Schools adopt – A new CoSN State of EdTech report finds AI guidance is spreading fast in K-12 districts—yet staffing, funding, and cybersecurity capacity are lagging. Among roughly 600 K-12 chief technology officers surveyed, 79% of districts have AI guidelines, but 98% fear
For schools, the race toward AI is accelerating—fast enough that it’s starting to outrun the systems meant to protect students.
The tension shows up in the latest annual State of EdTech report from the Consortium for School Networking. which polled roughly 600 chief technology officers for K-12 schools. The survey points to progress on paper: nearly three-quarters of school districts, 79%, say they have AI guidelines in place. That’s up from 57% in 2025. For CoSN CEO Keith Krueger, the speed of movement is striking, especially in smaller and rural districts.
“Given how many school districts we have, given how many small and rural ones there are, it’s shocking at how quickly at least the guidance around responsible use of AI is,” Krueger says. “As a foundational step, we’re seeing movement.”
But the report also makes clear that guidance is not the same as readiness. Respondents repeatedly said they face roadblocks—insufficient staffing, limited funding, and not enough expertise to make AI use safe and sustainable.
“There’s never going to be enough training, and we have to make sure the training is quality and meeting administrators with what they want and need,” Krueger says. He adds that training can’t be locked to one tool. Districts also need “helping them think in new ways how to use the tools.”
Even when districts want clarity, they resist making it rigid. Most districts polled are in favor of AI guidelines—either set by the districts themselves or by state education agencies—but do not want state or federal mandates. Krueger points to how mandates get stuck in slow governance cycles: mandates typically have to be formed. then approved by a board. a process he describes as time-consuming and ill-suited to AI’s rapid change.
“This week, this month, this year is changing rapidly,” Krueger says. “It doesn’t mean we change fundamental beliefs of what’s cheating (with AI). for example. but things are moving rapidly. You don’t want to have too many solidly. board-approved things which can get locked in when you need to evolve.”.
The report also lays out where districts are putting their effort first. Training staff on instruction-focused generative AI tools is the most common initiative, with 7 out of 10 respondents saying they do so. Productivity-focused measures aimed at instructional staff and teachers follow, with 54% and 53%, respectively.
One of the biggest shifts is in operational use: initiatives focused on AI’s operational purposes rose from 37% in 2025 to 64% in 2026. By contrast, fewer initiatives focus on using AI for teaching and learning—only 41%.
“I would say the low hanging fruit is on the operational and teacher productivity side,” Krueger says. “We should continue to explore and think through the great uses that are in the classroom. But. overnight we shouldn’t just wildly go trying to do those things when it’s going to take time to figure out the instructional piece.”.
Behind every decision about AI, the same fear keeps surfacing: cybersecurity.
According to the report, nearly all respondents—98%—are concerned that AI can bring in new forms of cyber attacks, with just 2% saying they are “not at all concerned.” The survey also shows the same group expresses worry about student data and AI’s effect on privacy.
Still, concern is colliding with capacity. Two-thirds of respondents say they have insufficient staffing and budget to address those cybersecurity challenges.
The report links that gap to real-world harm, pointing to an Instructure attack in May that caused several schools to pay a ransom and shut down one of the world’s largest digital education platforms. Krueger says visible breaches come with a price tag that schools can’t afford to ignore.
“The high visibility breaches and attacks that we’ve seen underscore the real cost to our school system by not investing in better cybersecurity,” he says.
After 17 years of producing the State of EdTech report, Krueger believes schools may be nearing a tipping point. He says technology leaders have been warning for years, but the issue is starting to land with broader leadership.
“Certainly those in charge of technology have been yelling loudly that cybersecurity is a problem,” he says. “I think they will start to say. ‘We can’t just have these broadband networks and not have them safe and secure.’ But it’s a huge challenge. given the lack of human capacity in schools for cybersecurity.”.
The report’s findings on vetting educational technology add another layer to the same problem: schools are trying to manage risks without enough power, time, or independent verification.
Edtech vetting has been under consideration amid the screen-time backlash in classrooms, with some states pushing for better review of the vetting process. Yet the report says schools often rely on vendors’ own data and are unequipped to review software themselves to ensure children’s safety.
In a previous interview with EdSurge. Kim Whitman. co-lead for Smartphone Free Childhood US. warned: “There is nobody right now that is confirming these products are safe. effective and legal. It should not fall on the district’s IT director; it would be impossible for them to do it. And the companies should not be tasked with doing it — that would be like nicotine companies vetting their own cigarettes.”.
The report finds that most schools now have a process for vetting free edtech tools before they’re used—either through IT or a list of approved vendors. But it still identifies gaps in what districts demand from companies.
Only 29% require information about whether a product is inclusive and accessible for all learners. The report frames that as worrisome for accessibility advocates who already fear they are being pushed out of the conversation.
Sambhavi Chandrashekar, global accessibility lead for D2L, said in a previous EdSurge interview: “Parents with children who have a disability must have a seat at the table. Blanket rules that are blind to fundamental human differences will do more disservice than good to students at the margins.”
Safety requirements show another divide. While more than half—55%—of edtech processes require vendors to provide information about safety, roughly 45% do not address safety concerns.
“It’s a huge warning sign; there’s a whole lot of progress and work that has to happen in this area,” Krueger says.
To close these gaps, Krueger suggests districts review quality indicators for edtech and AI products, benchmark where they stand, and set it as a priority. He points to procurement as a lever districts can actually control.
“One of the biggest powers we have is procurement, so getting serious about how we buy them, and when,” Krueger says. “Whether or not we move forward will depend on if we set it as a priority and get serious about the awareness, the training and the policies.”
Taken together, the report paints a clear picture: schools are moving toward AI quickly, but the safeguards—especially cybersecurity capacity and vetting rigor—aren’t keeping pace. The question now isn’t whether districts will adopt AI. It’s whether they can protect students while doing it.
CoSN State of EdTech AI guidelines K-12 chief technology officers cybersecurity school districts generative AI edtech vetting accessibility student data privacy