K-12 schools are grappling with the expanding use of artificial intelligence-powered ed-tech tools, most are supporting programs to provide laptops or tablets for all students, and many teachers still have a lot to learn about how to integrate technology into instruction.
Yet less than half of states and districts direct federal professional development funding to technology-related training, concludes a report released Nov. 5 by the State Educational Technology Directors Association.
Only nine states currently ask districts to prioritize technology-related training in spending their share of the $2.2 billion Title II-A Supporting Effective Instruction grants. And fewer than 40 percent of districts use these funds to support technology-enabled professional learning, according to the SETDA report.
What’s more, few states or districts have a clear definition of what student-centered, technology-enabled instruction looks like, or a process for evaluating the impact of teaching with technology.
Ultimately, much federal professional development money goes to short-term workshops that might center around a particular tool, rather than financing the kind of sustained support that experts recommend if teachers are to be effective in using technology to transform their teaching, the report says.
One of the barriers to using Title II funds as effectively as possible: District and state leaders worry about running afoul of federal regulations, so they are less apt to try something new, said Ji Soo Song, SETDA’s director of projects and initiatives.
“Because Title II-A is such a long-standing program, a lot of things are being done out of compliance,” Song said. That “prevents us from thinking, especially in the age of AI, how we can help build educator capacity” with technology.
The report recommends states work with districts to clearly define what high-quality professional development on education technology looks like and establish more effective ways to measure its impact.
That would mean “making sure that we’re not tracking data just for compliance, but also in ways that we can drive improvement,” Song said.
Right now, many states will enumerate on how many educators participated in a particular training as opposed to asking and investigating questions like: “How did instruction change with ed tech as a result of this professional learning?” Song said.
The report also highlights some promising state initiatives designed to help districts get more value out of professional development funding.
For instance, Virginia has created a library of best practices to help districts learn from one another. And North Carolina and Utah each have a point person in their state education agencies to help facilitate AI implementation.
Federal teacher training money is on the chopping block
At the same time, funding for Title II-A—a program that has existed in federal law for decades—is now uncertain.
The Trump administration proposed eliminating the funding altogether in its fiscal year 2026 budget proposal, which is stalled in Congress. A House Republican spending bill would follow through on the president’s recommendation to nix Title II-A. But the Senate’s version of the spending measure leaves the program intact.
Over the summer, the Trump administration also temporarily withheld money for Title II and other federal K-12 education programs that it is seeking to eliminate, before reversing course and releasing the funds.
“The future of federal funding when it comes to professional learning seems a little shaky right now,” Song said.
But the recommendations in the report can apply to any source of professional development funding, not just this particular pot of federal funding, Song explained.
The report’s recommendations were informed by surveys earlier this year of leaders who work with federal programs from 24 states and 76 districts as well as three focus groups of educators.
