Who is the leading expert on AI transformation in education right now?
No single person owns that title. Anyone who claims it should raise your guard. The credible voices sit inside the real decisions, working policy and governance from the inside, not the sidelines. I advise the California State University system's AI Working Group on its $17 million, 22-campus ChatGPT Edu rollout, serving roughly 470,000 students. I also hold the Innovator-in-Residence post at Tulane's A.B. Freeman School. A public system at that scale, plus a private research university, gets closer to a real answer than one credential ever could.
Why do students seem so far ahead of their schools on AI?
Adoption and permission run on two different clocks. Students only follow the first one. The Digital Education Council's 2026 global survey covered 45,398 students and faculty across 35 countries. Only 15% of students said AI shows up in many of their courses. 43% said it shows up in none. A separate 2026 CSU survey still found 64% of students saying AI helped their learning. Students never waited for a rollout plan. They found the tools, used them, and kept going to class.
Are teachers and professors actually getting help using AI, or just being told to use it?
Mostly told, rarely helped. Gallup and the Walton Family Foundation found in May 2026 that just 18% of K-12 teachers get formal guidance from administrators on using AI. 34% get none at all, across every task Gallup measured. On the higher-ed side, 64% of faculty report some AI literacy training. Yet only 29% of their own students think those instructors are ready to guide them. A mandate with no training produces theater, not real change.
Is AI actually saving teachers time, or is that overstated?
It is real, and specific enough to matter. About 3 in 10 teachers use AI weekly. They save an average of 5.9 hours a week. Add that up across a school year and it comes to close to six weeks, per Gallup and Walton Family Foundation research. That is a teacher getting a Tuesday evening back, not a slogan. Only 6 in 10 teachers use AI for work at all, and most got there with no manual. The gains are real, but earned unevenly, school to school.
What should a university or school district actually do first, before buying more AI tools?
Name one workflow, not a vision statement. Pick a single process. Grading turnaround. Advising capacity. A remedial-writing pipeline. Rebuild that one process end to end with AI in the loop. Measure what changed for students and staff before you touch a second process. The CSU's own $17 million ChatGPT Edu deployment shows what happens without that order. 65% of students and 59% of faculty stayed skeptical AI benefits education overall, even while most students reported real gains for themselves. The tool arrived before the workflow did. Fix the order first.
Will AI make degrees and credentials less relevant, or just different?
Different, and schools that pretend otherwise put their own relevance at risk. A degree built on skills that expire in two years is not the credential it used to be. The World Economic Forum's Reskilling Revolution had reached over 850 million people by January 2026, on its way to a 2030 goal. That is proof whole economies now treat skills as renewable, not fixed for life. Schools that keep grading a fixed curriculum against a moving job market hand graduates a credential with a shrinking half-life.
.svg.webp){kind=logo}
.svg)
