The argument over artificial intelligence in schools often centres on whether pupils should be allowed to use chatbots for homework. A new American survey asks a different question: what happens when teachers themselves use the technology? In findings published on 14 October 2026, Gallup reports that a majority of classroom educators used AI during the last academic year. Among those users, nearly two-thirds said it gave them extra time for the work they find most meaningful. The emerging picture of AI for teachers is therefore less about machines taking lessons and more about removing some of the paperwork that competes with time spent helping children. Gallup's published results also contain cautions that matter when interpreting the enthusiasm.
The survey asked educators about their experience rather than measuring independent changes in grades or classroom standards. Teachers who say a tool saves time may genuinely feel a benefit, but the finding cannot show that an AI-generated worksheet is always accurate or that schools with widespread adoption achieve better results. It is still a useful view from the people doing the job, especially because education is a profession in which the human relationship is central to its purpose.
AI for teachers may be most useful away from the classroom
Gallup surveyed 1,952 US kindergarten-to-high-school educators online between 28 July and 14 August 2026. The participants included teachers, paraprofessionals and other staff working in classrooms. Fifty-nine per cent said they had used AI tools for professional work during the 2025–26 school year. Examples included preparing lessons, creating materials, assessment, feedback and administrative tasks. This is evidence about a US education workforce, not a measure of use among teachers in Britain or worldwide.
Of educators who used AI, 13 per cent said it freed up a lot more time for the elements of work they most valued, while 51 per cent reported somewhat more time. Seven per cent said the tools had cost them time, and 29 per cent reported no change. That spread is important. AI is not uniformly a time saver. A tool that produces unusable material or demands extensive checking can add tasks instead of removing them.
Preparing a lesson is an instructive example. A teacher may know exactly how to explain a concept, while needing several versions of an exercise for pupils at different stages. A chatbot could help draft that material, allowing the professional to concentrate on its suitability, tone and accuracy. The gain would come from shortening preliminary preparation, not replacing the judgement of someone familiar with those children. It is a possible workflow, not an outcome the survey specifically verified in each classroom.
The best part of teaching remains emphatically human
The same Gallup work explored the idea of ‘mattering’: feeling valued and able to make a contribution. Eighty-five per cent of respondents said helping a pupil through something difficult made them feel they mattered a great deal. Seventy-four per cent said the same about seeing a student do well academically. Administrative work came much lower in that personal ranking.
That finding changes how a technology proposal should be evaluated. Saving thirty minutes is only meaningful if the time can be spent on something useful and if the teacher controls the process. A school could use software to relieve repetitive administration, or it could use the supposed efficiency to add still more reporting and pressure. The same application can feel liberating in one working environment and burdensome in another.
There is also an emotional dimension. Gallup found pupils were more frequent sources of recognition than supervisors or parents. Yet only 35 per cent of surveyed educators said they felt they mattered a great deal at their school. Better software alone cannot close a gap in professional recognition, leadership or workload. The larger Walton Family Foundation and Gallup education research places the AI finding in this wider account of what classroom staff value.
Time saved still has to survive the quality check
AI-assisted preparation is not the same as automatically trustworthy educational material. Generated explanations may contain subtle errors. Exercises may be too easy, too hard or culturally unsuitable. Feedback requires sensitivity to individual work, and a child should not lose access to a human teacher merely because a programme can generate a plausible response. Schools also have obligations around pupil information that cannot be ignored for convenience.
Those concerns echo earlier debates about generative AI in the classroom and the challenges that schools face over AI-assisted cheating. The difference is that this survey focuses on educators’ experience of using tools for their own jobs. Confusing that with evidence that pupils should freely outsource learning would miss the point of the study.
For school leaders, the sensible response is to ask teachers which low-value tasks consume time, test small changes and preserve the ability to reject or correct automated output. Any saving should be judged alongside accuracy, privacy, workload and the quality of time with pupils. That approach treats AI as practical assistance rather than as a target for adoption statistics.
The survey does not settle whether AI will make education better in the long term. It does, however, highlight a compelling measure of success: not how much content machines can produce, but whether teachers finish the day with more attention left for the children who need them.
About the Author
Stuart Kerr is Technology Correspondent at LiveAIWire, covering artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and the social impact of emerging technology. LiveAIWire is an independent, human-led technology publication using AI-assisted research, editorial production and original AI-assisted editorial illustrations under his direction.