principals | Learning as I go: Reflections & lessons learned

The First 5 Steps on the Roadmap for Moving Forward

In Part I, I explored the difference between AI in education and AI education and why both are essential if we want to prepare students for a rapidly changing world.

In Part II, I focused on the gap between policy and practice and introduced six areas that schools and districts should address as they move from conversation to implementation:

Establish clear, shared expectations
Invest in educator readiness
Teach AI literacy intentionally
Align AI use with digital wellness
Engage stakeholders
Review, measure, and adjust

Now, we have to consider how schools actually begin this work. In this part of the series, I will share the first five steps of the roadmap moving forward.

There is no single plan that will fit every school or district. Community needs, resources, policies, student populations, and levels of readiness will vary across school systems within states and across the country.

Given the pace at which AI is advancing, schools should not wait until they have every answer to every question asked. They just need a starting point, a shared process, and a willingness to learn and adjust along the way. And to be successful, they need to be involved in thoughtful and consistent conversations.

Having the Right People at the Table

AI implementation should not be the responsibility of one person, department, or leadership team. I have said this many times when presenting at conferences and working with school districts. AI implementation requires multiple perspectives.

In the past year, schools that have formed an AI Task Force and included members from different backgrounds and roles in education have had the most success.

School and district task forces should include:

classroom educators from varying grade levels and content areas
students
families
school and district leaders
curriculum and instructional technology staff
special education and student-support representatives
data privacy, cybersecurity, or legal personnel
community or workforce partners

Having members from each group leads to a more thorough evaluation and a deeper understanding of AI from different perspectives.

Educators understand classroom realities. Students understand how AI is being used. Families can ask questions, express concerns, and support needs.

On the tech side, technology and legal professionals can help address privacy, security, contracts, age requirements, and compliance with relevant laws. School leaders can connect the work to curriculum, professional learning, communication, and long-term planning.

Connecting these voices creates a stronger foundation for decisions and helps prevent policies from being created in isolation. And it does not require a large task force to be impactful. The goal is to make sure the people affected by the decisions have a meaningful role in shaping them.

Here are the steps that I recommend for schools. During my workshops, speaking events, and writing, I try to help build out policies and systems that will have an impact. I also expand on each of these and create interactive experiences to help educators and students, develop skills and become more knowledgeable about AI and responsible use of it.

Step 1: Understand What Is Already Happening

Before schools write new policies or purchase new tools, they need to understand their current status.

Students and educators may already be using AI in a variety of ways, including:

brainstorming
lesson planning
generating questions
summarizing information
creating drafts
translating text
producing images
providing feedback
researching ideas
completing assignments

Some uses may be appropriate and productive, while others may raise concerns about privacy, accuracy, bias, academic integrity, or overreliance. My work with AI and the law addresses these concerns.

Schools cannot create effective expectations without first understanding what is happening. Over the past year, sitting with student focus groups, moderating panels, and visiting classrooms have all helped me to gain additional insights into what schools look like in an AI era.

Schools need to know where confusion exists, what educators need, what students already understand, and where gaps in guidance may be creating risk. The information gathered should guide the next steps.

Step 2: Define Shared Principles

Before writing detailed rules, schools should identify the principles that will guide AI use. These principles provide a common foundation across classrooms and grade levels, even when specific expectations vary. Common and shared language around AI is essential.

Possible shared principles might include:

Human judgment remains essential.
Learning remains the priority.
AI should support thinking rather than replace it.
AI use should be acknowledged when appropriate.
AI-generated content should be evaluated for accuracy, bias, and relevance.
Technology use should align with student well-being and instructional purpose.
Access and expectations should be equitable.

These principles can help educators make decisions when a new tool, classroom scenario, or student question arises. And they are especially important because schools cannot anticipate every possible use of AI. A policy can provide boundaries and shared principles that help people make responsible decisions within those boundaries.

Step 3: Create Clear Expectations for Use

One of the most common challenges educators face is determining when AI use should be allowed. The appropriate role of AI depends on the learning goal, the age of the student, the type of assignment, the information being shared, and the amount of independent thinking required. Schools may benefit from creating an AI-use continuum. For example:

AI Use Is Not Permitted

Students are expected to complete the task independently because the goal is to assess their individual knowledge, thinking, or skill.

AI Use Requires Educator Approval

Students may use AI only after discussing the intended purpose with the educator.

AI Use Is Permitted With Disclosure

Students may use AI for specific parts of the process but must explain how it was used.

AI Use Is Encouraged for a Defined Purpose

AI is intentionally used for brainstorming, comparison, feedback, revision, simulation, or another identified learning goal.

AI Use Is Embedded in the Assignment

Students are expected to interact with AI, evaluate its output, identify limitations, and reflect on its role in their work.

This type of continuum gives educators more flexibility and helps students understand that responsible use depends on context. The expectation should always connect to the purpose of the learning experience.

Step 4: Prepare Educators Through Practical Professional Learning

Educator readiness is one of the most important parts of implementation and it was the focus of my doctoral research two years ago.

Teachers should not be handed a policy and expected to figure out the rest on their own. They need time to explore, ask questions, test tools, and express concerns. Educators need opportunities to examine questions such as:

What is the learning goal?
How might AI support the learning?
How might it interfere with the learning?
What should students be expected to do independently?
What privacy or safety concerns exist?
Would another approach be more effective?

Having conversations and addressing questions like these will help educators build confidence and consistency.

Step 5: Teach AI Literacy Across the Curriculum

AI education should not only be addressed in a computer science class. AI literacy should be developed across subjects and grade levels. Some examples are:

In language arts, students might compare a human-written passage with an AI-generated one and analyze voice, evidence, and credibility.
In social studies, they might examine how bias appears in responses about historical events.
In science, students might verify an AI-generated explanation against trusted scientific sources.
In math classes, students might evaluate whether an AI-generated solution is correct and explain where the reasoning succeeds or fails.
In world language classes, students might compare AI translations and identify where meaning, tone, or cultural context is lost.

With activities like these, we can teach students how to question, evaluate, and make decisions about the use of AI and its accuracy.

These first five steps provide a practical starting point for schools and districts working to move from uncertainty to intentional action. By bringing the right people together, understanding current AI use, defining shared principles, creating clear expectations and common language, preparing educators, and building AI literacy across the curriculum, schools will establish a stronger foundation for responsible implementation. But the work does not end here.

In Part IV, I will continue the roadmap by exploring how schools can connect AI use with digital wellness, communicate clearly with students and families, and create an ongoing process for reviewing, measuring, and adjusting their approach.

Subscribe to my ThriveinEDU newsletter to stay informed.

If Your Organization Is Beginning This Work

I help schools and other organizations (law firms, healthcare professionals, business owners) implement AI responsibly through policy guidance, professional learning, and classroom-ready strategies grounded in both instructional practice and legal insight.

My sessions focus on helping teams:

• understand what AI can and cannot do

• recognize responsible-use considerations

• build confidence using emerging tools

• align implementation with organizational priorities

If your school, district, or organization is beginning conversations or looking to dive in and learn more about AI policy, professional learning, or responsible implementation, I’d welcome the opportunity to support your next steps through leadership workshops, keynote sessions, or strategic planning partnerships.

Preparing people is what makes AI implementation successful. Contact me via bit.ly/thrivineduPD or email Rdene915@gmail.com, for my training and speaking services.

Guest post by Al Kingsley CEO of NetSupport, Inc.

Principal Turnover is a Real Problem. Let’s Do Something About it

It seems that every day, there’s a new education survey, a new report, or some new finding, with its authors begging for our attention – a new or ongoing challenge that merits action.

If you’re in any way like me, most of those surveys earn not much more than a nod, a modest affirmation of the issue under scrutiny. Most of the time, we know already. And honestly, the issues rarely change. The investment and attention lines have been drawn in roughly the same places for some time.

But every once in a while, a new survey comes out that truly opens my eyes or refocuses my attention on critical issues in education.

That was the case in August when the Arizona School Administrators (ASA) and Northern Arizona University (NAU) shared the results of a new study on school and district administrator wellbeing.

As a preamble, the report repeated some sobering statistics about school administration retention, which we may have known but warrants repeating. For example, according to research from 2019, in the United States, “principal tenure averages four years.”

That was before the pandemic. I cannot imagine that it has improved.

If you’re reading this, I don’t need to explain why an average principal tenure of just four years is a serious problem and that is where the Arizona information comes back in.

In their survey of nearly 300 administrators and principals in K12 schools, the organizations wrote that while principals found their work meaningful, they also “noted high levels of job-related stress.” According to the survey, “High levels of stress and poor work-life balance are major factors pushing administrators to consider leaving.”

Administrators also told the survey makers that “Top stressors … included heavy workload, staffing shortages, the political climate in Arizona, and lack of resources/funding.” And that “Overall, administrators rated their work-life balance between poor and fair.”

None of that may be entirely surprising. But none of that is good, either.

We founded NetSupport nearly 36 years ago specifically to make educators’ jobs easier. By educators, we included and focused on IT professionals and school administrators, although we do have products used exclusively by teachers. Our products have been designed, installed, and updated across more than 22 million users worldwide because they reduce the burdens on education professionals in organizing and managing the technology in their schools. Over many years, countless school leaders have told us how our products and services make their jobs better and less stressful.

So, being reminded of the extremely limited tenure of principals in the U.S. and seeing the dismal results from Arizona was a bit of a shock. It was, however, not a surprise. I think we all know how stressful and draining education work is. But seeing this dramatic rate of turnover was a rude reminder that we all must do more to make the work of running a school less stressful, to move the needle on work-life balance to at least fair. If we cannot, we are – we will continue to be – experiencing unhealthy and unproductive high turnover among school leaders.

It’s well worth remembering that we can invest all the time, treasure, and technology we wish in classroom interventions and innovations. Yet, if the administrative layer in a given school is constantly in transition, overwhelmed, or otherwise ineffective, we are wasting those investments.

Likewise, we can create all the school policies we want at the federal, state, or district level, and it won’t matter one bit if the corps of school-level leadership is degraded by “high levels of job-related stress.”

The Arizona report offered several recommendations, such as implementing support programs that “Develop comprehensive wellness programs that address both personal and professional wellbeing” and to “advocate for policies that reduce administrative burdens and provide adequate funding for schools.”

That sounds great. And I understand that very few of us can do much about getting the state or other education overseers to create and fund wellness efforts. We also probably can’t do much on funding. But the part about reducing administrative burdens – we can do something about that.

AI and other technologies are getting too good, too fast to continue to leave such a vital part of our education leadership under these burdens, to allow them to roll these burdens and stresses and eventually into professional flight.

All of us in the education technology ecosystem have to be better, faster, and more intentional in making solutions that include principals. Even if new products are aimed, for example, at personalized learning or managing offsite activities, they should all consider how they will contribute to easing administrative burdens on principals. Any edtech product that does not is only doing half the job.

At the same time, those of us who have solutions that can help administrators need to move from raising our hands to energetically waving them about. The ongoing strain and its consequences are too important for professional modesty.

I realize that there are many issues with, and serious threats to, education. But this one – the stress burden we’re placing on principals – needs moving up a notch or two. So do the solutions that can help.

About Al Kingsley

Al Kingsley, the CEO of NetSupport, Inc., writes about school innovation and education technology. He serves in several capacities in local schools and has published four books about education, leadership, technology, and school governance.

Want to submit a guest blog or work with Rachelle?

Contact Rachelle to schedule sessions or keynotes about Artificial Intelligence, AI and the Law, Cybersecurity, Coding, AR/VR, and more for your school or event! Submit the Contact Form.

Follow Rachelle on BlueSky, Twitter(X) Instagram at @Rdene915