Abstract
Introduction:
This small-scale study examined how technology-savvy principals perceived modern changes in teaching, learning, and leading in K-12 schools resulting from the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI).
Methods:
To explore these changes, we captured the perspectives and lived experiences of nine principals who most recently received the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) Digital Principals Award.
Results:
Findings show that these digital principals perceive that AI can personalize the student learning experience, allows teachers to make their classrooms more responsive to students' needs, and affords leaders flexibility by delegating lower-level tasks to AI.
Discussion:
This article fills the research gap by exploring modern AI-driven shifts in K-12 schools and offers recommendations for educators to embrace organizational change amid rapidly evolving AI technology.
Introduction
The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) is disrupting today's schools, changing how students learn, how teachers teach, and how leaders lead. As a result, educators are reflecting on leadership and pedagogical approaches amid this digital transformation (). AI is helping students access content in ways that are meaningful to them. observed that integrating AI into education “holds transformative potential for enhancing learning outcomes, personalizing educational experiences, and bridging the digital divide” (p. 41). Amid rapid transformation, educators are struggling to keep up, leaving students feeling increasingly disconnected. For example, 56% of students in one study agreed with the statement “Using AI in class makes me feel as though I am less connected to my teacher” (, p. 20). In that same study, more than two-thirds of teachers report that student use of AI has created new challenges, with 78% of all teachers agreeing that “student use of AI has created an additional burden on teachers to understand whether a student's work is their own” (, p. 21). There is more to learn about what principals perceive is happening in their schools regarding AI. encouraged researchers to better understand “the lived experiences of school administrators,” adding that “much more work needs to be done on how new AI technologies impact leading, teaching, and learning” (p. 113). Thus, this study seeks to do just that by focusing on principals’ perceptions of how AI has transformed schools, with these principals heralded as digital leaders.
Purpose of the study
This study focuses on how award-winning digital principals perceive that AI has changed teaching, learning, and leading. The researchers interviewed nine technology-savvy principals who received a national award for their technology leadership to better understand how AI has changed schools. The findings provide insights from on-the-ground leaders on how students are enhancing their learning, how teachers are expediting teaching tasks, and how principals have reduced time spent on administrative tasks.
Literature review
This study focuses on how principals perceive that AI has changed the landscape of their schools. Guided by tripartite framework of teaching, learning, and leading, we examined the existing literature to understand how AI research intersects with these core dimensions of schooling. We explored the transformative nature of AI in teaching, the potential benefits AI offers for student learning, and its impact on the role of the school principal.
Teaching, learning, and leading in schools
AI is transforming teaching by helping teachers provide feedback on instructional plans and designs, aligning planned activities with learning objectives, scaffolding instruction, and modifying materials and instructional practices to align with student proficiency levels (). Teachers’ use of AI has been found to enable a more inclusive, student-centered approach to education by using chatbots, virtual assistants, and intelligent tutoring systems (). Researchers found that for teachers who invest the time to incorporate AI into their work, it saves them about six hours per week, or six weeks per school year, by generating assignments, making formative assessments, completing administrative tasks, preparing lessons, or grading student work (). Teachers report that AI is especially useful for instructional planning. In a study of 1,861 teachers the top five reported uses of AI included generating lesson plans and classroom activities, creating student assessments, differentiating for a range of learners, supporting administrative tasks, and helping students use AI themselves (). Thus, the onset of AI has allowed teachers to streamline their work and potentially focus more keenly on their students.
AI can improve student learning by providing instant feedback, thereby refining students’ thinking skills, enhancing problem-based learning in the classroom, and, importantly, helping teachers “identify the specific types of support students need” (, p. 2). Researchers further found that AI has transformed personalized learning through adapting learning “to each student's unique requirements, learning styles, and preferences,” where “flexibility, adaptability, and student autonomy are all key themes” (, p. 1817). Researchers have found that AI adoption in teaching allows the educator to cater teaching “to the different learning speeds of students, making sure that every learner, regardless of their background knowledge or skill level, can still achieve success” (, p. 3). Other researchers, such as , explained that “AI-driven virtual experiments, gamified learning platforms, and personalized learning pathways can allow students to explore and create through hands-on experiences, thus enhancing their interest and focus” (p. 11). Students can thus receive specific, quick feedback thanks to AI tools.
AI is also changing the role of the principal. studied 1,942 principal responses to a survey, finding that 58% reported using AI in their jobs in five tasks (1) drafting communications; (2) supporting school administrator tasks; (3) supporting teacher hiring, evaluation, or professional learning; (4) creating instructional resources for teachers; and (5) doing research. analyzed principal-focused practitioner publications for P-12 school administrators to understand the messages being presented to principals in the first year after ChatGPT's release. Richardson et al. identified four themes for leading AI in schools. First, AI introduces new issues around equity and ethics that leaders must stay attuned to. Second, AI changes teaching and learning, so a leadership implementation strategy is needed. Third, educating stakeholders on AI is essential. Finally, leaders themselves must embrace AI and become lead learners.
The impact of AI on the roles of teaching, learning, and leading can thus be better understood by seeking to fill gaps in understanding what is currently happening in schools. A better understanding of principal perceptions will help address the gap that observed in their research on advice given to principals in practitioner-focused media outlets.
Methods
In this exploratory qualitative descriptive study, we interviewed nine U.S. principals about the changes in K-12 schools driven by AI. We began by compiling a list of award-winning National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) Digital Principals (). We chose this population, given the award's focus on recognizing principals who demonstrated bold and creative leadership in harnessing technology innovations to further teaching and learning, and the rubric-informed selection process.
In the uncertain era of AI, digital leaders are uniquely poised to take risks and clarify vision to help their school communities thrive amid disruption. described digital principals as leaders who help clarify vision and goal-setting around technology integration, build coalitions around technology integration, navigate power structures, and facilitate professional development to best integrate technology into teaching and learning (). Digital leaders thus understand and adapt to the organizational shifts driven by technology in schools. Digital leaders are thus bright spots and are ideally situated to understand today's AI-driven organizational changes.
We identified 18 awardees for the years 2017–2022. Since this program was sunset in 2022, we selected the last five years of awardees because they had recent experience leveraging technology and included principals recognized as successful school leaders in its use. We sent recruitment emails to participants obtained from public websites, outlining the interview process and inviting them to participate in the study. Nine of the 18 agreed to participate, resulting in a 50% participation rate (Table 1).
Table 1
| Name | Year of award | Years of experience | School at time of the award | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Robert Eichorn | 2020 | 35 | Independence Nontraditional School | VA |
| Darren Ellwein | 2017 | 30 | South Middle School | SD |
| David Geurin | 2017 | 30 | Bolivar High School | MO |
| Trevor Goertzen | 2021 | 20 | Spring Hill Middle School | AR |
| Nick Indeglio | 2018 | 27 | Downingtown Middle School | PA |
| Jethro Jones | 2017 | 23 | Kodiak Middle School | AK |
| Chris Lehmann | 2019 | 29 | Science Leadership Academy | PA |
| Kristina MacBury | 2018 | 30 | Sarah Pyle Academy | DE |
| Cindy Sholtys-Cromwell | 2021 | 30 | Kelso Virtual Academy | WA |
Self-Reported demographics of NASSP digital principals .
The researchers scheduled a 45–60-minute video interview with the award-winning principals to discuss their experiences and perceptions of AI. Participants consented to participate and agreed to be quoted by name, per university IRB approval. The semi-structured interview protocol focused on various elements of AI in education, including the following prompts: What are your experiences with generative AI? How has AI changed K-12 schools? What are the benefits of AI in education? What challenges do you see with AI in education?
Data analysis
The interview analysis was guided by qualitative analysis framework. For the first coding cycle, the researchers used descriptive in vivo coding, capturing phrases from participants’ responses to generate descriptive codes. For the second coding cycle, the researchers mapped the inductive codes onto the a priori, deductive codes of a three-pronged framework of teaching, learning, and leading. To address interrater reliability, the team co-constructed a deductive codebook. Each researcher independently inductively coded the transcripts. The team met to resolve discrepancies and align the inductive codes with the deductive codebook across the three pillars of the framework.
The research team brings a perspective shaped by years of experience in K-12 educational practice, leadership, and scholarship. The first researcher served as a building principal and has pursued scholarly research into educational leadership, bringing an insider understanding of the organizational, relational, and instructional demands of the principalship. The second researcher specializes in school technology leadership with a focus on AI innovations and their implications for educational systems. The third researcher draws on classroom teaching experience, grounding the team's interpretive lens in the lived realities of instructional practice.
Together, our positionalities orient us towards change as both a process and an outcome. We approach this study with a shared belief that schools are dynamic institutions and that digital principals understand innovation. We recognize that our prior experiences and theoretical commitments may predispose us to view AI as a force with meaningful implications for school culture, pedagogy, and leadership practice. We acknowledge that this orientation, while informing our analytical sensitivity, carries the potential for confirmatory bias.
To honor qualitative inquiry and center the voices of the nine participating principals, we employed ongoing reflexivity throughout the research process, including member checking and audit trails, to ensure that our interpretations remained accountable to participants’ meanings rather than our own assumptions. To ensure member checking, the researchers followed advice, sending participants transcripts and giving them the opportunity to make corrections to ensure accuracy.
Results
The results are organized into the three pillars: teaching, learning, and leading. First, we present findings around how these change leaders perceived that AI has changed teaching in schools. Second, we present findings of digital leaders’ perceptions of how AI has changed the student learning experience. Finally, we present findings on how these award-winning principals feel AI has changed their jobs. These findings provide a principal's perspective on the disruptive nature of AI in schools. Below, we highlight illustrative comments from selected participants.
How AI has changed teaching
The principals in this study shared their thoughts on how AI had changed teaching in their schools. Cindy observed AI served “as a tool for teachers to differentiate for our students” by aligning teaching to students’ interests. She shared a practical example of a 7th-grade student who struggled in math but loved baseball. The teacher prompted the AI to link the Pythagorean Theorem to baseball and received several useful instructional approaches. Cindy discussed how students grasp the material better when teachers tailor instruction using AI to specific student needs. David shared that AI provided some relief for teachers “to not have to be the expert in every facet of our discipline.” AI also enabled teachers to better understand how their teaching is impacting students. For example, Bob observed how AI can help teachers create “quick assessments and checking for understanding,” which “allows the teacher to engage more directly in small group and whole class learning.”
Principals revealed that some teachers are hesitant to use AI. Nick noted how teachers are “afraid of it and finding reasons not to use it, where we should be capitalizing on all the things it can do for us.” To help with this, Chris encouraged his teachers “to play with it [AI]” to better understand and use these tools, without having teachers say, “Hey Claude, write me a unit plan.” Principals discussed how some of their teachers were leveraging AI to expedite tasks. Cindy shared that teachers save time by using AI in “working on an email response to a passionate parent.” Nick also remarked that AI gives teachers “more time, whether it's writing emails or planning lessons,” as they can “work smarter, not harder.” Findings showed that leveraging AI to manage non-teaching tasks and engage in teaching-related assessments enabled teachers to reframe their efforts to create more meaningful student experiences.
How AI has changed student learning
The leaders we spoke to noted that students are leveraging AI to enhance their learning. Bob noted, “Kids are always well ahead of us, and they’ve been for years.” Teachers realize that students need to know how to use AI technically and learn with it practically. As Cindy shared, “We have to create an educational experience that prepares students for their future.” When it comes to students, principals noted how AI can provide new opportunities to enhance student learning and engagement. For example, Darren shared that in history class, leveraging a chatbot to engage in historical contexts and even with actual characters can be a game-changer. David explained for 6th-grade students learning ancient history, “you can talk with Alexander the Great,” observing that this changes the nature of student learning. David further elaborates, “It draws kids more into the real aspect. It almost makes it feel real to them.”
Principals in the study noted how AI has also changed how students seek help. Trevor noted that AI can be a “great equity divide closer” as each student can have their own “personalized tutor.” He explained that AI “gives kids an opportunity to advance further and faster regardless of where you are,” including a rural district that may not have as many resources as other districts. Access to AI, he explained, offers students the “ability to get information and knowledge quicker than we've ever been able to know, and accelerate faster than we were probably able to keep up with.” AI enables students to move at a new pace, regardless of location and teacher readiness.
Leaders in the study discussed how AI has helped students find their voice and enact agency in their own learning. For example, Chris shared a story from his school where “ a young woman used AI to help her with the illustrations for her senior project,” which entailed writing a “story about her family's immigration from the Sudan.” The student worked with elementary students to illustrate the story. Chris explained how the student “took those original drawings all these elementary school kids did, fed them into AI, but then, she used Midjourney to make a uniform and professional illustration” from the various student-created images. Chris added, “That is something that she could not have otherwise done… that's a novel use.” Chris explained, “AI transformed (the) process, or enhanced process, but did not replace the thinking process.” Leaders we spoke to were generally optimistic that students would benefit from a more personalized experience enabled by AI. Jethro, however, did provide a word of caution, noting “That our system is designed to do what is called cheating, which is checking off the boxes, and as long as that's still the goal, kids will always use AI to check off the box.” He added that “as far as how it has changed teaching, it's not done a ton,” thus pointing to the need for reshaping the paradigm of teaching in a deeper way.
How AI has changed leading schools
The digital principals in this study noted that AI gave them an opportunity to reflect on their own roles as principals. Kristina observed how AI “requires us to continue to reflect… to keep thinking about what we're doing, and how we can do it better.” She explained that “education is still the same. We still have the same purpose and the same why; it's just impacting how we do things differently.” Jethro, on the other hand, dismissed the role AI has largely played in regard to leadership, noting, “I don't think that it's done much.” Jethro then added nuanced insight that “it has mostly made it so that principals do the stupid things and the wasteful things that they've always been doing faster, which doesn't benefit anybody.” David added skepticism as well, saying, “I don't know that it's changing leading that much from what..leaders should always be doing.” These comments indicate that the core duties have not been replaced by AI.
The leaders we spoke to discussed how AI has strengthened principals’ feedback mechanisms with their teachers following teaching observations as required by districts. For example, Chris shared, “I am writing my narrative observations the way that I want to, and then I'm feeding those notes into Gemini or Claude…which then takes all those notes and turns them into Danielson language.” Chris talked about this as a positive use of AI because “it creates the inauthentic document while allowing me to do the authentic.” AI allowed him space to focus on leading more and managing less, using AI as he described to “get those compliance tasks out of the way more quickly.” Nick also shared how he trained AI to provide feedback as he “fed it our standardized test data and got back not just a breakdown of proficiency levels,” but with “actionable interventions and key things that teachers can do to improve instruction.” AI provides targeted, specific instruction for teachers that leaders can use to lighten the burden of framing feedback.
Additionally, AI has enabled time-saving innovations for principals. For example, Cindy noted that AI has helped with practical aspects such as business operations, helping her with “evaluations and memos, and letters, and it's helped communication.” AI has strengthened her leadership by delivering effective professional development to her staff, helping her “spice that up a little bit.” She added that AI helped her stay current with leadership topics and “being more up-to-date on research.” Though the principals we spoke to were busy, they found that leveraging AI saved them time in their leadership roles and helped them stay on top of communication and task coordination.
Discussion
Our findings provide insights from award-winning digital principals on how they perceived AI has shaped teaching, learning, and leading in their schools. Principals indicated that AI had impacted teaching by providing teachers with tools to engage students. Teachers are better understanding student learning through AI-generated formative assessments. This practice aligns with the work of , who also observed that about one-fourth of the teachers reported using AI to assess students, specifically in the form of “assessments, quizzes, and rubrics” (p. 10). The principals in this study discussed that AI reduced some pressure on teachers to be experts and has allowed students to dig deeper, master new content, and be more creative in their work. AI is giving students a new level of autonomy, enabling them to benefit from a more personalized learning approach, as also described by . From digging deeper to better understand a historical perspective to finding a voice to tell their family's immigration story, students are gaining a sense of agency and thus owning their learning in new ways.
The principals we spoke to shared that they had to provide encouragement to hesitant teachers and also lead by example, such as by showing them how to leverage AI to generate a lesson plan. As leaders, they help foster AI adoption within the school, which they are uniquely poised to do as principals, aligning with finding that principals are “the driving force of AI integration” (p. 16) in schools. We heard one principal note how professional development has changed as a result of AI. The importance of professional development with technology integration has been widely discussed in the literature (e.g., ). It is important to note, however, that researchers such as found that, when it comes to emerging challenges related to digital technology, “collective school-wide buy-in is required” (p. 13) rather than the individual principal leading alone. encouraged leaders to be intentional about “ethical leadership in AI-integrated schooling” through professional development. One principal we spoke to shared that AI allows her to stay on top of emerging leadership topics and current research. similarly observed that principals use AI “to research and better understand various topics related to their jobs, such as best practices, education policies, and curriculum ideas” (p. 14). Leveraging AI allows principals to meet district requirements, such as incorporating Danielson language into their observation feedback. This provides principals with more time to engage with teachers and students in the classroom and to offer authentic, personalized reflective questions in addition to district-driven language, thereby helping improve instruction in their schools. observed that, over time, this approach can help classroom teachers “determine which professional practices they might like to refine” (p. 9). Leveraging AI as a time-saver and feedback mechanism thus helps the principals serve as more effective instructional leaders.
Conclusions, limitations, and implications
Our research study had several limitations. First, we sought to understand a group of award-winning principals recognized for their digital leadership. It is quite possible that they were more positively disposed toward the use of AI. Second, we focused on secondary-level leaders in the United States, which, accordingly, missed a broader sample of principals (e.g., elementary and international perspectives). Third, the award-winning principals were perceived, at some point, to be technologically innovative, making them likely early adopters of AI.
Today's digital principals are uniquely positioned to understand how AI has driven organizational change. Principals can leverage innovation to equip new and veteran teachers with ideas for better engaging each student. This study provides a glimpse of how digital principals are becoming more reflective about their own work and rethinking how to do it better. By streamlining administrative tasks, principals are providing deeper, reflective feedback that can refine professional practice and encourage students to be more active learners. The digital principals’ insights in this small-scale study provide perspective for today's school leaders to consider in their own schools.
The way principals view AI as a means to engage more authentically, communicate more effectively, and ultimately help students become actively engaged learners provides a helpful perspective and a pathway for other principals to consider. Better integration of AI in schools may lead to greater efficiency in leadership, more responsive teaching, and more engaged students. These leaders reported that schools are indeed changing as a result of AI disruption, and understanding both the nature and potential of this organizational change is important for today's school leaders.
District and school leaders can leverage professional development to benefit teachers and deepen their own understanding (). And principals should seek to leverage professional learning networks to understand how AI can enhance the work and success of students and staff. As noted, principals will be “crucial actors” (p. 11) in the effective integration of AI in schools. AI is changing schools, and a better understanding of the perspective of the school leader is key in an era of disruption.
Statements
Data availability statement
The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because the above-referenced human subjects research project has been determined to be EXEMPT from review by the Baylor University Institutional Review Board (IRB) according to federal regulation 45 CFR 46.104(d)(2): Research involving the use of educational tests, survey procedures, interview procedures, or observation of public behavior. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to william_sterrett@baylor.edu.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Baylor University Institutional Review Board (IRB). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
WS: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JR: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MF: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
Abolle-OkoyeaguC. J.EzenkwuC. P.IbekeE.OnojaO. P.EzeonwumeluV. U. (2026). Engineering students and AI in education: a TAM-based study of perceptions, acceptance, and barriers to adoption. Cogent Educ.13 (1), 1–21. 10.1080/2331186X.2026.2614148
2
AdityaD.NagadaU.OtermansP. C. J. (2026). Redefining education: addressing challenges with conversational AI. Cogent Educ.13 (1), 1–15. 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2611649
3
AkgünS.ChoiK.LeeH. R. (2026). Designing a critical AI literacy program for K-8 STEM education: adopting a community-centered approach. Discip. Interdiscip. Sci. Educ. Res.8 (1), 1–26. 10.1186/s43031-026-00155-1
4
AntonettiJ. V.GarverJ. R. (2015). 17,000 Classroom Visits Can’t be Wrong: Strategies That Engage Students, Promote Active Learning, and Boost Achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
5
ArarK.TliliA.SchunkaL.SalhaS.SaitiA. (2025). Reimagining educational leadership and management through artificial intelligence: an integrative systematic review. Leadersh. Poli. Sch.24 (1), 4–26. 10.1080/15700763.2025.2451982
6
ArefianM. H. (2026). AI-enhanced professional learning communities: a new era of personalized teacher education. Cogent Educ.13 (1), 1–16. 10.1080/2331186X.2026.2626629
7
AshA. M. (2025). Three in 10 Teachers use AI Weekly, Saving six Weeks a Year. Washington, DC: Gallup Education. Available online at:https://news.gallup.com/poll/691967/three-teachers-weekly-saving-six-weeks-year.aspx(Accessed March 27, 2026).
8
BrzyskiewiczS.McGarrO.LenihanR. (2025). Critically Reflecting on the Human and Environmental Costs of Digital Technology use in Education: Considering the Role of Leadership and School Culture. Irish Educational Studies. 1–20. 10.1080/03323315.2025.2479439
9
CandelaA. G. (2019). Exploring the function of member checking. Qual. Rep.24 (3), 619–628. 10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3726
10
GlickmanC. (1991). Pretending not to know what we know. Educ. Leadersh.48 (8), 4–10.
11
HoC. S. M. (2026). Principals’ ethical leadership in the AI era: a narrative literature review of emerging challenges, strategies, and outcomes. Comput. Educ.243, 105517. 10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105517
12
KarakoseT. (2024). Will artificial intelligence (AI) make the school principal redundant? A preliminary discussion and future prospects. Educ. Process: Int. J.13 (2), 7–14. 10.22521/edupij.2024.132.1
13
KaufmanJ. H.WooA.EaganJ.LeeS.KassanE. B. (2025). Uneven Adoption of Artificial Intelligence Tools among U.S. Teachers and Principals in the 2023–2024 School Year (Research Report No. RRA134-25). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Available online at:https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED672957
14
LairdE.DwyerM.ValleeH. Q. (2025). Hand in Hand: Schools’ Embrace of AI Connected to Increased Risks to Students. Washington, DC: Center for Democracy and Technology. Available online at:https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/CDT-2025-Hand-in-Hand-Polling-111225-accessible.pdf(Accessed March 29, 2026).
15
National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). (2026). Digital principals of the year: Honoring principals who leverage technology. Available online at:https://www.nassp.org/success-stories/recognition-programs/digital-principal-of-the-year/(Accessed January 28, 2026).
16
RichardsonJ. W.VedderB. C.RobertsA. B.McLeodS. (2025). What’s the chatter about AI and school leaders?Leadersh. Poli. Sch.24 (1), 103–116. 10.1080/15700763.2024.2409307
17
RichardsonJ. W.WattsJ.SterrettW. (2021). Challenges of being a digitally savvy principal. J. Educ. Adm.59 (3), 318–334. 10.1108/JEA-10-2020-0215
18
SaldañaJ. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19
SalhaS.MousaA.KhayatS. (2025). Artificial intelligence in education (AIED) policies in school context: a mixed approach research. Leadersh. Poli. Sch.24 (1), 27–45. 10.1080/15700763.2024.2443675
20
SalmanM. S.ChayaR. D. (2024). The influence of AI-powered learning platforms on student engagement and performance: emerging technologies in education. Int. J. Res. Public. Rev.5 (7), 1816–1824. 10.55248/gengpi.5.0724.1750
21
SterrettW.RichardsonJ. W. (2020). Leading a tech-savvy school: reinventing learning through collaboration and innovation. KDP Record56 (3), 100–104. 10.1080/00228958.2020.1770000
22
ZhouM.PengS. (2025). The usage of AI in teaching and students’ creativity: the mediating role of learning engagement and the moderating role of AI literacy. Behav. Sci.15 (5), 587. 10.3390/bs15050587
Summary
Keywords
artificial intelligence, principal, school innovation, school leadership, teacher
Citation
Sterrett WL, Richardson JW and Frey MA (2026) Perceptions of how AI has changed teaching, learning, and leading in K-12 schools: insights from award-winning principals. Front. Educ. 11:1854863. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2026.1854863
Received
13 April 2026
Revised
13 May 2026
Accepted
26 May 2026
Published
10 June 2026
Volume
11 - 2026
Edited by
Shailendra Kumar Singh, Central University of Jharkhand, India
Reviewed by
Ali Duran, Amasya University, Türkiye
Mark Anthony Nano Polinar, Cebu Institute of Technology—University, Philippines
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Sterrett, Richardson and Frey.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: William L. Sterrett william_sterrett@baylor.edu
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.