The Jordan School District in West Jordan, Utah, has viewed artificial intelligence as more of an opportunity than a problem, and as a tool that can deepen student learning rather than simply improving teacher efficiency, according to Jared Covili, the district's digital teaching and learning administrator.
In the two years since the district adopted an AI tool, the district saw a 28% increase in students’ critical thinking skills and more than doubled higher-level reasoning abilities across subjects and grade levels, according to a case study based on an analysis of nearly 14,000 student-to-AI “conversations” from 82 teachers.
“We’re always looking for innovative practices for students to improve their learning,” Covili said. “The most revolutionary part is how much it helped them to show students what they knew. … It’s [also] been revolutionary as far as evaluating kids’ writing and giving them some feedback."
To prompt students to show their knowledge and share information, teachers are being intentional about the questions they ask, Covili said.
“It goes beyond low-level sharing of facts,” he said. “We’re asking kids to go beyond that and think about the issues involved. It’s more than just having a basic understanding of a concept.”
A teacher in a secondary classroom with 35 or 40 students probably doesn’t get much 1-to-1 time with any of those learners, but the teacher can use AI to create a “classroom assistant” of sorts, resulting in that deeper learning environment coming to pass, Covili said.
“The AI can ask kids questions,” he said. That elicits responses from everyone, “not just the three or four kids that raise their hands. A lot of kids are thinking about questions on a deeper level, and AI is helping us to see that.”
In other parts of the country, however, some school districts are pausing student AI use. Last week, New York City Public Schools said it was implementing a one-year ban on AI use for elementary and middle school students. And the Los Angeles Unified School District said all student access to generative artificial intelligence platforms is restricted for the 2026-27 school year.
Like many districts that have incorporated AI, Covili said, the Jordan School District has placed intentional boundaries around its use.
“We don’t want to turn over student writing to AI, or teacher interactions with students,” he said. “We want teachers interacting with kids’ work. We want students creating their own work. We don’t want AI bots grading the work. We’ve been very intentional about trying to establish a framework.”
That framework is based on students using AI as a thought partner rather than a content creator, and teachers using it perhaps as a teaching assistant that takes the first pass at assessments, Covili said.
“You don’t want to take the human out of the loop,” he said. “We want teachers connecting with their kids. It’s a big deal, setting guardrails to make sure you’re doing your best while having the AI assist you — whether you’re a teacher or a student.”
The district’s move toward AI use comes against the backdrop of Utah joining other states that have significantly limited screen time for elementary school students with legislation that took effect July 1, Covili noted.
“I don’t think that’s against what we’re trying to do,” he said. “Parents want technology usage to be intentional. They don’t want kids being put on computers as time fillers, instead of academic activities where they can learn and grow with each other. We have strong curricular ties with why we’re using technology at any given moment. It’s not just because we have it.”
