Schools see AI guidance rise as cyber fears grow

A new CoSN “State of EdTech” survey of roughly 600 K-12 chief technology officers shows AI adoption is accelerating: 79% of school districts now have AI guidelines, up from 57% in 2025. But the same report finds districts are still struggling to staff and fund

The week-by-week rush to adopt AI is colliding with a more stubborn reality in school districts: protecting students and schools online still depends on people, budgets, and time—and many districts say they don’t have enough of any of the three.

In the Consortium for School Networking’s annual State of EdTech report. nearly all respondents—98%—said they are concerned that AI could bring new forms of cyber attacks. while just 2% said they are “not at all concerned.” For districts already stretched thin. that concern is not abstract. The report points to the Instructure attack in May. when several schools paid ransom and shut down one of the world’s largest digital education platforms.

Keith Krueger. CEO of CoSN. put the stakes bluntly: the high-visibility breaches and attacks have a real cost to school systems when cybersecurity is not funded. “Certainly those in charge of technology have been yelling loudly that cybersecurity is a problem. ” he said. adding he believes the issue is becoming more understood among superintendents and school board members. His expectation is clear: technology leaders may soon be able to push the conversation from warning to action—because “We can’t just have these broadband networks and not have them safe and secure. ” he said.

The problem is that “safe and secure” takes staffing and expertise that districts often cannot conjure overnight. Two-thirds of respondents told the report they have insufficient staffing and budget to address cybersecurity challenges. Krueger called that gap “a huge challenge,” rooted in the lack of human capacity in schools for cybersecurity.

Even as districts prepare for AI. the guidance they’re building is moving faster than the governance structures that traditionally slow decision-making. Nearly three-quarters of school districts—79%—have AI guidelines in place, up from 57% in 2025. Krueger described the speed of the shift as striking. particularly for small and rural districts. saying it is “shocking at how quickly at least the guidance around responsible use of AI is.”.

But districts are trying to avoid locking themselves into rules that become outdated as technology changes. Most respondents. the report says. are in favor of AI guidelines—whether set by districts themselves or state education agencies—but they do not want state or federal mandates. Krueger explained why: mandates often go through board approval. a process that is time-consuming and doesn’t fit the fast-moving world of AI.

“This week, this month, this year is changing rapidly,” he said. “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.”

AI initiatives inside districts are largely practical rather than instructional. Seven out of 10 respondents said their districts train staff on instruction-focused generative AI tools. Productivity-focused initiatives—aimed at instructional staff and teachers—follow closely, with 54% and 53% respectively deploying those kinds of measures. One of the largest jumps reported by the survey was the move toward AI operational uses. rising from 37% in 2025 to 64% in 2026.

Still, less than half of initiatives—41%—focus on using AI for teaching and learning. Krueger said districts should take the cautious road: “I would say the low hanging fruit is on the operational and teacher productivity side. ” he said. “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.”.

The same staffing and funding pressures show up in the report’s view of readiness more broadly. Respondents repeatedly said they are running into roadblocks tied to insufficient staffing and funding. not just the difficulty of adopting technology itself. Krueger emphasized that training has to be more than tool-specific.

“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. ” he said. He argued the goal should include helping administrators “think in new ways how to use the tools. ” not simply learning how a single product works.

Security concerns may be the most urgent, but vetting technology is another pressure point quietly shaping what districts do next. The report describes concerns bubbling through both tech supporters and critics: educational technology vetting has come under scrutiny amid classroom screen-time backlash. and some states have pushed for better review of the vetting process.

The report points out a gap that districts can’t easily fix alone. Often, schools rely on vendors’ own data and are unequipped to evaluate software themselves to ensure children’s safety. In an earlier interview with EdSurge. Kim Whitman. co-lead for Smartphone Free Childhood US. warned that “There is nobody right now that is confirming these products are safe. effective and legal.” She added that it should not fall to a district’s IT director. saying it would be “impossible” and likening the idea to “nicotine companies vetting their own cigarettes.”.

In the State of EdTech report. most schools do have some process for vetting free edtech tools before they’re used—either through IT or via an approved-vendor list. But the coverage is uneven. Only 29% require information about whether products are inclusive and accessible for all learners. Accessibility advocates have been alarmed by that gap. and the report ties the worry directly to students who can’t afford to be an afterthought. 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.” She added that blanket rules can miss what students need. saying “Blanket rules that are blind to fundamental human differences will do more disservice than good to students at the margins.”.

Safety vetting is also incomplete. The report says 55% of edtech processes require vendors to provide information about safety, leaving about 45% of processes not addressing safety concerns.

Krueger called that imbalance a warning sign. saying “It’s a huge warning sign; there’s a whole lot of progress and work that has to happen in this area.” He suggested districts review the five quality indicators for edtech and AI products. benchmark their current status. and set it as a priority to move forward.

His final point returns to where schools feel the pressure most: procurement. “One of the biggest powers we have is procurement. so getting serious about how we buy them. and when. ” Krueger said. “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.”.

K-12 education technology EdTech AI guidelines cybersecurity CoSN State of EdTech report school districts accessibility genAI training edtech vetting procurement