Closing the AI Skills Gap in Education: Strategies for Schools and Districts

With AI’s ongoing presence and influence in the education system, the Solutions Review editors are examining how schools can develop strategies to close the AI skills gap in education.

The urgency surrounding AI literacy in education has created a unique sort of paradox: educators are simultaneously expected to teach AI concepts they barely understand while also preparing students for jobs that don’t yet exist using tools that have not yet been invented. That situation doesn’t even take into account the challenges of finding ethical, learning-centric ways to productively integrate AI into education.

We’re facing a new challenge, one that goes beyond the familiar “technology in schools” dilemma that educators have faced before. The AI skills gap represents something fundamentally different because AI systems are more than passive tools. If the current trajectory continues, they will permeate every level of the educational hierarchy, broadening the AI skills gap in education to even more unwieldy levels.

The Real Nature of the Gap

Most discussions about the AI skills gap focus on technical literacy: can teachers explain how large language models work, do students understand neural networks, can administrators evaluate AI vendors, and what are teachers doing to ensure AI isn’t diminishing the learning experience of their education? While these are essential questions, focusing solely on them misses a deeper issue. The critical gap isn’t primarily technical knowledge but rather cognitive scaffolding for working alongside systems that can perform knowledge work.

Students need to develop what we might call “collaborative intelligence” when using AI systems. This means understanding when to trust AI outputs, how to utilize them (or not), when to challenge them, and, most importantly, how to structure problems in ways that leverage AI’s strengths while compensating for its weaknesses. A student who can prompt an AI system to generate decent code but can’t evaluate whether that code is maintainable or secure has learned a parlor trick, not a transferable skill.

For educators, the gap manifests in different ways. Teachers don’t need to become machine learning engineers, yet they will need to develop an understanding of how AI systems behave under various conditions. It’s also their responsibility to identify and explain the appropriate and inappropriate uses of AI in education, and establish guardrails that help ensure these guidelines are followed.

To make the educator’s job even harder, they also have to reckon with significant questions that don’t have easy answers. When does an AI chatbot produce unreliable historical information? What kinds of mathematical reasoning break down in language models? Which writing tasks genuinely benefit from AI assistance versus those where AI creates dependence? These aren’t questions with universal answers, which makes them harder to teach through traditional professional development.

Rethinking Professional Development Infrastructure

The standard professional development model for educational technology typically involves introducing the tool, demonstrating its features, providing practice time, and following up with optional office hours. Unfortunately, this approach fails for AI literacy because the tools themselves are evolving faster than any curriculum can be updated to keep pace. Meaningful AI competency and readiness also require sustained experimentation rather than feature memorization.

Schools and districts should instead build professional development around cohorts where teachers explore AI applications in their specific subject areas over an entire semester or academic year. A cohort of middle school science teachers, for instance, could spend three months experimenting with AI for lab report feedback, then three months exploring AI-generated scientific visualizations, then three months developing assessment strategies that account for AI assistance. The goal isn’t coverage but depth: teachers developing genuine expertise in a few high-value applications rather than superficial familiarity with many tools.

For example, if a chemistry teacher discovers that AI systems consistently misrepresent specific reaction mechanisms, that insight will be shared across the science cohort and eventually across districts. These networks become the real infrastructure for managing rapid AI evolution, more valuable than any static curriculum guide. While this cohort model requires longer investment, the built-in, hands-on components, paired with peer feedback, will support the development of knowledge networks that persist beyond formal training sessions. The timeline can also be truncated, depending on how urgently a school needs to establish a baseline literacy for AI.

The cohort approach also addresses the expertise inversion that can make traditional professional development awkward. In many schools, students already use AI tools more fluidly than their teachers. So, instead of pretending this dynamic doesn’t exist, professional development should explicitly incorporate student perspectives. Student panels discussing how they actually use AI for homework, what they find valuable versus performative, and where they feel ethically uncertain create more honest professional learning than most expert-led sessions. It will also provide educators with insight into how their students are using AI, equipping them with the information they need to develop crucial guardrails that encourage students to use the technology as a tool, not an “easy button.”

Infrastructure Decisions That Actually Matter

District technology infrastructure decisions typically focus on procurement: which AI tools to license, how to manage access, and what guardrails to implement. While these decisions matter, they’re also secondary to a more fundamental infrastructure question, one centered on how the district will create shared knowledge about AI tool performance across thousands of use cases.

Schools require internal knowledge management systems to identify which AI applications are suitable for specific educational purposes and which are not. When a third-grade teacher discovers that a particular AI tutoring system consistently misexplains fraction concepts, that information needs to be captured and disseminated, not lost when that teacher moves to a different school. The infrastructure challenge is organizational, not technical. Maintaining consistency can be a challenge with the numerous AI systems available to students for free. However, the more informed a school district is, and the better attuned they are to which systems are and aren’t appropriate for a given subject, the easier it’ll be to keep students on the right track.

Knowledge management is also critical because AI vendors make expansive claims that often don’t survive classroom reality. An AI system marketed for differentiated instruction might work well for reading comprehension but perform poorly for mathematical reasoning. Similarly, a chatbot advertised as a writing tutor could provide feedback on structure but offer poor advice on voice and style. Schools should obviously continue to prioritize human-led learning, but doing so without considering AI’s part in it won’t benefit anyone.

The infrastructure question extends to data governance in ways that most districts haven’t fully considered. AI systems improve through use, which means student interactions generate training data. But who owns that data? How is it used to refine algorithms? What happens when a student’s struggle with a concept becomes part of an AI system’s learning process? Districts need clear policies in this area, not solely for regulatory compliance (though that is important), but also because these decisions have a significant impact on educational equity. If AI systems train primarily on data from well-resourced schools, they’ll likely serve those contexts better, perpetuating existing achievement gaps.

Assessment Redesign as the Forcing Function

The most powerful lever for closing the AI skills gap in education might be assessment reform. As long as assessments can be easily completed using AI tools, teachers will either ban those tools (creating enforcement nightmares) or tolerate their use while knowing that measured outcomes don’t reflect actual student capability. Neither approach develops genuine AI literacy for students or educators.

The solution isn’t making assessments “AI-proof” through increasingly artificial constraints. Instead, assessments can incorporate the use of AI while measuring students’ ability to work effectively with these systems. These assessments have a secondary benefit, as they provide authentic professional development for teachers. Developing AI-incorporated assessments requires teachers to understand both their subject matter and the capabilities of AI within that subject. A teacher creating an assessment where students critique AI outputs must first identify the characteristic ways AI fails in that domain, which builds exactly the kind of nuanced AI literacy that educators can impart to their students, furthering the intended literacy.

The Governance Structure Problem

Most districts approach AI governance through IT departments and instructional technology coordinators, which makes sense given institutional structures, but can inadvertently create problematic bottlenecks. AI literacy isn’t primarily a technology challenge, after all, but a curriculum and pedagogy challenge that happens to involve technology.

Effective AI governance in education requires distributed authority. Individual teachers need latitude to experiment with AI tools in their classrooms without waiting for district-wide approval processes that move too slowly to keep pace with technological change. Simultaneously, the district needs mechanisms for aggregating insights from these experiments and identifying which practices should be scaled up versus which should be discouraged. This suggests a governance model based on rapid experimentation with structured reflection rather than centralized planning. It requires a combination of “soft skills” to guide educators in creating guidelines for assessing and integrating AI into the classroom, along with technical aptitude.

These governance structures should also include explicit processes for ethical review that go beyond standard technology evaluation. When AI systems are used for student assessment or intervention, what assumptions about learning and intelligence are embedded in their algorithms? Do these systems treat different student populations equitably? Are they likely to reinforce deficit narratives about certain groups? Answering these questions is critical to a sustainable, productive, and empathetic approach to AI in education.

Preparing for Capability Shifts

AI capabilities are likely to advance substantially over the next few years, rendering current AI literacy efforts partially obsolete. Systems that currently struggle with complex reasoning may become highly reliable, and multimodal AI that seamlessly integrates text, voice, image, and video analysis could transform project-based learning. Districts should plan for these capability shifts rather than optimizing infrastructure for current AI limitations. This means building organizational muscle for rapid adaptation rather than comprehensive planning.

The goal is to create institutional flexibility for incorporating new capabilities as they arrive. This preparation includes anticipating capability improvements that challenge core educational practices. If AI can provide sophisticated feedback on student work instantly, how does that change the teacher’s role? These questions don’t have predetermined answers, but districts should be actively exploring them rather than waiting for crisis moments. The impact of AI in education systems will continue to evolve, so districts need to develop processes that keep them agile, regardless of how the trends change.

Building Student Agency and Judgment

The ultimate goal of closing the AI skills gap in education isn’t creating students who are proficient AI users in the narrow technical sense. Instead, it’s about developing students with sophisticated judgment about when and how to engage with AI systems based on their own learning goals and values.

Students should be taught metacognitive strategies for engaging with AI. Before using AI for any academic task, they should be asking: What am I trying to learn from this task? Will AI assistance help or hinder that learning? Am I using AI to overcome a temporary obstacle or to avoid developing a capability I need? These questions require students to have a clear mental model of their own cognitive development, which is a crucial educational outcome in itself.

The agency piece also involves teaching students to be critical consumers of AI-generated information. This goes beyond simple fact-checking to understanding how AI systems represent authority and certainty. AI outputs often appear confident, even when they are unreliable. Students need practice deploying soft skills as they use AI. This means learning to recognize epistemic humility (or its absence) in AI systems and developing their own standards for when to trust AI information. Or, perhaps most importantly, it will help students opt out of AI assistance. The goal shouldn’t be to condemn the use of AI entirely, but to educate students on how it can (or can’t) serve their learning goals.

The Integration Challenge

The strategies outlined here aren’t discrete initiatives to be implemented sequentially, but interconnected elements of a systemic transformation in how schools approach teaching and learning with AI. The real challenge is integration: how professional development connects to assessment reform, how governance structures enable curriculum innovation, how infrastructure decisions support pedagogical experimentation.

Districts that successfully close the AI skills gap will be those that treat it as an organizational learning challenge rather than a technology deployment challenge. The goal isn’t achieving a finished state of “AI literacy” but instead building institutional capacity for continuous adaptation as AI capabilities evolve and as educators develop a deeper understanding of effective AI integration. Not every AI experiment in classrooms will succeed, and some professional development approaches will prove ineffective. The key is to create feedback loops that capture learning from these experiences and distribute insights across the system.

The AI skills gap in education won’t be closed through any single initiative or tool adoption. It will be closed through sustained organizational commitment to helping educators and students develop sophisticated judgment about AI systems while simultaneously reimagining curriculum, assessment, and pedagogy for an AI-integrated world.

Want more insights like this? Register for Insight Jam, Solutions Review’s enterprise tech community, which enables human conversation on AI. You can gain access for free here!