What K-12 leaders need to stop doing if we want meaningful AI integration in schools
Last week I attended the EdWeek Virtual Leadership Symposium and came away with several big “AHA!” moments that feel especially urgent right now.
As a PBL Thought Leader, AI & PBL Pedagogical Architect, founder of CraftED Curriculum, and designer of the PBL Certification e-course, I’m constantly bridging the gap between research, policy, and what actually happens in classrooms every day. The conversations with other K-12 leaders, experts, and EdWeek journalists confirmed exactly what I’ve been seeing while supporting schools with project-based curriculum and AI integration.
Here are the biggest takeaways that are still on my mind:
1. Teachers Are More Open to AI Than We Often Assume
According to EdWeek Research Center data shared during the symposium, 62% of teachers are open to using AI “a little bit.”
That’s progress worth celebrating. It’s not full-blown enthusiasm yet, but it’s a solid foundation we can definitely build on—especially when we pair AI with strong project-based learning.
2. De-Implementation Might Be the Most Important Skill for Leaders Right Now
One of the most powerful sessions focused on de-implementation, which is the deliberate act of stopping practices that no longer serve us.
Lori Silver and others emphasized:
- Not everything can coexist on a teacher’s plate.
- Every new initiative competes for time, attention, and energy.
- Systems improve when leaders courageously remove what no longer serves.
This idea hit especially hard in the context of project-based learning. Strong PBL requires deep thinking, iteration, student agency, and sustained focus. When we keep layering new mandates on top of outdated practices, we leave no room for the rich, meaningful work that defines high-quality project-based curriculum. It’s exactly why de-implementation is a core principle I emphasize in my PBL Certification training.
3. The Top Barriers to AI Use Aren’t What Many Leaders Think
The data on why teachers aren’t using AI was eye-opening:
- Lack of adequate training
- Other priorities that feel more urgent
These two reasons dominated the responses. Notice how they loop directly back to de-implementation? If we want teachers to integrate AI effectively into project-based learning, we must first clear the deck.
Other notable barriers included uncertainty about effective instructional use (34%) and policy gaps.
4. Policy Without Professional Development Is Just Paper
Kevin Bushweller’s point stuck with me: heavy-handed compliance approaches can kill innovation, creativity, and critical thinking, which are the very skills project-based learning is designed to develop.
Roughly 45% of schools still don’t have an AI policy, but even when policies exist, there’s often a massive gap between leadership conversations and what teachers actually know and practice.
When I was last in the classroom actively experimenting with AI, I wasn’t even familiar with my school’s AI policy. That experience is common. We’ve moved past the need to simply “have a policy.” We now need living documents that are co-created with teachers, clearly communicated, and supported with ongoing, job-embedded professional development.
This is why my PBL Certification and advanced project-based curriculum courses always pair practical tools with sustainable implementation strategies.
5. AI Will Change Teaching — And Most Educators Know It
The majority of participants believe artificial intelligence will meaningfully change the job of a teacher over the next five years. This isn’t hype. It’s a shared recognition across the field.
The real question is no longer if AI will change teaching, but how we shape that change responsibly; especially within strong project-based learning environments where AI can support research, ideation, drafting, feedback, and personalization.
Moving Forward: Make Space for Powerful Project-Based Curriculum + AI
The most successful schools won’t be the ones with the flashiest AI tools. They’ll be the ones that thoughtfully make space for innovation by de-implementing what no longer serves, pairing policy with real support, and treating teachers as professionals who deserve both clear direction and creative freedom.
I’m carrying these insights forward as I continue designing PBL Certification pathways and AI-enhanced project-based curriculum units that are rigorous, engaging, and human-centered. The work ahead is about creating sustainable conditions for powerful teaching and learning, not adding one more thing to an already full plate!
What about you?
Have you seen strong examples of de-implementation in your district or school? How are you bridging the policy-to-practice gap with AI in project-based learning? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
If you’re a K-12 leader, teacher, or instructional coach ready to deepen your work with project-based curriculum, explore my PBL Certification e-course or browse the project-based learning ideas and resources here.
Share this post if it resonated—conversations like these move the field forward!
