education Board has published an AI procurement checklist for K-12 schools, recommending that adults test AI tools before they are used with students and that teachers review AI-generated materials for accuracy and bias. Experts also urge districts to evaluate whether tools are accessible, explainable, and grounded in learning science.
Some educators have reported issues with AI tools misinterpreting student responses, particularly for English learners, highlighting the need for ongoing oversight and teacher involvement. Districts are also grappling with the sheer volume of digital tools available. A recent report from Instructure found that districts had access to an average of 3,001 digital tools, but students and teachers typically used only four.
With budgets tightening and federal pandemic-era funding expiring, districts are under increasing pressure to justify technology purchases. Dacia Toll, co-founder of Coursemojo, said districts should prioritize products that align with cognitive science and proven teaching methods, noting that the risks and hype around AI make careful vetting more important than ever.
How Districts Are Responding
Some states, such as California, have developed statewide data privacy agreements that districts can use to streamline vendor compliance, reducing the need for each district to negotiate terms individually. These agreements provide searchable databases of approved vendors, helping districts manage privacy requirements more efficiently.
As the market for AI in education continues to grow, school districts are likely to face ongoing challenges in balancing innovation with safety, privacy, and educational value. Many administrators say that while local capacity is improving, broader policy guidance and evidence-based standards are needed to help schools make informed decisions about which AI tools to adopt.
School districts typically follow a multi-step process when considering new technology, including pilot programs, legal and privacy reviews, and ongoing evaluation of effectiveness. As AI becomes more integrated into classrooms, the need for clear standards and reliable evidence will remain a central concern for educators and families alike.
