Pre-K Teachers Are Optimistic About Educational Technology, Though Current Use Varies Widely

Photo by svetikd/Getty Images

Advances in educational technology (ed tech) offer teachers new tools for enhancing their classroom practices, for everything from planning to assessment. Today's ed tech products can generally be categorized into two types: primarily teacher-facing and primarily student-facing (Price and Grover, 2025). Teacher-facing tools facilitate such activities as planning instruction, tracking children's progress, communicating with families, and completing administrative tasks. Student-facing technologies include products that students interact with directly, such as platforms that engage students in instructional activities and games. One promise of student-facing ed tech is that it can personalize learning and present material in novel ways to facilitate greater academic achievement (Pane et al., 2015). Recently, there have been rapid innovations in generative artificial intelligence (gen AI), which developers could incorporate into both teacher- and student-facing tools.

Ed tech products are increasingly finding their way into pre-kindergarten (pre-K) classrooms, offering new opportunities but also new challenges for pre-K teachers (National Association for the Education of Young Children and Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children's Media, 2012). In this report, we describe the current landscape of ed tech usage by public school–based pre-K teachers in the United States. Our findings cover the technologies pre-K teachers use, how often they use them, the prevalence of professional learning on ed tech topics, and teachers' attitudes toward ed tech. The evidence comes from the spring 2025 American Public School Pre-K Teacher Survey (PKTS), a nationally representative survey of pre-K teachers working in public schools.

Understanding the state of ed tech use in pre-K is a precursor to understanding whether and how ed tech is delivering on its promise and serving the needs of pre-K teachers and students. Our findings will help ed tech companies identify areas for investment in the pre-K setting and areas of concern about their products among teachers and parents. These findings will also be useful to pre-K administrators as they consider whether and how to incorporate ed tech into pre-K programs and which specific professional learning opportunities and supports to provide for new ed tech products.

We use data from 1,586 teachers who took the spring 2025 PKTS (which had a completion rate of 62.7 percent; see Grant et al., 2025b). In all of our tabulations, we assign weights to surveyed teachers to make their responses representative of public school–based pre-K teachers across the country. However, the results are not generalizable to pre-K teachers working outside public school settings (e.g., community-based organizations and home-based programs), because teachers in those settings are not a part of our sample.

For additional context, we also incorporate insights from focus groups we conducted in December 2024 with 36 pre-K teachers who took part in the fall 2024 PKTS. These findings are unweighted and are not meant to be representative of any broader population. See the "Data Sources and Methods" section for more details on the technical aspects of the survey and focus groups.

Approximately 30 Percent of Pre-K Teachers Reported at Least Some Use of Gen AI for Job-Related Purposes

Our survey asked pre-K teachers about nine types of ed tech products, including gen AI. Gen AI is a recent and rapidly evolving technology that may be useful for a variety of purposes, such as drafting emails, brainstorming activities, and creating lesson plans and visual aids. Gen AI chatbots and gen AI–infused ed tech platforms that students interact with directly are becoming more popular in kindergarten through 12th grade (K–12), and there is discussion of how to apply this technology in the pre-K context (Diliberti et al., 2024; Kanders et al., 2024; LeMoine, 2024).

Currently, most pre-K teachers do not use gen AI; Figure 1 shows that 29 percent of pre-K teachers used it in the 2024–2025 school year. Nine percent used it once per week or more (i.e., daily or weekly), and 20 percent used it less than once per week (7 percent used it monthly; 13 percent used it one to four times per year). One teacher in our focus groups said that they used ChatGPT to make their messages to families come across as less direct and more friendly. Another said that they used ChatGPT to create instructional activities to help students learn letters.

The low usage of gen AI by pre-K teachers is consistent with a pattern that Doss et al. (2025) found using survey data from the October 2024 wave of the American Teacher Panel (ATP), which is the umbrella panel for the PKTS. As Figure 1 shows, gen AI usage in the 2024–2025 school year decreased by grade band: High school teachers reported the greatest use (69 percent), followed by middle school teachers (64 percent) and elementary school teachers (42 percent). Our pre-K results would extend this pattern, but, as we note in Figure 1, our results are not perfectly comparable because our survey question was not exactly the same as the one used in Doss et al. (2025). Furthermore, the pre-K survey targeted all pre-K teachers, whereas the K–12 survey targeted all K–12 teachers who reported teaching English language arts, mathematics, or natural sciences.

Pre-K Teachers Reported Using Several Types of Teacher-Facing Ed Tech, of Which Family Communication Platforms Were the Most Common

Next, we examine the remaining eight types of ed tech products our survey asked about, focusing only on how pre-K teachers used these tools. Unlike gen AI, which is new and rapidly evolving, practitioners have been discussing how best to use these more traditional ed tech tools for more than a decade (National Association for the Education of Young Children and Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children's Media, 2012).

We categorize four of the remaining product types as being primarily teacher-facing and four as being primarily student-facing. See Figure 2 for a description of each product type. Some products, especially online or digital curriculum resources, could arguably fit in either category.⁠^[1]

Teacher-Facing Ed Tech

• Assessment platforms to evaluate and track children's learning (e.g., Illuminate, Educlimber, and Teaching Strategies Gold)
• Learning management systems to organize and share educational content, calendars, and other resources (e.g., Canvas, Edmodo, and Google Classroom)
• Online or digital resources provided as part of curriculum materials
• Platforms used to communicate with families (e.g., Class Dojo and Brightwheel)

Student-Facing Ed Tech

• Educational programs with individualized learning activities for children on digital platforms (e.g., ST Academy and Ignite by Hatch)
• Games played on electronic devices that support student learning (e.g., Math Blaster, ABCya, and Starfall)
• Interactive whiteboards with interactive digital displays (e.g., SMART Board, Promethean board, and Viewsonic interactive display)
• Online video and audio platforms (e.g., YouTube)

Figure 3 presents results for primarily teacher-facing ed tech tools. More than half of pre-K teachers used learning management systems (56 percent) and assessment platforms (60 percent), but there was considerable variation in frequency. In both cases, about 30 percent of teachers used these technologies either monthly or less frequently, and a similar share (about 30 percent) used them daily or weekly.

The vast majority of pre-K teachers (82 percent) reported using platforms for communicating with families, including 75 percent who used these platforms daily or weekly. A high share of teachers (83 percent) reported some usage of online and digital resources from curriculum providers too, but only 48 percent reported daily or weekly usage.

Pre-K Teachers Used Student-Facing Ed Tech to Varying Degrees

Figure 4 presents analogous results for ed tech tools that we categorize as primarily student-facing. Pre-K teachers used online video and audio platforms the most frequently: 92 percent of teachers reported having used them daily or weekly. We suspect that most teachers were familiar with audio and video platforms from their everyday lives, and focus group teachers said that it was common to play music and videos in pre-K classrooms for movement breaks and dancing. Pre-K teachers also frequently used interactive whiteboards: 71 percent of teachers used them daily or weekly. In our focus groups, teachers said that children are eager to use these whiteboards because they are visually stimulating and tactile. Online video and audio platforms and interactive whiteboards have been available to pre-K teachers for more than a decade, which might help account for their high usage (Firmin and Genesi, 2013).

Teachers reported using electronic games and educational programs less often. Sixty-four percent of teachers used games on electronic devices at least once a year, though only 39 percent used them daily or weekly. Teachers used educational programs even less. Only 37 percent of teachers used educational programs at least once a year, and only 23 percent used them daily or weekly. Despite the lower usage, some teachers in our focus groups spoke highly of this technology. They mentioned that it can provide individualized learning to children, which can be especially helpful for vulnerable student groups, such as English learners and children with disabilities.

Most Pre-K Teachers Had Received Professional Learning on Using Ed Tech, but Only One-Third Had Received Professional Learning on Judging Ed Tech Quality

Seventy percent or more of teachers said that they had received professional learning on using ed tech (of any kind) for instructional planning, delivering instruction, and student assessment (Figure 5). However, only 37 percent of teachers had received professional learning on judging the quality of educational technology. One reason for this lower rate may be that teachers have less access to professional learning on this topic, perhaps because guidance from the education field is still evolving (National Association for the Education of Young Children and Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children's Media, 2012; Neumann et al., 2019; Paul et al., 2023; Ponti, 2023).

However, having some professional learning may not be enough to equip teachers with the ed tech skills they need. One teacher in our focus groups said that technology "has so much potential" but that they need more professional learning so that they can avoid having students being "sucked into passively watching things." As shown in Figure 5, 37 percent of pre-K teachers reported that they had received professional learning on instructional planning but needed a little more. Seven percent reported needing a lot more. For judging ed tech quality, 18 percent of pre-K teachers reported needing a little more professional learning, and 4 percent reported needing a lot more.

Pre-K Teachers Who Had Received Professional Learning About Ed Tech Used It More Regularly

Our survey also asked teachers about the frequency with which they used ed tech products for specific purposes (e.g., planning instruction, administering student assessments). Response options included "Never," "Less than half the time," "About half the time," "More than half the time," and "Every time." We found that teachers who had received professional learning about using ed tech for a given purpose tended to use ed tech for that purpose more frequently. For instance, 39 percent of teachers who had received professional learning on student assessment technology reported using ed tech to administer student assessments "more than half the time" or "every time," compared with only 29 percent of teachers who had not received professional learning about student assessment technology. The analogous gaps were 61 percent versus 42 percent for instructional planning and 38 percent versus 22 percent for instructional delivery. These results could suggest that professional learning causes teachers to use ed tech more, but it is also possible that teachers who already use ed tech are more likely to seek out related professional learning.

Most Pre-K Teachers Had Positive Views About Ed Tech's Potential, but Some Had Concerns About Appropriate Use

As Figure 6 shows, more than 80 percent of teachers agreed to any extent that ed tech "could be helpful" in the seven uses we asked about in the survey. Teachers expressed the strongest support for ed tech's potential to help them communicate with families; 84 percent agreed or strongly agreed that it could be helpful. This high share mirrors the high usage rate in Figure 3, suggesting that teachers who used tech to communicate with families already found it helpful.

Similarly, 81 percent of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that ed tech could be helpful for bringing the outside world to their students (such as by going on virtual field trips). In our focus groups, some teachers were optimistic that digital platforms could help with the sharing of resources (e.g., activities for children, premade social stories, and supports for teachers). As one teacher put it, sharing resources via digital platforms could stop teachers from "recreating the wheel, making [their] own materials."

Even at the lower end, most teachers believed that ed tech could be helpful: 57 percent of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that ed tech could give them insights into what their students know and reduce time spent on administrative tasks.

Focus groups revealed that, behind this broad optimism, teachers had some hesitancy about using ed tech in pre-K. In most of the focus groups, teachers expressed concern about using tech at school because children may already have too much screen time at home. Teachers mentioned hearing this concern from parents, too. In response, some teachers, districts, and states have implemented limits on screen time (Minnesota Department of Education, 2022). A related concern that emerged in the focus groups is that technology—especially personal electronic devices, such as iPads—might detract from time that could be spent developing social and communication skills.

These concerns might help explain why pre-K teachers used some student-facing technologies less than other technologies. Figure 4 shows that teachers reported using digital educational programs and games on electronic devices less often than interactive whiteboards and online video and audio platforms, which tend to be used for large-group activities that have more of a social or physical development component.

Pre-K Teachers Who Used Ed Tech More Frequently Had More Positive Views About Its Potential to Be Helpful

We found a positive relationship between teachers' use of ed tech and their views that it could be helpful. Our survey data allowed us to examine this relationship for four activities: planning instruction, communicating with families, performing administrative tasks, and accessing professional learning.

As Figure 7 shows, 70 percent of teachers who reported using ed tech "more than half the time" or "every time" when planning instruction agreed or strongly agreed that ed tech could be helpful for planning instruction. Among teachers who reported using ed tech to plan instruction "about half the time" or "less than half the time," only 47 percent agreed or strongly agreed. Finally, among those who reported "never" using ed tech to plan instruction, only 33 percent agreed or strongly agreed. The corresponding shares were 90 percent, 68 percent, and 46 percent for using tech to communicate with families. Lastly, we see similar patterns regarding ed tech for performing administrative tasks and accessing professional learning; optimism was higher among teachers who used ed tech for these purposes "more than half the time" or "every time."

Purpose	Teacher used ed tech more than half the time or every time	Confidence intervals (CIs)	Teacher used ed tech about half the time or less than half the time	Confidence intervals (CIs)	Teacher never used ed tech (ref.)	Confidence intervals (CIs)
Planning instruction	70%*	3.17	47%*	4.15	33%	12.03
Communicating with families	90%*	1.73	68%*	6.20	46%	18.16
Performing administrative tasks	67%*	3.23	45%	4.65	44%	11.13
Accessing professional learning	83%	2.98	59%	3.61	53%	10.64

SOURCE: Features data from the spring 2025 PKTS.

NOTE: ref. = reference group. This figure depicts pre-K teachers' reported views about whether ed tech could be helpful for a given purpose based on their reported usage of ed tech for that same purpose. We measure reported views using the following survey question: "Indicate your disagreement or agreement with the following statements about educational technology in your pre-K classroom. Think about educational technology products you could potentially use as well as those you use already. For this survey, do not include the use of your computer to draft emails, slide decks, or word documents. Do you think using educational technology in your pre-K classroom could be helpful for each of the following?" Response options were "Strongly disagree," "Disagree," "Slightly disagree," "Slightly agree," "Agree," and "Strongly agree." The figure plots the share of teachers who responded "Agree" or "Strongly agree." We stratify teachers based on their responses to a different survey question that asked about the frequency with which they used ed tech (of any kind) for a specific purpose: "When you do each of the following things this school year (2024–2025), how often do you use educational technology? For this survey, do not include the use of your computer to draft emails, slide decks, or word documents. I use educational technology for this . . . ." Response options were "Not applicable—I do not do this," "Never," "Less than half the time," "About half the time," "More than half the time," and "Every time." An asterisk (*) indicates that a percentage for a subgroup significantly differs at the p < 0.05 level from the reference group. The sample size is n = 1,474 for planning instruction; n = 1,492 for communicating with families; n = 1,375 for performing administrative tasks; and n = 1,454 for accessing professional learning.

Summary and Implications

Our findings raise three considerations regarding the use of technology with pre-K learners. First, pre-K teachers in the 2024–2025 school year used gen AI less frequently than K–12 teachers did. Several factors could explain this lower level of usage, such as heightened concerns about screen time and child development, as well as potential differences in AI's usefulness for teacher-facing tasks in pre-K settings versus K–12 settings (e.g., lesson planning and grading). Although gen AI use has become more common among K–12 teachers in recent years (Doss et al., 2025), it remains unclear whether or how quickly adoption will grow among pre-K teachers.

Second, pre-K teachers reported using digital educational programs and games on electronic devices much less frequently than they used interactive whiteboards and online video and/or audio. This difference could be related to the concern teachers expressed in our focus groups about personal electronic devices possibly being detrimental to the development of social and communication skills. Ed tech developers should give careful consideration to how their products affect children's social and communication skills. State legislators and school district leaders should pay careful attention to how pre-K programs allocate time between screen-based educational tools and more-traditional activities.

Third, our results suggest that there is room for additional professional learning on ed tech among pre-K teachers. About one-third of teachers reported that they had not received professional learning on instructional planning, delivering instruction, and student assessment, and more than 60 percent had not received instruction on judging the quality of ed tech. Furthermore, 59 percent of teachers reported needing a little or a lot more professional learning in at least one of the four topics we asked about. Providing teachers with more professional learning, particularly in assessing the quality of ed tech, could enable them to implement these tools more effectively. There is also room for expanded training on learning-centered products, especially given concerns over developmentally inappropriate uses of ed tech for young children.

References

• Diliberti, Melissa Kay, Heather L. Schwartz, Sy Doan, Anna Shapiro, Lydia R. Rainey, and Robin J. Lake, Using Artificial Intelligence Tools in K–12 Classrooms, RAND Corporation, RR-A956-21, 2024. As of September 29, 2025: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA956-21.html
• Doan, Sy, Joshua Eagan, David Grant, and Julia H. Kaufman, American Instructional Resources Surveys: 2024 Technical Documentation and Survey Results, RAND Corporation, RR-A134-24, 2024. As of September 29, 2025: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA134-24.html
• Doss, Christopher Joseph, Robert Bozick, Heather L. Schwartz, Lisa Chu, Lydia R. Rainey, Ashley Woo, Justin Reich, and Jesse Dukes, AI Use in Schools Is Quickly Increasing but Guidance Lags Behind: Findings from the RAND Survey Panels, RAND Corporation, RR-A4180-1, 2025. As of September 30, 2025: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4180-1.html
• Firmin, Michael W., and Deanna J. Genesi, "History and Implementation of Classroom Technology," Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 93, October 2013.
• Grant, David, Phoebe Rose Levine, Anna Shapiro, Elizabeth D. Steiner, Ashley Woo, Jill S. Cannon, Christopher Joseph Doss, Lynn A. Karoly, and Emma B. Kassan, American Public School Pre-K Teacher Survey: Fall 2024 Technical Documentation and Survey Results, RAND Corporation, RR-A3279-7, 2025a. As of September 29, 2025: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3279-7.html
• Grant, David, Phoebe Rose Levine, Anna Shapiro, Elizabeth D. Steiner, Ashley Woo, Jill S. Cannon, Christopher Joseph Doss, Lynn A. Karoly, and Emma B. Kassan, American Public School Pre-K Teacher Survey: Spring 2025 Technical Documentation and Survey Results, RAND Corporation, RR-A3279-6, 2025b. As of September 29, 2025: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3279-6.html
• Hansen, Michael, and Diana Quintero, "Teachers in the US Are Even More Segregated Than Students," Brookings, August 15, 2018.
• Kanders, Karlis, Louis Stupple-Harris, Laurie Smith, and Jenny Louise Gibson, "Perspectives on the Impact of Generative AI on Early-Childhood Development and Education," Infant and Child Development, Vol. 33, No. 4, July/August 2024.
• LeMoine, Julie E., "Artificial Intelligence and the Early Childhood Field: Exploring Potential to Enhance Education, Communication and Inclusivity," ZERO TO THREE, October 23, 2024.
• Maese, Ellyn, "Americans Use AI in Everyday Products Without Realizing It," Gallup, January 14, 2025.
• Minnesota Department of Education, "Guidance: Screen Time Limits for Children in Publicly Funded Prekindergarten and Kindergarten Programs," February 2022. As of September 29, 2025: https://education.mn.gov/mdeprod/groups/educ/documents/basic/cm9k/mdu5/~edisp/prod059246.pdf
• National Association for the Education of Young Children and Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children's Media, "Technology and Interactive Media as Tools in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth Through Age 8," joint position statement, January 2012. As of September 29, 2025: https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PS_technology_WEB2.pdf
• Neumann, Michelle M., Jason L. Anthony, Noé A. Erazo, and David L. Neumann, "Assessment and Technology: Mapping Future Directions in the Early Childhood Classroom," Frontiers in Education, Vol. 4, October 2019.
• Pane, John F., Elizabeth D. Steiner, Matthew D. Baird, and Laura S. Hamilton, Continued Progress: Promising Evidence on Personalized Learning, RAND Corporation, RR-1365-BMGF, 2015. As of September 29, 2025: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1365.html
• Paul, Claire Donehower, Sarah G. Hansen, Chelsea Marelle, and Melinda Wright, "Incorporating Technology into Instruction in Early Childhood Classrooms: A Systematic Review," Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Vol. 7, 2023.
• Ponti, Michelle, "Screen Time and Preschool Children: Promoting Health and Development in a Digital World," Paediatrics & Child Health, Vol. 28, No. 3, June 2023.
• Price, Jeremy Forest, and Shuchi Grover, Generative AI in STEM Teaching: Opportunities and Tradeoffs, Community for Advancing Discovery Research in Education, Education Development Center, Inc., January 2025.

Note

1. We categorize online or digital curriculum resources as being primarily teacher-facing because teachers access these materials first and students might never interact directly with them. We categorize learning management systems as primarily teacher-facing because preschool-age students do not often interact with these systems (unlike students in some K–12 and postsecondary settings). Return to content ⤴

Topics

• Artificial Intelligence
• Educational Technology
• Preschool
• Teacher Training
• United States