For many school administrators, the end of the fiscal year means scrambling to decide whether to spend more money on AI tech products, writes Stephen Aguilar, co-director of the USC Center for Generative AI and Society, in an essay in The 74.
Below are some key questions every school leader must consider before committing limited resources to AI-powered ed tech.
1) Does the tool really help teachers in the classroom?
- What specific cognitive skills does the product aim to develop (e.g., argument construction, data interpretation, metacognitive reflection)?
- How does it supplement learning rather than replace it? Ask for a step-by-step walk-through showing where student input is required and how feedback loops are built in.
- What evidence exists that students improve on the targeted skills? Request pilot study results, raw performance data or an independent evaluation report — nothing less rigorous will do.
2) Does one size really fit all?
- Which student populations were included in testing the product? Look for data on age, language proficiency, special education status and socioeconomic background. Biased data means biased performance.
- How does the system adapt to individual students’ profiles? Ask for a live demo of the personalization engine that shows adjustments based on prior performance and teacher input.
- What safeguards are there for students who might become over-reliant on the tool? Ask how the product detects and flags excessive automation, prompting teacher intervention.
3) Who owns the content?
- Where is student data stored and processed? Identify the physical location of servers (domestic versus overseas) and any third-party processors involved. Ask how data breaches are handled and communicated.
- Who owns the text or media students generate using the tool? Ideally, the contract must state that all user-created content remains the property of the school district. Otherwise, your school becomes another content generator for a company.
- Will our data be used to train future versions of the AI? If yes, require an opt-out clause and a clear explanation of how opting out affects service quality.
- What happens if protected information (FERPA/HIPAA) is entered by mistake? Insist on a documented protocol for immediate deletion and breach notification. Consider clauses that allow you to exit agreements when large enough mistakes occur.
4) Are students protected from bias and misinformation?
- What filters prevent misinformation or harmful content from reaching children? Get access to a live example of the system handling ambiguous queries that could lead to falsehoods. Stress-test it!
- Who is responsible when the AI produces inappropriate output? The contract should assign liability to the vendor for any harm caused by the tool’s autonomous decisions.
5) Can you walk away from the contract?
- What are the cancellation terms? Look for a no-penalty opt-out clause that allows the district to discontinue use if outcomes aren’t met.
- Is there an outcomes-based pricing model? Vendors that are willing to tie fees to measurable learning gains demonstrate confidence in their product.
- What support and training are included? Clarify the depth of professional development, response time for technical issues and availability of on-site experts.
AI has the potential to be a powerful tutor, a strong assistant and an equalizer in under-resourced classrooms. It can do so only if educators adopt tools with full information.
District leaders should take these questions back to their board, curriculum team and legal counsel. Let them, not the slickness of a demo, drive the conversation. This can turn AI from a tempting shortcut into a responsible ally in education.
The 74
