Chapter 3: The State of AI in American Schools
What Is Actually Happening in Classrooms, Districts, and State Capitols
She found out from a parent.
Not from a professional development session, not from her principal, not from a district memo. A mother emailed her on a Tuesday evening, half-amused, half-alarmed, to report that her thirteen-year-old son had been using ChatGPT to draft his book reports since October. It was now March. The teacher -- let us call her Ms. Ramirez, because she is a composite of dozens of teachers I have spoken with since 2023 -- had noticed the sudden improvement in her student's writing but attributed it to the new reading intervention program. She had no training on AI tools. She had no district guidance. She had, in fact, received a single email from her assistant superintendent the previous fall that read, in its entirety: "Please be aware that students may be using artificial intelligence. More information to come."
More information never came.
Twenty miles north, in a district where the median household income is three times higher, teachers had already completed a twelve-hour AI professional development sequence. Students were building AI-powered science projects. The principal had presented the district's AI integration roadmap to the school board in November. The equity coordinator had led a session on algorithmic bias for eighth graders.
Same state. Same school year. Two entirely different realities.
This is the state of AI in American schools: not a single story, but a fracture. Not a revolution, but an uneven eruption -- moving fast in some places, invisible in others, and understood almost nowhere with the depth and honesty that the moment demands. This chapter lays out the data, the policies, the evidence, and the counter-arguments. It does so not to tell you what to think about AI in your schools, but to ensure that whatever you decide, you decide from a foundation of fact rather than fear or hype.
By the Numbers: The Speed of Adoption No One Planned For
The numbers are moving faster than anyone -- including the researchers tracking them -- anticipated.
By the 2024-25 school year, 60% of K-12 teachers had used an AI tool for their work, with 32% using AI at least weekly (Gallup & Walton Family Foundation, 2025). That weekly cohort reported saving an average of 5.9 hours per week -- the equivalent of six full weeks over the course of a school year. Teachers used AI most frequently for preparing lessons (37% monthly), creating worksheets and activities (33%), and modifying materials for students with different needs (28%) (RAND Corporation, 2024). When they used it, 60-84% reported that it saved them time across nine categories of professional tasks (Gallup & Walton Family Foundation, 2025).
But here is the number that should keep every superintendent awake: 86% of students reported using AI during the 2024-25 school year, with 54% using it specifically for schoolwork (Center for Democracy & Technology [CDT], 2025). Teen usage of ChatGPT for schoolwork doubled from 13% to 26% between 2023 and 2024 alone, with the highest rates among eleventh and twelfth graders (Pew Research Center, 2024). By late 2025, 57% of U.S. teens were using AI to search for information, 54% were using it for schoolwork, and a majority -- 59% -- believed AI-assisted cheating was common at their school (Pew Research Center, 2026).
Read those numbers again. Students are not waiting for permission. They are not waiting for policy. They are not waiting for professional development workshops or board resolutions or state guidance documents. They are using AI now, today, in your district, whether you have acknowledged it or not. The question facing every superintendent in America is not whether AI has arrived in their schools. It is whether they will lead its integration or merely react to its presence.
The RAND Corporation's longitudinal data tells the acceleration story in stark terms. In the 2023-24 school year, 25% of surveyed teachers had used AI tools for instructional planning or teaching. By the following year, that figure had more than doubled to 53% among ELA, math, and science teachers (RAND Corporation, 2025). Roughly half of all districts provided AI training to teachers by fall 2024 -- double the proportion from just one fall prior -- and an additional quarter planned first-time training during the 2024-25 year (RAND Corporation, 2025). Over 80% of surveyed educators reported using AI, up 21 percentage points from the previous year, yet one in three still lacked confidence in using it effectively and responsibly (Microsoft, 2025).
This is the paradox of the current moment: adoption is outpacing preparation. Teachers are using tools they have not been trained on. Students are using tools their teachers do not understand. And districts are writing policies for technologies that will be fundamentally different by the time the policies are approved.
The Training Divide: Equity's Newest Fault Line
If the adoption numbers are striking, the equity data is devastating.
By the beginning of the 2025-26 school year, RAND projected that nearly all low-poverty districts would have trained their teachers on AI. But only six in ten high-poverty districts would have done so (RAND Corporation, 2025). That is not a gap. That is a chasm -- and it maps precisely onto the same racial and economic fault lines that have defined American education for a century and a half.
This should not surprise us. In my dissertation research, I traced the three digital divides that have structured technological inequality in American schools: the first divide of access (who has devices and broadband), the second divide of skills and usage (who knows how to use technology meaningfully), and the third divide of outcomes (whose lives are actually improved by technology). Every major technology wave in education has replicated these divides. AI is proving no different -- except that the speed of adoption means the gaps are widening faster than any previous technology cycle.
Consider the infrastructure reality. Twenty-five percent of rural households still lack broadband access, compared to just 1.5% of urban households. In 2024, the FCC reported that 24 million Americans lacked fixed broadband entirely (Federal Communications Commission, 2024). Seventy-six percent of rural students have fixed broadband at home, compared to 87% in suburban areas -- an 11-point gap that translates directly into unequal access to AI tools that require robust internet connectivity (National Center for Education Statistics, 2024). Wealthier schools have robust digital infrastructure while lower-income and rural schools struggle with outdated hardware, unreliable internet, or no access to AI tools at all (Digital Promise, 2024).
But the divide extends far beyond hardware. Low-poverty districts consistently outpace higher-poverty counterparts in training teachers on AI use (RAND Corporation, 2025). Rural schools face systemic barriers: unreliable broadband, outdated infrastructure, limited AI-specific professional development, insufficient devices, and financial constraints that make every technology investment a zero-sum trade-off against other urgent needs (Frontiers in Education, 2025). And the algorithmic systems themselves carry bias. AI systems trained predominantly on datasets from the Global North often fail to reflect the linguistic, cultural, and contextual needs of diverse populations (Frontiers in Computer Science, 2026). Scholars including Joy Buolamwini, Safiya Noble, Ruha Benjamin, and Timnit Gebru have documented how AI products can advance what they call "engineered inequality" in already inequitable social contexts (Selwyn, 2022).
This is the pattern I named in my dissertation: technology does not create inequity, but it accelerates and deepens whatever inequity already exists. Bruce Sinclair (1998) showed us this in his historical analysis of how new technologies impact marginalized communities. Trotter (2000) showed us how technology has been systematically extracted from Black Americans while simultaneously being deployed in ways that exclude them. What we are witnessing now with AI in schools is the latest chapter in a very old story: a powerful new tool arrives, the well-resourced adopt it first and shape it to their advantage, and the communities that most need its benefits are the last to receive them -- and the first to experience its harms.
For the superintendent reading this chapter, the implication is direct: if you do not have an equity strategy for AI, you do not have an AI strategy. You have an acceleration plan for existing inequality.
The Policy Landscape: Executive Orders, State Guidance, and the Vacuum in Between
On April 23, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth, establishing a national framework to integrate AI into education. The order created the White House Task Force on AI Education, mandated development of K-12 AI educational resources, established teacher training programs, and launched a Presidential AI Challenge (The White House, 2025). Federal agencies were directed to prioritize AI in curriculum development, professional development, and workforce training, and the order called for engaging the private sector, academia, and nonprofits in developing resources (Holland & Knight, 2025). In December 2025, a second executive order -- Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence -- positioned the U.S. as a global AI leader (Morgan Lewis, 2025).
These federal signals matter. They establish national priority, unlock potential funding streams, and give superintendents political cover to move forward. But executive orders are not implementation plans. They are statements of intent, and the distance between a White House signing ceremony and a classroom in Compton or Appalachia is measured not in miles but in the thousands of decisions that state legislatures, school boards, and district leaders must make to translate rhetoric into practice.
At the state level, the landscape is a patchwork. As of April 2025, at least 28 states had published guidance on AI in K-12 settings (Education Commission of the States, 2025). State AI task force reports from Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, and others highlighted shared priorities: curricular frameworks for AI literacy, educator professional development, equitable access, student data protection, and implementation support (Education Commission of the States, 2025). Some states moved further: Alabama developed eight foundational pillars for AI implementation spanning strategy, governance, data privacy, procurement, competency development, and risk management. Alabama and Georgia introduced legislation to embed AI concepts into graduation requirements through computer science education (Education Commission of the States, 2025).
But 22 states had published no guidance at all. In those states, every district is on its own -- some innovating boldly, many paralyzed by uncertainty, and most defaulting to the path of least resistance, which in American education has historically meant doing nothing until forced to do something.
The international contrast is instructive and, frankly, humbling. Starting September 2025, Beijing required every primary and secondary school student -- some as young as six -- to receive formal training in artificial intelligence, with no fewer than eight class hours per year (Global Times, 2025). The UAE mandated AI classes from kindergarten through twelfth grade, embedding ethics from the start (The National, 2025). Singapore invested over one billion dollars in its National AI Strategy 2.0 (Smart Nation Singapore, 2024). Finland integrated AI across all disciplines without requiring a single line of code, building on its decades-long tradition of media literacy and phenomenon-based learning (OPH Finland, 2025). Chapter 4 will examine these global models in depth, but the comparison is worth noting here because it reveals the scale of the American policy vacuum. We are not debating whether to act -- we are debating how to act while the rest of the world is already executing.
For superintendents in states without guidance, this vacuum is not just a policy problem. It is a leadership opportunity. The districts that develop their own AI frameworks now -- grounded in equity, informed by evidence, and responsive to community values -- will be the ones that other districts look to when state guidance finally arrives. Waiting is not neutral. Waiting is a decision to let the market, the students, and the moment decide for you.
What the Research Actually Says: Promise, Peril, and the Messy Middle
If I could give every superintendent in America one gift, it would be this: the ability to read AI education research with clear eyes, resisting both the breathless optimism of the EdTech industry and the reflexive skepticism of the academic establishment. The truth, as it usually does, lives in the messy middle.
The optimism case rests on real evidence. A 2025 meta-analysis of 51 studies published in Nature: Humanities and Social Sciences Communications found that ChatGPT had a large positive impact on learning performance (effect size g = 0.867), a moderately positive impact on learning perception (g = 0.456) and higher-order thinking (g = 0.457), and reduced mental effort -- though it had no significant effect on self-efficacy (Nature, 2025). A rigorous randomized controlled trial at Harvard University found that students learned significantly more in less time using an AI tutor compared to in-class active learning, and felt more engaged and motivated (Kestin et al., 2025). Google DeepMind's LearnLM study across five UK secondary schools found that students using supervised AI tutoring solved new problems 66.2% of the time compared to 60.7% with human tutors (Google DeepMind, 2025). Khan Academy's Khanmigo expanded from 68,000 users in 2023-24 to over 700,000 in 2024-25, growing from 45 to 380 district partners, and projected to surpass one million K-12 students in 2025-26 (Khan Academy, 2025).
But the skepticism case also rests on real evidence -- and it deserves equal weight. A 2024 study found that high school math students tutored by ChatGPT initially scored better, but the benefit soon evaporated and they ended up faring worse than non-AI users, apparently because they failed to acquire conceptual understanding (Education Week, 2025). A 2025 experiment discovered a clear "cognitive cost" to receiving AI help with writing essays, and a separate study found that more AI use was associated with lower critical thinking skills (Education Week, 2025). Microsoft Research and Cambridge University Press found that students who combined AI tools with note-taking and other methods learned more than those relying on AI alone -- suggesting that the tool without the pedagogy produces little (Microsoft, 2025).
As John Hattie demonstrated in his landmark meta-analyses, which I discussed extensively in my dissertation, technology has zero effect on student achievement without strong pedagogy (Hattie, 2012). AI does not change that principle. It amplifies it. An AI tutor deployed in a classroom where the teacher understands inquiry-based learning, scaffolds student thinking, and uses the technology to extend rather than replace cognitive effort can be transformative. That same tool deployed without pedagogical intentionality -- dropped into a classroom with no training, no framework, and no vision -- risks creating the very dependency and skill atrophy that the critics warn about.
This is why the sequencing argument I made in my dissertation remains essential: schools must shift from Education 2.0 (the factory model) to Education 3.0 (inquiry-based learning) before attempting Education 4.0 (AI-enhanced learning). Pedagogy must precede technology. If a district cannot articulate its vision for what learning should look like, no tool -- however sophisticated -- will produce the outcomes our students deserve.
One peer-reviewed study of Khanmigo found no statistically significant difference between the AI tutor and a Google search on learning outcomes, though students perceived the AI tool positively for its step-by-step guidance (Education Week, 2025). The biggest challenge researchers identified was achieving meaningful student engagement, with some students responding with minimal-effort answers rather than engaging in the productive struggle that produces genuine learning (Michigan Virtual, 2025). Over-reliance on AI during practice was found to reduce performance on exams taken without assistance (Khan Academy, 2024). These findings do not negate the promise. They complicate it -- and complication is what honest leadership requires.
The Counter-Argument: The Case for Skeptical Optimism
The most important report that most superintendents have not read was published by the Brookings Institution in 2025. Based on a year-long global study across more than 50 countries, A New Direction for Students in an AI World: Prosper, Prepare, Protect reached a conclusion that the EdTech industry would prefer you to ignore: "The risks of utilizing generative AI in children's education overshadow its benefits" given current patterns of use (Brookings, 2025).
The Brookings findings deserve careful attention, not dismissal. The report identified three categories of risk: AI use frequently replaces thinking instead of extending it; it undermines students' ability to form relationships, recover from setbacks, and stay mentally healthy; and it threatens safety, privacy, and trust in education (Brookings, 2025). These are not abstract concerns. Forty-two percent of students reported that they or their friends had used AI for mental health support, as a friend or companion, or as an escape from real life. Nineteen percent reported using AI for a romantic relationship (CDT, 2025). Thirty-six percent reported an issue involving deepfakes at their school during the 2024-25 year (CDT, 2025).
Neil Selwyn, one of the field's most respected critical voices, argues that AI depends on quantifiable data, but the most important aspects of learning -- social behavior, emotions, cognitive development -- cannot be captured in numbers (Selwyn, 2022). This is not a Luddite position. It is a philosophical one, and it echoes Paulo Freire's (1970/2000) warning against the "banking model" of education, in which knowledge is deposited into passive students rather than constructed through dialogue and inquiry. If AI tutoring replicates the banking model at scale -- delivering information efficiently but bypassing the struggle, the collaboration, the human relationship that produces deep learning -- then we will have built a faster factory, not a better school.
The public feels this tension even if it cannot name it in academic terms. Twenty-five percent of public K-12 teachers say AI tools do more harm than good in education; only 6% say more good than harm (Pew Research Center, 2024). Seventy percent of teachers worry that AI weakens important skills students need to learn, particularly critical thinking and research (CDT, 2025). Half of students agree that using AI in class makes them feel less connected to their teacher (CDT, 2025). Americans broadly are growing more skeptical of AI in K-12 schools, with concern increasing year over year (Education Week, 2025).
Education Week's reporting crystallized the methodological critique: data demonstrating educational advantages from AI are "sparse and, some experts say, based on poorly designed or misleadingly reported experiments" (Education Week, 2025). Ninety-five percent of the academic community believes AI is being misused at their institutions (Turnitin, 2025). AI bypasser tools -- so-called "humanizers" -- allow students to disguise AI-generated text, evading both teachers and detection software, creating an arms race that further erodes trust (Turnitin, 2025).
So where does this leave us? Not in the camp of uncritical adoption, and not in the camp of fearful rejection. It leaves us in the space I call skeptical optimism -- a stance that acknowledges AI's genuine potential to support learning while insisting that potential is contingent on pedagogy, equity, human relationships, and leadership vision. It is the stance of a superintendent who says: I will not ban this technology from my district because banning it means ceding its direction to the market and to students who are already using it without guidance. But I will not adopt it without a framework that centers equity, protects the relational core of learning, and holds every tool accountable to the question my dissertation asked: who benefits, and who is left behind?
This is not the middle of the road. It is the harder road -- and it is the one this book was written to help you walk.
Decision Frameworks: Where to Start Monday Morning
If you are a superintendent who has read this far and is thinking, I know we need to act, but I do not know where to begin, you are not alone. The Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) developed an AI Maturity Tool specifically for district leaders, helping them align their AI initiatives across seven domains using an interactive AI Advisor (CoSN, 2025). A coalition of seven ed-tech organizations -- 1EdTech, CAST, CoSN, Digital Promise, InnovateEDU, ISTE, and SETDA -- established five quality indicators for AI products: safe, evidence-based, inclusive, usable, and interoperable (GovTech, 2025).
A 2025 peer-reviewed taxonomy in the International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education identifies six key domains of AI application in educational leadership: strategic planning, instructional improvement, resource management, stakeholder engagement, professional development, and ethical governance (Springer, 2025). The most successful districts, Panorama Education found, approach AI with a clear vision, strong leadership, and commitment to responsible innovation -- starting always with a shared vision for why the district is using AI (Panorama Education, 2025).
That finding resonates deeply with what I learned studying the superintendent at Innovation USD. His power was not in the tools he selected or the programs he purchased. It was in the shared vision he built -- a vision rooted in moral purpose, driven by a theory of action that named the students being left behind, and spread through an organizational culture of inquiry, trust, and collective ownership. Before he introduced any new technology or pedagogy, he ensured that every leader in his district could answer two questions: What are we trying to accomplish? and Who is this for?
Those same questions apply to AI. Before selecting a platform, before drafting a policy, before scheduling a professional development session, the Fourth Industrial Superintendent asks: What is our vision for learning? Does this tool advance that vision? And does it advance it for all our students -- not just the ones whose families can afford tutors, not just the ones in the honors track, not just the ones in the district with broadband access and a six-figure tax base?
Strategic AI planning must involve all members of a district leadership team -- operational leads, the superintendent, teaching and learning officers -- to establish processes and make progress over time (Panorama Education, 2025). Organizations that succeed with AI are led by people who understand that this is fundamentally about organizational change, systems thinking, and the courage to abandon what is comfortable for what is necessary (GovTech, 2025). Ninety-eight percent of teachers support at least some education for students on ethical AI use; 61% say comprehensive education is necessary (Pew Research Center, 2024). The will exists. What is missing, in most districts, is the leadership architecture to channel that will into action.
The Practitioner Tool at the end of this chapter -- the District AI Snapshot -- gives you a starting point. It is not a solution. It is a diagnostic: a way to understand where your district actually is, rather than where you assume it is or where your vendor partners tell you it is. Use it. Share the results with your cabinet. And then begin the harder work of building a vision that is worthy of the moment.
Discussion Questions
Practitioner Tool: The District AI Snapshot
A 20-question diagnostic to establish baseline AI usage, attitudes, and training needs in your district, aligned to CoSN's AI Maturity domains.
Teacher Survey (10 Questions)
Student Survey (10 Questions)
Scoring Guide
Tally responses across both surveys and map to CoSN's AI Maturity domains:
- Vision and Planning: Questions T7, T10, S6 -- Does your district have a clear, communicated AI vision?
- Teaching and Learning: Questions T1-T3, T6, S1-S4 -- Where is AI actually being used, and by whom?
- Professional Development: Questions T4-T5, T10 -- Are teachers trained and confident?
- Ethics and Policy: Questions T7, S5-S6, S8 -- Do stakeholders know the rules and the reasoning?
- Student Voice: Questions S7, S9, S10 -- Are students being heard, or only monitored?
- Equity Indicators: Cross-tabulate all responses by school poverty level, student demographics, and urban/suburban/rural designation to identify gaps.
This tool is designed to be administered in a single class period (students) or faculty meeting (teachers). Results should be disaggregated by school and by demographics before any district-level AI decisions are made. What you do not measure, you cannot address.
References
Brookings Institution. (2025). A new direction for students in an AI world: Prosper, prepare, protect. https://www.brookings.edu
Center for Democracy & Technology. (2025, October). Hand in hand: Schools' embrace of AI connected to increased risks to students. https://cdt.org/insights/hand-in-hand-schools-embrace-of-ai-connected-to-increased-risks-to-students/
CoSN. (2025). Artificial intelligence in K-12 education. https://www.cosn.org/ai/
Digital Promise. (2024, February 20). How AI for education can address digital equity. https://digitalpromise.org/2024/02/20/how-ai-for-education-can-address-digital-equity/
Education Commission of the States. (2025). How states are responding to the rise of AI in education. https://www.ecs.org/artificial-intelligence-ai-education-task-forces/
Education Week. (2025, September). AI in the classroom is often harmful. Why are educators falling prey to the hype? Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/technology/opinion-ai-in-the-classroom-is-often-harmful-why-are-educators-falling-prey-to-the-hype/2025/09
Federal Communications Commission. (2024). Broadband data report. FCC.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). Continuum. (Original work published 1970)
Frontiers in Computer Science. (2026). AI and the digital divide in education. Frontiers in Computer Science. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/computer-science/articles/10.3389/fcomp.2026.1759027/full
Frontiers in Education. (2025). Empowering educational leaders for AI integration in rural STEM education: Challenges and strategies. Frontiers in Education. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1567698/full
Gallup & Walton Family Foundation. (2025, August). Three in 10 teachers use AI weekly, saving six weeks a year. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/691967/three-teachers-weekly-saving-six-weeks-year.aspx
Global Times. (2025, May). China issues guidelines to promote AI education in primary and secondary schools. Global Times. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202505/1333878.shtml
Google DeepMind. (2025). AI tutoring can safely and effectively support students: An exploratory RCT in UK classrooms. https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/LearnLM/learnLM_nov25.pdf
GovTech. (2025). Opinion: AI in K-12 schools -- 5 moves only leaders can make. GovTech. https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/opinion-ai-in-k-12-schools-5-moves-only-leaders-can-make
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.
Holland & Knight. (2025, April). Executive Order: Advancing artificial intelligence education for youth. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/04/executive-order-advancing-ai-education-for-american-youth
Kestin, G., Miller, K., McCarty, L. S., Callaghan, K., & Deslauriers, L. (2025). AI tutoring outperforms in-class active learning: An RCT introducing a novel research-based design in an authentic educational setting. Scientific Reports, 15, 17458. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-97652-6
Khan Academy. (2025). Khan Academy annual report: SY24-25. https://annualreport.khanacademy.org/
Michigan Virtual. (2025). Have you considered AI in your classroom? A Khanmigo pilot story. https://michiganvirtual.org/blog/have-you-considered-ai-in-your-classroom-a-khanmigo-pilot-story/
Microsoft. (2025, August). AI in education report: Insights to support teaching and learning. Microsoft Education Blog. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/education/blog/2025/08/ai-in-education-report-insights-to-support-teaching-and-learning/
Morgan Lewis. (2025, December). White House issues executive order to establish uniform national AI standards. https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2025/12/white-house-issues-executive-order-to-establish-uniform-national-ai-standards
National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). Rural students' access to the internet. Condition of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/lfc/internet-access-students-rural
Nature. (2025). The effect of ChatGPT on students' learning performance, learning perception, and higher-order thinking: Insights from a meta-analysis. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-04787-y
OPH Finland. (2025). Artificial intelligence in education -- Legislation and recommendations. Finnish National Agency for Education. https://www.oph.fi/en/artificial-intelligence-education-legislation-and-recommendations
Panorama Education. (2025). AI in education: The ultimate guide for K-12 district leaders. https://www.panoramaed.com/blog/ai-in-education-the-ultimate-guide
Pew Research Center. (2024, May 15). A quarter of U.S. teachers say AI tools do more harm than good in K-12 education. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/05/15/a-quarter-of-u-s-teachers-say-ai-tools-do-more-harm-than-good-in-k-12-education/
Pew Research Center. (2026, February 24). How teens use and view AI. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2026/02/24/how-teens-use-and-view-ai/
RAND Corporation. (2024). Uneven adoption of artificial intelligence tools among U.S. teachers and principals in the 2023-2024 school year (RR-A134-25). https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA134-25.html
RAND Corporation. (2025). More districts are training teachers on artificial intelligence: Findings from the American School District Panel (RR-A956-31). https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA956-31.html
Selwyn, N. (2022). The future of AI and education: Some cautionary notes. European Journal of Education, 57(4), 620-631. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejed.12532
Sinclair, B. (1998). Teaching about technology and African American history. OAH Magazine of History, 12(2), 14-17.
Smart Nation Singapore. (2024). National AI Strategy. https://www.smartnation.gov.sg/initiatives/national-ai-strategy/
Springer. (2025). Artificial intelligence in educational leadership: A comprehensive taxonomy and future directions. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41239-025-00517-1
The National. (2025, May 4). UAE schools to begin teaching mandatory AI classes from age of four. The National. https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/uae/2025/05/04/sheikh-mohammed-announces-introduction-of-ai-as-curriculum-subject-in-uae-schools/
The White House. (2025, April 23). Advancing artificial intelligence education for American youth [Executive Order]. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/advancing-artificial-intelligence-education-for-american-youth/
Trotter, J. (2000). African Americans and the Industrial Revolution. OAH Magazine of History, 15(1), 19-23.
Turnitin. (2025). Navigating AI misuse: Tackling the impact of AI bypassers on academic integrity. https://www.turnitin.com/blog/navigating-ai-misuse-tackling-the-impact-of-ai-bypassers-on-academic-integrity