Artificial intelligence is creating new possibilities for public education, from streamlining administrative work to supporting instructional planning. Yet for school districts, successful adoption depends on more than choosing a promising platform. It requires a clear understanding of the problem, the people affected, and the educational purpose the technology is expected to serve.
Dr. Anna Nolin, Superintendent of Newton Public Schools in Newton, Massachusetts, has emphasized this principle in her September 2026 article for School Business Now, “How Can School Business Officials Leverage AI Safely and Effectively? A Superintendent’s Perspective.” Her central argument is that school leaders should begin by asking what work needs to improve, rather than deciding which AI product to purchase.
This distinction matters in an environment where technology vendors increasingly promise faster workflows, improved productivity, and new ways to support students. Without a clearly defined need, however, districts risk investing in tools that add complexity without delivering meaningful educational value.
Start With the Work, Not the Technology
A responsible AI strategy begins with identifying specific challenges within a school system. These might include repetitive administrative tasks, time-consuming document preparation, routine communications, or processes that prevent staff from focusing on higher-value responsibilities.
Once a problem is clearly defined, district leaders can assess whether AI is an appropriate solution. They can compare available approaches, consider costs, evaluate risks, and establish measurable criteria for determining whether an investment is worthwhile.
Nolin’s perspective reflects her experience in district administration, curriculum development, and educational innovation. Her work recognizes that technology should serve the operational and instructional priorities of a school system rather than become an objective in itself.
For school business officials, this approach also encourages more disciplined procurement. A product’s features are only part of the decision. Leaders must understand how it fits existing workflows, what information it requires, what oversight it demands, and whether the expected benefits justify its financial and operational costs.
Preserve the Human Role in Teaching and Learning
AI may help educators prepare materials, organize information, or explore different approaches to a task. These capabilities do not eliminate the need for teachers to evaluate the quality of the output or determine whether it meets students’ needs.
In her School Business Now article, Anna Nolin emphasizes the value of using technology to restore time for the work that depends on human expertise. That includes coaching students, developing relationships, encouraging curiosity, and exercising professional judgment.
This principle is especially important in instructional settings. AI-generated content can contain errors, omit relevant context, or fail to reflect the needs of individual learners. Teachers must retain responsibility for instructional decisions and ensure that technology supports learning rather than substitutes for the thinking students need to develop.
The objective is not simply to make school operations faster. It is to determine whether a tool enables educators and administrators to devote more attention to the responsibilities that matter most.
Establish Guardrails Before Implementation
Responsible adoption also requires clear expectations for privacy, security, accuracy, and accountability. School systems handle sensitive student and employee information, making it essential to evaluate how AI applications collect, process, store, and protect data.
Before approving a tool, districts should examine vendor practices, access controls, data-retention arrangements, cybersecurity safeguards, and the potential for biased or unreliable outputs. They should also establish who is responsible for reviewing AI-generated material and making final decisions.
These safeguards should be considered during evaluation and procurement, not added after a platform becomes embedded in daily operations.
Nolin’s approach places governance and public trust alongside operational efficiency. School leaders need to explain why a tool is being considered, what it is intended to accomplish, and how its use will be monitored. Clear communication can help educators, families, and other stakeholders understand both the potential benefits and the limitations.
Give Students Clear Guidance on AI Use
The same problem-first approach applies to classroom AI use. In an August 2026 interview with NBC Boston, Nolin discussed how Newton Public Schools was revisiting its acceptable-use policy as students increasingly encountered AI in school, college, and the workplace.
She highlighted the need for teachers to communicate when AI assistance is appropriate and when students must complete work independently. The distinction depends on the assignment’s purpose and the learning students are expected to demonstrate.
For example, AI might help a student explore a topic or critique an initial idea when an assignment permits that assistance. In other situations, independent analysis and original work may be essential to the learning objective.
Policies that explain these boundaries give students a clearer understanding of academic integrity. They also help teachers make consistent decisions about technology use without assuming that every application or assignment requires the same rules.
Measure Whether AI Is Delivering Meaningful Value
After implementation, districts should evaluate whether an AI tool actually addresses the problem that justified its adoption. Useful measures might include time spent on a process, staff feedback, accuracy, accessibility, total cost, and the amount of additional review required.
Efficiency alone is not enough. A tool that saves time in one area but creates new verification or administrative burdens may not deliver the expected benefit. Similarly, a system that performs well technically may still be unsuitable if it introduces unacceptable privacy risks or weakens important educational practices.
School leaders should therefore review results, gather feedback, and adjust their approach as needs and technologies change.
Keeping Educational Purpose at the Center
Dr. Anna Nolin’s perspective offers a practical principle for districts navigating an evolving AI landscape: define the problem, evaluate the available options, establish safeguards, and keep people responsible for the decisions that affect students.
Artificial intelligence can support school operations and create new opportunities for educators, but its value depends on thoughtful implementation. By beginning with educational needs rather than product features, school leaders can make more informed decisions about where technology belongs, how it should be governed, and whether it is genuinely improving the work of education.
About Dr. Anna Nolin
Dr. Anna Nolin, Ed.D., is Superintendent of Newton Public Schools in Newton, Massachusetts. Her career spans classroom teaching, school administration, curriculum and instructional leadership, and district superintendency. Her professional interests include educational innovation, collaborative leadership, responsible technology integration, strategic planning, and educator development.
