Nearly two-thirds of teachers who use AI say it gives them time back for students. A district that wants to act on that claim needs a simple way to check it.
When the Walton Family Foundation and Gallup released results from a survey of more than 1,900 educators on October 14, one finding drew the most attention. Nearly 3 in 5 educators said they used AI tools for work in the 2025-26 school year, and nearly two-thirds of those users said the tools freed up time for the parts of the job they care about most, such as interacting with students. K-12 Dive covered the findings on October 16.
It is a promising number, and it is also self-reported. K-12 Dive noted that the findings do not establish measured time savings, that the 51 percent figure for “somewhat more time” applies only to AI users, and that the article offered no margin of error. A superintendent or board member should reach the same conclusion: encouraging, and worth testing locally.
A teacher’s report that AI saved time is a hypothesis. A district’s job is to turn it into evidence.
Start With What Teachers Want More Of
The survey also asked what educators value in the work. Teachers most valued helping students through difficult material, seeing students succeed academically, and giving individual feedback. Completing administrative or required paperwork ranked lowest. That is a useful clue for measurement design. The question is not only whether a teacher saved time. It is what the teacher did with it.
A district can pick two or three target activities, such as small-group instruction, student conferences, and written feedback, and ask whether those activities increased. That keeps the conversation focused on students, which is where the survey’s own findings point.
Build a Simple Baseline
Before expanding any tool, ask a pilot group to describe a typical week: roughly how many hours go to planning, grading, administrative tasks, and student-facing work. A one-week time log or a short pulse survey is enough. Repeat the same questions after six to eight weeks of use. Rough numbers collected consistently are far more useful than precise numbers collected once.
Keep the tool and the task specific. Teachers who use AI for drafting practice questions will report different savings than those who use it for grading feedback, and the district will learn more by tracking those uses separately.
Borrow From District ROI Work
Districts are already getting better at this kind of measurement. At the ASBO 2026 conference in Pittsburgh on October 15, leaders from Christina School District in Delaware described an academic ROI dashboard, built with WestEd and launched in July 2026, that shows a program’s cost next to data on its students’ outcomes and includes a reflection section where leaders explain why a program did or did not work, according to K-12 Dive.
The presenters’ advice applies neatly to AI. Start small and build a team before building a tool. Define the questions first. Begin without waiting for perfect data. Embed the process in staff members’ everyday work. A district does not need a new platform to measure AI. It needs a few questions asked the same way, by the same people, on a schedule.
Look at Who Is Using It
The survey found use peaked at 67 percent among educators ages 40 to 49, followed by 63 percent for ages 50 to 59, while educators under 40 were close to the overall average of about 60 percent. Use was lowest among those 60 and older, at 46 percent. Segmenting the local baseline by grade band, subject, and experience can show where savings are largest and where teachers need more support.
The question is not whether teachers use AI. It is whether the hour they save ends up in front of students.
Pair Measurement With Guidance
Measurement works better when teachers know the rules. An earlier Gallup and Walton survey from May 2026 found that over 60 percent of teachers had received no guidance on applying AI to parts of their jobs such as analyzing student learning patterns, tutoring, and one-on-one instruction. Nearly 60 percent lacked guidance on grading, feedback, or supplementing instruction.
A one-page document covering approved uses, data rules, and examples gives teachers confidence to participate candidly in a pilot. It also shows them that their feedback is being used, which tends to raise response rates and improve the quality of what districts learn.
What to Tell Families and Boards
Plain language works best. Tell families that the district is testing teacher-facing tools, explain what is being measured, and describe how student information is protected. A short update each semester with two or three numbers keeps the story current. This approach sits comfortably alongside the caution some large districts have shown about student-facing tools, since the pilot concerns teacher time, not student use.
What Vendors Can Do
Companies selling AI tools to schools can make this easier. Offer usage data in a form a district can read, provide a template for a time-use survey, and help leaders interpret results. Vendors who help a district prove the benefit will find renewal conversations far easier than those who rely on enthusiasm alone.
For a fuller look at the survey and the guidance steps districts can take, read K12 Data’s analysis of the Walton and Gallup findings. If you serve technology, curriculum, or professional development leaders and want to reach them, you can build a targeted K-12 contact list here.
About the Author: Charlie Isham is the Founder and CEO of K12 Data, Inc., which operates K12 Data, College Leads, and K12 Talent. He has spent more than 15 years building education data infrastructure and has watched how schools, colleges, and the companies that serve them buy for over a decade. He is based in Encinitas, California.
