Every publicly available study we could find, January 2023 – August 2026, measuring how students, teachers, parents, administrators, and the public feel about AI — and how schools actually use it. Every entry has been checked against its primary source. Click any study for its findings, caveats, and link.
A landscape scan, not a meta-analysis. It catalogs what research exists, how sound each study is, and what it found — so you can locate evidence and judge its weight. It does not pool results or estimate an overall effect.
A multi-agent web sweep across 360 entries, then per-study verification against primary sources, then reconciliation with two independent audits. Verification corrected 140 findings, upgraded 139 links, and removed 4 entries.
Check the evidence class before quoting any number, and read the citation caveat in the expanded view. Caveats are methodology notes to help you cite accurately — several name real limits that publishers disclose themselves.
Compiled by aiEDU (The AI Education Project) as of August 2026. Corrections and additions are welcome — if a study is missing, the search box will confirm it before you write.
Three adversarial search sweeps, plus two separate audits of this corpus — one covering surveys, one covering qualitative research — all reached the same conclusion from different directions: no publicly available campaign-message or messenger-comparison experiment on AI in K-12 exists. Every US parent and public poll inspected is opinion-only.
The precise, defensible claim. A handful of adjacent experiments now exist and are cataloged here — a randomized AI-versus-human tutor label test with students, parents, and teachers; an NBER information-treatment study with parents; two educator description/labeling experiments; a teacher-endorsement experiment with students; and a deliberative poll that measured change after a bundled information treatment. FrameWorks Institute's framing research (2026) is genuine message testing but covers AI in society generally, with no K-12 frames and no parent or educator samples. What none of them do is compare campaign messages, or compare messengers by audience and topic, with parents and educators, anchored in district decisions. Both independent audits name that same hole in their own gap lists.
Research about leaders is plentiful. Research designed for their decisions sits almost entirely behind membership walls — EAB's Voice of the Superintendent and AI Playbook, Hanover's member-district instruments, ILO Group's framework. The public exceptions are the U.S. Department of Education's 2024 leader toolkit and CRPE's early-adopter series. No public research gives leaders community-sentiment-based decision support: what communities will accept, and what triggers opposition.
| Population | Studies |
|---|---|
| Students | 148 |
| Teachers | 139 |
| Admins | 108 |
| Public | 82 |
| Parents | 67 |
| Most common pairings | Studies |
|---|---|
| Admins + Teachers | 64 |
| Students + Teachers | 46 |
| Parents + Students | 43 |
| Admins + Students | 36 |
| Parents + Teachers | 30 |
Parents — the population district decisions most often hinge on — are the least-studied K-12 group. Parents and teachers measured together in one design, which is what a comparison between them requires, appears in only 30 studies.
Every entry carries an evidence class, because a national probability survey and a 17-person focus-group study answer completely different questions and must never be added together or quoted the same way. The corpus breaks down as 81 probability surveys, 186 non-probability surveys (opt-in or weighted panels), 35 mixed-method studies, 33 qualitative studies, 21 structured consultations, and 4 usage-data analyses — 302 survey-based in total.
What each class can support. Probability surveys carry population estimates. Non-probability surveys show direction and pattern but no reliable margin of error. Qualitative work explains why people hold a view, surfaces red lines and language, and generates hypotheses — it can never tell you how common a view is. Structured consultations are governance evidence — what an institution proposed after listening — and are not participant consensus at all. Use the Evidence filter above to hold the corpus to one class at a time.
Every study from the original sweep was fetched at its source and checked four ways: whether a complete report is reachable, whether each number in its findings appears in the source, whether organization, date, sample, method, and funder are correctly attributed, and whether it belongs in the corpus at all. That produced 140 corrected findings, 139 links upgraded to better primary sources, and 283 entries carrying an explicit citation caveat. Badges: Verified clean, minor fixes corrected, major caveats usable only with the stated caveat. Four entries were quarantined out (two duplicates, one secondary write-up of other polls, one edition with no AI content). Vendor-sponsored, advocacy-funded, and small-sample studies were kept and labeled rather than dropped — they are real parts of the landscape.
Two independent audits were then reconciled in. A survey-landscape audit contributed 13 net-new surveys and its own row-by-row corrections; because its inclusion screen is survey-only and K-12-only, the studies it set aside — general-public polling, qualitative work, usage analyses — were kept here and labeled rather than dropped, since this landscape was scoped more broadly on purpose. A qualitative addendum then contributed 29 more records: 22 empirical interview, focus-group, deliberative, and participatory-design studies, plus 7 structured consultations. Consultation records carry an evidence tier and are governance evidence, not sentiment estimates — never quote them as measures of what a population thinks.
Two or more K-12 stakeholder groups measured in one design, which makes their differences directly comparable.
Citation caveat. Not nationally representative, and the report says so itself — cite it as a three-state snapshot (TN/LA/CO), never as a national estimate. Respondents came from Centiment's opt-in online market research panel with no weighting reported, and the sample is dominated by parents (74%), so results labeled 'parents and educators' are mostly parents; school administrators and agency staff are 3% each, far too few to support any administrator-specific claim. Funded by the Gates Foundation, which should be disclosed alongside the finding that AI raises the importance of data education.
Corrections applied. Three corrections. (1) GEOGRAPHY IS WRONG: the entry says 'US national,' but the report states plainly, 'Although it is not nationally representative, the sample includes respondents from three states... Findings should be interpreted as a snapshot of parent and educator perspectives rather than national estimates.' Approximately 95% of respondents live in Tennessee (47%), Louisiana (24%), or Colorado (24%). Geography should read 'Colorado, Louisiana, and Tennessee (approx. 95% of sample); education-agency subsample drawn nationally.' (2) FUNDER OMITTED: the survey was fielded 'with support from the Gates Foundation.' (3) METHOD is more specific than stated — two pooled surveys: K-12 parents, teachers, and school administrators recruited and surveyed via Centiment's online market research platform in the three states at DS4E's direction; and local/state education agency staff surveyed on a Mathematica-hosted platform, recruited through DS4E's policy partner network and SEA contacts across all 50 states and D.C. Sample composition (categories overlap): 74% parents of a current pre-K-12 student, 40% pre-K-12 teachers, 3% school administrators, 3% state or local education agency staff. Authors: Grady Deacon, Kara Conroy, Hannah Weissman. Published August 10, 2026.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. LMS vendor's own research, opt-in SurveyMonkey Audience panel, unweighted, no margin of error, four-day field window. The higher-education educator figures (61% use AI in class, 41% no formal training, 11% comprehensive training) rest on only 114 respondents, so those percentages carry wide error. The 'higher-ed students' base includes recent graduates who finished after January 2023, not only currently enrolled students.
Corrections applied. Add the methodology that Instructure's research page discloses and the press release omits: respondents were recruited via SurveyMonkey Audience (an opt-in online panel) and fielded June 12-15, 2026. Sample composition is 1,125 U.S. participants: 296 K-12 educators, 114 higher-education educators, 312 current or recent higher-education students (those who graduated after January 2023), and 403 K-12 parents/guardians. No weighting or margin of error is stated.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Microsoft-commissioned vendor research; the full report is gated and per-segment/per-country sample sizes are not published; global data is weighted to World Bank education-spend estimates rather than to population, so 'global' figures are not population-representative.
Corrections applied. Add the disclosed fieldwork: an online quantitative survey fielded February 13 - March 9 (2026); audiences were educators, education leaders (both IT and academic), and students age 13 and up; global data is weighted based on World Bank education-spend estimates. Publisher and date (Microsoft, June 24, 2026), research firm (PSB Insights), N=3,345, and the six countries (US, UK, Australia, Brazil, Japan, Saudi Arabia) are all confirmed. The 'released ahead of ISTELive 26' framing does not appear in the release and could not be verified - drop it or mark it as inference.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. No findings report exists yet. This entry can be cited only as evidence that a state-sponsored AI listening tour took place and that a report is due in fall 2026 — never as evidence of what Pennsylvania educators think about AI. The listed 'themes' are the agenda topics the summits were designed to cover, drawn from a university news release, not analyzed findings. No participant count, sampling frame, or analysis method has been published, and attendees self-selected into a free professional-development event carrying continuing-education credits, so any eventual findings will describe an engaged, opt-in group rather than Pennsylvania educators generally.
Corrections applied. The Penn State story was published July 27, 2026; the date field (2026-06) reflects the end of the tour, not publication. Additional confirmed detail: the listening sessions were day-long summits offered free of charge, with participating educators and administrators eligible for Act 48 and Act 45 continuing-education credits; data collection used 'AI Café' facilitated discussions plus pre- and post-event surveys and follow-up evaluations; four named graduate student evaluators supported the work; findings are 'expected to publish this fall' (fall 2026). Sponsored by and in partnership with the Pennsylvania Department of Education, with CSATS, ICDS, the College of Education and Penn State Extension collaborating.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Gates Foundation anchor partner and D2L (an LMS vendor) as research insight partner. Non-probability sample; the public page discloses N, institutions and fielding window but no sampling frame, weighting or margin of error. Note the policy-effectiveness numbers are faculty ratings, not institutional outcome measures.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Trend comparison across three separate EdWeek Research Center waves (Oct 2024, fall 2025, winter 2026) with no published sampling frame, mode, weighting, or margin of error, and no confirmation the waves used identical question wording or panels — treat the 60%→50%→42% line as directional. The Oct 2024 figure is 'almost 60%', not 60%. EdWeek ed-tech coverage is CZI-grant-supported (editorial control retained).
Corrections applied. The two sets of findings come from different surveys and our 'sample' field conflates them. The training trend line is sourced in the article as 'EdWeek Research Center surveys, 2024-26' (multiple waves); only the eagerness figures are sourced to the 'nationally representative February-March 2026 survey of 113 district leaders, 112 school leaders, and 651 teachers' (876 total, which matches our entry). Add author Elizabeth Heubeck and exact publication date May 18, 2026. Add funder disclosure: EdWeek's ed-tech coverage is supported in part by a Chan Zuckerberg Initiative grant, with EdWeek retaining sole editorial control.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Structured consultation, not sentiment research. Blends convening input with disability law, literature, and author recommendations; no participant count or coding method disclosed.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier C); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. Vendor-run survey of its own marketplace users — active and churned TPT accounts, self-selected by responding to an email invitation, not a sample of educators generally. The headline finding that only 7% think AI can replace what teachers 'make themselves or buy' is directly self-interested for a company whose business is selling teacher-made resources. A ±3 point margin of error is quoted for a non-probability sample, which is not a valid application of the statistic.
Corrections applied. Completed N is 11,350, not 11,500 — TPT's own methodology statement says the survey 'was completed by 11,350 educators'; 'nearly 11,500' is TPT's rounded framing in the intro and is what THE Journal repeated. Recruitment must be stated: TPT emailed a 21-question survey to 'active and churned users on the TPT platform' on January 22, 2026. Geography breakdown is US 82% / International 18%. Role split 81% classroom teacher / 19% administrator and support staff is confirmed. Margin of error stated as ±3 points. Method should read 'email survey of platform users', not a generic 'online survey'.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Online survey with no margin of error reported anywhere in the report and no disclosed panel, sampling frame or recruitment source — only that Lake Research Partners and Echelon Insights designed and administered it. Advocacy-organization sponsor. One context point when citing the youth economic figure: the 47% who feel worried sit against 45% who are not worried, so the report characterises youth as "evenly divided" rather than predominantly worried.
Corrections applied. No corrections needed; only added precision. The report cover confirms "Generation AI: What Kids and Families Think About AI" (2026), with authors from Lake Research Partners (Lake, Gormley, Snell, Vinyard, Tate, Gillett), Echelon Insights (Soltis Anderson, O'Neil) and Common Sense Media (Robb, Mann). Field dates can be made exact: the parent survey ran November 17-26, 2025 and the kid/teen survey November 17-28, 2025, rather than "late 2025." Sample description is confirmed exactly — 1,244 parents including oversamples of 100 Black, 100 Latino, 101 AAPI and 100 parents of children 12-17, weighted down to a base of 843; 1,100 kids and teens 12-17 including 100 Black, 100 Latino and 100 AAPI oversamples, weighted down to a base of 800.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Vendor-run survey of its own users inside paying partner districts, with no field dates, sampling frame, recruitment method, or response rate disclosed; the platform-scale numbers are marketing claims, not survey results.
Corrections applied. Published March 10, 2026, confirmed. Survey base is confirmed as 'survey responses from more than 3,400 educators and 185 school and district leaders in partner districts, along with platform usage data and qualitative interviews.' Remove the platform-scale claims from the sample field: the report states no educator count, no percentage of U.S. districts, no country count, and no AI-output total. No field dates, recruitment method, response rate, or weighting is disclosed anywhere in the report.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Corrections applied. Fieldwork was conducted by Ipsos via its KnowledgePanel (probability-based); margin of error +/- 3.3 percentage points for both the teen and parent samples. The entry's partners_funders field says only 'Pew self-funded' and should name Ipsos/KnowledgePanel as the data collector, consistent with how entry 238 is recorded.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Vendor-sponsored research whose respondents were recruited through outreach by PowerSchool and Project Tomorrow, so the sample self-selects toward the vendor's customer base and edtech-engaged educators; results are descriptive statistics with no weighting, sampling frame or margin of error. One framing point matters when quoting the AI-use numbers: the 57% / 46% figures are respondents' reports of what 'educators in their district' are doing, not self-reported personal use.
Corrections applied. Refinement, not a correction: the online survey was open October 7-24, 2025 (entry says 'October 2025' — correct but less precise). The qualitative component was six virtual roundtables plus one-on-one interviews with 18 national thought leaders, 30 K-12 education leaders in total. Respondents were recruited through outreach by both PowerSchool and Project Tomorrow. Analysis is descriptive statistics with cross-tabs by role.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. This is a purposive qualitative consultation and expert synthesis, not a representative survey — there are no population percentages behind the headline conclusion, and 'risks overshadow benefits' is the task force's considered judgment, not a measured result. Disclose the corporate/philanthropic funding (see attribution note) when citing it in a funder context.
Corrections applied. Two additions. (1) FUNDERS: the partners_funders field names only Brookings CUE and the authors. Brookings' acknowledgements for this report reportedly credit EY and the LEGO Foundation as supporters — a corporate funder and a philanthropic funder that should be disclosed given the report's conclusions bear on edtech. I could not open the acknowledgements page directly (the full-report PDF exceeds the fetch size limit and the project page lists no funders), so CONFIRM THIS BEFORE PUBLISHING rather than taking it from me. (2) AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Rida Karim is listed as Communications Coordinator at the National Student Board Member Association, not Brookings; the other four authors are Brookings CUE/Global Economy and Development. Also add: the Brookings Global Task Force on AI in Education launched September 2024 at the U.N. General Assembly, and the Delphi panel comprised 21 experts.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Advocacy-funded research from an organization with a declared position on the question it surveyed — Common Sense publicly advises against AI toys for children age 5 and under. The panel and recruitment source behind the SSRS fielding are never named, and the weighting statement is oddly generic ("Data was weighted to represent the target population of U.S. adults age 18 or older" rather than parents of 0-8s). Also note the survey gave respondents an explicit definition of AI toys that excludes Alexa and Siri, which shapes the results.
Corrections applied. The populations field still reads "Parents (of children roughly ages 5-12)" — this is wrong and must be changed to parents of children ages 0-8. The report states every figure's base as "All parents of children age 0 to 8 (N = 1,004)". A correction to this effect is already recorded in the entry's notes field but was never applied to the structured field itself. Funders are incomplete: the report's acknowledgements credit Bezos Family Foundation, Craig Newmark Philanthropies, Jennifer Caldwell and John H.N. Fisher, Patrick J. McGovern Foundation, and Siegel Family Endowment as underwriters, alongside SSRS as the data collection firm. Add methodology detail: fielded via web in English (n=951) and Spanish (n=53), December 1-8 2025, margin of sampling error ±3.4 percentage points.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Exploratory expert-leaning snowball sample; exact field dates, subgroup counts, and coding procedures unreported; some conclusions are author synthesis.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier B); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. Unweighted non-probability samples with no margin of error and no named panel or recruitment source. Also note the achievement/grade-level ambiguity: several of this brief's most quotable contrasts are by self-reported grades earned, and must be described that way to avoid being read as class-year differences.
Corrections applied. Title, authors (Adair, Congiusta, Howell, O'Grady, Walton Radford), organization and December 2025 date confirmed on the PDF cover. Sample description is accurate and better sourced than I expected: Table 1 explicitly discloses "600 per survey; Aggregated to 2,400" for students, "1,000 per survey; Aggregated to 6,200" for parents, and 1,600 AP teachers — so the 6,200 figure is the report's own, not our arithmetic. Same unweighted-data caveat as id 58 applies, since this brief disaggregates the same surveys.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Quota-set online panel weighted to national demographics; no panel vendor named, no margin of error. The companion/mental-health items are asked as "you or a friend," which inflates them relative to a first-person measure — always carry the "or a friend" wording when citing the 42% and 19% figures.
Corrections applied. Add the field window: "Online surveys of nationally representative samples of 1,030 9th- to 12th-grade students, 806 6th- to 12th-grade teachers, and 1,018 6th- to 12th-grade parents were fielded between June and August 2025." The record gives only "2024-25 school year," which is the reference period the questions covered, not when the survey ran. Sample sizes, grade bands, October 8, 2025 publication date, and the author line (Elizabeth Laird, Maddy Dwyer, Hannah Quay-de la Vallee) are all confirmed correct.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. All samples are unweighted and no margin of error is reported; the recruitment source and panel vendor are never named, so representativeness rests on College Board's own assertion of broad balance. Offsetting strength worth stating alongside the caveat: the student, parent, BigFuture and administrator surveys were deliberately fielded so respondents did not know College Board was the sponsor, which limits sponsor-effect bias; the AP teacher survey was fielded directly by College Board and is not blind.
Corrections applied. Title, authors (Adair, Howell, Jacklin, Walton Radford), organization and October 2025 date all confirmed on the PDF cover. Two additions to the sample description: the brief also draws on the BigFuture AI Student Survey (Oct 2024, n=1,000) and the School and District Administrator Survey (Jun 2025, approx. n=1,300, with n=364 on the AI item), and the latter is the source of the administrator figures our entry cites — neither is currently listed. Critical methodological disclosure our entry omits: "Survey data are unweighted, but are generally broadly representative by gender, race, urbanicity, school attributes, and U.S. region."
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. This is a synthesis chapter, not primary research — cite the underlying instrument (CSTA Computer Science Teacher Landscape Survey 2024, N=2,901 US pre-K-12 CS teachers, an opt-in teacher survey of CSTA-reachable educators, NSF-supported) rather than the Kapor highlights page. The Kapor page itself discloses no methodology, no sample sizes, and no data sources; its 'Download Education Highlights' link is gated behind a name/email/job-title lead-capture form. Access and enrollment figures come from Code.org/CSTA/ECEP Alliance administrative data, not a survey.
Corrections applied. Sample field can now be filled in: the 81% and 'fewer than half' (46% of high school teachers) figures come from the Computer Science Teacher Landscape Survey, 2024, which collected data from 2,901 pre-K through 12 CS teachers nationally (33% elementary, 36% middle school). Kapor page posted Oct 19, 2025 and updated Oct 22, 2025 — confirmed. Underlying AI Index 2025 Chapter 7 was released by Stanford HAI in spring 2025; the chapter states it 'was a collaboration prepared by the Kapor Foundation, CSTA, PIT-UN' with the AI Index, so Kapor is a co-author, not a third-party summarizer.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Self-selected, school-recruited online survey — despite N=65,000+ it is a convenience sample from 670 participating schools, with no sampling frame, weighting, or margin of error disclosed, so it is not nationally representative. Also sponsored by ed-tech vendors (PowerSchool, ClassDojo for Districts, iboss, Spectrum Business/Charter, Agile Education Marketing, edWeb.net).
Corrections applied. Organization, geography, and 2024-25 fielding period are correct. Sample confirmed as 'over 65,000 students, educators, administrators and parents, representing 670 schools' — add the 670 schools. Date: report posted Oct 22, 2025; press release Oct 23, 2025 (K-12 Dive dated its coverage Oct 28). The six research sponsors listed are confirmed verbatim in the report; the additional claim of 'outreach support from 29 education nonprofits/associations' could not be verified in the report or press release and should be dropped unless separately sourced.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Vendor-underwritten (HMH sells curriculum and AI-enabled instructional tools); 'nationally representative' is asserted but no sampling frame, panel source, response rate, or MoE is disclosed. The 6x / 67%-vs-10% comparison is HMH's own and spans different question bases - 2023 measured generative-AI use in the classroom, 2025 measures AI use 'in their work' over the past year - so attribute it to HMH rather than presenting it as a clean like-for-like trend.
Corrections applied. None. The report's methodology page confirms exactly: 1,205 educators including 1,055 teachers and 150 administrators, 15-minute survey online via desktop and mobile, May 6-May 22 (2.5-week field), 'Data was weighted to be nationally representative,' MarketCast, 11th annual; press release dated September 9, 2025.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Self-selected respondents recruited through Michigan education-association memberships; Michigan only, not representative of Michigan educators statewide; no weighting, response rate, or margin of error reported, and open-ended responses were analyzed with AI assistance.
Corrections applied. Sample confirmed as 554 unique responses representing 526 educators across 757 professional-association memberships; role mix is 69.3% building-level (43.2% teachers, 15% principals/assistant principals) and 18.5% district leadership (99 respondents). Trust detail: teachers 53.6 (up from 43.7 in 2024), building principals/APs 67.7, superintendents/assistant superintendents 73.0. Collected over roughly four weeks with responses through July 21, 2025 via Qualtrics, distributed by the AI Statewide Workgroup to professional-association memberships; open-ended responses analyzed with ChatGPT assistance. The report page does not display an explicit publication date, so the recorded 2025-09 date could not be confirmed on the source itself (it is plausible given the July 21, 2025 data cutoff).
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Corrections applied. Method is mixed methods, not online survey alone: the report combines eight survey samples with interviews of ten school district leaders conducted in spring 2025 (nine rural, one large suburban). The eight nationally representative samples are: 1,261 middle/high school students (AYP, Jan-Feb 2025); 852 middle/high school students (AYP, Feb-Mar 2025); 984 parents of 12-17-year-olds (American Parent Panel, Feb-Mar 2025); 967 K-12 public school teachers of all subjects (ATP, October 2024); 8,601 K-12 public ELA, math, and science teachers (ATP, Apr-Jun 2025); 3,668 principals (American School Leader Panel, Mar-Apr 2025); 289 district leaders (ASDP, Oct-Nov 2024); and 232 district leaders (ASDP, Mar-May 2025).
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Opt-in online panel (Pure Spectrum/GLG Research), not representative of U.S. online students; no weighting or margin of error disclosed. The administrator findings rest on only 74 respondents recruited through BestColleges' own outreach — far too small to generalize, and they should never be reported as a national administrator figure. BestColleges is a commercial rankings/lead-generation site, so this is gray literature.
Corrections applied. Attribution is accurate as written. Confirmed on-page: 'Updated on August 18, 2025'; two surveys fielded February-April 2025; Pure Spectrum partnered with GLG Research for the 1,000-student sample (currently enrolled, graduated, and prospective online students); the 74 administrators at two- and four-year institutions offering online courses were gathered separately by BestColleges' own outreach team via Qualtrics with eligibility screening questions.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: Online college students only. Workstream coverage in the CSV was rechecked as
Citation caveat. Volunteer pilot of one vendor product (Khan Academy's Khanmigo) with very small teacher samples (19, then 24); pre/post teacher self-report with no comparison group and no significance testing. Implementation and usage evidence only, not efficacy evidence.
Corrections applied. Published August 13, 2025; author Christa Green. Pilot 1 (spring 2024) focused on Algebra I with Khanmigo as a math tutor; Pilot 2 (fall 2024-spring 2025) covered all subjects and grade levels. Method is pre- and post-survey data plus facilitated professional-learning sessions and participant reflections. Survey respondents are teachers only - the 687 and 1,102 student figures are participation counts, not student survey respondents - so listing 'Students' among the surveyed populations overstates what was measured.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: Selected Khanmigo product-pilot story rather than a generalizable survey wave
Citation caveat. Vendor-run survey: Quizlet is an AI study-tools company publishing research on AI adoption in education, so it has a direct commercial interest in the headline adoption numbers. Opt-in online panel (RepData/Forsta) with no weighting, sampling frame, or margin of error disclosed; not representative of U.S. students or teachers. The 'up from 66% in 2024' comparison is against Quizlet's own prior non-probability wave, not an independent benchmark.
Corrections applied. Accurate as recorded. Minor additions: the 501 parents are parents of high school or college students; teacher-side use cases were research 54%, summarizing 48%, generating classroom materials 45%. Published July 16, 2025, fieldwork April 2025, research partner Allison Worldwide Performance + Intelligence, panel from RepData via Forsta — all confirmed.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Non-probability, self-selected convenience sample from Quebec only, recruited through a homework-help nonprofit and social media — not nationally representative of Canada and not US-generalizable. Findings measure reactions to HYPOTHETICAL vignettes about AI that was not yet deployed, not experience with real classroom AI; the authors flag this as a limitation. Data collection was completed in winter 2023, pre-dating most school GenAI policy, though publication is 2025 — do not present it as current sentiment. School directors (n=20) were dropped from the mediation analysis, so the study supports NO administrator-level conclusions despite administrators appearing in the sample. The qualitative arm is only 14 instrument-development participants and produced no independently reported findings. Funded by IVADO, an AI research institute — a mild pro-AI-research interest worth disclosing.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Citation caveat. This is a literature synthesis, not primary research — every statistic in it belongs to someone else (Pew, Anthropic, RAND). Attribute numbers to their original sources when citing, and do NOT present this alongside entry id 12 (Anthropic university students) as independent corroboration: the 47% 'direct conversation' figure is the same Anthropic data, so counting both double-counts one study. Also note the funders (CZI, Overdeck, Bezos Family Foundation, Charter School Growth Fund) are ed-reform philanthropies, and NEPC published a critical review of this report in October 2025 (ERIC ED677339).
Corrections applied. Author list should be spelled out in full: Amy Chen Kulesa, Marisa Mission, Michelle Croft, Mary K. Wells. Publication June 2025, funders (Bezos Family Foundation, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Charter School Growth Fund, Overdeck Family Foundation), and the 'expert interviews, count not disclosed' description are all confirmed — the acknowledgments reference 'many experts' with no number, no selection criteria, and no protocol.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Vendor-run (D2L, an LMS company), fielded on Prodege's opt-in Pollfish panel with no toplines, weighting, or margin of error published. The educator findings rest on roughly 600 respondents — half of the 1,200 total — and the generational splits are subgroups of that half. D2L does not disclose subgroup Ns, so a figure like '88% of Gen Z educators' may rest on a cell of only a hundred or so respondents and should never be quoted as a precise national rate.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Gates Foundation is anchor partner and McGraw Hill and D2L are edtech vendors partnered on the research. Non-probability sample consistent with prior Tyton waves (no sampling frame or weighting disclosed on the public page; fielding dates not stated). Shares its student survey instrument with Listening to Learners 2025 (id 292) — the 42% student figure appears in both reports, so treat them as one data source, not two.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: Higher-education students and instructors only. Workstream coverage in the CS
Citation caveat. Industry-funded (Entertainment Software Association and TikTok) and self-published; quota-based nonprobability online panel, no margin of error; and the widely-quoted AI image-identification statistic belongs to the Fall 2024 wave, not this 2025 survey.
Corrections applied. partners_funders should add the funding line printed in the report itself and in the release: 'This survey was conducted with support from the Entertainment Software Association and TikTok.' Method detail from the release: 10-minute online survey fielded February-March 2025, 2,000 respondents (1,000 parents of children 10-17 and 1,000 children 10-17), quotas set to U.S. Census targets for age and gender, statistical testing at 95% confidence. Separately, the entry's note identifying 'Promoting Wellbeing in a Digital World' (Dec 9, 2024) as Wave One of this series is wrong -- that is a distinct Kantar study of parents and teens in the U.S., Germany and Brazil. Online Safety Survey Wave One was fielded September/October 2024.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Vendor-run survey by an AI education-technology company about demand for AI in education. Discloses N, dates, mode, role mix and geography but no sampling frame, recruitment, weighting, or margin of error — not a representative national estimate. Also note the 2024 and 2025 waves used different instruments in places (e.g., benefits shifted from single-choice to multi-select), so some year-over-year comparisons are not strictly like-for-like.
Corrections applied. None needed. Confirmed: 656 total respondents; 85% teachers / 9% building administrators / 6% district administrators; 49 states + Puerto Rico; 10-minute survey carried out online via computer and mobile; data collected Dec 16, 2024 – Jan 27, 2025. The document itself carries no printed publication date, so the 2025-04 date rests on the circulation evidence already recorded in the note rather than on the report.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Self-funded vendor survey with essentially no disclosed sampling methodology: Cengage is a major textbook and courseware publisher surveying instructors and students — plausibly drawn from its own customer or user base, though it does not say — and publishes no full report, topline, or questionnaire, only a press release. Cite the numbers as Cengage's own reported figures, not as independent national estimates, and do not present the 2023-to-2025 instructor sentiment change as growth.
Corrections applied. Sample sizes and geography are correct (1,190 HED instructors; 1,834 HED students; 872 K-12 teachers; 311 K-12 administrators; United States; total 4,207). Published April 3, 2025 — confirmed. "Method: Online survey, fielded Spring 2025" overstates what is disclosed: the release says only "a survey conducted in Spring 2025" and never states the mode, exact field dates, recruitment source, panel provider, weighting, or margin of error.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. NOT INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE — this is a second analysis of the identical 12-family, 14-parent interview dataset behind ref=uwm-familyrel (same team, same institution, same Feb–May 2024 fieldwork, same recruitment, same participant structure). Citing both alongside each other implies roughly 24 families of fieldwork when there are 12; cite one, or cite both explicitly as companion papers from a single study. On top of that: it is a non-peer-reviewed arXiv preprint, N=12 with the same opt-in, ChatGPT-account-sharing, high-income/high-education selection bias, and the counts (e.g., 'eight families') must never be rendered as percentages.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Citation caveat. No full report, technical appendix or topline exists publicly — all figures trace only to UC Irvine's own news release. Sampling frame, weighting and margin of error are not disclosed anywhere (NORC ran fieldwork, but the release does not say whether a probability panel such as AmeriSpeak was used). Cite the numbers as reported by UCI and do not describe the sample as nationally representative.
Corrections applied. Publication date is March 26, 2025 — the entry's year field of "2024" reflects fieldwork and should read 2025 for the public release (the entry's own notes already flag this; confirming it is correct). Partner list is incomplete: alongside UCI, foundry10, NSF award 2334172 and Microsoft, the release credits the CERES network, NORC at the University of Chicago (which conducted fieldwork on behalf of CERES), Hart Research (on behalf of the National 4-H Council), and the National 4-H Council. Researcher list should add Kelli Dickerson (UCI Project Scientist) to Odgers, Hayes and Rubin. Sample sizes (1,510 adolescents ages 9-17; 2,826 parents of K-12 students), the Nov 2023-May 2024 survey window and the June-Sept 2024 focus groups are all confirmed.
Verified by independent audit (Source identity verified; public full text unavailable or incomplete; Source identity and accessible official/publisher evidence reviewed; complete full text was unavailable or gated)
Citation caveat. Tiny purposive qualitative sample (12 families) that the authors themselves say 'does not inform a saturated theory analysis' — never present as representative of parents or children. Three compounding selection problems: families were recruited by paid social-media ads (authors warn this 'may have introduced some positive bias toward ChatGPT'), inclusion REQUIRED an already-shared ChatGPT account (excluding non-users and non-sharing families entirely), and the sample skewed to highly educated parents in $100k+ households. Fieldwork ended before June 2024 and all families but one were using ChatGPT 3.5, so the capability complaints are about a model two-plus generations old.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Citation caveat. Quota-set online panel weighted to national demographics, no vendor named and no margin of error published. Note this is the same fieldwork wave as id 35 (In Deep Trouble) — same 1,316/1,006/1,028 respondents — so the two should not be presented as independent studies.
Corrections applied. Field dates: verbatim methodology reads "fielded between June and August 2024," not July–August 2024. Optional additions: published January 15, 2025; authors Elizabeth Laird, Maddy Dwyer, and Kristin Woelfel; student sample grades 9–12, teacher and parent samples grades 6–12. The title correction already in the record is confirmed correct — CDT's title is "Out of Step: Students, Teachers in Stride with EdTech Threats While Parents Are Left Behind."
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Funder- and vendor-partnered study (Gates Foundation and Macmillan Learning as anchor partners; D2L and McGraw Hill are edtech vendors with a commercial stake in AI-in-education findings). Non-probability online sample with deliberate oversampling of stopped-out students and students of color, so it is not a representative read of US college students. Critically, its student survey is the same instrument behind Time for Class 2025 (id 296) — do not cite the two as independent corroboration.
Corrections applied. Publication date is July 2025 (entry says only "2025"). Sample description is incomplete: the report covers 1,500+ students AND 1,500+ instructors (~700 institutions) AND 300+ administrators (250+ institutions) across 825+ unique institutions — the entry lists only the student component while the populations field claims all three.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: Higher-education learners only. Workstream coverage in the CSV was rechecked
Citation caveat. Very small local sample tied to a specific chatbot design; exact field dates absent; results are design values, not prevalence or efficacy.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier B); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. Structured consultation, not a sentiment study. Official single-district synthesis with no focus-group headcount, recruitment details, moderator guide, coding method, or clean separation of survey and focus-group themes.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier C); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. Public policy co-design, not empirical sentiment research; meeting-level attendance, coding, votes, and influence of industry participants not reported.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier C); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. Structured consultation, not a sentiment study. Single-district official synthesis with no method-specific qualitative N, response rate, weighting, or clean attribution by method.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier C); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. The headline percentages are not USCCR research — every one of them originates in Center for Democracy and Technology survey work (Dwyer & Laird, 'Up in the Air,' CDT, March 2024 for the 28% and 64%; a 2023 CDT study for the 38%/36%/37%/33% figures) and was quoted by witnesses in testimony. Cite CDT directly for those numbers. The report itself is qualitative: findings reflect what a purposively selected group of expert witnesses and advocates chose to testify to, not a survey of Pennsylvania educators or students.
Corrections applied. Attribution is correct. Report cover is dated December 2024 and the web listing gives December 6, 2024. The four public briefings were held by videoconference on March 25, March 27, March 29 and April 25, 2024.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Nonprobability advocacy-network sample, approximate N only, small higher-education component, no published coder-reliability result.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier B); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. EdWeek Research Center panel survey; 'nationally representative' is asserted with no published sampling frame, weighting, or margin of error, and no topline document is published.
Corrections applied. Article published October 29, 2024 (last modified Oct. 30, 2024) by Lauraine Langreo. Sample confirmed verbatim: 'the nationally representative survey of 1,135 educators - including 731 teachers - conducted between Sept. 26 and Oct. 8.' The article states 58% with no training; the entry's '57-58%' range introduces an arithmetic complement the source does not use.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Speak Up is an opt-in convenience survey, not a national sample: districts and schools volunteer to participate and distribute the survey to their own students, teachers and parents. The ~100,000 respondents make it the largest collection of its kind but confer no representativeness — there is no sampling frame, no weighting and no margin of error reported, and participating districts are self-selected toward the edtech-engaged. Do not describe findings as 'nationally representative'; large N here is not a substitute for probability sampling.
Corrections applied. Could not corroborate 'Strategic EDU' as a partner on the spring 2024 Speak Up Snapshot. The report states only that the AI data 'was collected both via our year-long Speak Up Classic surveys and a special Speak Up Snapshot on AI in spring 2024,' and Project Tomorrow's own Speak Up Snapshot: Addressing AI in Education page names no partner or sponsor. Recommend dropping the Strategic EDU attribution unless a source can be produced.
Verified by independent audit (Source identity verified; public full text unavailable or incomplete; Source identity and accessible official/publisher evidence reviewed; complete full text was unavailable or gated)
Citation caveat. Online quota-sampled panel weighted to national demographics; CDT names no panel vendor and publishes no margin of error, so the national projections (5.97M, 2.30M) are estimates built on a nonprobability sample and should be cited as CDT's estimates rather than official counts.
Corrections applied. Field dates: the report's formal methodology states the surveys "were fielded between June and August 2024," not July–August 2024. (CDT's own executive summary says "from July to August 2024" — the methodology section is the authoritative one; either way the database's July–August is narrower than what the report documents.) Optional additions: published September 26, 2024; authors Elizabeth Laird, Maddy Dwyer, and Kristin Woelfel; student sample is grades 9–12 and the teacher and parent samples are grades 6–12.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Do not cite this entry for any number. It has no disclosed methodology, and the only statistic currently in its key_findings belongs to a different study that is already in this corpus as id 69 — citing both double-counts the same 1,045 teen-parent-pair survey. It is legitimately citable as a Common Sense policy white paper for its framing, recommendations and illustrative interview quotes, with the interviews described as reported conversations rather than as qualitative research.
Corrections applied. Method "IDIs (qualitative interviews)" and sample "40 qualitative interviews" both overstate what this document is. The only methodological statement in the entire 57-page paper is: "In researching and reporting this paper, we spoke to more than 40 people about AI, running the gamut from expert PhDs to eighth graders," plus an endnote that "Interviews for this paper were conducted from December 2023 to March 2024, with some follow-up conversations and external review in April 2024." There is no methodology section, no sampling approach, no participant composition, no analysis or coding framework. Populations "Teachers; Students; Administrators" is not supported — the 40+ included subject-matter experts, researchers and advocates, and administrators are not identified as a group. The cover is dated "Updated August 2024" against the September 18, 2024 posting date. The paper's own stated aim is "to provide an overview of generative AI in K-12 education, including background on the technology; the state of AI literacy and school guidelines; opportunities; risks; and recommendations for the field," and it explicitly "run[s] through results from multiple surveys" conducted by others.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Shares its underlying dataset with id 67 ('Teens, Trust, and Technology') - do not cite the two as independent surveys. Fielded March-April 2024, so the 70% adoption figure is now well over two years old.
Corrections applied. Add methodology detail: conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs in English and Spanish using both a probability-based panel (Ipsos KnowledgePanel) and nonprobability sources (n=117 from opt-in Ipsos Interactive Services panels) to boost race/ethnicity representation; oversamples of 300 Latino and 250 Black dyads; weighted by raking to 2022 CPS benchmarks; MoE +/-3.6 pts for teens and +/-3.1 pts for parents. Release date September 18, 2024 confirmed. Sample is 1,045 parent-teen dyads (1,045 teens AND 1,045 parents).
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Innovation-network districts purposively selected; local leaders conducted the interviews; the implied 165 interviews are not verified as an achieved total. The six-domain framework blends participant input with two external frameworks and is not participant consensus.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier B); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. Structured consultation, not a population study; exact denominator, session attendance, and group-level support or dissent unreported.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier C); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. Vendor gray literature: PowerSchool surveys educators — many of them its own customers — and publishes the results as marketing collateral alongside a 'How PowerSchool Can Help' section. Respondents are self-selected through vendor outreach; no field dates, sampling frame, weighting or margin of error are disclosed, so the '70% up from 53%' trend compares two separate self-selected samples and is not a measured change in a fixed population.
Corrections applied. The full report discloses no survey field dates, no sampling frame, no recruitment method, no weighting and no margin of error — only N=1,620 responses, a role breakdown, and that responses were limited to the U.S. and U.S. territories. The report describes 12 virtual roundtables with more than 75 educators, parents and students, plus interviews with named thought leaders (the press release's '12 focus groups and 12 interviews' phrasing is the vendor's, not the report's). Note also that respondents skew toward district technology and data roles: Systems/Information (CIO/CTO/technology director) is 10% and Data & Accountability 11% of the sample.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Opt-in online panel, not a probability sample — the report reports a conventional 'margin of error,' which is technically inappropriate for a non-probability online sample and should not be repeated as if this were a random sample. Parents of children with IDD are a low-incidence population reachable online only through panel screening, so self-selection is substantial. The teacher sample is small (N=200, and only 168 with any IDD teaching experience), giving a wide ±6.9% error band and making teacher subgroup breakdowns fragile. Special Olympics is an advocacy organization surveying its own constituency's issue area and framing the result as a case for disability-inclusive AI — a self-interest caveat. Findings are attitudinal and hypothetical ('AI will/could…'), measuring expectations about AI, not observed outcomes for students with IDD. Note also that several headline splits are conditioned on prior AI use, so the optimism figures partly reflect who has already tried AI.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Citation caveat. The workload figures are NOT whole-sample numbers — Figure 9 explicitly restricts them to respondents who use genAI at least monthly. Also, the report states plainly that "this year's student survey respondents do not represent the average racial/ethnic makeup of college students" because underserved racial groups were intentionally oversampled for statistical power; it further concedes respondents "could be biased toward digital technology" through self-selection into a digital instrument.
Corrections applied. Sample as listed (~1,600 students; ~1,800 instructors; ~300 administrators) is confirmed by the report's methodology section — the "3,000+ total respondents" correction already in the notes is the rounded公 figure Tyton uses publicly; both are defensible. Report is published by Tyton Partners and hosted by Lumina Foundation; date June 11, 2024 confirmed. The companion "Racing Forward" report is dated June 27, 2024, slightly later than the main report.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Single-year pilot with NO control group, N=179 fall / 166 both waves across two purposively selected schools, and only 95 students who actually used the tool. The measured motivation and self-efficacy scores went DOWN significantly; the positive framing comes from 13 student interviews. Gates-funded study of a tool from Gates-funded Khan Academy. Never cite this as evidence that Khanmigo improved motivation or self-efficacy.
Corrections applied. The sample description is misleading: "~310 and ~350 students" are the two schools' total ENROLLMENTS, not the study sample. The actual research sample was 179 students who completed the fall survey (128 at School A, 51 at School B), 166 of whom completed the spring follow-up (92.7% continuity), plus 13 student and 3 teacher interviews. Only 95 of the 166 ever used Khanmigo during the observation period. Organization, authors (Rodríguez-Martínez, Méndez Iguartúa, Sotomayor, Bobonis, Oreopoulos), University of Toronto Dept. of Economics / PRDE, Gates Foundation funding, June 2024 date and Digital Promise hosting all confirmed on the cover page. The "5 working laptops" detail is specific to School B and should be attributed as such.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 5 of 5 numeric tokens
Citation caveat. Convenience/platform-user interview sample; only 181 of 9,245 Reddit items analyzed; Reddit authors' ages inferred; ChatGPT examples may have primed interviews.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier B); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. Foundation-commissioned online poll by Impact Research (a Democratic-affiliated firm), weighted to Census/NCES but with no probability sampling frame disclosed. Critically: do not repeat Walton's own website framing that "more than 80% of each group" viewed AI positively — that figure is about educational technology generally, and the AI-specific numbers are 48-66%.
Corrections applied. Publication date is June 2024, not May 2024 — the Impact Research memo is dated June 3, 2024 and Walton's article "The Value of AI in Today's Classrooms" is dated June 11, 2024; May 7-15, 2024 is the fielding window. Sample can now be stated precisely: n=1,003 K-12 teachers, n=1,001 students ages 12-18, n=1,003 undergraduates, n=1,003 parents of K-12 students, online poll, samples weighted to U.S. Census estimates and (for undergraduates) NCES estimates, 95% CI ±3.1% per sample. Memo authors are Brian Stryker and Oren Savir of Impact Research. The underlying instrument is Impact's "National Schools Tech Tracker."
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. EdWeek Research Center panel survey; 'nationally representative' is asserted in the article with no published sampling frame, weighting, or margin of error, and no topline or methodology document exists.
Corrections applied. Article published January 8, 2024 (last modified October 24, 2024). The linked article states only '498 teachers' and the Nov. 30 - Dec. 6 field window; the '924 educators' total and the online mode come from the companion February 29, 2024 article, which reads: 'The EdWeek Research Center's nationally representative survey of 924 educators, including teachers and school and district leaders, was conducted online from Nov. 30 to Dec. 6 of last year.' Worth citing that companion piece alongside the primary link so the sample size is traceable.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Structured consultation/policy guidance, not sentiment research. Small appointed advisory process; meeting counts, attendance, input protocol, and version history not fully documented.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier C); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. Vendor-run survey: Carnegie Learning sells AI-based education products and describes itself as "a leading innovator of AI in the education technology space," so it has a commercial interest in educator AI adoption. The report discloses N, dates, mode and role mix but no sampling frame, recruitment method, weighting, or margin of error — treat as a non-representative educator sample, not a national estimate.
Corrections applied. None needed. Confirmed on the report's methodology page (rendered from the PDF, since the figure is set as graphic type and does not extract as text): exactly 799 total respondents; 72% teachers / 24% administrators / 4% support staff; 5-minute survey carried out online via computer and mobile; data collected Dec. 5–16, 2023. Note the CEO letter rounds this to "approximately 800 K–12 educators." The report does not itself state that the sample is national; "US national" is an inference (the 2025 sequel does describe itself as a national survey).
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Sponsor-funded research (Gates, Lumina, D2L — D2L is an LMS vendor with a commercial stake in institutional digital-learning findings). No sampling frame, recruitment method, or weighting is disclosed. Several headline figures rest on small institutional subsamples — the 76% policy figure is based on 233 administrators. The bans finding is a five-point Likert item, so always cite the net (likely + extremely likely), not a single category.
Corrections applied. The sample description undercounts the study. The 2024 wave covered approximately 1,600 students plus 1,827 faculty, 316 administrators, 1,655 student support providers, and 311 support-side administrators, across roughly 800-850 unique institutions. The 76% AI-policy figure comes specifically from Administrator n=233 (2024) vs n=168 (2023), not from the student sample. Publication date is September 2024. Funders Gates Foundation, D2L, and Lumina Foundation are confirmed on the publisher's page.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Complete ACM text not openly accessible; only abstract-supported claims retained. One of the very few label/framing experiments in the entire corpus.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier B); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. Invited, AI-focused convenience sample in one state including researchers and nonprofit participants; no demographic table or coder-reliability result.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier B); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. Small, relatively high-income, intervention-conditioned family sample; teacher evidence pools three countries; the paper conflicts internally on how many teachers were US-based.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier B); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. Opt-in convenience sample recruited through Michigan education-association membership lists and an AI-focused statewide workgroup — respondents self-selected and are almost certainly more AI-engaged than the average educator, which biases usage and awareness figures UPWARD. Single-state (Michigan) only; cannot be generalized nationally. Role subgroups are small (e.g., 139 building administrators), so subgroup percentages are unstable. Respondents could skip items, so denominators shift across questions. No margin of error applies to a non-probability sample.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Citation caveat. Vendor-run survey: Anthology (now Blackboard) is an ed-tech company surveying its own market. No pollster or field vendor named, no sampling frame, no weighting, and no margin of error disclosed. The full white paper is gated behind a lead-capture form; only the press release is freely readable.
Corrections applied. TITLE IS WRONG AND POINTS TO A DIFFERENT STUDY. 'Comparing Global University Mindsets and Student Expectations' is Anthology's 2022 study on digital learning and the learner experience (10 countries incl. Colombia, India, Japan; SSRN abstract 4320170) — it is not about AI. The correct title for this 2023 AI research is 'AI in Higher Ed: Hype, Harm, or Help' (Anthology white paper, US Edition, with UK, KSA/UAE, Philippines and Singapore editions). Date: the white paper was announced October 24, 2023; the U.S.-focused press release ran November 13, 2023 — so 2023-10/2023-11, not simply 'released November 2023.' Sample of 5,345 (2,617 university leaders + 2,728 students) across 11 countries, fielded online August 2023, is confirmed verbatim. No research vendor/field house is named anywhere; no weighting, sampling frame, or margin of error is disclosed. Organization should now be rendered 'Anthology (now Blackboard)' — all anthology.com URLs 301-redirect to blackboard.com and several are dead.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 6 of 6 numeric tokens
Citation caveat. Sponsored by Google, conducted by Kantar, self-published by FOSI; respondents were screened to require prior awareness of AI and generative AI and home high-speed internet, so this describes AI-aware, connected families -- not all parents and teens. Online panel, weighted by gender only.
Corrections applied. Sample field should be filled in from the report's appendix rather than left as 'Parents and teens surveyed in the US, Germany, and Japan': quantitative phase N=3,001 total responses captured as combined parent-and-teen responses, ~1,000 per country (US, Germany, Japan), with the parent completing the first half of the survey and their teen (aged 13-17) the second; soft-launched Aug 17, 2023 in the US and Aug 25, 2023 in Germany and Japan. Qualitative phase (July 6-13, 2023): 28 parents and 30-32 teens -- four focus groups in the US and four in Germany, plus a 3-day online journal in Japan. Method should read 'mixed methods (qualitative focus groups/journal + online quantitative survey)', not 'online survey'. Screening: parents had to hold primary/shared decision-making over their child's technology use AND to have already heard of both AI and generative AI, and households needed high-speed internet. Weighting was by gender only; the report warns results 'may not be generalizable to those households without internet access'.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Vendor-run survey of Imagine Learning's own product-user community (Teachers' Lounge), not a sample of U.S. educators, and the total N is never disclosed in the release or anywhere else I could find - so no error bound can be stated. For scale context, Imagine Learning's next wave (2024 Educator AI Report) had only 157 participants. Do not present these percentages as representative of educators generally, and do not use them in a deck that requires a stated sample size.
Corrections applied. None needed; the entry is accurate about what the source says. Confirmed: fielded August 25-September 8, 2023 as a ~7-minute web-based quantitative survey of K-12 educators in Imagine Learning's Teachers' Lounge community (69% teachers, 19% administrators, 12% support staff); published October 25, 2023; conducted in-house.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. The teacher sample is AFT MEMBERS ONLY — union members in a union-commissioned survey — not a cross-section of US teachers; the memo's own framing ('educators should have more say over how technology is deployed') aligns with AFT's policy position, so the 84% figure in particular is self-interested. Both surveys are nonprobability online samples with credibility intervals, not probability samples. Also note these are August 2023 data, roughly nine months after ChatGPT's release — the 75%/76% never-use figures are a baseline snapshot and are certainly stale as a description of current practice.
Corrections applied. The existing 'Correction' note on this entry is itself wrong and should be reversed. The memo's opening paragraph says both surveys were fielded 'online between August 3 to 7, 2023,' but the memo's own Appendix: Methodology specifies the parent survey 'fielded from August 4-6, 2023' — so the DB's Aug 4-6 parent window is CORRECT as originally recorded, and the memo is internally inconsistent, not the database. Add recruitment detail the DB omits: teachers were 'recruited entirely through text-to-web recruitment' from AFT membership; parents were 'recruited through an online panel'; both datasets were weighted (teachers to the universe of PK-12 public school AFT members, parents to the universe of public school parents), and Hart reports credibility intervals rather than margins of error.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Quota-set online panel weighted to national demographics; no panel vendor named and no margin of error published. When citing the 51% teacher baseline, attribute it to CDT's later Out of Step wave rather than to Off Task itself.
Corrections applied. Field dates and sample sizes should be tightened. Verbatim methodology: "Online surveys of nationally representative samples of 1,018 6th- to 12th-grade parents, 1,005 6th- to 12th-grade teachers, and 1,029 9th- to 12th-grade students were fielded June–August 2023." The database says "fielded July-August 2023" and gives no Ns. Publication date September 20, 2023 — confirmed, consistent with the existing correction note.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. LMS vendor's own survey with no full report published -- a press release is the only artifact. No panel name, no weighting, and no margin of error. Critically, the subgroup figures ('76.4% of teachers', '43.5% of students') rest on undisclosed subgroup Ns within a total of 1,003, so their precision cannot be assessed.
Corrections applied. Add fielding dates: the survey was conducted in July and August 2023 and was cleaned and analyzed by Justkul Inc. Disposition: 1,648 respondents started, 90 failed qualifiers, 466 were disqualified, 60 did not complete, and 29 were removed after quality checks, yielding the final 1,003. Respondents under 18 were recruited through parents. Per-group sample sizes (how many teachers vs students vs administrators) are never disclosed.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Underwritten by HMH, a K-12 curriculum and ed-tech vendor, and fielded by its own research partner; HMH claims the data are 'weighted to be nationally representative' but discloses no sampling frame, panel source, response rate, or margin of error.
Corrections applied. Sample is 1,215 educators (1,000 teachers and 215 administrators) - state the exact N rather than '1,200+'. Field dates are May 10-June 27, 2023 (the report's methodology page: 'Data was collected over a 1.5-month period'), not simply 'May-June.' Add: 15-minute survey carried out online via computer and mobile; 'Data was weighted to be nationally representative.' MarketCast, HMH underwriting, 9th annual edition and the August 21, 2023 release date are correct.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Vendor-run survey by an AI study-tools company with a commercial stake in AI-adoption findings; opt-in online panel (Lucid) with no weighting or margin of error disclosed, so it is not representative of U.S. students or teachers. Only the press release is available — no full report, toplines, or questionnaire.
Corrections applied. Accurate as recorded (published July 24, 2023; fieldwork June 2023; Allison+Partners Performance + Intelligence; Qualtrics Insights Platform with panelists from Lucid; 1,500 U.S. respondents = 1,000 students ages 14-22 plus 500 high school or college teachers). One nit: the populations field lists 'Higher-ed faculty,' but the source only describes 500 'high school or college teachers' without breaking out postsecondary faculty.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Foundation-commissioned poll by Impact Research (a Democratic-affiliated firm); weighted to ACS demographics but the sampling frame and survey mode are not stated for this wave. The parent N is reported inconsistently by the sponsor (906) and the pollster (916). The 42% student figure specifically means "ever used ChatGPT for school," not general or regular use.
Corrections applied. Parent sample size discrepancy in the source itself: the Impact Research memo's methodology footer states "N=916 parents," while Walton's press release says "906 parents." Our entry uses 906. The pollster's own memo (916) is the more authoritative figure and the discrepancy should be footnoted. Additional methodology now available: 95% confidence intervals of ±3.1 points for teacher and student results, ±3.5 for voters and ±3.2 for parents; samples weighted to U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2021 5-year estimates. Publication date July 18, 2023 and fielding June 23-July 6, 2023 confirmed. Worth noting the memo's actual subject line is "Americans See Need to Better Prepare Students for National Security Careers of the Future" — the ChatGPT results are one section of a broader STEM-careers poll, not a standalone ChatGPT survey.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Vendor-run survey published as a press release, with no methodology disclosed — no sampling frame, no mode, no weighting, no margin of error, and field timing given only as "Spring 2023." The full report is gated behind an email-capture form (I did not submit it). Cite as an industry sentiment signal, not a population estimate.
Corrections applied. "Conducted in-house by Clever" is wrong. Clever's own 2023 report landing page (clever.com/classroom-future-report-2023) describes the report as "the result of a collaboration between experienced research analysts and experts in mission-driven business strategy," crediting Clever and Whiteboard Advisors. Sample description also needs reconciling: the press release says "over 1,500 teachers and administrators nationwide, plus insights from over 100 leading edtech companies," while Clever's report page discloses 1,000 educators, 500 administrators and 200 edtech vendor professionals (1,700 total). The 1,000/500 split in our entry is confirmed by the report page; the edtech component is better described as ~200 vendor professionals from 100+ companies.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Conducted in collaboration with Turnitin and Anthology — Turnitin sells AI-detection software and Anthology sells an LMS, both with a direct commercial interest in findings showing high student AI adoption and faculty lag. Non-probability online sample; Tyton asserts respondents are "representative of the diverse demographics of these populations" but discloses no sampling frame or weighting procedure.
Corrections applied. Trivial only: the report landing page states June 20, 2023 while Tyton's own release page is dated June 21, 2023. The entry's "2023-06" is fine.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. This is a qualitative synthesis of four public listening sessions with self-selected attendees, not a survey. The "700+ attendees" figure is attendance, not a sample — no percentages, prevalence claims, or "X% of educators think..." statements can be drawn from it. Cite it as federal policy guidance and as evidence of what constituents raised, never as a measure of how widespread a view is.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. The only public version is a blog summary — there is no downloadable full report, topline, or questionnaire at this URL, and no sampling frame, recruitment method, weighting, or margin of error is disclosed anywhere on the page. No funder or sponsor is named for this spring wave (unlike the fall update, which Turnitin sponsored). When quoting "nearly one in three students," note the underlying figure is 27% — that is Tyton's own phrasing, but 27% reads as closer to one in four.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Foundation-commissioned poll by Impact Research (a Democratic-affiliated firm); the wave-1 memo discloses N, field dates and a 95% confidence interval but not the survey mode, sampling frame or weighting. It is also a very early snapshot (Feb 2023, weeks after ChatGPT's launch) that later waves revised upward.
Corrections applied. None needed. Impact Research summary memo dated March 1, 2023 confirms: "a national survey of N=1002 K-12 teachers and N=1000 students ages 12-17 conducted by Impact Research February 2-7, 2023." Entry date 2023-03, sample, fielding window, Impact Research as fielder and Walton as funder all correct. One optional enrichment: the memo adds that teacher use was notably higher among Black (69%) and Latino (69%) teachers, and that 10% of teachers used it almost daily.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
The best-tracked population in the corpus: usage, attitudes, the anger trend, companions and safety.
Citation caveat. Apart from the 78% adoption and 8% companion figures, every percentage is based on children who had already used an AI assistant or companion -- not on all children 10-17. Cite them as 'among child AI users'.
Corrections applied. Publication date is 3 August 2026 (entry's 2026-08 is correct). Sample (1,950 Australian children aged 10-17), field dates (2 February - 4 March 2026) and recruitment (online, via parents) all confirmed. No research vendor is named in any accessible source.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Respondents were recruited from multiple opt-in online panels and then weighted to Census benchmarks - 'nationally representative' here is a weighting claim, not a probability sample. Quotas forced minimums of 250 Black, 250 non-Black POC, and 200 LGBTQ+ teens. The '1 in 4' figure is based on the 586 teens who had seen AI-generated sexual content, not all 1,314.
Corrections applied. Research partner is wrong. The study was conducted by Burson for Common Sense Media (IRB oversight via WCG Clinical); it is NOT credited to the Youth AI Safety Institute (that unit is credited on the 2026 AI Census, not this report). Funder: Oak Foundation. The report's own title is 'Teens in the AI Era: Pornography and Sexual Content' (the entry's title is the web-page headline); suggested citation Mann, Zimmermann, Radesky & Robb (2026), DOI 10.65077/ESUU3962. Method is mixed-methods, not just 'online survey': 20 in-depth interviews (Sept 22-Oct 21, 2025), an online survey of N=1,314 (fielded Nov 21-Dec 9, 2025), and 2 co-interpretive focus groups; total data collection Sept 22, 2025-Feb 26, 2026. Weighted to Census on age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanicity, geography; MoE +/-2.7 pts. Published July 21, 2026.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Sampling frame and weighting scheme are not disclosed; Ipsos reports a 'credibility interval,' its convention for nonprobability online samples, not a probability margin of error. Two-day field window (Jun 29-30, 2026). Only JA's own press release is published — no toplines or questionnaire.
Corrections applied. The method field says 'online survey (Ipsos omnibus)' but this release does not describe an omnibus. Its methodology paragraph reads verbatim: 'These are findings of a Junior Achievement survey, with data collection provided by Ipsos, conducted between June 29-30, 2026. For this survey, a nationally representative sample of 1,005 U.S. teens aged 13 to 17 were surveyed online in English. The results of this research have a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for all respondents.' Recommend: 'online survey in English, data collection by Ipsos; sampling frame and weighting not disclosed.'
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Opt-in nonprobability panel weighted to Census benchmarks, not a probability sample. The 67% figure covers "AI chatbot or companion" broadly — ChatGPT dominates (78% of users) and only 15% used Character AI — so it should not be read as a companion-app adoption number. Some subgroup cells (LGBTQ+, SG-CSAM-experienced minors) carry base sizes under 100 or under 50 and are flagged as such in the report.
Corrections applied. Add the research partner: the 2025 wave was conducted by Thorn in partnership with Burson (Burson Insights, Data & Intelligence), the same partner as the deepfake-nudes study. Sampling should be recorded as nonprobabilistic panel sampling using prerecruited opt-in panel members with quota sampling, weighted to U.S. Census benchmarks for age, gender, race, and geography.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Negotiated policy simulation, not coded qualitative research or real-world behavior. AASA pages report an 82-16 vote while the PDF filename says 84-14; no vote count is treated as evidence.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier C); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. When citing '65% of students are allowed to use AI for schoolwork,' state that the base is students whose school has an AI policy, not all K-12 students.
Corrections applied. Title subtitle is 'More Exposure, Less Confidence Among Gen Z' (our title still says 'Less Enthusiasm' - the notes flag it but the title field was never fixed). Sample: 1,572 respondents ages 14-29, of whom 695 were 14-18-year-olds reached through their parents on the Gallup Panel and 877 were 18-29-year-old panel members; 656 (not 695) were still enrolled in K-12. MoE +/-3.6 pts total, +/-5.4 pts for the K-12 subsample. Gallup Panel, probability-based, address-based sampling. Report version stamp 04/02/26, consistent with our 2026-04 date.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Funded by the Walton Family Foundation in partnership with GSV Ventures, both of which have interests in education technology — worth disclosing, though the survey itself is a Gallup probability panel with fully documented methodology.
Corrections applied. None material. Report confirms Walton Family Foundation, GSV Ventures and Gallup as the collaborating parties, matching our entry. Sample confirmed exactly: Gallup Panel web survey, Feb. 24-March 4, 2026, n=1,572 respondents ages 14-29 across all 50 states and DC, of whom 695 were 14-18-year-olds reached through adult panel members and 877 were 18-29-year-old panel members; margin of sampling error ±3.6 points overall (±4.7 for the 695 parents of Gen Z children), with design effects for weighting included. Optional precision: the 56% item reads "they will have the skills needed to use AI IN THEIR DAILY LIVES after graduation from high school" — our shorter phrasing "the AI skills they need after high school" is a fair compression but the fuller wording is more exact.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. The two cheating percentages (45% and 78%) are subgroup figures: RAND asked whether a use constituted cheating only of students who reported that specific use, so the denominators are 286 and 448, not the full 1,214. Cite them as 'among students who use AI this way', never as shares of all students.
Corrections applied. Field period was December 4, 2025 through January 5, 2026, not December 2025 alone; 1,214 completed surveys came from 2,420 youth invited. Sample is the RAND American Youth Panel, a subset of the RAND American Life Panel, weighted to be representative of enrolled youth on gender, race/ethnicity, grade level, and region.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Student-run poll; Verasight's panel recruitment frame is not disclosed on the results page, so the stated +/-1.4 margin of error rests on undocumented sampling assumptions. Registered voters, not all adults. The image-identification accuracy figure describes all voters, not young voters specifically.
Corrections applied. Date should be 2026-04, not 2026-03: results were published April 13, 2026 from fieldwork March 9-23, 2026 (the existing correction note says this but the date field was not updated). Sample (3,429 registered voters, 2,008 under-35 oversample), MoE (+/-1.4 full, +/-2.0 youth), and Verasight as fielder are all correct. Weighting is by age interacted with gender, plus education, sex, race, and party ID. The page does not disclose the panel's recruitment frame (probability vs opt-in), so the reported margin of error assumes a design that is not documented.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. EAB discloses no methodology beyond 'national survey' — no exact sample size, no sampling frame, no recruitment method, no weighting, and no margin of error. EAB Enroll360 sells enrollment-marketing services to colleges, and the finding that students react badly to AI-generated recruitment messaging supports that business line. Cite the numbers only with attribution to EAB and an explicit note that the methodology is undisclosed.
Corrections applied. No errors in what is stated. Press release confirms 5,000+ US high school students, fielded October and November 2025, released February 25, 2026 (insight-paper page dated February 24, 2026), EAB Enroll360. Note the exact N is never given — only '5,000+'.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Ipsos multi-client omnibus, two-day field window (Jan 27-28, 2026); the underlying panel/sampling frame is not named and Ipsos reports a 'credibility interval,' not a probability margin of error. Note that JA's own release phrases the major-choice finding ambiguously — 'while 68 percent of teens plan to attend college, only about half of those (35%) knew what major they wanted to study' — 35% cannot simultaneously be 'half of' the 68% group and a percentage of that group; cite it in the release's exact words rather than restating the base.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Advocacy-organization survey tied to 4-H's Beyond Ready initiative and its AI-in-agriculture programming; 4-H discloses only mode (online), N, age range, national scope, fielding dates and pollster — no sampling frame, weighting, or margin of error. Note also that 4-H-affiliated youth are reported as a separate, more AI-engaged subgroup (e.g. interest in AI-and-agriculture careers rises from 18% overall to 37% among 4-H youth), so subgroup figures are not representative of U.S. teens.
Corrections applied. Release date is June 15, 2026; the entry's 2026-02 is the fielding month, so the date field should be corrected or relabeled. Hart Research is confirmed directly by 4-H ('National 4-H Council partnered with Hart Research to survey 1,111 teens ages 13-18 nationwide from Feb. 10-27, 2026'), so the 'per press coverage' hedge in partners_funders and method can be dropped. The entry's note is wrong that the 41% career-change and 43%/37% sentiment figures come from AGDAILY coverage — both are stated in 4-H's own news release, as is a further finding that 40% say AI skills will be a requirement or important factor in the jobs they pursue.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Weighted nonprobability sample (probability and opt-in panel members blended with social-media influencer recruitment), so it should not be described as nationally representative without that qualifier. The wave-specific methodology for this 1,300+ respondent AI report is not separately published — the only detailed methodology document covers the Apr–May 2024 baseline wave (N=4,509). The segment labels are analyst-assigned latent classes, not self-reported categories.
Corrections applied. Drop or qualify "nationally representative." The Youth Mental Health Tracker's own methodology page describes nonprobability sampling — NORC AmeriSpeak and Prodege panelists blended with recruitment through 19 Instagram/TikTok influencers and paid social advertising — weighted to U.S. population demographics and attitudes via raking and post-stratification calibration. That is a weighted nonprobability sample, not a probability sample. Also note the publisher's own reports index dates this report 2/17/26 while the JED page says Feb 18, 2026.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — The record conflated two different JED/Surgo reports and could not be reconstructed as an atomic survey record from disclosed public methodology.
Citation caveat. Supported by the Entertainment Software Association and TikTok; the entire sample is teen generative-AI USERS aged 15-18 recruited through an opt-in teen panel, so every percentage must be cited as 'among teen gen AI users', never as 'among teens'.
Corrections applied. partners_funders should add the funding line printed on the key-findings page: 'This survey was conducted with support from the Entertainment Software Association and TikTok.' Also: the survey was fielded by TeenVoice through the EvolveMe platform (TeenVoice and EvolveMe are products supported by American Student Assistance), July 28 - August 14, 2025, with quotas for age, race, gender and LGBTQ+ status and data weighted by iterative proportional fitting (raking) to U.S. Census adolescent benchmarks for race/ethnicity and gender. Focus groups ran May 12-15, 2025 (four groups, n=18) and three reflection sessions had n=10, all recruited from In Tandem's Youth Voice Fellowship; participants were 15-18, U.S.-based, and prior generative-AI users. Because fielding fell in summer break, respondents were asked to think about their AI use over the prior six months.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Vendor-run survey by an AI-detection company with a direct commercial interest in high reported student AI use. Recruitment method, fielding dates, weighting, and margin of error are all undisclosed. Most importantly, this is NOT a picture of traditional-age college students: roughly 44% of respondents were aged 45-60 and only 29% were 18-29, so 'students' here skews heavily toward adult learners.
Corrections applied. The population is materially misdescribed. Copyleaks' own methodology statement says the 2025 AI Usage Data Survey was conducted among '~1,100 students in the United States who were actively enrolled in two-year colleges, four-year universities, or graduate programs' - this is HIGHER EDUCATION ONLY, so the 'Students' (K-12) population tag should be removed and the sample corrected from '1,000+ U.S. students' to '~1,100 U.S. postsecondary students (two-year, four-year, and graduate).' Respondents fall into age brackets 18-29, 30-44, and 45-60; per Forbes' write-up of the study, 43.9% were aged 45-60, 27% aged 30-44, and only 29% aged 18-29. Also note that the '48% admit using AI in violation of school policies' figure comes from Part 2 (released November 5, 2025), a separate release from this Part I entry.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Bank-sponsored: Citizens Financial Group funded and is co-branded on this research (the executive summary's 'Our Response' section is a Citizens/JA program pitch) — disclose the sponsor when citing. Sampling frame not disclosed (email-invitation online survey, weighted, panel unnamed). No toplines or questionnaire published; only a press release and a 2-page thought-leadership PDF.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. 4.7% response rate. 94% of respondents plan to attend college immediately after high school, and the report itself warns findings 'might not be generalizable to high school students who do not plan to attend college.' Several major-group cells are very small (e.g. 33 agriculture, 248 with moderate/heavy AI training), which the report flags as making some interpretations 'tenuous.' Self-funded by ACT.
Corrections applied. Full title is 'How Students' Perspectives on AI Are Related to AI Training in High School, Planned College Major, and Gender' (ACT Research Issue Brief R2520, August 2025, Jeff Schiel) — the DB title truncates it, as the existing note says. Add the field detail: the survey was administered online in December 2024 to a disproportionately stratified random sample of 81,689 drawn from 138,957 December 2024 ACT registrants (target population 151,174); 3,816 responded, a 4.7% response rate; statistics are weighted for the sampling design and nonresponse.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Opt-in online panel (Big Village Youth CARAVAN volunteers) with census quotas; the reported +/-3.1% is not a probability-sample margin of error. The 2024 comparison figures (30%, 54%) are made by JA itself in this release; JA never published a standalone 2024 AI release, so those prior-wave numbers cannot be independently checked against a 2024 source.
Corrections applied. The entry's own trailing note is incorrect and should be deleted: it claims 'Press release (Aug 5, 2025) states fieldwork July 1-7, 2025; entry said Jul 1-6.' The release's methodology paragraph reads verbatim: 'This Youth CARAVAN survey was conducted by Big Village among a sample of 1,008 13-17-year-olds. This survey was live from July 1 - July 6, 2025.' The entry's sample field (Jul 1-6) is correct; the note is wrong. Optional addition: the release also reports 60% of teens believe the main purpose of education is to prepare students for future jobs and careers.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Do not cite this as what youth think. N=15, all drawn from the sponsoring organization's own membership, consulted by an advocacy group that leads a coalition campaigning for precisely the AI-companion restrictions its participants endorsed — the self-interest and selection problems point the same direction and reinforce each other. YPA's own limitations note concedes respondents were members interested in youth advocacy, which limits generalizability. Raw counts must stay as counts: converting '12 of 15' into '80% of young people' would be a serious misrepresentation. Eight of the fifteen responded in facilitated group meetings rather than privately, adding social-desirability pressure toward the group's stated position. No sampling frame, no weighting, no margin of error.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Citation caveat. Two things must accompany any citation. First, the denominators: the serious-conversations, personal-information and time-with-friends figures are percentages of AI companion USERS (n=758), not of all teens (n=1,060) — 33% of users is roughly 24% of teens, so quoting them as teen-wide overstates prevalence by about 40%. Second, this is a hybrid sample (719 probability AmeriSpeak plus 341 calibrated nonprobability Prodege) from an advocacy organization with an active policy agenda on companion apps, and the report itself notes there is "no statistically agreed upon approach to variance estimation when utilizing nonprobability samples."
Corrections applied. "Common Sense Media's Youth AI Safety Institute" does not appear anywhere in the report and should be dropped from the funder/partner field. The report states the survey "was conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago, with funding from Common Sense Media," and credits underwriting to Jennifer Caldwell and John H.N. Fisher, the Patrick J. McGovern Foundation, and the Siegel Family Endowment. Suggested citation is Robb, M.B., & Mann, S. (2025). The sample is a hybrid rather than a straight probability sample: 719 interviews from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Teen Omnibus plus 341 nonprobability interviews from Prodege, combined via NORC's TrueNorth calibration and raked on age, sex, census region, race/ethnicity and parent's highest education to February 2024 CPS control totals. Field dates are April 30 to May 14, 2025; overall margin of sampling error ±4.2 percentage points; cumulative response rate 10.3%.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Small interest-based sample with private-school skew; an AI-literacy intervention preceded policy design; group artifacts were not endorsed by all 17 students.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier B); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. Qualitative youth-advisory sessions with 10 hand-convened teen advisors — illustrative only. These are not prevalence estimates and cannot be generalized to teens nationally; cite the quotes as things teen advisors said, never as "X% of teens" or as evidence of how common a behavior is.
Corrections applied. All correct. Confirmed verbatim methods note: "The insights in this memo came from six 45-minute virtual discussion sessions with 10 teen advisors," met "most often in small groups with approximately three teens and two adult members of our team," advisors "currently in grades 9-12" attending "public, private, charter, and homeschool settings" across the U.S., convened "with help from In Tandem." Team line confirmed: Emily Weinstein, Eduardo Lara, Beck Tench, Carrie James, Lauren Palazzo. Center for Digital Thriving is at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and based at Project Zero — as recorded.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. This is a regional cut of the same Voices of Gen Z fielding as id 141 (Gallup Panel, March 6-13, 2025) - the samples overlap, so do not present it as independent corroboration of the national Gen Z findings.
Corrections applied. Sample composition should read: 1,474 Gen Z ages 13-28 in 20 heartland states, comprising 638 13- to 18-year-old children reached through their Gallup Panel member parents and 836 adult panel members; the K-12-enrolled subgroup is n=610 and the no-longer-enrolled subgroup is n=864. MoE +/-3.7 pts total, +/-5.0 pts for each age subgroup. Gallup describes the 34% worker figure as 'about one-third' (9% extremely + 25% somewhat in the by-industry table; the topline table rounds to 9% + 26%), so 34% is a derived sum, not a printed number. Published May 7, 2025, by Zach Hrynowski; Walton Family Foundation and Gallup in partnership with Heartland Forward - confirmed.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Funded by the Walton Family Foundation in partnership with Heartland Forward, a regional economic-development advocacy organization — worth disclosing, though the survey is a Gallup probability panel with fully documented methodology. Figures describe Gen Z in 20 Heartland states, not the US as a whole.
Corrections applied. None material; two optional enrichments. The Heartland sample is a subset of a larger national survey: Gallup Panel web survey conducted March 6-13, 2025 with 3,465 respondents ages 13-28 across all 50 states and DC, of which the report focuses on the 1,474 Gen Z respondents in the 20 Heartland states (638 aged 13-18 reached through panel-member parents plus 836 adult panel members), margin of sampling error ±3.7 points for the Heartland sample. Our "nearly 1,500" is accurate for the Heartland subsample. Publication date of May 2025 is confirmed by the report's document code (Walton_Heartland_050225). Heartland Forward's partnership role is confirmed in the report text.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Corrections applied. No corrections needed. Confirmed: Gallup Panel web survey, March 6-13, 2025; N=3,465 ages 13-28 in all 50 states + DC, of whom 1,460 were 13-18 reached through adult Gallup Panel members who are their parents and 2,005 were 18-28 panel members themselves; MoE +/-2.4 pts total, +/-3.3 pts for the K-12 subsample. Walton Family Foundation announcement dated April 8, 2025 confirms our 2025-04 date; report version stamp is 03/31/25. Funders/partners confirmed as Walton Family Foundation and GSV Ventures with Gallup as pollster.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. The creator statistics rest on a very small subsample: only 2% of the 1,200 respondents (n=24, base size <50) admitted creating deepfake nudes, so the "70% downloaded the app from their device's app store" figure describes roughly 17 people. Thorn itself flags self-report bias and says this data "should be viewed as directional." The overall sample is a quota-recruited online panel weighted to Census benchmarks, not a probability sample; minors were recruited through caregivers, which can suppress disclosure of sensitive experiences.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. This brief is a secondary analysis of the SAME March-April 2024 Ipsos dyad survey that produced 'The Dawn of the AI Era' (id 69) - do not present ids 67 and 69 as two independent surveys. The data are now over two years old on a fast-moving topic. Sample combines a probability panel (Ipsos KnowledgePanel) with a small opt-in supplement (n=117).
Corrections applied. Data was collected by Ipsos Public Affairs on behalf of Common Sense Media, not by Common Sense alone; the brief is underwritten by Carnegie Corporation of New York, Craig Newmark Philanthropies, Jennifer Caldwell and John H.N. Fisher, the Patrick J. McGovern Foundation, and the Siegel Family Endowment. Critically, the 2025-01 date is the publication date only - the data were fielded March 15-April 20, 2024 (the brief says 'March to May 2024'). The sample is 1,045 parent-teen dyads (1,045 teens 13-18 AND their 1,045 parents), with oversamples of 250 Black and 300 Latino dyads; conducted online in English and Spanish; teen MoE +/-3.6 pts. Suggested citation: Calvin, Lenhart, Hasse, Mann & Robb (2025).
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Data are from fall 2024 fieldwork even though the entry is dated 2025-01 (publication) — label it as 2024 data in any chart. The 26% vs 13% headline comparison with 2023 is clean, since both are shares of all teens. The acceptability figures are not comparable across waves: in 2024 they are based on all teens, whereas the 2023 equivalents were based only on teens who had heard of ChatGPT.
Corrections applied. All correct: 1,391 US teens ages 13-17, fielded September 18 to October 10, 2024 via Ipsos KnowledgePanel, published January 15, 2025, Pew self-funded.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Qualitative study of 25 self-selected participants in the sponsor's own program plus 320 program projects; the 'impact of the program' findings are participant self-report about the co-author's program. Report counts as counts (12 of 25, 3 of 25, 197 of 320) - never convert them to percentages of youth generally.
Corrections applied. No corrections needed; the correction already recorded in our notes is accurate. Confirmed from the white paper: study conducted in 2024 with Stuart Foundation funding by Girls Who Code and UCLA Center X's Computer Science Equity Project; data sources were 15 program observations, 320 anonymized student AI reflection projects (described as 'from across the globe'), and 25 one-hour in-depth interviews with students from across California; participants were Self-Paced/Pathways Program students. Suggested citation: Ryoo, J.J., Choi, M., Clarke, R., Blizzard-Caron, J., Wei, W., Stark, L., Kohn, L., Voloch, D., & Ochterski, J. (2025).
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Self-selected, nonrepresentative and partly Bay Area-skewed; opinion change cannot be separated from the information-and-deliberation treatment.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier A); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. NOT a pure probability survey — it is a hybrid of 1,005 probability cases (AmeriSpeak/Amplify AAPI) and 550 opt-in Dynata cases weighted together with model-based adjustment, so describe it as a weighted hybrid sample rather than a nationally representative probability poll. Web-only and English-only administration excludes youth without internet access and non-English speakers. The focus groups (n=21 across 4 groups) were recruited through APA's own member organizations — a self-selected, service-connected group — and are illustrative only, never generalizable. All findings are self-reported.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Citation caveat. YouGov opt-in online panel, weighted to be representative of US teens 13-18; no margin of error published, no toplines or crosstabs released (raw data only 'available upon request'), and the publisher is a youth-led AI-policy advocacy nonprofit whose authors were 17 and 19 at publication.
Corrections applied. Fieldwork ran July 30 - August 11, 2024 (the entry's 'late July-early August' understates the window). Report authors are Jason Hausenloy and Saheb Gulati. The brief acknowledges support and partnership from #HalfTheStory, Civics Unplugged, and Encode Justice — worth adding, since Encode Justice is an AI-policy advocacy organization. All other attribution (YouGov, N=1,017, ages 13-18, online, US national, weighted) is correct as stated.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. The 47% is a subgroup figure — it is the share of teens interested in starting a business as adults, not of all teens; our entry states this correctly and citations must preserve it. Opt-in Big Village Youth CARAVAN volunteers with census quotas; +/-3.1% is not a probability margin of error. The source's own methodology paragraph is internally inconsistent, giving both 'a sample of 1,004 13-17-year-olds' and 'The 1,003 completes are all who qualified' — a 1-respondent discrepancy inside JA's own text.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 5 of 5 numeric tokens
Citation caveat. Bank-sponsored (Citizens Financial Group, a $415,000 JA grantmaker in 2024) — disclose the funder when citing. Sampling frame is not disclosed: email-invitation online survey, weighted, panel unnamed. Only JA's press release is published.
Corrections applied. Material omission: Citizens Financial Group co-sponsored this research and is credited in the release ('According to new research from Junior Achievement and Citizens'; 'in 2024 Citizens provided a $415,000 grant to Junior Achievement USA'). Organization should read 'Junior Achievement USA and Citizens'; partners_funders should read 'Conducted by Wakefield Research; sponsored by Citizens Financial Group with Junior Achievement USA.' Methodology verbatim: 'The Junior Achievement Career and Higher Education Survey was conducted by Wakefield Research among 1,000 nationally representative US Teens ages 13-18, between July 24-31, 2024, using an email invitation and an online survey. Data was weighted to ensure a reliable and accurate representation of U.S. teens ages 13-18.' Sampling frame/panel is not named.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Weighted nonprobability online panel of minors (recruited via caregivers), not a probability sample. More important for a landscape scan: this is an online-safety survey, not an AI survey — exactly one item of the instrument concerns AI. Do not present it as evidence about youth AI attitudes or use generally.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 1 of 9 numeric tokens
Citation caveat. Attribute to ChildSafeNet (in collaboration with UNICEF Nepal), NOT to UNICEF alone — it is NGO-published advocacy research with a child-online-protection mandate. The headline percentages come from an opt-in online survey recruited through social media with paid boosting; the report itself warns that because the survey was conducted online, respondents 'are more likely to be educated, tech-savvy, and have proper access to technology'. Critically, the survey covers ALL age groups from under-13 to 60+, so figures like '68% aware' and '58% cite creativity risk' are NOT child-specific despite the report's child-protection framing — never present them as children's or students' views without the age-band breakdown. The qualitative arm is small and geographically narrow: 17 FGD participants and 6 KIIs, all confined to the Kathmandu Valley. Nepal-specific; not transferable to US K-12.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Citation caveat. The 51%/39%/24% racial gaps in image generation are among gen AI USERS only (roughly half the sample), not among all young people - the entry's wording implies the full sample. MoE is a relatively wide +/-5.9 pts, higher for subgroups. Fielded Oct-Nov 2023, so these adoption figures predate mainstream AI uptake and are badly stale for current claims.
Corrections applied. Add the fieldwork vendor: data collection was conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago using its probability-based panel plus online opt-in panels to oversample LGBTQ+, Black, and Latinx respondents; survey fielded October 4-November 14, 2023; MoE +/-5.9 pts including design effect. Funding: Patrick J. McGovern Foundation, Jennifer Caldwell, and John H.N. Fisher; the Center for Digital Thriving is separately supported by founding grants from Susan Crown Exchange and Pivotal Ventures. One open-ended item came from a separate survey of 1,545 teens 13-17 reached via the SSRS Opinion Panel and nonprobability panels.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Sponsored by Microsoft, which sells AI products and youth-AI-safety resources and is quoted in the release; 4-H discloses recruitment and instrument development but no sampling frame, weighting, or margin of error, so treat the figures as indicative rather than nationally representative. Note also that 4-H participants are reported as an unusually high-adoption subgroup (60% of 4-H'ers had used generative AI vs. 50% of all boys and 44% of all girls).
Corrections applied. Fielding dates November 5-16, 2023, pollster Hart Research, support from Microsoft, and sample of 1,510 children ages 9-17 are all confirmed on 4-H's own pages, so the 'per Education Week' hedge in the notes can be dropped. Blog is dated February 28, 2024 with a February 29, 2024 dateline. Worth adding to method: the instrument was designed and reviewed with experts from 4-H and the University of California-Irvine and preceded by ten cognitive interviews with in-range children in October 2023; children ages 9-12 were recruited via invitations to parents/caregivers, ages 13-17 recruited directly.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Qualitative focus groups with 33 students, self-published as blog posts with no methods section -- illustrative only, not generalizable, and no percentage should ever be attributed to it.
Corrections applied. The 'grades 10-12' descriptor could not be verified -- the articles say only '33 high school students across the U.S.' and quote individual participants (e.g., age 16 grade 11, age 17 grade 12) without any aggregate demographics. Recruitment method, focus-group dates and analysis approach are not disclosed. Publication date January 30, 2024 confirmed; published on foundry10's own Medium channel, with mirror copies at foundry10.org/stories/student-perceptions-of-ai-use-trust-and-literacy.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. 5% response rate, and the frame is students registered for the June 2023 ACT — a college-bound, higher-achieving population. Do not say '46% of high school students'; say '46% of surveyed grade 10-12 ACT registrants.' Self-funded by ACT, a test publisher with a commercial interest in college readiness.
Corrections applied. Authors are Jeff Schiel, Becky L. Bobek, and Joyce Z. Schnieders (report dated December 2023). The sample is not simply 'ACT-registered students': a stratified random sample of 79,412 students who had registered for the June 2023 ACT, of whom 4,006 responded — a 5% response rate. Survey developed and administered in June 2023.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. The acceptability and grade-level percentages are based on teens who have heard of ChatGPT, not on all teens — the denominator must be stated when quoting them. Do not chart the ~70% 'acceptable for research' figure against the 54% in the 2025 wave: the later wave uses all teens as its base, so that apparent 16-point drop is partly a change in denominator rather than a change in opinion.
Corrections applied. All correct: 1,453 US teens ages 13-17, fielded September 26 to October 23, 2023 via Ipsos KnowledgePanel, published November 16, 2023, Pew self-funded.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Opt-in online panel: Big Village Youth CARAVAN respondents 'volunteered to participate in online surveys and polls,' balanced to census quotas and post-weighted; the reported +/-3.1% is not a probability-sample margin of error. Only JA's own press release exists — no toplines, questionnaire, or crosstabs are published. Sponsor (JA) is an education nonprofit with a stake in the finding.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Weighted opt-in online panel (Morning Consult), not a probability sample, and no margin of error is published. The 65% Asian-teen figure carries EdChoice's own explicit small-subgroup warning and should not be cited without it. EdChoice is a school-choice advocacy organization, though this particular instrument is a general teen technology/schooling survey with no obvious advocacy angle.
Corrections applied. No errors. Confirmed: Morning Consult administered an online survey for EdChoice to a national sample of 1,000 teens ages 13-18, March 24 to April 5, 2023, interviews in English, published May 3, 2023. Weights applied on age, gender, race, ethnicity, and region. Add that 'nationally representative' means weighted to national demographic targets from an opt-in online panel, not a probability sample; no margin of error is reported.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Opt-in Big Village Youth CARAVAN panel ('respondents were selected from among those who have volunteered to participate in online surveys and polls') with census-based quotas; +/-3.1% is not a probability-sample margin of error. Only JA's own press release exists. Fieldwork Feb 28-Mar 5, 2023 is very early in the post-ChatGPT period — date the finding when citing.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Usage is racing ahead of training and guidance; unions, vendors, and independent researchers all field here.
Corrections applied. Optional precision: the two 'about 3 in 4' items are 74% (AI has bigger implications for K-12 education than past technological changes) and 78% (teaching responsible AI use should be part of the school's curriculum) - the source calls the latter 'nearly four in five.' The formal-guidelines item is 'a formal policy on student use of AI' (33%). Published June 5, 2026.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Corrections applied. None. Organization, sponsor, date, sample (545 K-12 teachers), field dates (April 27-May 5, 2026), KnowledgePanel mode, ACS 2024 weighting and +/-5.0 MoE are all confirmed exactly. Worth adding that the MoE incorporates a design effect of 1.40, and that the time-savings item has a reduced base (N=339 AI users).
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Opt-in, non-probability online panel (EdChoice's own survey profile labels the sampling method 'Non-Probability, Stratified'), weighted to demographic targets; sponsored by EdChoice, a school-choice advocacy organization. The 'teachers are 10-15 points more concerned than the public or parents' comparison mixes an April 2026 teacher poll with a September 2025 adult poll - the gap is 10 points vs. the general public and 16 points vs. school parents.
Corrections applied. Sample and pollster are now confirmed, filling the entry's gaps: n=1,031 K-12 teachers, fielded online April 1-9, 2026 (release date May 7, 2026); data collection and quality control by Morning Consult, sponsor EdChoice. Survey profile: sampling frame = national sample of K-12 teachers age 18+ in the 50 states and DC; sampling method = 'Non-Probability, Stratified' (on gender and years of experience); quotas on age and years of teaching experience; weighted on age, race, ethnicity, gender, and teaching experience; measure of precision +/- 3.05 points; participation rate 51%; median survey time 11.8 minutes. Important: the general-population (41%) and school-parent (35%) comparison figures are NOT from this fielding - they come from a separate Morning Consult survey of U.S. adults conducted September 12-14, 2025.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Qualitative study of 31 educators in three states — findings are thematic and not statistically generalizable to rural educators nationally.
Corrections applied. Institution should be named rather than left as "University research team": lead and senior authors Shira Michel and Mahsan Nourani are at Northeastern University's Khoury College of Computer Sciences, with co-author Ed Finn at Arizona State University. The three states are Arizona, Maine and North Carolina and should be specified. Method should read "surveys and interviews" rather than "qualitative interview study" — Northeastern's own write-up describes the study as based on surveys and interviews of the 31 educators. Status should be updated from "accepted to CHI 2026" to published in the CHI 2026 proceedings (DOI 10.1145/3772318.3790489); note the published title differs slightly from the arXiv title ("...A Qualitative Study on the Impacts of Generative AI in Rural U.S. High Schools"). arXiv ID 2604.03542, submitted 4 Apr 2026, confirmed; author order confirmed exactly as Michel, Taylor, Parra Díaz, Wiggins, Finn, Nourani. Funding is not disclosed on the abstract page or the Northeastern write-up.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Unpublished doctoral dissertation; qualitative study in a single northeastern district; participant N is not disclosed on the public record page. Findings are not generalizable and should never be cited as a prevalence estimate.
Corrections applied. Author is Jackie Samantha McAllister; degree is a PhD in Education from Liberty University, dated February 13, 2026. The study is framed by Bandura's self-efficacy theory. Eligibility criteria in our method field are confirmed verbatim in the abstract - 'full-time, tenured male and female public high school teachers with at least four years of teaching experience, holding a master's degree, and between the ages of 25 and 75' - in a single K-12 public school district in the northeastern U.S.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Non-probability opt-in online panel: respondents were "drawn from online panels" and weighted to 2022 likely voters, so the reported ±2.7% margin of error is not a true probability-sample MOE and should not be cited as one. The sample is LIKELY VOTERS, not parents, students, or educators — it cannot be cited as educator or parent opinion. The qualitative phase is only 25 people and is illustrative, not generalizable. Note also that AI items are a small slice of a broad education survey, not a dedicated AI instrument.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Added by independent audit (net-new)
Citation caveat. Application-selected, mathematics-focused, largely AI-curious cohort; mechanism findings are intervention-conditioned with no comparison group; rubrics are initial judgments, not validated instruments.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier A); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. Opt-in, non-probability online panel weighted to demographic targets; sponsored by EdChoice, a school-choice advocacy organization. The '26% optimistic' figure is a right-direction/wrong-track item, not an optimism scale - describe it as EdChoice does.
Corrections applied. The entry says sample size is not stated; it is stated in the full report: n=1,004 teachers, fielded online September 20-24, 2025 (report released October 2025 - the date field '2025-10' is the release month, not the field period). Morning Consult conducted; EdChoice sponsored. Sampling method non-probability stratified; weighted on age, race, ethnicity, gender, teaching experience; measure of precision +/- 3.09 to 3.10 points. Crosstabs and questionnaire are published at edchoice.mcdatahub.com.
Verified by independent audit (Source identity verified; public full text unavailable or incomplete; Source identity and accessible official/publisher evidence reviewed; complete full text was unavailable or gated)
Citation caveat. Single opt-in early-adopter district that had encouraged a named platform; teacher-only sample; no formal district policy at interview time.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier A); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. N=20 qualitative interviews at two private schools serving middle/upper-middle-class families in one metro area (Delhi NCR, India). Not representative, not generalizable, and not US — cite as illustrative international texture only, never as a prevalence estimate.
Corrections applied. The paper self-describes its participants as 'K-12 teachers' (title and abstract) teaching elementary and middle school; our key_findings call them 'K-8 teachers,' which is a defensible reading of 'elementary and middle school' but does not match the authors' own label — prefer their wording. Interviews were ~45 minutes each, conducted in person and audio-recorded, analyzed thematically using an AI Literacy Framework and Ecological Teacher Agency Theory. Funding statement confirmed: 'no financial support was received.' Note the 'organization' field names the journal (Frontiers in Education) rather than the authors' institution; that is a cataloguing choice, not an error, but it should not be read as institutional authorship.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. The single most important caveat: Prolific respondents were PRE-SCREENED to already have ChatGPT experience for teaching, so every percentage describes the behavior of teachers who had already adopted the tool. These figures cannot be cited as adoption or usage rates among U.S. teachers generally — doing so would inflate them substantially. Prolific is an opt-in paid online panel, not a probability sample of the teaching workforce, so no margin of error applies and results are not projectable. The qualitative arm is only 5 interviews, and the authors concede 'the qualitative data was relatively small due to the dropout of participants which restricted the breadth of perspectives captured.' Authors also warn respondents may have interpreted Likert items differently depending on prior experience with the tool.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Citation caveat. The 'six weeks a year' figure is teachers' self-estimated weekly time savings multiplied by 37.4 contracted weeks - a self-report extrapolation, not an observed time study. Funded by the Walton Family Foundation.
Corrections applied. Panel is the RAND American Teacher Panel (one of RAND's American Educator Panels), described by Gallup as 'a nationally representative, probability-based panel of U.S. public school teachers'; weighted to NCES teacher- and school-level targets; margin of sampling error +/-2.5 pts. Gallup article published June 24, 2025 (report file version stamped 06/17/25). Everything else in the attribution row checks out.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Corrections applied. Only refinements, nothing wrong. The methodology section states 1,002 teachers actually qualified and completed the national survey (the report describes the design as 'a nationally representative sample of 1,000 full-time public school teachers,' and the margin of error is computed on 1,002). Recruitment was by email invitation to prescreened education professionals: 6,199 invites for the national sample (16% response rate), 5,185 for the teachers-of-color oversample (6%), 1,608 for the Gen Z oversample (19%). Margin of error +/- 3.1 points for the national sample and +/- 5.7 points for each 300-person oversample. National data weighted by region and race/ethnicity. Conducted online December 18, 2024 - February 3, 2025 by Penta Group Intelligence; questionnaire developed by 17 E4E teacher members.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Vendor-run, self-administered survey with no disclosed methodology: the release gives only N and field dates — no sampling frame, no recruitment method, no weighting, no margin of error. Respondents are almost certainly drawn from Twinkl's own teacher user base, so this is an opt-in sample of an edtech vendor's customers, not a representative teacher sample. Twinkl sells AI tools to teachers and the release doubles as marketing for them (it promotes Twinkl's AI Report Writer and "Ari" assistant by name), so the favorable time-savings and adoption figures are self-interested.
Corrections applied. The publication date of March 4, 2025 is confirmed by the dateline on Twinkl's U.S. press release ("Tallahassee, Florida, March 4th, 2025"). Fielding Jan 15-22, 2025 and the 6,501 UK / 3,777 US split (10,278 total) are confirmed. Note that Twinkl published separate UK and U.S. releases, and several figures in our entry are drawn from different national releases.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. N=570 recruited educators with the recruitment frame, geography and educator characteristics not confirmable from the openly accessible abstract. The outcomes are stated attitudes, trust and adoption intent in a vignette, not observed adoption of a real tool.
Corrections applied. Full author list is Kimberly Williamson, Rene F. Kizilcec, Sean Fath (Cornell) and Neil T. Heffernan (Worcester Polytechnic Institute), so the 'Cornell University / WPI' attribution is correct. Published March 3, 2025 in the Proceedings of the 15th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (LAK '25), pp. 527-536. Geography could NOT be confirmed: the abstract does not state where the 570 educators were recruited, and the full text was unreachable to automated requests, so the 'US' entry in the geography field is unverified and should be marked as such until someone opens the PDF. Recruitment method and educator characteristics are likewise not stated in the accessible abstract.
Verified by independent audit (Source identity verified; public full text unavailable or incomplete; Source identity and accessible official/publisher evidence reviewed; complete full text was unavailable or gated)
Citation caveat. Corporate-sponsored survey fielded by DonorsChoose, a nonprofit whose respondent pool is its own teacher user base; the release claims a 'nationally representative sample' and quotes a plus or minus 3% margin of error but discloses no sampling frame, recruitment method, or weighting scheme. Field dates are November-December 2024, not 2025. No standalone report, topline, or questionnaire was published — the newsroom announcement is the only artifact.
Corrections applied. The survey was fielded November 2024 through December 2024, not in 2025 — February 18, 2025 is the release date only. This matters for a landscape scan: the '53% already use AI tools in their classrooms' reading is a late-2024 measurement. The release discloses a margin of error of plus or minus 3%, which our entry omits. DonorsChoose conducted the research on behalf of Samsung Electronics America.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Added by independent audit (net-new)
Citation caveat. Vendor-funded marketing research: commissioned by Adobe from Advanis to promote Adobe Express for Education, with findings framed around students using 'industry-standard tools developed by established companies rather than startups.' No field dates, sampling frame, recruitment method, weighting, or margin of error are disclosed anywhere public, and the full report sits behind a lead-capture form. Cite only as 'an Adobe-commissioned survey of 2,801 US and UK educators,' and never as evidence of what educators generally believe.
Corrections applied. Publication date is January 22, 2025 (Adobe's own blog announcement); the EdWeek sponsor placement ran January 23, 2025. Research conducted by Advanis for Adobe; 2,801 educators in the US and UK confirmed. The gated US report is titled 'Creativity with AI in Education 2025 Report — U.S. Higher Education Edition,' indicating the study is published in separate segment editions; the K-12 vs higher-ed and US vs UK composition of the 2,801 is not disclosed publicly, so the entry's 'Teachers; Higher-ed faculty' population coding cannot be verified.
Verified by independent audit (Source identity verified; public full text unavailable or incomplete; Source identity and accessible official/publisher evidence reviewed; complete full text was unavailable or gated)
Citation caveat. Qualitative study of 10 early-career ELA teachers in one U.S. region plus a document corpus - findings are interpretive themes, not prevalence estimates. Nothing here can be expressed as a percentage or generalized to teachers nationally. The Reddit component (r/ELATeachers) is a self-selected online community, not a sample of teachers.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Vendor-run survey of a K-12 edtech company's own educator base, with no disclosed methodology at all — no field dates, no sampling frame, no mode, no weighting, no margin of error, only "over 1,600 K-12 educators." The headline 48%-to-18% drop is a comparison across two separate self-run, unpublished-methodology waves. Cite as an industry sentiment signal, not as a population estimate.
Corrections applied. "Conducted in-house by Clever" is very likely wrong. Clever's own 2023 report landing page describes the Classroom of the Future series as "a collaboration between experienced research analysts and experts in mission-driven business strategy" (Clever and Whiteboard Advisors), and the current report landing page credits Whiteboard Advisors as collaborator. Search summaries also attribute the 2024 wave to Whiteboard Advisors, though the September 10, 2024 press release itself names no partner — confirm with Clever before publishing. Geography "US national" is not stated in either 2024 source. No field dates are disclosed anywhere for the 2024 wave.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. This is a union policy document, not a survey. It contains zero original NEA member polling — every number in it is a citation of someone else's research. Citing '83% of teachers use generative AI (NEA, 2024)' would be a misattribution of CDT's 2024 survey, and '71% received no AI training' belongs to EdWeek Research Center. If CDT's 'Up in the Air' survey or the EdWeek March 2024 teacher-training survey appear elsewhere in this corpus, this entry double-counts them; cite those primary sources directly and use the NEA report only for the union's stated position and five principles.
Corrections applied. The report page is dated June 26, 2024 (last updated October 22, 2024); the entry's 2024-07 date reflects the Representative Assembly adoption of the Policy Statement rather than publication of the report. The 'method' field should not read as though NEA collected data: there is no original survey. The member-engagement description in the sample field is accurate and confirmed verbatim in Section II (Task Force appointed fall 2023; online meetings Nov 2023-Apr 2024; in-person March 1, 2024 Chicago; NEA Leadership Summit March 1-3, 2024 Chicago; NEA Higher Education Conference March 14-16, 2024 Atlanta; NEA ESP Conference March 23-24, 2024 Las Vegas; Aspiring Educators Advisory Committee April 22, 2024).
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Vendor-sponsored: Canva commissioned the survey and sells AI design tools to schools, and the framing (burnout is severe, AI relieves it) maps onto its product pitch. Opt-in Sago research panel with no disclosed weighting or margin of error. Critically, the positive AI findings are based only on the 42% of teachers who had already used AI — roughly a quarter of the full sample — so they must never be reported as 'most teachers say AI reduced their burnout.'
Corrections applied. Attribution verified and correct: Canva commissioned Sago, a research panel company, to survey a panel of 1,000 U.S.-based, full-time, in-person K-12 teachers from March 21 to April 1, 2024; released May 6, 2024 for Teacher Appreciation Week. No weighting scheme and no margin of error are disclosed anywhere I could find — add that gap to the record.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Fieldwork was October 17 to November 14, 2023 even though the piece published in May 2024 — these are pre-2024 attitudes, collected roughly a year after ChatGPT's release and before most districts issued AI guidance. In a 2026 funder briefing this should be presented as a 2023 baseline, not as current teacher sentiment.
Corrections applied. All correct. For precision: RAND's American Teacher Panel members are recruited using probability-based sampling from a teacher sampling frame acquired from MDR Education; each member carries a design weight for their initial probability of selection, calibrated so the panel matches the national population of public school teachers per NCES data. Published May 15, 2024.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Publisher-funded (McGraw Hill) survey of an opt-in Morning Consult online educator panel across 19 countries; data explicitly not weighted for population size and no margin of error is published; N=1,145.
Corrections applied. Fieldwork was 2/9/24-3/11/24 (February-March 2024), not February 2024 alone. Sample is 1,145 educators - 456 PreK-12 educators and 689 higher-education instructors - collected by Morning Consult via online panel interviewing across 19 countries in six regions; the report states 'data is not weighted to account for population size.' Press release date of April 16, 2024 is confirmed.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. N=460 teachers — smaller than CDT's other waves, so subgroup breakouts carry wide error. The 83% is teachers using generative AI "for personal or school use," a deliberately broad measure; do not cite it as classroom or instructional AI use, which CDT measures far lower elsewhere. Online nonprobability sample fielded by Edge Research; no margin of error published.
Corrections applied. The sample description is incomplete and should state the size and the vendor. Verbatim methodology: "An online survey of a nationally representative sample of 460 6th- to 12th-grade public school teachers was fielded November – December 2023 by Edge Research." The database records no N at all; N=460 is materially smaller than CDT's other teacher waves (~1,000) and must be disclosed. Add: sample = 460 grade 6-12 public school teachers; research partner = Edge Research. Publication date March 2024 confirmed (report dated March 21-22, 2024). I could not independently confirm the authorship line "Maddy Dwyer and Elizabeth Laird" from the sources I reached — treat it as unverified until checked against the report's byline.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Small non-U.S. convenience sample from one metropolitan city (n=15 focus-group participants plus a voluntary-response questionnaire of 128 teachers recruited via letters to 121 schools). The city is anonymized as 'City S' in the paper and the country is never stated in the text, though author affiliations and the Korean government funders indicate South Korea. Study 1 participants were pre-selected for having already used AI-based education services, which biases toward AI-familiar teachers. No representativeness claim, no weighting, no error estimate; findings are design-oriented and exploratory.
Corrections applied. Sample is materially understated: 15 focus-group participants PLUS 128 questionnaire respondents (143 total), not 15. Method is mixed-methods (focus group interviews with storyboard scenarios + a 5-point-Likert online questionnaire), not focus groups alone. Geography: all participants were teachers in public schools in a single large metropolitan city, anonymized in the paper as 'City S'; three of four authors are at Korean institutions (Seoul National University of Science and Technology, Kyungil University, Hanbat National University; the fourth is University at Buffalo) and Study 2 recruitment ran through 'the Education Research and Information Institute in City S' - so this is a single non-U.S. metropolitan sample, almost certainly South Korean, and should not be read as U.S. or nationally representative anywhere. Funders are missing: National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2019S1A5A2A03053308) and the Institute of Information & Communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (RS-2023-00262158). Citation is JRTE vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 876-893; published online March 21, 2024, print issue July 2025.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Focus-group participant counts absent; nonrandom, nonprojectable groups; individual quotations should not be treated as consensus.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier B); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. Ten interviews at ONE well-resourced independent school in Hawaii, with participants deliberately chosen because they were innovators and early adopters — this describes enthusiasts at an atypical school and cannot be generalized to teachers, to public-school teachers, or to Hawaii. It is an unpublished doctoral dissertation, not peer-reviewed. Access limit: only the ERIC abstract was reachable (full text is ProQuest-gated), so any claim beyond the four abstract-level findings above is unverified and should not be attributed to this source. Phenomenological work produces described experience, not measured effects — never cite it as evidence that AI does or does not reduce teacher workload.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Citation caveat. Vendor-sponsored: Canva commissioned this survey and sells design and AI tools to schools, so findings showing teacher enthusiasm plus a knowledge gap point directly at its own product and PD offering. Only a press release exists — no full report, topline, or questionnaire is published, so the exact question wordings behind each percentage cannot be checked. Morning Consult panels are nonprobability samples; the quoted +/-3 margin of error should be treated as a modeled approximation, not a true sampling error.
Corrections applied. Attribution is correct and can be tightened: poll conducted by Morning Consult on behalf of Canva, Aug 6-11, 2023, among 1,004 U.S. educators, margin of error +/-3 percentage points, with results weighted by age, race/ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, and region. Announced via Business Wire Dec 4, 2023 under the headline 'New Survey Finds More Than Three-Quarters of Teachers Are Optimistic About AI But Lack Support.' Entry's date of 2023-12 refers to the release, not the fieldwork — keep both visible so this is not misread as December 2023 sentiment.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Commercial content-marketing survey run by an affiliate-revenue consumer site with no named pollster, no sampling frame, no mode, no weighting and no margin of error disclosed; N=500 self-selected educators. Treat as an indicative data point, never as a representative measure of U.S. teachers.
Corrections applied. No polling firm, sampling frame, survey mode, weighting scheme or margin of error is disclosed anywhere; 'commissioned by Forbes Advisor' is the whole of the attribution. Sample (500 practicing U.S. educators) and timing (October 2023) are confirmed only through secondary citations, not from a reachable primary page.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Qualitative focus groups with 15 teachers, self-published as a blog post with no methods section -- illustrative, not generalizable; recruitment and fielding dates undisclosed.
Corrections applied. Minor: the focus-group dates, recruitment method and analysis approach are not disclosed in the article -- only that foundry10 conducted focus groups with 15 middle and high school teachers from across the U.S. Authors (Jen Rubin, Kat Chen, Riddhi Divanji) and the September 14, 2023 publication date are confirmed.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Vendor-run survey recruited from GoGuardian's own network of educator users - opt-in convenience sample, unweighted, with no sampling frame, response rate, or margin of error disclosed. The AI item measures willingness to adopt edtech products, not general AI attitudes.
Corrections applied. Precise figures from the survey deck's own charts: AI features increase adoption likelihood for 38.3% (26.8% 'somewhat increases' + 11.5% 'significantly increases'), 50.7% say 'neutral, no impact,' and 11.0% say AI features DECREASE their likelihood of adopting (6.5% somewhat + 4.5% significantly) - the decrease share is worth carrying since our entry only reports the positive and neutral sides. The deck states 1,134 responses collected July 12-Aug. 2, 2023 through 'GoGuardian's nationwide network of educators'; the 'all 50 states' descriptor appears only in the press release, not the deck. The AI-application item was select-all-that-apply and is charted in raw counts, not percentages.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Thinner than teachers or students — and where messaging questions matter most, coverage is mostly guardrail polling.
Citation caveat. Self-interested and non-probability: the survey was designed, fielded and published by a school-choice advocacy foundation, and the headline finding (78% say a school's AI approach matters when 'evaluating education options') is precisely the finding that supports the sponsor's school-choice framing. Sample is SurveyMonkey's opt-in audience panel, so the quoted +/-2.2 margin of error is a conventional-but-inapt statistic for a non-probability sample. No questionnaire or topline is published.
Corrections applied. No factual corrections — organization, date, sample, field dates, panel and MoE all check out. Two additions worth capturing from the publisher's own report page: the 76% support figure decomposes into 47% who say schools should actively integrate AI and 30% who support limited or moderate use, against 19% who say little or no AI should be used and 4% unsure; and only 4% of parents named 'AI in education' as their single biggest concern for the coming school year, which is useful context against the 78% 'AI approach matters' headline. Weighting was to national parent population benchmarks on age and gender.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. EdChoice is a school-choice advocacy organization and the 24-point private-vs-district gap is its house narrative — name the sponsor when citing it. Morning Consult uses a weighted opt-in online panel, not a probability sample; the linked page carries no weighting scheme or margin of error (those live in the companion tracker PDF). The private-school-parent subgroup inside ~1,300 parents is small, so the 77% figure is imprecise.
Corrections applied. No errors. Page confirms Morning Consult for EdChoice, ~2,250 adults and ~1,300 school parents each month across the March, April, and May 2026 waves, published June 9, 2026.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. The published methodology gives dates, n, MoE, mode, and oversamples but never discloses the sampling frame, the source of the sample, or whether/how the data were weighted — so the MoE cannot be independently evaluated. Advocacy-commissioned (AP-OD/UnidosUS) and philanthropically funded. The population is Latino parents/caregivers of children prenatal-to-5, NOT Latino adults or parents generally, and the two AI items are single questions in a survey otherwise about economics, immigration, healthcare, and childcare.
Corrections applied. Method is not an online survey: the report states the poll 'was implemented through a blended approach including web-based and telephone interviews that include both landlines and cell phones,' fielded in English or Spanish with 368 surveys conducted in Spanish. The report states the poll 'was commissioned by AP-OD and UnidosUS' (BSP Research fielded it). Report self-describes as 'the fifth annual study.' Everything else checks: n=1,300, MoE +/-2.72%, fielded March 9-April 17, 2026, oversamples NM 250 / CA 273 / TX 166 / FL 101.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Corrections applied. Method should read 'online survey administered through the Ipsos KnowledgePanel (probability-based panel recruited by address-based sampling), in English and Spanish, weighted to 2024 ACS benchmarks' — not 'mixed-mode.' Add release date April 16, 2026 and the likely-voter subsample: 1,008 likely voters, MoE +/-3.9 (total sample 1,604 adults, MoE +/-3.2, fielded March 26-April 3, 2026 — all correct as recorded). Authors and the three foundation funders check out.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Vendor-run in-house survey of a tutoring company's own customer network; N=420, roughly 90% private-school families, self-selected. Directional only - not representative of US parents.
Corrections applied. Publication date March 12, 2026 confirmed. Sample composition is more private-school-skewed than recorded: 86.7% private (no religious affiliation) plus 2.9% private (religious affiliation) = about 89.6% private school, versus 8.8% public/state school and 1.7% other. Learner.com itself discloses the small sample and potential self-selection bias.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Non-probability online opt-in sample (Cint/Lucid exchange), weighted to ACS benchmarks; the pollster's own topline warns the stated +/-2.6 MoE 'does not account for other potential sources of error that can occur in online surveys with non-probability samples.' Also an advocacy release: NPU published it explicitly to influence a live congressional fight over AI-chatbot regulation, so the guardrail items are framed to show maximal support.
Corrections applied. Optional precision only: field dates are February 12-18, 2026 and the margin of sampling error is +/- 2.6 points (neither is in the entry). The chatbot question wording lists more brands than the entry reproduces: 'ChatGPT, Gemini, Snap's MyAI, Claude, Microsoft Copilot, or Character.ai.' Sample was drawn from the Cint/Lucid sample exchange using NCES/ACS quota targets and weighted to ACS benchmarks plus voter-registration benchmarks from the Census November 2024 CPS Voting and Registration Supplement.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Corrections applied. Method is misdescribed as an online survey. The topline's 'About the Poll' states: live telephone interviews (landline and cell) AND online interviewing, conducted in English and Spanish, October 21 - November 12, 2025. Oversamples brought totals to 250 Black, 250 Latino, and 219 AAPI respondents. Results were weighted within race/ethnicity to age, gender, and education, then combined and weighted to statewide parameters by race, age and gender, and geography. The credibility interval in the topline is +/- 3.3 percentage points including the design effect (the press release says +/- 3.0). Sponsored by The Education Trust; the Barr Foundation funding is stated in the press release.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Descriptive self-report on which sources parents trust most, not a randomized messenger test - it cannot support a claim that school messengers are more persuasive, only that parents say they trust them more. The brief does not report a separate figure for AI tools, so the 'far more than AI' framing in the title is stronger than the published data.
Corrections applied. The empty date field should be 2026-07-28 (published July 28, 2026). Authors are Claire Kelley and Samantha Holquist. The method field should record that this was fielded on AmeriSpeak, the probability-based panel administered by NORC at the University of Chicago, using online and telephone interviewing - a genuine probability sample and the strongest design in this batch, which the entry omits entirely. Sample should read '1,025 parents and caregivers of children ages 5-18' rather than the vague 'Parents of K-12 students', weighted to Census Current Population Survey benchmarks for sex, age, education, race/ethnicity and region. Fieldwork was December 2025, so this is a Dec-2025 survey published seven months later. No funder is disclosed on the page.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Findings are published only as a CRPE commentary page — no full report, topline or technical appendix, and no sample size or margin of error is disclosed, though the underlying Understanding America Study is a probability-based nationally representative panel.
Corrections applied. Acronym mismatch: the center is the Center for Applied Research in Education (CARE), which is housed within USC Dornsife's Center for Economic and Social Research (CESR). Our entry writes "USC Center for Applied Research in Education (CESR)", pairing the CARE name with the CESR acronym. Correct to "USC Center for Applied Research in Education (CARE), at USC Dornsife's Center for Economic and Social Research (CESR)." Authors (Rapaport, Saavedra, Silver, Fast, Polikoff), November 2025 publication, CRPE as publisher, and the spring 2025 Understanding America Study probability panel are all confirmed on the page. The sample field cannot be firmed up: no N, exact field dates or margin of error is published.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Prolific opt-in convenience sample of parents, not representative of US parents. The headline 'more than 60%' is the change in stated willingness to pay across hypothetical peer-adoption scenarios, not the effect of a randomized message or information treatment - it cannot be cited as evidence that telling parents about peer usage moves their behavior by 60%. Note also the paper's own null result: information about AI's adverse effects did not reduce demand at all, it only increased support for school-level bans.
Corrections applied. Sample field ('US parents (see paper for Ns)') should be replaced with actual Ns: Experiment 1 n=993 and Experiment 2 n=999 (1,992 parents of at least one child aged 13-18 across the two main experiments; mean age 48.2, 53% female), Experiment 3 n=200, Experiment 4 n=674 (500 plus 174 pilot responses). Recruitment was via Prolific, an opt-in online research platform - not a nationally representative sample. Geography 'US national' overstates: Experiments 1 and 4 were US-only, while Experiments 2 and 3 also include United Kingdom and Canada residents. Field dates: Experiments 1-2 March 31 to April 8, 2025; Experiment 3 June 2025; Experiment 4 October 24-28, 2025. The blank partners_funders field should read: Becker Friedman Institute; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (EXC 2126/1-390838866); Research Council of Norway FAIR project 262675; IRB approval University of Chicago. All four data collections were pre-registered on AsPredicted. The paper has since been peer-reviewed and published as 'Social dynamics of AI adoption in parents' educational decisions', PNAS vol 123 no 31, August 2026, doi 10.1073/pnas.2533193123 - the entry should cite the PNAS version alongside the working paper.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. The year-over-year decline must not be cited without noting that three things changed at once between waves: the survey house (Langer Research Associates → the Wason Center at Christopher Newport University), the mode (online Ipsos KnowledgePanel → live-caller telephone), and the language (English and Spanish → English only). An unknown share of the 13-point drop on lesson planning is potentially house/mode effect rather than genuine opinion change. Separately, the 68% figure is a parent-only subgroup — roughly 250 respondents, about a quarter of the sample — so its margin of error is far wider than the ±3.9 headline figure.
Corrections applied. The method field is wrong. This was NOT an online survey — it was a live-caller telephone survey. PDK's methodology states: fieldwork June 21-30, 2025, conducted by telephone, live calling by Dynata interviewers with five callbacks, in English only, 1,005 interviews, margin of error ±3.9 points at 95% confidence, design effect 1.6, weighted by iterative raking on region, age, sex, race, Hispanic ethnicity and education to 2023 and 2024 Census estimates. The toplines confirm interviewer administration through '[INTERVIEWER PROBE]' instructions and volunteered '(vol)' response codes. Released August 19, 2025.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Self-described preliminary study; N=159 recruited through social media (opt-in convenience sample, authors concede likely over-representation of tech-savvy parents); 75% of respondents were European despite the "19 countries" framing; no fielding dates, weighting or margin of error reported. Partially funded by The Walt Disney Company. Cite as exploratory, not representative.
Corrections applied. MATERIAL OMISSION — the paper's Acknowledgments state: "This project was partially funded by The Walt Disney Company." Our partners_funders field lists only UNICRI and Harvard Berkman Klein and should add Disney as a partial funder. Author affiliations otherwise confirmed exactly: Maria Eira (UNICRI Centre for AI and Robotics, Porto), Amirkaveh Rasouli (UNICRI Centre for AI and Robotics, The Hague), Vicky Charisi (Harvard Berkman Klein Center). Venue/date confirmed: IDC '25, June 23-26 2025, Reykjavik; DOI 10.1145/3713043.3731508; 5 pages. N=159 and 19 countries confirmed. Geography needs qualification: the paper states 75% of respondents were from Europe, so "Global" overstates the spread. Recruitment was via social media, voluntary, uncompensated and anonymous; the authors call it a "preliminary study" and explicitly warn the "social media recruitment method may introduce selection bias, potentially over-representing tech-savvy parents."
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Tiny qualitative sample: 19 parents in two focus-group rounds. Produces themes only — no percentages, no prevalence, no representativeness. Nothing here can be quantified ('X% of parents worry about...') and it does not generalize to Korean parents broadly, let alone to US parents. It is bound to South Korea's specific AI Digital Textbook (AIDT) national rollout, a top-down government deployment with no US equivalent. Verified at the KCI bibliographic-record and English-abstract level only — the Korean-language full text was not retrieved, so any claim beyond the abstract's themes is unconfirmed. Co-author is at KEDI, a government institute tied to the policy under study.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Citation caveat. Findings are published only as a short blog commentary — no full report, toplines, questionnaire, weighting details, or margins of error are available, so the percentages cannot be independently checked or disaggregated. The underlying UAS panel is probability-based, which makes this one of the stronger samples in the batch, but the write-up is not a research publication.
Corrections applied. This is a CRPE-hosted blog commentary, not a CRPE report, and the authors are USC-affiliated: Morgan Polikoff (USC Rossier), Amie Rapaport (USC CESR), and Nathanael Fast (USC Marshall). Attributing the research to CRPE as organization overstates CRPE's role — CRPE is the publishing venue; the survey is USC's Understanding America Study. Sample is described only as 'a probability-based sample of over 1,800 American households' fielded 'during the summer of 2024' — no exact N and no precise field dates are given.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Only 32 self-selected recontact volunteers; Rapid Qualitative Inquiry favors timely synthesis; the GenAI definition changed after early groups.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier A); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. EdChoice is a school-choice advocacy organization, and the private-vs-public gap is its core narrative — flag the sponsor when citing the sector comparisons. All AI figures come from an opt-in non-probability online panel of school parents (weighted, with a reported ±2.0 MoE that is a modeled figure, not a design-based one). The private-school-parent subgroup within N=2,319 is small, so the 48%/19% and 61%/50% splits carry wide uncertainty.
Corrections applied. Research partner is wrong. The 2024 Schooling in America Survey was designed and fielded in collaboration with BRAUN RESEARCH, INC. (which also handled quality control and hosted the web surveys, using Fulcrum and Pure Spectrum for panel recruitment) — not Morning Consult. Morning Consult conducts EdChoice's separate monthly Public Opinion Tracker, not this annual survey. Sample description should also be sharpened: the general-population N=1,502 is a hybrid of 500 live-telephone RDD interviews (probability) plus 1,002 interviews from an opt-in, non-probability online panel; the N=2,319 current school parents are drawn entirely from the opt-in non-probability online panel. Both samples are weighted. Reported margins of error: ±2.0 points (parents), ±2.5 points (general population). Every AI figure in this entry comes from the school-parent sample. Fielding April 9-30, 2024 is correct.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Ipsos Global Advisor is a weighted nonprobability online panel. Ipsos itself flags that samples in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Romania, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand and Turkiye are more urban, educated and/or affluent than their general populations and are not nationally representative. The '36% globally' is a 30-country unweighted average, not a world figure.
Corrections applied. Refine sample to the exact figure: 23,754 online adults under age 75 across 30 countries, interviewed June 21 - July 5, 2024 (India 18+ and partly face-to-face via IndiaBus; 18-74 in Canada, Ireland, Malaysia, South Africa, Turkiye, US; 20-74 Thailand; 21-74 Indonesia and Singapore; 16-74 elsewhere). Publication month (August 2024), organization, self-funding, and geography are correct.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. The 50% parent figure for student homework use rests on a public-school-parent subgroup with a ±7.4-point margin of error, so the parent/non-parent gap (50% vs 42%) is within error and should not be described as a significant difference.
Corrections applied. All correct. Worth adding for precision: administered online via the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, in which participants are randomly recruited by address-based sampling and households without internet are provided a web-enabled device. Margin of error ±3.3 points for the full sample and ±7.4 points for public school parents. Released August 2024.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Advocacy-funded and partisan-executed: commissioned by a school-choice advocacy coalition and conducted by Cygnal, a Republican-aligned polling firm. No margin of error, weighting, or sampling frame is disclosed anywhere — the only methodology statement is that respondents were invited via email/mobile notifications on an online platform. Several AI-regulation items were message-tested, so cite the pre-message figures. Fielded August 2023, so it reflects pre-ChatGPT-mainstreaming-era parent attitudes.
Corrections applied. Date: the survey was FIELDED August 1-3, 2023, not October. The white paper's methodology page states: 'This survey was conducted August 1 - 3, 2023, with 1,000 parents of school aged children.' October 2, 2023 is only the release date. Sample field should read '1,000 U.S. parents of school-aged children, fielded Aug 1-3, 2023; released Oct 2, 2023.' Organization name is correct as printed on the release ('The National Coalition for Public School Options (PSO)'), but the group's current public-facing brand is 'Parents for School Options' — worth noting so readers can find it. One further nuance: the 55%/17% regulation split is the PRE-message reading; the white paper shows it moving to 58% support / 19% oppose after respondents were shown pro- and anti-regulation messaging, and the white paper's own executive summary inconsistently renders this item as 51%.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Non-probability opt-in online panel (Lucid), weighted; the topline itself warns the +/-3.4 MoE does not cover non-coverage or panel self-selection error. Published by a parent-advocacy organization. The '56% see AI tutoring as most positive' figure is the top-rated item on a battery of net-positive ratings, not a forced ranking — phrase accordingly.
Corrections applied. The pollster IS identifiable: the topline PDF states 'Echelon Insights conducted a survey on behalf of the National Parents Union' and carries Echelon's Alexandria, VA footer on every page. The entry's note that the pollster is unnamed is true only of the release page; partners_funders should read 'Conducted by Echelon Insights for National Parents Union.' Add sampling detail: sample drawn from the Lucid sample exchange using NCES/ACS quota targets, non-probability sampling, weighted to ACS benchmarks and to November 2022 CPS voter-registration benchmarks. Field dates Oct 3-6, 2023 and MoE +/-3.4 are confirmed correct.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Superintendents, principals, and edtech leaders: adoption, policy, and the pressure they're absorbing.
Citation caveat. Self-selected survey emailed to education-technology-leader lists (assembled with partners including MCH Strategic Data), not a probability sample of districts — yet the report claims a ±4% margin of error at 95% confidence, which implies a random sample it does not have. Respondents skew small: 69% are from districts under 6,000 students and only 7% from districts over 25,000, and six states (DE, HI, MS, NM, RI, WV) returned no respondents. All percentages are district-weighted, not student-weighted, so they do not describe the share of US students affected.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Self-selected respondents recruited from the email lists of four higher-ed associations (EDUCAUSE, AIR, NACUBO, CUPA-HR); unweighted, no margin of error, and heavily skewed toward technology, data and business-office roles with only 12% faculty. The headline '94% have used AI tools for work' describes association members who opted into an AI survey, not higher-ed employees generally. Sponsored by Zoom (an AI-product vendor), with a disclosed no-editorial-influence statement.
Corrections applied. Geography should not be stated flatly as 'United States': 89% of respondents are at institutions mostly or entirely located in the U.S., 10% are not (Table 8). Method detail: 34 closed- and open-ended items (not stated in our entry); distributed by email by EDUCAUSE, AIR, NACUBO and CUPA-HR; analyzed in SPSS/NVivo; no weighting and no margin of error. Populations should note the sample is predominantly administrative, not faculty: 39% managers/directors, 32% professional/staff, 16% executive leaders, 12% faculty. Author: Jenay Robert. All other attribution (organization, Jan 12 2026 publication, Sept 29-Oct 13 2025 field dates, N=1,960, AIR/NACUBO/CUPA-HR partnership, Zoom sponsorship with no editorial influence) is correct.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Vendor-run survey: D2L is an LMS company and the headline finding promotes its own product category. Fielded on Prodege's Pollfish platform, an opt-in app-intercept panel, N=500, with no toplines, questionnaire, weighting scheme, or margin of error published — the press release is the only artifact. The 85%-vs-51% time-savings gap is a cross-sectional association between two self-selected groups; the release itself says only that it 'suggest[s] a positive association,' so it must not be cited as evidence that AI-enabled LMS tools cause time savings.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: Higher-education professionals only. Workstream coverage in the CSV was reche
Citation caveat. Two of the four AI figures in our entry misstate the source (see corrections) — fix before any external use. ACE discloses no sampling frame, no recruitment method, no response rate, and no weighting for its Pulse Point panel, so the 517 cannot be characterized as representative of anything. ACE's own report has an internal arithmetic error on the ethics item (25+42+36 = 103%), which is reason to treat that figure loosely as 'nearly nine in 10' rather than a precise number.
Corrections applied. Released September 15, 2025; authors Julia Napier and Danielle Melidona. Respondent titles span associate/assistant provosts, associate/assistant VPs, chiefs of department, chiefs of staff, deans, executive directors, general counsel, presidents/chancellors/CEOs/rectors, provosts/CAOs, trustees, VPs/vice chancellors, and vice provosts — not only presidents/provosts/deans/VPs. Critically, the AI battery was administered only to presidents, provosts, vice provosts, and deans, not to all 517 respondents, so the AI percentages do not rest on the full N=517.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: full primary report/article or complete topline reviewed. Relevance decision: Higher-education leaders only. Workstream coverage in the CSV was rechecked as 'Parti
Added by independent audit (net-new)
Citation caveat. Child Trends' disaggregations (notably the 58% vs. 75% staff-training gap by share of students of color) are presented without margins of error or significance tests in the briefs themselves. Also note this is secondary analysis of the NCES School Pulse Panel December 2024 collection — the same data as corpus entry #210 — so the two must not be cited as independent evidence.
Corrections applied. Date should reflect the series span, not just the last brief: the three briefs were published July 2, 2025 ('School Leaders Are More Likely to Support Teachers' AI Use Than Students''), July 31, 2025 ('Most Public Schools Lack AI Policies for Students'), and August 6, 2025 ('Fewer AI Trainings Are Offered in Schools Serving Students of Color') — so 2025-07 to 2025-08 rather than 2025-08. The underlying collection ran December 6-20, 2024. The N=1,490 schools figure is correct but is NOT stated in any of the three Child Trends briefs — I confirmed it via the IES press release for the December 2024 School Pulse Panel ('1,490 participating public K-12 schools from every state and the District of Columbia').
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Self-selected respondents from partner-supplied email lists plus an open public link - not a probability sample of districts, and no weighting or response rate is reported, so the stated 4% margin of error assumes randomness the design does not have. The sample skews sharply small: 39% of respondents are from districts under 1,750 students and 38% from districts of 1,750-5,999, with only 4% from districts of 25,000 or more. It is also a self-report from CoSN's own professional community, whose members are unusually engaged with edtech.
Corrections applied. Replace the vague sample description: results were compiled from 645 district responses (one response per district, the most senior EdTech leader where multiple were submitted), from 46 states - no respondents from Delaware, Hawaii, New Mexico, or South Dakota. The 41-question survey was emailed to U.S. school district EdTech leadership on January 14, 2025 with reminders until close on March 2, 2025; respondents could also participate via a public link. CoSN reports a nominal 4% margin of error at 95% confidence. Partners confirmed exactly as listed: CDW Education, Lightspeed Systems, AASA, Sogolytics, and MCH Strategic Data.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. N=122 self-selected superintendents from 37 states; no sampling frame, weighting, or margin of error disclosed, and EAB's District Leadership Forum surveys its own partner network. Year-over-year comparisons to the 2024 wave (N=148) rest on two small, differently composed convenience samples.
Corrections applied. No attribution errors. Confirmed in the brief: 122 superintendents from 37 states, distributed online April 2-16, 2025; project director Jess Nelson (contributing consultant Ben Court). The 2025-05 date is consistent with EAB telling participants the full report would follow in May 2025.
Verified by independent audit (Source identity verified; public full text unavailable or incomplete; Source identity and accessible official/publisher evidence reviewed; complete full text was unavailable or gated)
Citation caveat. 14% response rate to outreach to 500+ education school leaders (roughly 70 respondents), self-selected and not weighted or nationally representative; funded by the Gates Foundation. Cite the percentages as 'among responding teacher-prep programs,' never as a national figure. Do not attribute the superintendent claim to this report.
Corrections applied. Date and year are wrong: the report is OCTOBER 2024 (cover date, ERIC ED661791, copyright 2024), not 2025-04. The 2025-04 date belongs to the companion op-ed. Funder IS named: 'CRPE would like to thank the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation for supporting this project' — replace 'funder not named on page'. Authors: Steven Weiner, Robin Lake, and Jessica Rosner. Sample is materially misleading as written: CRPE reached out to 500+ US education school leaders and the response rate was 14% (roughly 70 respondents) — 500+ is the outreach frame, not the achieved sample. The report describes surveys and interviews only; there is no education-school faculty focus group and no K-12 school-leader survey component in this report. Populations should be higher-ed teacher-prep program leaders/deans, not K-12 administrators.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: Teacher-preparation output is chiefly qualitative and lacks a usable achieved
Citation caveat. N=102 convenience sample with roughly a 1% response rate and rural districts over-represented at 64%. The authors state plainly: 'Given the small convenience sample and over-representation of rural districts, the findings are not nationally representative.' Any citation must carry that sentence — these percentages cannot be presented as national estimates of school system leaders.
Corrections applied. Geography should read '37 states plus the District of Columbia,' not '37 states' — the report says 'The leaders represent school districts in 37 unique states and the District of Columbia.' Add the response rate: approximately 1%. Author list should be spelled out: Michelle Croft, Nora Weber, Kelly Robson Foster. Publication February 2025, funders (Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and Raikes Foundation), 102 school system leaders surveyed in fall 2024, 12 leaders in interviews/focus groups November–December 2024, and 64% rural are all confirmed verbatim.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Self-selected respondents from EDUCAUSE's higher-education community, no published weighting or margin of error; sponsor Zoom is an AI-product vendor. Higher-ed only. Do not cite the 83% digital-divide figure - it is unsupported by any reachable version of the report's findings.
Corrections applied. Attribution otherwise checks out: 788 higher education professionals, 52-question survey, fielded November 4-18, 2024, published February 17, 2025, authors Jenay Robert and Mark McCormack, Zoom listed as a 2025 EDUCAUSE Mission Partner supporting the study.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: Higher-education technology professionals only. Workstream coverage in the CS
Corrections applied. Two small precision points for the key_findings wording: the 67% figure is schools that provided AI training to all or some teachers, staff and/or administrators (26% trained all teachers), and the 73% figure is schools where at least a few teachers use AI for the listed tasks — not schools where teachers generally do. Likewise the 32% is schools where teachers use software to detect AI-generated student work. Release date February 19, 2025.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Self-described NON-SCIENTIFIC survey: 337 self-selected leaders invited off AAC&U's and Elon's own contact lists via Qualtrics; the publisher states results are 'not generalizable to all of higher education.' No weighting or margin of error. Cite as 'a non-scientific survey of 337 higher-ed leaders known to AAC&U,' never as 'higher education leaders' generally.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: Higher-education leaders only. Workstream coverage in the CSV was rechecked a
Citation caveat. Small, network-recruited, leadership-only qualitative sample nested within the survey; three of 15 participants were not rural; exact field dates absent.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier A); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. Vendor-run survey: Ellucian is a higher-education ERP/software vendor surveying its own market. The report calls the sample 'representative' and 'balanced' but discloses no sampling frame, no panel source, no recruitment method, no weighting scheme and no margin of error. The year-over-year comparisons rest on very different bases — 2023 n=1,383 for the adoption question and n=1,133 for the barriers question vs. n=445 in 2024 — so the '32-point increase' compares two differently sized, differently composed samples. Respondents are administrators, not faculty.
Corrections applied. Populations should be 'Administrators' rather than 'Higher-ed faculty; Administrators': the report describes the sample as '445 higher education administrators', and the role table shows Director 34%, Executive Leader 32%, Individual Contributor/Staff 21%, Manager 8%, Faculty Member 5% (n=21), Trustee 0.2%. Geography is not purely US/Canada: United States 366 (82%), Canada 71 (16%), Other 8 (2%) — Andorra, Australia, Ecuador, Netherlands, Qatar, UAE. The '330+ institutions' figure comes from the PR Newswire release, not the report itself (the report's appendix tabulates respondents, not institutions). Field dates (Aug 12-Sep 8, 2024), release date (Oct 22, 2024), report month (October 2024) and N=445 are all correct.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 7 of 7 numeric tokens
Citation caveat. One US region, likely self-selection, 14% survey response rate; interview coding not documented; interview/survey overlap not disclosed.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier B); source-validated in that bundle
Added by independent audit (net-new)
Citation caveat. N=148 self-selected superintendents out of roughly 13,000 US districts; EAB discloses no sampling frame, no weighting, and no margin of error, and EAB is a K-12 consulting firm surveying its own network. Subgroup and trend claims are unreliable at this N.
Corrections applied. No attribution errors. Confirmed in the brief's methodology page: 148 superintendents from 39 states, distributed online November 27, 2023 to January 10, 2024. February 2024 AASA release confirmed via EAB's press materials.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Self-selected respondents from EDUCAUSE's higher-education community (IT-weighted), with no published weighting or margin of error; findings had to be verified indirectly because the report is bot-blocked and login-gated. Higher-ed only - do not generalize to K-12.
Corrections applied. The entry contradicts itself on the publication date: the method field says 'published Feb 26, 2024' while the appended correction says 'Published Feb 13, 2024.' Best available evidence points to mid-February 2024 (Library Journal infoDOCKET's 'Just Released' post is dated Feb. 13, 2024, and the EDUCAUSE library path is /2024/2/). Pick one and drop the other. Field dates confirmed as November 27 - December 8, 2023; 46 closed- and open-ended questions confirmed; 'more than 900 higher education professionals' confirmed; author Jenay Robert, published by ECAR, Boulder, CO.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Self-selected respondents: 380 of 2,693 invited presidents replied (~14%), so results reflect who chose to answer. Sponsor-funded (seven sponsors), fieldwork dates unpublished, and the data are now over two years old on a fast-moving topic.
Corrections applied. Sample description is wrong on institution type. The 380 respondents were 206 public and 174 private nonprofit institutions -- IHE's own write-up states no for-profit college presidents are included among respondents. The '2,693 presidents of public, private nonprofit, and for-profit colleges' figure that appears in sponsor materials is the invitation frame, not the respondent base (the reported 4.66% margin of error is exactly what n=380 yields with a finite-population correction against N=2,693). Correct to: '380 responding presidents (206 public, 174 private nonprofit; no for-profit respondents), drawn from an invitation frame of 2,693; margin of error 4.66%.' Also: this is the 14th annual edition; the 'fielded Jan-Feb 2024' detail in our notes could not be confirmed on any reachable page and should be marked unverified.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Qualitative interviews with a self-selected sample — cannot support any quantitative or generalizable claim, and there are no percentages in the source to quote. The exact N is never disclosed ('dozens'), so the sample cannot be assessed at all; do not convert 'dozens' into a specific number. CRPE itself flags the selection bias in print — leaders 'opted in to be interviewed,' meaning the sample skews toward district leaders already engaged with and enthusiastic about AI, and the report's headline optimism finding is therefore partly an artifact of who volunteered. Never cite this as evidence of what district leaders generally think; cite it as illustrative themes from AI-interested superintendents. Also note the vintage: interviews ran in late 2023/early 2024 and were published February 2024, before most districts adopted AI policies, so the 'no guidance, stalled policy' findings are likely stale for current use.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Citation caveat. Vendor-run in-house survey with N=163 (roughly +/-8 points at 95% confidence if it were a random sample, which it is not); the release discloses no recruitment frame or weighting, so treat it as a convenience sample of administrators in Imagine Learning's orbit rather than a national read.
Corrections applied. None. Confirmed verbatim: 'responses from 163 K-12 education administrators,' 71% district and 29% school administrators, survey conducted October 31-November 9, 2023, published January 25, 2024, conducted by Imagine Learning.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Vendor-sponsored content marketing produced by a media company's brand studio for Grammarly. The report discloses no field dates, no sampling or recruitment method, no respondent composition, no question wording, and no margin of error; N is given only as 'more than 200.' Its percentages cannot be traced to any disclosed methodology.
Corrections applied. This is sponsored content, not media research: the report's own cover line is 'Custom content for Grammarly by studioID,' studioID being Industry Dive's brand-content studio, not the Higher Ed Dive newsroom. Sample is stated only as 'more than 200 higher ed leaders and faculty across the country' with no breakdown by role, institution type, or region. Date: no date is printed in the report; the PDF's creation timestamp is Nov. 14, 2024 and the asset filename indicates a Q4-24 / January 2025 distribution, so 'year 2024' is defensible but should be recorded as 'late 2024 (distributed Jan. 2025), no date stated in report.'
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 1 of 1 numeric tokens
Citation caveat. Two focus groups with roughly 18 school leaders, which the authors state are 'not representative of all school leaders' and provide only 'a snapshot' — a point-in-time qualitative read from August 2023, now nearly three years old and describing the earliest post-ChatGPT period. Published as a journal column rather than a full peer-reviewed empirical study.
Corrections applied. The peer-reviewed piece is a COLUMN ('Rethinking Creativity and Technology in Education') in TechTrends 67(6), 878-884, accepted 13 October 2023 — a short editorially-framed piece reporting focus-group impressions, not a full empirical research article with a formal coding and analysis section. The article itself describes the sample differently from the CRPE summary: two focus groups — the first of superintendents and school leaders from six school districts (over sixty schools) in Michigan, the second of heads of schools from the Pacific Northwest representing four states and seven schools. The 'N=18' figure comes from CRPE's summary page, not the article; 'five states' = Michigan plus four Pacific Northwest states; '~70 schools' = 60+ plus 7. Authors: Jim Dunnigan, Danah Henriksen, Punya Mishra (ASU) and Robin Lake (CRPE).
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Roughly 100 self-selected state education agency officials — a purposive survey of a small professional universe, not a probability sample of anything, with no exact N, response rate, weighting, or margin of error disclosed. The one-decimal percentages (55.1%, 23.2%, 21.7%) imply a precision that ~100 respondents cannot support; round them when citing.
Corrections applied. The notes field still carries the superseded author attribution ('Report authors Keith Lee and Evo Popoff') alongside its own correction; the uncorrected sentence should be deleted. Confirmed authors are Erifer Fernandez Reyes and Evo Popoff. The report's foreword is dated August 2023 (signed Julia Fallon, SETDA), so a 2023-09 date reflects public release rather than the document date. Respondent universe confirmed as 'over 100 state leaders from 45 states, Guam and the Department of Defense Education Activity'; surveys administered April and May 2023.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
The political weather: national sentiment trackers, data-center polling, and election-adjacent surveys.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Real and internally consistent source, but it concerns local data-center siting rather than K–12 adoption or messaging. Every URL present in the CSV primary/additional-source field
Citation caveat. Data for Progress is a progressive advocacy organization polling on its own policy agenda, not a neutral pollster. The sample is an opt-in web panel weighted to likely voters by age, gender, education, race, geography, and recalled presidential vote — a nonprobability sample, so the stated ±3-point margin of error is a modeled approximation, not a sampling-theory MoE. English-only. Every item is a support/oppose reaction to a single favorably worded description of a policy with no cost, tradeoff, or opposing argument presented, which reliably produces high support; these numbers describe reaction to framing, not durable public opinion.
Corrections applied. No corrections needed; two details worth adding to the method field: mode was a web panel and the survey was conducted in English only.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — AI-and-workers policy polling, not K–12 or family education research. Every URL present in the CSV primary/additional-source fields was resolution-checked; any better underlying re
Corrections applied. Method field says only 'online survey' — it can be stated fully: probability-based Gallup Panel web study of 3,270 US adults 18+, fielded May 4-11, 2026, MoE +/-2.4 percentage points (at 50%), published July 28, 2026, author Julie Ray, in partnership with Bentley University. Nothing in the entry is wrong; it is simply under-specified relative to what the source discloses.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Real national public-opinion source but no K–12 audience or school-specific item. Every URL present in the CSV primary/additional-source fields was resolution-checked; any better u
Citation caveat. Private-opinion figures are not survey responses — they are model-derived estimates from a list experiment, computed as the difference in mean item counts between a control group and a treatment group that saw one extra statement. The report publishes no confidence intervals for these estimates, and list-experiment estimates are materially noisier than the +/- 2.6% topline MoE implies, so small private-public gaps (a few points) should not be treated as real. Fielded on YouGov's opt-in online panel weighted to population targets (not a probability sample), and co-branded with a media partner (The Free Press) that published the findings first.
Corrections applied. The nationally representative general-population estimates come from the base sample of n=2,010 (MoE +/- 2.6%), not from the full 3,005 interviews. Total N=3,005 comprises the 2,010 base plus oversamples of Asian (420), Black (286) and Hispanic (289) respondents; weighted racial samples are 500 Asian (MoE 4.8%), 525 Black (4.8%) and 501 Hispanic (5.2%). Recommend the sample field read '3,005 U.S. adults total; nationally representative base sample n=2,010 plus Asian, Black and Hispanic oversamples.' Everything else in the attribution — YouGov fielding Apr. 9-20, 2026, Gradient methodological/analytical support, The Free Press as partner, list experiment / item count technique, formal title 'Private Opinion Tracker (Wave 1, 2026)' — is confirmed verbatim in the report.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Methodologically relevant to preference falsification but outside K–12 scope. Every URL present in the CSV primary/additional-source fields was resolution-checked; any better under
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Authoritative national AI use survey, but not K–12 research. Every URL present in the CSV primary/additional-source fields was resolution-checked; any better underlying report/topl
Citation caveat. The 53% is a 'concerned (net)' figure combining very and somewhat concerned; only 27% were very concerned. The claim that anxiety was 'consistent across age, gender and education levels' comes from the Reuters write-up and cannot be checked against the released topline, which breaks results out by party only.
Corrections applied. Poll fielded June 3-8, 2026 (Ipsos released results June 8; Reuters published its story June 10; the topline PDF is a June 12 release). Margin of sampling error is plus or minus 1.5 percentage points at 95% confidence, including a design effect of 1.05 — this is not stated in our entry. Mode is Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based online panel, weighted on gender by age, race/ethnicity, census region, metropolitan status, education, household income, 2024 vote choice, and party ID.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Yahoo URL rate-limited; Reuters is the underlying news source. Every URL present in the CSV primary/additional-source fields was resolution-checked; any better underlying report/to
Corrections applied. Gallup published and analyzed this (author Jeffrey M. Jones, May 13, 2026), but Gallup did not field the headline survey: the March 2-18, 2026 survey of 1,000 adults was conducted by Recon MR via telephone interviews (random-digit-dial, minimum 80% cellphone / 20% landline), MoE +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence. Our method field omits the mode, the field house, and the margin of error, and reads as though Gallup interviewed the 1,000 adults itself. Separately, the open-ended 'reasons' data in the article comes from a DIFFERENT instrument — 2,054 Gallup Panel members surveyed by self-administered web April 1-15, 2026 (MoE +/-6 for the 472 supporters, +/-3 for the 1,561 opponents).
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — General infrastructure attitudes only. Every URL present in the CSV primary/additional-source fields was resolution-checked; any better underlying report/topline located during ver
Citation caveat. Advocacy-organization poll: IFS commissioned, framed, and interpreted it, and the organization actively campaigns for child-safety-framed AI regulation. No toplines, crosstabs, question wording, weighting scheme, or margin of error are published -- only YouGov's name and 'a sample of 1,000 Americans nationwide.' The 20-to-1 headline compares 82% support to 4% opposition while omitting the 14% neutral.
Corrections applied. Publication date is May 14, 2026 (fielded May 7, 2026) -- our 2026-05 is correct but the precise date is worth recording.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — General AI governance poll. Every URL present in the CSV primary/additional-source fields was resolution-checked; any better underlying report/topline located during verification i
Citation caveat. Qualtrics opt-in panel with demographic quotas, unweighted, with no fielding dates and no margin of error disclosed. Cross-sectional, so the relationship-quality associations cannot establish causation -- and the same models produced a significant POSITIVE association with relationship satisfaction, which the headline framing omits. Advocacy-adjacent publishers (Wheatley Institute / IFS).
Corrections applied. Sample is 2,431 U.S. adults aged 18-30 in a committed dating, engaged, or marital relationship, collected by Qualtrics through its existing opt-in sample panels using a quota framework (52% female; South 38% / West 24% / Midwest 21% / Northeast 17%; 62% White, 18% Hispanic, 10% Black). Method field should name Qualtrics and quota sampling. The report has five authors -- Willoughby, Carroll, Toscano, Hakala, and Morris -- not three. Report publication date is May 18, 2026; the IFS blog post is May 19, 2026.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Young-adult relationship study, not youth/parent/K–12 research. Every URL present in the CSV primary/additional-source fields was resolution-checked; any better underlying report/t
Citation caveat. As currently constituted the entry cannot be cited: two of its five findings exist in no locatable Morning Consult source, its stated sample belongs to a different report than its link, and the findings that do check out rest on an n=302 cut with no disclosed panel, weighting, or margin of error. If rebuilt around the June 2025 'Navigating Consumer Trust' report (n=2,208, May 16-18, 2025, plus or minus 2 points, weighted), it would become citable with a standard commercial-panel caveat.
Corrections applied. The entry conflates two separate Morning Consult products. The link is an article, 'Why Consumer AI's Adoption Story Has Outrun Its Reputation' by Ivan Rocabado, published May 13, 2026, whose reputation cut is n=302 U.S. adults fielded May 2026 with no disclosed panel type, weighting, or margin of error. The sample the entry describes — 2,208 U.S. adults, May 16-18, 2025 — belongs to a different report, 'Navigating Consumer Trust in the Age of Data Privacy and AI' (published June 2025, plus or minus 2 points, weighted by age, gender, race, education, region and cross-tabulations). The date/year fields are also internally inconsistent (date 2026-05 vs. year 2025); year should be 2026 if the entry stays anchored to the linked article. This entry should be split into two, or rebuilt around whichever single product is actually wanted.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Major source-wave stitching error; also general consumer research, not K–12. Every URL present in the CSV primary/additional-source fields was resolution-checked; any better underl
Citation caveat. Published May 2026 but the underlying survey experiments were fielded July 2022 to March 2023, with the first wave predating ChatGPT's public launch - do not present these as current AI attitudes. Quota-matched opt-in Dynata panel with no weighting applied. General-public sample with no education-specific frames and no parent or educator respondents, so it cannot be used to claim anything has been message-tested for a K-12 audience.
Corrections applied. Date 2026-05 (May 8, 2026) is the publication date and is correct, but the method field is misleading about recency: the survey experiments were fielded July 2022 to March 2023, the peer discourse sessions in August 2023, and the interviews in December 2022 and August 2024. Wave 1 (n=1,557) was fielded before ChatGPT's public launch. Survey recruitment and hosting were by Dynata from opt-in sources (proprietary loyalty panels, open invitation, partner channels); target quotas were set to national benchmarks for age, sex, race/ethnicity, household income, education and party affiliation, but the supplement explicitly states data were NOT weighted - so the supplement's own phrase 'nationally representative sample' means quota-matched opt-in, unweighted. Funder MacArthur Foundation (Technology in the Public Interest program) confirmed.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Quota-controlled online nonprobability sample of 613 voters reported with a ±3.96% margin of error — an MoE is not strictly appropriate for a nonprobability sample, so treat the precision as indicative. The "vs. 63% of Americans" line is CPI's own cross-poll comparison to a December 2025 Fox News national survey with different question wording and a different population, and should be presented as CPI's framing rather than as a like-for-like gap.
Corrections applied. No corrections needed — organization, bipartisan firm pairing (New Bridge Strategy (R) and Aspect Strategic (D)), N=613 likely 2026 Colorado voters, March 20-25 2026 field dates and ±3.96% MoE all confirmed. The "online survey" method in our entry is confirmed, but only on the poll landing page ("Interviews were conducted online"), not on the release or the toplines; that page also discloses that "Quotas were set for key demographic sub-groups, such as gender and age" and interviews were "distributed proportionally throughout the state." Worth recording that the sample source/panel is never named and post-stratification weighting is not described — quotas are.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — State voter poll; AI items are not school-specific. Every URL present in the CSV primary/additional-source fields was resolution-checked; any better underlying report/topline locat
Citation caveat. Wave conflation: the 53%/43% 'change how we live a lot' trend, the 47% day-to-day usefulness figure and the 89% content-labeling figure come from a separate Fox News poll (N=1,004, fielded Feb 28-Mar 2, 2026, published March 10, 2026), not from the March 20-23 wave this entry documents. Cite each number with its own wave's N and field dates.
Corrections applied. The entry's own methodology (N=1,001, fielded March 20-23, 2026, published April 1, 2026, MoE +/-3, Beacon Research (D) / Shaw & Company Research (R), national voter file) is correct — but it does not cover all the findings listed. Mode detail: 104 landline, 641 cellphone, 256 online after text invitation; weighted to age, race, education and area using ACS and voter-file data. Database title is a paraphrase; actual headline is 'Fox News Poll: Broad anxiety about AI doesn't extend to jobs' (the entry's notes already flag this).
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — General voter poll, out of scope. Every URL present in the CSV primary/additional-source fields was resolution-checked; any better underlying report/topline located during verifica
Corrections applied. Add field dates: March/April — specifically April 9-13, 2026 (our sample field gives only the April 22, 2026 release date). Sub-sample MoE for the 654 respondents with an associate's degree or higher is +/-4.8. Method is more precisely 'probability-based random digit dialing with live interviewers calling landlines and cell phones.' N=1,210 and MoE +/-3.5 are correct.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. New York State residents only — do not generalize to national sentiment. The sample is a hybrid: 428 respondents from a stratified dual-frame probability phone sample (158 completed via text-to-web) and 382 from a proprietary opt-in online panel (Cint), so roughly 47% of interviews come from a non-probability source, weighted to ACS demographics and state party registration.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — General New York adult poll, out of scope. Every URL present in the CSV primary/additional-source fields was resolution-checked; any better underlying report/topline located during
Corrections applied. The sample field is empty and must be filled: '1,000 registered voters, including 620 interviewed via cellphone and 309 via an online survey sent by text message.' Pollsters are missing entirely: the survey is Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies Study #260072, a bipartisan pair (Hart = Democratic, POS = Republican) conducting for NBC News — partners_funders should name them rather than listing NBC News as 'funder' only. Populations should read 'Registered voters,' not 'General public' — every AI item is asked of RVs, not all adults. Field dates Feb 27-March 3, 2026 and MoE +/-3.10% are confirmed correct.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — NBC page blocks bots, but article and full poll PDF are real. Every URL present in the CSV primary/additional-source fields was resolution-checked; any better underlying report/top
Corrections applied. All correct as recorded (1,397 U.S. adults, fielded March 19-23, 2026, MoE +/-3.3, released March 30, 2026). Optional addition: 800 employed adults, MoE +/-4.3; method is probability-based RDD with live interviewers.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — General adult AI poll; no distinct K–12 measure. Every URL present in the CSV primary/additional-source fields was resolution-checked; any better underlying report/topline located
Citation caveat. Advocacy-organization polling on its own policy agenda: AIPI advocates for AI regulation and both wrote and fielded these polls with no independent pollster. Non-probability online web panels (vendor undisclosed), and a margin of error is quoted despite the sample not being a probability sample — that figure should not be presented as a true sampling error. Battleground districts/states only; not a national sample.
Corrections applied. Add that AIPI fielded both polls itself — no independent pollster or panel vendor is named anywhere ('conducted by the AI Policy Institute with an online sample… fielded over web panels'). Add the disclosed weighting: gender, race, education, 2024 presidential results, age, plus weighting by whether respondents passed attention checks. Also record the House-side figure our entry omits: 81% support for guardrails with only 8% opting for no regulation in toss-up House districts, vs 81% and 6% in battleground Senate states. Everything else confirmed verbatim: published February 27, 2026; 2,830 likely voters fielded January 17–21, 2026 (MoE 2.4%); 3,969 likely voters fielded February 2–8, 2026 (MoE 2.1%); the ten House districts and eight Senate states listed in our notes match exactly.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Full official page with links to toplines/crosstabs; out of scope. Every URL present in the CSV primary/additional-source fields was resolution-checked; any better underlying repor
Citation caveat. This is a general-population VOTER poll about AI overall, not a K-12 education study — education appears as a handful of items plus one focus-group case study, so it cannot carry claims about schools, educators, or students as populations (none were sampled as such). The report does not disclose the polling vendor or whether the online sample was probability-based or opt-in, so the stated ±2.17% MOE cannot be independently assessed and should be reported as "as-stated by Fathom" rather than accepted at face value. Focus groups are only 4 groups in 2 states (OH, CA) with undisclosed participant counts — illustrative, never generalizable. Fathom is an AI-governance advocacy nonprofit, so guardrail-support items are being measured by an organization with a stake in the answer.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Citation caveat. North Carolina only, not national; YouGov nonprobability online panel -- 1,164 adults interviewed, matched down to a final sample of 800; MoE +/-4.24% adjusted for weights.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Corrections applied. Method field can be enriched: mixed-mode random selection from a national voter file — 104 landline, 646 cellphone, 255 online after text invitation. All other attribution (Fox News sponsor; Beacon Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R); N=1,005 registered voters; fielded Nov 14-17, 2025; MoE +/-3; published Nov 20, 2025; United States) confirmed verbatim.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: General voter AI poll with no K-12 education measure. Workstream coverage in
Citation caveat. Advocacy-sponsored polling by the Heartland Institute, a free-market advocacy think tank, fielded by Rasmussen/Pulse Opinion Research using an automated telephone plus online design with limited sampling-frame disclosure. The questions are hypothetical and deliberately provocative — asking whether to 'take power away from most human lawmakers' or give AI 'authority to control all of the world's largest militaries' — so the resulting numbers measure reaction to a striking scenario, not a considered policy preference. Sample is restricted to ages 18-39 and cannot be described as the general public.
Corrections applied. populations='General public' is imprecise — the entire sample is likely voters aged 18-39, not the general public; it should read 'General public (young adults 18-39)'. Add that fieldwork was by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC for Rasmussen Reports, national telephone and online, ±3 points at 95% confidence. Fielding dates (Oct 31 - Nov 2, 2025) and release date (Nov 19, 2025) confirmed on both publishers' pages.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: General young-voter AI/government-power poll; no education measure. Workstrea
Citation caveat. This is a probability/non-probability hybrid (AmeriSpeak plus a quota-matched Dynata sample), not a pure probability sample — worth stating if the citation is doing precision work. Also note the comparison to cryptocurrency, meat production, and air travel is between 'very or extremely concerned' shares (41% vs 29%, 29%, 23%), not between total-concern shares.
Corrections applied. The method field 'mixed methods' is wrong and should be corrected — this is a single quantitative survey, not a qual+quant design. The correct description is AP-NORC's TrueNorth hybrid: NORC's AmeriSpeak probability-based panel combined with a Dynata non-probability sample, quota-matched on age, race/ethnicity, gender, and education. Add margin of error ±2.4 percentage points. The formal AP-NORC project title is 'Public attitudes toward climate policy, technology, and the environment'; the EPIC page our link points to is the press release for it. All other attribution confirmed: 3,154 U.S. adults, fielded September 2–18, 2025, released October 23, 2025, EPIC (University of Chicago) with AP-NORC.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: full primary report/article or complete topline reviewed. Relevance decision: General-public environmental attitudes toward AI; no K-12 measure. Workstream coverag
Citation caveat. Commissioned with WE ACT for Environmental Justice, an advocacy organization with a direct stake in the result, and fielded by an advocacy pollster on an opt-in web panel weighted to likely voters (so ±3 points is modeled, not a true sampling MoE). Most importantly, the 56%-to-51% movement is not opinion changing over time — it is a within-survey informed-opinion design: item [3] asks support after a neutral definition, and item [9] re-asks the identical question ('Having read more, do you support or oppose...') after intervening items presented potential harms. It measures response to the specific messages tested and cannot be cited as a shift in public opinion.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: General-public data-center attitudes with no education measure. Workstream co
Citation caveat. Commissioned and funded by the Special Competitive Studies Project, an advocacy organization whose mission is US technological competitiveness — several question framings (e.g. 'important for the US to have more advanced AI than other countries', foreign-government AI attacks) reflect that agenda and should be described as commissioned questions, not neutral benchmarks. Also fix the knowledge statistic before citing.
Corrections applied. Methodology confirmed and can be stated more precisely: self-administered web surveys April 25-May 5, 2025 with a random sample of 3,128 US adults 18+ drawn from the probability-based Gallup Panel, MoE +/-2.1 percentage points at 95% confidence. Report published September 19, 2025 (entry's 2025-09 is correct). Gallup is the pollster; SCSP commissioned and funded it — both correctly recorded.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: General-public AI risk/regulation attitudes with no education measure. Workst
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: full primary report/article or complete topline reviewed. Relevance decision: General-public AI attitudes with no education measure. Workstream coverage in the CSV
Citation caveat. The 77% figure is specific to AI 'being used to cause political chaos by our rivals' — that is, by foreign adversaries — not to generic domestic political chaos. All figures are concerned/agree nets.
Corrections applied. Margin of error is plus or minus 1.5 percentage points at 95% confidence. Our entry is internally contradictory here — the method field says 'MoE about 2 points' while the sample field says '+/-1.5 pts'; the topline states 1.5. Mode is Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based panel, weighted on demographics and party ID (party benchmarks from the 2025 NPORS survey, demographics from the 2024 March CPS supplement). Ipsos published August 25, 2025.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: General-public AI job/regulation anxieties with no education measure. Workstr
Citation caveat. YouGov opt-in online panel weighted to population benchmarks, not a probability sample. More important for citation: this single entry aggregates five separate waves whose numbers live at five different URLs - anyone following the entry's link will find only the June 2025 trend, not the Sept 2025, Feb 2026 or May 2026 figures. Cite the specific wave URL for each number.
Corrections applied. Date should be 2025-07, not 2025-06: the linked article was published July 18, 2025 from the June 27-30, 2025 wave (the existing correction note says this but the date field was not updated). The today.yougov.com URL 301-redirects to the yougov.com/en-us/ path given in best_source_link. Sample description is accurate: 1,112 U.S. adult citizens for that wave, from YouGov's opt-in panel weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population, MoE approximately 4%; other waves run roughly 1,100-1,700 (Sept 2025 was 1,644).
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: General-public recurring AI polling with no education measure; the row also i
Corrections applied. Publication date is April 2025 (KPMG/University of Melbourne launch and press release are dated April 2025; the '/2025/05/' in the PDF path is an asset-folder date), not May 2025. Sample is 48,340 adults across 47 countries and jurisdictions, 1,001-1,098 respondents per country, online survey fielded November 2024 to mid-January 2025 via representative research panels sourced from Dynata, nationally representative on gender, age and regional distribution matched to official national statistics. The University of Melbourne team led design, conduct, data collection, analysis and reporting (Gillespie, N., Lockey, S., Ward, T., Macdade, A., & Hassed, G., 2025); KPMG is co-publisher and funder. US sample size is within the 1,001-1,098 per-country range.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: General adult/workforce AI trust study with no K-12 measure. Workstream cover
Citation caveat. Advocacy-sponsored polling: the Heartland Institute is a free-market advocacy think tank, and the constitutional-rights question is leading — it asks about designing AI to protect 'the human rights contained in the Constitution, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression', wording that all but guarantees supermajority agreement. Rasmussen/Pulse Opinion Research uses an automated telephone plus online design with limited sampling-frame and weighting disclosure. The two publishers report the same item differently, so cite the pollster's own 77%.
Corrections applied. Add that fieldwork was conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC for Rasmussen Reports, by national telephone and online survey, with a ±3 percentage point margin of error at a 95% confidence level. The Heartland piece was published May 13, 2025. Sponsor is Heartland's Glenn C. Haskins Emerging Issues Center, as the entry already notes.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: full primary report/article or complete topline reviewed. Relevance decision: General voter AI constitutional-rights/regulation poll with no education measure. Wor
Citation caveat. The expert half of this study is NOT a probability sample and is not representative of AI experts generally. Pew built the frame by compiling authors and presenters from 21 AI conferences held in 2023-24, identifying U.S.-based individuals via public information and email-finder services, and inviting them; the report states plainly that 'Expert views are only representative of those who responded.' Any public-vs-expert gap cited from this study should be attributed as 'AI conference authors and presenters who responded to Pew's survey,' not 'AI experts.' The public sample (American Trends Panel, N=5,410) is a genuine probability panel and needs no such caveat.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: full primary report/article or complete topline reviewed. Relevance decision: General U.S. public and AI-expert comparison with no education measure. Workstream co
Corrections applied. All correct. Optional additions: release date April 16, 2025; method is probability-based random digit dialing with live interviewers calling landlines and cell phones.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. When citing, keep the bases straight: 52% is the incidence among all U.S. adults (n=939 screened, ±3.2), while 72% ChatGPT, 34% daily, 51% informal learning and 63% social isolation are all among LLM users only (n=500, ±5.1). Also, 63% is 'think it is very or somewhat likely that the spread of LLMs will cause social isolation by replacing a lot of human-to-human communication' — 'worry' overstates the item slightly.
Corrections applied. All attribution correct. Add methodology detail available in the separate topline PDF: SSRS Opinion Panel is a multi-mode probability panel (web n=498, telephone n=2; English n=473, Spanish n=27); data weighted to the target population of U.S. adults who have used LLMs; MoE ±5.1 at 95% CI with a design effect of 1.37; the 52% incidence figure derives from n=939 screened panelists (eligible and ineligible) weighted to the full U.S. adult population, MoE ±3.2. Author: Lee Rainie, Director. Half-sample items carry larger MoEs (FORM 1 n=261, ±7.0; FORM 2 n=239, ±7.5).
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: Adult LLM users and general engagement; no K-12 measure. Workstream coverage
Citation caveat. Qualtrics opt-in panel with demographic quotas, not a probability sample and not weighted; no fielding dates and no margin of error are disclosed anywhere in the report. Cross-sectional design -- the report itself says it cannot tell whether AI use worsens mental health or whether people already struggling are drawn to these apps. Advocacy-adjacent publishers (Wheatley Institute / IFS) with a stated interest in the findings.
Corrections applied. Sample is 2,969 U.S. adults 18+, collected by Qualtrics through its existing opt-in sample panels using a quota framework on biological sex, age, and race/ethnicity; the oversample is 1,000 individuals aged 18-29 (our entry says 18-30). Authors are four, not two: Brian J. Willoughby, Jason S. Carroll, Carson R. Dover, and Rebekah H. Hakala. The underlying report's full title is 'Counterfeit Connections: The Rise of Romantic AI Companions and AI Sexualized Media Among the Rising Generation' (Wheatley Institute, 2025); our title is the IFS blog headline. Wheatley's landing page dates the report Feb 12, 2025; the IFS blog post is Feb 13, 2025.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: Adults and AI romantic companions; no K-12 measure. Workstream coverage in th
Citation caveat. The headline 99%/64% figures are solid; the entry's two summary sentences overstate the source. 'Majorities across both parties' does not hold for national security (Republicans are at 50%, not a majority) and is not demonstrated for job opportunities (where Gallup reports minimal partisan difference and the real divide is generational). 'Large bipartisan majorities' on shared responsibility is also loose — shared responsibility for job displacement is only 52%. Cite the specific per-issue numbers, not the generalization.
Corrections applied. Partner is named 'Telescope Foundation' in Gallup's own methodology statement; our entry says 'Telescope' (the entry's linked partner announcement is telescopegp.com). Worth reconciling the exact legal name. Method can be stated fully: probability-based Gallup Panel web study, recruited via random-digit-dial and address-based sampling, N=3,975 US adults 18+, fielded Nov 26-Dec 4, 2024, MoE +/-2.6 percentage points, published January 14, 2025, author Ellyn Maese. Date, N and fieldwork window in the entry are all correct.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: General U.S. adults' AI awareness/use with no education measure. Workstream c
Corrections applied. Release date is September 10, 2024, not September 12, 2024 — September 12 is the date of the AP wire story, not the report. Add margin of error ±4.0 percentage points. All other attribution confirmed: AP-NORC/USAFacts, 1,019 U.S. adults (990 web, 29 telephone), NORC AmeriSpeak probability panel, fielded July 29–August 8, 2024, U.S. national. The 'State of the Facts 2024' title correction already recorded in our notes is correct.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 5 of 5 numeric tokens
Citation caveat. These figures must be date-stamped to DDIA's first 2024 wave (fielded March 11-April 26, 2024). DDIA fielded a second wave in September 2024 (N=3,000, released February 2025) in which several of these numbers moved: regular ChatGPT use rose from 15% to 20%, 'neither positive nor negative' fell from 47% to 42%, and agreement on the pressing need for stricter AI regulation went from 68% to 69% (job-displacement worry held at 66%). Citing 15%/47%/68% without the wave label would present superseded figures as current. Also note YouGov's panel is opt-in, matched and weighted to be nationally representative of U.S. Latino adults rather than a probability sample, and the survey ran in English and Spanish with 89% choosing English.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 0 of 5 numeric tokens
Citation caveat. Do not cite the key_findings text currently in the database - every figure in it belongs to the 2025 wave, not 2024. Once corrected: Ipsos Global Advisor is a weighted nonprobability online panel; Ipsos states that samples in Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand and Turkiye skew more urban, educated and/or affluent than their general populations and should not be read as nationally representative.
Corrections applied. 32 countries, not ~30. Sample is 23,685 adults, not '23,000+ ages 18-74': age frames vary by market (18+ in India, 18-74 in Canada/Ireland/Israel/Malaysia/South Africa/Turkiye/US, 20-74 Thailand, 21-74 Indonesia and Singapore, 16-74 elsewhere). Fielded April 19 - May 3, 2024, NOT March 22 - April 5, 2024. India's sample was collected partly face-to-face on the IndiaBus platform. Organization, self-funding, and June 2024 publication date are correct.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 4 of 10 numeric tokens
Corrections applied. Method field can be strengthened: fielded on Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based online panel recruited by address-based sampling from the USPS Delivery Sequence File (households without internet given tablets/connectivity); weighted by gender x age, race/ethnicity, education, Census region, metro status and household income to the March 2023 CPS; design effect 1.08; MoE +/-3.2 at 95% confidence.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 5 of 5 numeric tokens
Citation caveat. Secondary synthesis with no original Stanford HAI fieldwork. Attribute each figure to its originating survey — the 66%, 52% nervous, and 37% are Ipsos 2023; the 52% of Americans more concerned than excited is Pew Research 2023 — and note the data are 2023 fieldwork despite the 2024 publication date. Do not count this as an independent data point alongside the Ipsos or Pew entries already in the corpus.
Corrections applied. Chapter 9 and April 2024 publication confirmed. Add that the underlying fieldwork is 2023, not 2024: the chart provenance lines in the chapter PDF read 'Source: Ipsos, 2023' and 'Source: Pew Research, 2023'. Data sources are Ipsos, Pew Research Center, University of Toronto, and Quid (social media analysis) — all four already reflected in the method field.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Minor framing fix: the 29% / 31% split comes from a general question about 'the quality of people's daily lives' with no 2040 time horizon; only the item batteries (privacy, employment, civility, etc.) are explicitly 'by the year 2040'. Separately, if any expert-canvassing numbers are ever cited from this report, note that the 328-expert half is a self-selected opt-in canvassing, not a probability sample — only the Ipsos public-opinion half is projectable.
Corrections applied. All attribution correct. Precise expert count: 328 experts responded to at least one aspect of the 17th 'Future of Digital Life' canvassing, of whom 251 answered multiple-choice questions and 166 provided written answers — so '300+' is accurate. Poll fielded on the Ipsos Omnibus using Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based online panel; N=1,021; Oct 20-22, 2023; MoE ±3.2%. Release date Feb 29, 2024 confirmed.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 4 of 4 numeric tokens
Citation caveat. These are speculative 100-years-from-now forecasts, not present-day attitudes toward AI, and the sample is an opt-in Dynata panel with a credibility interval rather than a sampling MoE. The 'college-level textbooks' item is the only education touchpoint - do not cite this as evidence of public attitudes toward AI in schools.
Corrections applied. +/-3.3 points is a credibility interval, not a margin of error: HPU states "their participation does not adhere to usual assumptions associated with random selection. Therefore, it is not appropriate to assign a classic margin of sampling error," and builds the 3.3 from a 3.0 interval plus a 1.2 design effect. Add: fielded by the HPU Survey Research Center on its Qualtrics platform using a Dynata-recruited NC panel; weighted to U.S. Census NC estimates for age, gender, race, ethnicity, education. Published Feb 23, 2024. N=1,042 and Jan 16-26, 2024 field dates are correct.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 6 of 6 numeric tokens
Citation caveat. Describe the method accurately as an Ipsos KnowledgePanel-calibrated blend (probability n=1,089 calibrating an opt-in n=1,009), not a pure probability panel. "Non-college youth (net -17)" is IOP's "not in school, no degree" group; enrolled college students are -6.
Corrections applied. Method label is wrong: this is not a straight probability panel. IOP's own methodology reads: "Data were collected by Ipsos Public Affairs using the KnowledgePanel calibration approach. In this approach, the calibrating sample was provided by the KnowledgePanel probability-based sample source (n=1,089), while the sample to be calibrated was provided by non-probability, opt-in web panel sample sources (n=1,009)." Add: interviews in English and Spanish, Oct 23-Nov 6, 2023; weighted to age-group, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, household income, urbanicity, region; MoE +/-2.86%; released Dec 5, 2023. Organization, partner (Ipsos), Della Volpe, N=2,098 and geography all correct.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 7 of 7 numeric tokens
Corrections applied. The method field 'mixed methods' is wrong — this is a probability-panel survey (NORC AmeriSpeak), not a qual+quant design. Add margin of error ±4.1 percentage points. All other attribution confirmed: 1,017 U.S. adults, fielded October 19–23, 2023, released November 3, 2023, AP-NORC with the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy and the Associated Press, U.S. national.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 11 of 11 numeric token
Citation caveat. The 73% figure does NOT measure support for regulating social media platforms — the question asked whether state government has a responsibility to take action to protect Californians from political disinformation, deepfakes and AI in the 2024 elections. Citing it as support for platform regulation misstates the instrument. Methodologically strong but not a classic probability sample: voters were recruited by email invitation from the state voter file (only voters with email addresses on file) and self-selected into responding; IGS itself says sampling error is "difficult to calculate precisely" and offers ~+/-2 points as an approximation. Also election-focused, not education — the only education item is a civics-curriculum question.
Corrections applied. Funder is wrong in the partners_funders field: the release states plainly that the poll was funded by the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund. It was NOT conducted for or funded by CITED/California Common Cause — Common Cause separately promoted the results. Publication date is November 14, 2023 (Release #2023-25, Tuesday, November 14, 2023); the Berkeley News writeup is dated November 16. Method should note post-stratification weighting and a voter-file sampling frame.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 0 of 8 numeric tokens
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 5 of 5 numeric tokens
Citation caveat. Fielded on The Harris Poll's 'Harris On Demand' opt-in online omnibus, weighted to be projectable rather than drawn from a probability frame, and no margin of error is published. MITRE commissioned and framed the research around AI assurance, which is a line of business for it.
Corrections applied. Sharpen fielding dates to July 13-17, 2023 (deck states these explicitly). Deck released September 19, 2023, as the entry says. Weighting is described only as 'data weighted to ensure results are projectable to U.S. adults ages 18+'; no margin of error is reported.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 1 of 5 numeric tokens
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 9 of 9 numeric tokens
Citation caveat. Fieldwork ran September-October 2022 — BEFORE ChatGPT's public launch on Nov 30, 2022 — so despite the '2023' title this measures pre-generative-AI-boom public sentiment and must not be cited as current attitudes. Panels were Qualtrics-sourced research panels quota-matched to national statistics, i.e. nonprobability, not a probability sample. KPMG is both funder and co-publisher of a study about trust in AI, a market it advises in. The entry's link resolves only to KPMG's global executive summary; the 82-page full report is at the UQ link supplied.
Corrections applied. Author list is incomplete — the citation is Gillespie, N., Lockey, S., Curtis, C., Pool, J., & Akbari, A. (2023), so add Ali Akbari. Sample should read: 17,193 respondents across 17 countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, India, Israel, Japan, Netherlands, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, UK, US), country samples of 1,001-1,021, fielded September-October 2022 — the fieldwork dates are missing from the entry and are the single most important attribution fact here. Method should read: online survey of representative research panels sourced by Qualtrics, nationally representative within each country on gender, age and regional distribution matched to official national statistics; respondents randomly allocated to one of five AI use cases. Funder should read: Australian Government Research Support Package grant to the UQ AI Collaboratory and the KPMG Chair in Trust grant (ID 2018001776); UQ led design, conduct, analysis and reporting.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 1 of 1 numeric tokens
Citation caveat. Fielded on The Harris Poll's opt-in 'Harris On Demand' online omnibus, weighted to be projectable rather than probability-sampled, with no margin of error published; the tech-expert comparison sample is only n=200 and its recruitment is described but not documented. MITRE commissioned the research and has a commercial interest in AI assurance work.
Corrections applied. The February 9, 2023 deck reports a second, separate survey of 200 individuals working in the technology field (tech experts) alongside the n=2,050 general-public sample; the entry's sample field should note this, because several of the deck's headline comparisons are public-vs-expert. Fielding November 3-7, 2022 and release February 9, 2023 are both correct.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Fieldwork was November 2022, outside the January 2023+ inclusion window.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 11 of 11 numeric token
How AI is actually being used in schools — adoption rates, tool categories, usage-data analyses.
Citation caveat. Industry-funded (Disney's Digital Wellness Grant Program and TikTok) and self-published; quota-balanced nonprobability online panel with no post-hoc weighting -- the report states findings 'reflect the opinion of survey respondents only'.
Corrections applied. partners_funders is incomplete and should add the report's own funding line: 'This research is supported by Disney's Digital Wellness Grant Program & TikTok.' Also confirmed from the methodology section: fielded March 17 - April 6, 2026; N = 2,003 children ages 10-17 (1,000 U.S., 1,003 Australian) and 2,003 parents (1,000 U.S., 1,003 Australian); U.S. data representative by child age, child gender, parent/child race, single/multi-parent household and household income, Australian data representative by child age and gender; 'No post-hoc weights were applied to this study'; analyzed in SPSS.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Preliminary findings only — JED says the full research is not expected until fall 2026, so no instrument, toplines, or methodology document exists yet. The sample is students in 21 schools/districts already partnered with JED, not a probability or nationally representative sample of U.S. students; no weighting or margin of error is disclosed. The mental-health links (poorer mental health, loneliness, suicidal thoughts) are cross-sectional associations in a single survey, not evidence that AI use causes harm — do not phrase them causally.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Corrections applied. Add the research partners: the questionnaire was developed by Echelon Insights (co-authors Kristen Soltis Anderson, Eleanor O'Neil, Baxter White) and fieldwork was conducted by SSRS. Fielded March 18-26, 2026 among 1,204 youth age 9-17; MoE +/-3.8 pts; published June 8, 2026. Funders: Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, Bezos Family Foundation, Craig Newmark Philanthropies, Jennifer Caldwell and John H.N. Fisher, Patrick J. McGovern Foundation, Siegel Family Endowment, Walton Family Foundation. Credited to the Common Sense Media Youth AI Safety Institute.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. No sampling frame, mode, weighting, or margin of error is published, and the article does not claim national representativeness. The 27%/73% figure is educators' awareness of a districtwide AI initiative, which is not the same as whether one exists.
Corrections applied. Add author Jennifer Vilcarino and exact publication date June 18, 2026. Note the article does not describe this survey as nationally representative; it reports only field window and role counts. All sample details in our entry are exact.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Vendor-run analysis of Instructure's own Canvas LTI telemetry; it measures activity inside one LMS ecosystem, not the U.S. K-12 market. No disclosure of how representative the Canvas K-12 install base is, and no derivation shown for the '3,001 tools per district' figure. Instructure sells into this market.
Corrections applied. Add the data period (Sept 1, 2025 - Apr 30, 2026) and release date (June 29, 2026). Sample figures are correct as stated (12,672,611 individuals; 618,068 educators; 11M+ students), but this is platform telemetry from Instructure's own Canvas K-12 install base, not a sample of U.S. K-12 districts, and should be described as such. Note the report page itself states 'more than half the tools in this year's top 40' are purpose-built; the 85% figure appears in Instructure's press release. Organization/partner/geography/method otherwise check out.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. 38% survey response from a purposively identified frame of AI early adopters; the report states outright that the sample 'is not intended to be representative or exhaustive' and that 'relatively few superintendents participated,' skewing findings toward technology and AI leads. Funded by Overdeck, Cinelli, and Walton family foundations.
Corrections applied. Funders ARE named in the report's acknowledgements — replace 'funder not named on page' with: Overdeck Family Foundation, Cinelli Family Foundation, and Walton Family Foundation. Sample/method should be sharpened: survey and interview data collected October-November 2025; 119 districts initially identified as Early Adopters, of which 45 (38%) responded to the survey; 28 were selected for follow-up interviews and 14 participated (29 participants). The '45 districts across 20 states' figure refers to survey respondents only — the interview base is 14 districts. Authors confirmed: Michael Berardino, Swati Guin, Bree Dusseault. Date MAY 2026 confirmed on the PDF cover.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Corrections applied. Add the sampling frame, which is the most citation-relevant missing detail: teachers were recruited from the RAND American Teacher Panel, a nationally representative probability-based panel, with the final sample weighted to national teacher demographics; MoE +/-2.5 percentage points at 95% confidence. Authors are Andrea Malek Ash and Katherine Senseman; published May 26, 2026. Funding is stated in the source as Walton Family Foundation AND Gallup, not Walton alone as the entry implies. Actual article headline is 'Most Teachers Receive No Formal Guidance on AI Use'; the entry's title prefixes the parent study name 'Teaching for Tomorrow: Closing the Expectations Gap,' which is accurate framing.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Vendor co-authored study of the vendor's own platform (Colleague AI authors sit alongside University of Washington authors, and an NSF SBIR award to the vendor's parent company part-funds the work). The 0.025 SD reading association is explicitly correlational, drawn from a voluntary-adoption population, and the authors themselves warn: teacher adoption was voluntary and "we may be observing a selection effect." It is not evidence that the platform caused reading gains.
Corrections applied. The report cover is dated March 2026; arXiv v1 was posted April 8, 2026 (our 2026-04 is defensible but the document itself says March 2026). Author affiliations are explicit: superscript 1 = University of Washington, superscript 2 = Colleague AI. The funding line is more specific than our entry: IES Grant R305C240012, NSF awards #2043613, #2300291 and #2405110 to the University of Washington, and — omitted from our entry — an NSF SBIR/STTR award to Hensun Innovation LLC (#2423365), which is the vendor-side award and should be disclosed alongside the others.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Corrections applied. Add: probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel, margin of error +/-2.2 points at 95% confidence, weighted to 2025 Census Bureau benchmarks across demographic, geographic and political variables. Sample, dates (March 3-6, 2026), publication date (April 13, 2026) and partner are all correct as stated.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Authoritative general-adult usage survey, out of scope. Every URL present in the CSV primary/additional-source fields was resolution-checked; any better underlying report/topline l
Citation caveat. EdWeek asserts the survey is nationally representative but publishes no sampling frame, mode, weighting scheme, or margin of error; N=499 across three role groups means the subgroup bases are small. Also note the figures are educators' perceptions of what their district offers, not a district-level audit. EdWeek's ed-tech coverage is grant-supported by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (editorial control retained by EdWeek).
Corrections applied. Add author (Lauraine Langreo) and exact publication date (March 3, 2026). The article states 'a nationally representative survey of 499 teachers, principals, and district leaders conducted in December and January' — it does not name the years, so 'December 2025-January 2026' is a (reasonable) inference from the March 2026 publication date, not a stated fact. Add funder disclosure: 'Coverage of education technology is supported in part by a grant from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative... Education Week retains sole editorial control over the content of this coverage.'
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. EdWeek Research Center's own educator panel; the article asserts nothing about sample size, sampling frame, or weighting for the fall 2025 wave, and EdWeek publishes no topline or methodology document for it. Cite the 61% adoption figure as EdWeek Research Center panel data, not as a documented nationally representative estimate.
Corrections applied. Article published January 12, 2026 by Lauraine Langreo (last modified March 2, 2026). The article discloses no sample size, sampling frame, or weighting for the fall 2025 wave - only that it was fielded between September and November. The '29%' comparison point is explicitly from EdWeek's January-March 2024 survey, so the entry's 'vs 42% in Oct 2024 and 29% in 2024' conflates two different waves and misstates the fall 2024 number.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. The source says 'nearly half', not 45% — do not cite a precise figure. No sample size, mode, sampling frame, weighting, or margin of error is disclosed for this wave, and the survey is not described as nationally representative. Cite only as 'nearly half, per an EdWeek Research Center summer 2025 survey (N and methodology not published).'
Corrections applied. Remove 'nationally representative' from the method field — the article does not characterize this survey that way, and no sample size, mode, sampling frame, weighting, or margin of error is published anywhere in the piece or its companion. The article says only 'a survey conducted this summer by the EdWeek Research Center.' Add authors Arianna Prothero and Jennifer Vilcarino, published October 20, 2025. Add funder disclosure: EdWeek's ed-tech coverage is supported in part by a Chan Zuckerberg Initiative grant (EdWeek retains sole editorial control).
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Advocacy-organization adversarial product audit, not a survey and not a sample of real children — all conversations were conducted by adult researchers role-playing child personas, and in some conversations researchers deliberately introduced sensitive topics to test bot responses. Bots were purposively selected to appeal to each persona. The 'one harmful interaction every 5 minutes' rate therefore describes researcher-directed adversarial testing and cannot be generalized to what a typical child user experiences. Harm categorization was performed by the advocacy organizations themselves against their own definitions.
Corrections applied. The sample description needs one correction and more precision. Accounts were registered at ages 13-15, not 12-15: the report states all avatar accounts were registered to the stated age of the persona except Olivia, who told bots she was 12 but used an account registered to a 13-year-old because Character AI does not allow under-13s to create accounts. Full design: a team of ParentsTogether Action staff and contract researchers created five fictional child personas (Olivia 12, Emma 13, Amir 14, River 14, Connor 15), identified 10 bots per persona (50 total, each with at least 5,000 prior interactions and English-speaking), held one 15-minute exploratory conversation with each of the 50, advanced 26 bots that met a 'generative conversation' threshold to 30-60 minute in-depth conversations, and logged approximately 50 hours in total. Report dated 28 September 2025.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Advocacy polling commissioned by a free-market think tank, released as a findings summary with no published toplines, crosstabs, or questionnaire. Survey mode, sampling frame, and weighting are not disclosed. The AI items measure workplace AI use only and are unconnected to the poll's education items, so this cannot support any claim about AI in Florida schools.
Corrections applied. The pollster IS identifiable and should no longer be listed as unnamed: the poll was conducted by Targoz Market Research for the James Madison Institute, September 16-18, 2025, N=1,200 registered Florida voters, margin of error ±2.77%. Release date September 29, 2025. The method field is self-contradictory — it asserts 'online survey' while also saying the mode is not fully specified; the release does not disclose mode, so the online claim should be dropped rather than assumed.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: AI questions concern general work use; separate education items concern schoo
Citation caveat. Qualitative study of 16 educators recruited via the U-GAIN interest list and social media — a self-selected, non-representative sample. Findings are directional themes, not prevalence estimates, and no fieldwork dates are given. Do not convert any statement into a percentage of educators nationally.
Corrections applied. All correct. Full detail from the report: authors Stefani Pautz Stephenson, Tiffany Leones, Danae Kamdar, Yenda Prado, Joshua Ddamulira; August 2025; IES grant R305C240040 to Digital Promise Global (U-GAIN Reading R&D Center); 11 states are AK, CA, FL, LA, MA, MI, NV, NY, RI, TX, VA; data collection was eight 1:1 semi-structured interviews plus three listening sessions, inductively coded.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Corrections applied. The method field 'mixed methods' is wrong — this is a probability-panel survey (NORC AmeriSpeak), conducted in mixed MODE (1,357 web, 80 telephone), in English and Spanish, with a small monetary incentive. Add: respondents aged 18–29 were deliberately OVERSAMPLED ('sampled at a higher rate than their proportion of the population for reasons of analysis'), n=386 with MoE ±6.6 — this matters because the entry's headline is a young-adult claim. All other attribution confirmed: 1,437 U.S. adults, fielded July 10–14, 2025, released July 29, 2025, MoE ±3.6, AP-NORC with the Associated Press.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: General adult AI adoption with no K-12 measure. Workstream coverage in the CS
Citation caveat. Purposive, self-nominated sample of 27 districts already identified as AI early adopters; explicitly not nationally representative, suburban-skewed, and the quantitative survey component is only n=17 districts. Findings describe leading-edge districts, not US districts generally.
Corrections applied. partners_funders is wrong: this study is NOT connected to the RAND-CRPE American School District Panel. Districts were identified through referrals and desk research, not the ASDP. The report's acknowledgements name research/nonprofit partners — AI for Equity, Chiefs for Change, Digital Promise, EdTrust, Los Angeles County Office of Education, National Parents Union, StrategicEdu, TeachAI, and the PIE Network — and refer to an unnamed single funder. Authors: Bree Dusseault, Maddy Sims, Michael Berardino. Sample should read: study conducted August 2024-May 2025; 51 districts identified, 27 recruited; 22 focus groups/interviews with 45 leaders from 22 districts; survey responses from 17 of the 27; 10 follow-up group interviews at 6 districts; public profiles built for 40 districts. Explicitly not nationally representative, with suburban districts overrepresented. Date 2025-07 is correct — the PDF cover reads JULY 2025 (the crpe.org page's 'August 2025' is the web posting).
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Qualitative study of a single funder-run cohort, with no comparison group; Silicon Schools Fund designed, facilitated and funded the cohort and also funded this evaluation of it. Interview base is 12 pilot teams, not the 80+ educators in the cohort.
Corrections applied. The sample field conflates the cohort with the research sample. The cohort was 18 California schools (including two private schools), 80+ educators (about half teachers, half administrators) across six sessions, and 30+ pilots — but CRPE's own data collection was 'meeting observations, pilot documents, and interviews with 12 of the pilot teams.' CRPE did not interview 80+ educators. Funder role is understated: Silicon Schools Fund 'facilitated and funded the cohort' AND 'This report was made possible by the Silicon Schools Fund' — i.e. it funded both the intervention and the study of it. SSF designed and facilitated the cohort in partnership with AI for Education and Villanueva Consulting; participating schools received small grants for travel, lodging, release time, and some software licensing. Authors confirmed: Chelsea Waite, Steven Weiner, Lisa Chu; date JULY 2025 confirmed.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Vendor gray literature from a sales-intelligence company whose business is selling exactly this district-signal data to K-12 vendors, so a large reported AI-adoption market is self-interested. It is a document/procurement analysis, not a survey. No district denominator, no N, and no operational definition of 'purchased AI-related tools' is disclosed, so '68%' cannot be checked against a base. The full report is gated behind a lead-capture form.
Corrections applied. The sample field says 'thousands of districts'; the page actually says Starbridge 'analyzed thousands of public signals—board minutes, procurement records, strategic plans, and policy documents'. Those are documents, not districts — the district denominator is never disclosed anywhere on the page. Also, populations='Administrators' is misleading: no humans were surveyed, this is analysis of public records, so no respondent population exists. Publication date June 24, 2025 confirmed on page.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. MUST NOT be cited as survey or research evidence — it produces no original data. It is a synthesis of a single invitational two-day convening of 24 hand-picked participants, and its statistics are all borrowed from other studies, so cite RAND or Common Sense directly rather than citing this report for those numbers. Severe conflict of interest for this particular corpus: aiEDU CEO Alex Kotran is a co-author, three of the 24 participants are aiEDU staff, and the report's central recommendation — philanthropic investment in educator capacity building — is the service aiEDU sells. Presenting it to funders as independent evidence for aiEDU's model would be circular. The room was also unrepresentative of the field it describes: 22 of 24 participants were funders or intermediaries and only 2 were serving K-12 practitioners, with zero teachers, students, or parents — so it documents what philanthropy believes districts need, not what districts report needing. Funders NewSchools and CK-12 also sat in the convening.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Citation caveat. Small district-level sample with a very low response rate — 291 of 8,017 invited districts (4%) in fall 2024 — weighted to national representativeness by RAND but sensitive to nonresponse bias; the poverty-gap subgroup figures rest on smaller cells still. The interview findings (opt-in training, do-it-yourself development) come from 14-15 self-selected leaders and are explicitly described by RAND as not representative of the survey sample.
Corrections applied. All correct, including the exact district counts and windows: 291 districts completed the fall 2024 survey (fielded Oct 24-Dec 23, 2024) and 231 completed fall 2023 (Oct 12-Dec 14, 2023); 15 semistructured interviews were conducted Nov 2024-Jan 2025, 14 of whom had trained or planned to train teachers on AI (which is why the in-house finding is '11 of 14'). Authors are Melissa Kay Diliberti, Robin J. Lake, and Steven R. Weiner; published April 8, 2025. Worth adding to the sample field: the fall 2024 survey had a 4-percent response rate (291 of 8,017 invited districts) and fall 2023 a 19.8-percent completion rate (231 of 1,167 invited ASDP member districts); responses were weighted to be representative of all U.S. K-12 public school districts.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. The use-case findings are drawn from 22 hand-picked open-ended responses that EdWeek published as illustrations, not from quantified results — no percentages exist for any of these use cases. Do not present any of them as prevalence estimates among the 990 respondents. Only the N (990), the role mix, and the December field month are quantitative facts.
Corrections applied. Add author Olina Banerji and exact publication date February 14, 2025. The article says the survey was 'conducted in December' without naming the year — 'December 2024' is a sound inference from the February 2025 publication date but is not stated. N=990 educators (teachers, principals, district administrators) is exact. No mode, sampling frame, weighting, or margin of error is disclosed.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Corrections applied. All correct. Optional precision: authors are Julia H. Kaufman, Ashley Woo, Joshua Eagan, Sabrina Lee, and Emma B. Kassan; surveys were fielded in spring 2024 asking about the 2023-2024 school year; analytic Ns are roughly 8,814 teachers and 3,593-3,597 principals, with open-response subsamples of 1,878 teachers and 1,955 principals; responses were weighted to be nationally representative.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Added by independent audit (net-new)
Citation caveat. Curated, non-representative list of 40 early-adopter systems identified from news stories and referrals from AI support organizations — CRPE states plainly these 'are not a representative sample or an exhaustive list.' Because the analysis rests on publicly available documents, the percentages measure what these districts have publicly published, not what they actually do internally.
Corrections applied. Minor: the fall 2023 comparison survey was conducted by CRPE with RAND (the page describes 'a representative survey of districts CRPE released this spring with RAND'), so crediting RAND alongside CRPE would be more precise. Authors confirmed as Bree Dusseault, Jared Hurwitz, Michael Berardino, Nadja Michel-Herf; date October 2024 confirmed; no funder is named on the page.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Qualitative synthesis of a single funder's own grantee cohort, conducted by the funder-paid learning partner and funded by the Gates Foundation — the sample is 28 self-selected grant-funded projects, so findings describe that cohort's experience, not the K-12 field. No prevalence or effect estimates. Do not cite the current key_findings text as written; use the corrected text.
Corrections applied. Organization, authors (Noakes, Shell, Murillo, Van Nostrand, Ruiz, Cornick, Karim), October 2024 date, Gates Foundation funding, DOI 10.51388/20.500.12265/232, and N=28 projects are all correct. Add for accuracy: Digital Promise was the cohort's learning partner, not the grantmaker; grantees received $100,000 each for 2023-2024 projects; data came from surveys, interviews, and a virtual (Dec 2023) and in-person (Apr 2024) convening.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. NBER working paper, not peer reviewed. Built on a quota-targeted, weighted Qualtrics online panel rather than a probability sample; the authors document that 18-24 year olds and those with no more than a high school degree are underrepresented while households under $50,000 are overrepresented before weighting. Survey funded in part by the Walmart Foundation. General-population benchmark, not education-specific.
Corrections applied. Add funder: 'The survey was funded in part by the Walmart Foundation, grant 252882.' Correct the sample description: the main results pool the August 2024 (n=5,014) and November 2024 (n=5,329) RPS waves, over 10,000 respondents, not the August wave alone; a June 2024 pilot module drew a further 2,551 responses. Issued September 2024, revised February 2025 (the entry's 2024-09 is correct as the issue date). The RPS is fielded online by Qualtrics; the paper states plainly that the Qualtrics panel of roughly 15 million members 'is not a random sample of the U.S. population' — invitations are quota-targeted on gender, age, education and household income and responses are then raked to CPS benchmarks, so 'nationally representative' here means weighted-to-representative, not probability-sampled.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 9 of 9 numeric tokens
Citation caveat. Two caveats, both load-bearing. First, the sample was screened to educators in districts ALREADY actively using AI — usage rates from this survey say nothing about U.S. educators generally and must never be presented as adoption rates. Second, it is vendor-commissioned: Cambium Learning Group sells K-12 curriculum and assessment products, so a finding that educators are productively using AI is commercially favorable to the sponsor. N=482 across two very different populations (teachers and district administrators) also means thin subgroup cells.
Corrections applied. Attribution holds: commissioned by Cambium Learning Group, fielded and analyzed by Hanover Research, fielded January 2024, released Aug 6, 2024, 482 qualified responses from K-12 teachers and district administrators. Screening criterion confirmed in trade coverage: respondents were drawn from 'schools and districts that are actively using AI in the classroom.' Not disclosed anywhere I could reach: the panel/sample source, exact field dates within January, and any margin of error — so sample_type is an inference from the screening description rather than a stated design.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Vendor platform-log data, not a survey: the measuring instrument is Copyleaks' own AI detector, the product the release is marketing, and no false-positive or accuracy validation is disclosed. Institutions are a self-selected convenience set of existing Copyleaks customers, no document count is given, and the '76% spike' is a relative change in detector flag rates (11.92% to 20.98%), not an absolute measure of student AI use. The substitution-of-AI-for-plagiarism inference is the database's, not the source's.
Corrections applied. The method field's '~1M student papers' is unsupported - that figure appears nowhere in the Copyleaks report or press release, which say only 'tens of thousands of college and high school students.' No document count is ever disclosed. Correct the method to: analysis of 13 months of anonymized AI-detector and plagiarism-detector results (Jan 2023-Jan 2024) from the same educational institutions used in Copyleaks' prior study, all of which had been using its detectors since January 2023. Seven countries: Australia, Canada, Myanmar, Philippines, South Africa, UK, US. Report title: 'One Year Later: ChatGPT and Education', released March 19-20, 2024.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. In-house vendor survey run on Pollfish (opt-in mobile river panel), N=1,109, with a ±10% margin of error at only 90% confidence — very wide. The disclosed sample is 58% male and 15% under age 25, which does not resemble the US teacher workforce (roughly 76% female, and few teachers are under 25 given degree and certification requirements), suggesting weak screening of the opt-in pool. The 84% figure sits far above probability-based estimates of teacher AI use and must not be cited as a national teacher usage rate.
Corrections applied. Add the methodology now recoverable from indexed content: N=1,109 teacher participants; fielded via Pollfish (an opt-in mobile panel); margin of error ±10% at a 90% confidence level (not the conventional 95%); the piece compares two Study.com waves, 2023 and 2024. Disclosed respondent demographics are implausible for a US K-12 teacher population: 58% male / 42% female, and 15% aged 18-24.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. The headline 60-70% cheating figure has no disclosed methodology — it comes from a researcher interview describing unpublished Challenge Success survey data, with no N, no field dates, and no sampling frame. The traceable finding (cheating rates stable after ChatGPT) rests on three self-selected partner high schools, not a national sample. Never cite the 60-70% as a national rate for U.S. high school students.
Corrections applied. Geography 'US national' is wrong and should be removed. The underlying peer-reviewed study covers three high schools; Challenge Success surveys are administered at partner schools that engage the organization, a self-selected group that skews toward high-performing schools (its published academic-integrity work drew on 15 'high-performing U.S. schools'). Primary research is Victor R. Lee, Denise Pope, Sarah Miles, and Rosalía C. Zárate, 'Cheating in the age of generative AI: A high school survey study of cheating behaviors before and after the release of ChatGPT,' Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, published online June 13, 2024, DOI 10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100253 (gold open access). The 2023-10 date and the Stanford GSE link belong to a news interview, not to a research output.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Sponsored by Turnitin, which sells AI-detection products and therefore has a commercial interest in high measured AI-use rates — the report's cover states "RESEARCH SPONSORED BY" and "made possible with the support of our partner Turnitin," and Turnitin's own press release confirms it compensated Tyton to conduct the study. The report discloses sample sizes, field dates, institution count, and respondent demographics but not the sampling frame, recruitment method, or any weighting, so the results cannot be treated as a representative sample of U.S. higher education.
Corrections applied. The fall wave was fielded in September 2023 specifically (the report compares "March 2023 to September 2023"). Respondents were students and faculty only — approximately 1,600 students and 1,000 faculty across more than 600 unique institutions; administrators were not a separate surveyed population, though 37% of faculty respondents reported holding an administrative role.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 5 of 5 numeric tokens
Citation caveat. This is a self-selected convenience sample of just over 450 institutions drawn from UNESCO's own Associated Schools Network and UNESCO Chairs programme — institutions already engaged with UNESCO, and skewed to Europe/North America (44%). It is NOT a representative sample of the world's schools and universities. The widely repeated framing that "fewer than 10% of schools and universities worldwide have formal AI guidance" overstates what this can support; say "fewer than 10% of 450+ institutions surveyed in UNESCO's networks." No full report or topline was published — only the findings article.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Not K-12, but the sentiment dynamics on campuses preview what secondary schools face next.
Citation caveat. The 45,398 N is impressive but does not buy representativeness: respondents are recruited opt-in through DEC's own member institutions, with no sampling frame, no disclosed fielding window, and no weighting, so this is a large convenience sample of engaged institutions rather than a picture of global higher education. Regional comparisons (Asia-Pacific vs US/Canada) reflect which institutions chose to participate in each region. The full report is gated behind member login or form registration, so the underlying question wording and country composition cannot be independently checked. Drop the claim that student adoption rose 16 points.
Corrections applied. Add publication date July 9, 2026 (entry's 2026-07 is correct but undated). The method field should record that responses are collected on an opt-in basis through participating DEC member institutions rather than by random or stratified sampling; fielding dates and any weighting are not disclosed publicly.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Generation Lab student panel (nonprobability; vendor claims the frame resembles a probability sample). This wave reports no margin of error at all, and no weighting is disclosed.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Despite the huge N, this is a self-selected open-invitation survey of one university system, not a probability sample — no response rate and no weighting are disclosed, and people with strong views about AI are the likeliest to answer an AI survey. Cite it as 'the largest dataset of its kind' and as CSU-specific, never as representative of U.S. higher education or even of CSU's population.
Corrections applied. Core attribution verified: developed and conducted by San Diego State University researchers, fielded fall 2025 across all 22 CSU campuses, released April 1, 2026, 94,000+ total respondents (80,000+ students of whom 85% undergraduate, 6,000+ faculty, 7,300+ staff). Full title confirmed as 'Ahead of the Curve: What the Nation's Largest Public University System is Learning about AI.' ONE UNCONFIRMED CLAIM: the entry names 'David Goldberg (SDSU AI faculty fellow)' as the research team lead. No source I reached names a team lead — the CSU and SJSU releases say only 'researchers at San Diego State University.' Either source that name or drop it. Add to method: participation was by open invitation to all CSU students, faculty and staff, and the instrument covered five sections (awareness/understanding, experience/usage, perceptions/attitudes, skills education and training, future expectations).
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Opt-in nonprobability panel (Dynata), weighted but with no valid margin of error — do not present these percentages as nationally representative estimates of college students with a stated precision. All AI-use figures are self-reported. Funded by Lumina Foundation, which has a stated interest in postsecondary attainment.
Corrections applied. Critical omission in the method field: this is NOT a probability sample. Respondents were drawn from the Dynata web-based NONPROBABILITY panel, with data weighted to national demographics by gender, age, race, ethnicity, education and region. The entry's 'Web survey of US adults pursuing associate or bachelor's degrees' gives no hint of this, and a reader would reasonably assume Gallup's usual probability panel. Everything else confirmed: 3,801 enrolled students (1,433 associate, 2,368 bachelor's) ages 18-59 out of 6,010 US adults, fielded Oct 2-31, 2025, published April 1, 2026, author Stephanie Marken, funded by Lumina Foundation.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Self-published by a career platform with a commercial stake in the early-career market; respondents are users of that platform, so it is a nonprobability sample weighted to IPEDS - the +/-2.9pp margin of error is model-based, not a probability-sample MoE.
Corrections applied. Fill in the methodology, which our entry leaves vague: Handshake Network Trends fielded the student survey in March 2026 via Sprig to a stratified random sample of graduating-senior Handshake users drawn from eligible U.S. four-year institutions and stratified across 24 demographic cells to mirror IPEDS enrollment; after cleaning, 1,248 Class of 2026 bachelor's-degree students representing 498 institutions were retained; responses were raked to IPEDS/NCES on gender, race/ethnicity and institutional selectivity; stated overall margin of error +/-2.9 pts at 95%. Job-posting and resume figures come from Handshake marketplace data (July-March windows), not the survey. Exact title: 'AI and the Workforce Ahead: What the Class of 2026 tells us about the future of the labor market'; page dated April 2026.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Sponsored by Kortext, an AI study-tools vendor named as an example option in the questionnaire; weighted non-probability Savanta panel. Disclose sponsorship when citing.
Corrections applied. None; optionally add weighting and error: "1,054 full-time undergraduate students were polled through Savanta in December 2025... weighted on demographics such as gender, institution type and year of study... The margin of error is approximately 3%." Authors Rose Stephenson and Charlotte Armstrong, Kortext sponsor, published 12 March 2026 - all correct.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. The report states plainly that this is a 'non-scientific survey of college and university faculty known to the American Association of Colleges & Universities' and that 'the results are not generalizable.' 1,057 self-selected respondents from an invitation list; no weighting or margin of error. AAC&U has an institutional stake in the higher-ed AI conversation. Cite as 'a non-scientific survey of 1,057 faculty known to AAC&U,' never as 'college faculty' generally — and note that a list-recruited, self-selecting faculty sample is likely to over-represent those with strong views about AI, which matters when the headline numbers are 90-95% negative.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Vendor analysis of its own product's usage logs — not a survey and not a representative sample of educators. The population is self-selected Claude.ai Free/Pro users who signed up with a higher-ed email address over an 11-day window, and Anthropic has a commercial interest in the findings. K-12 teacher accounts are explicitly excluded, so it cannot be cited as evidence about K-12 teachers.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Self-published by a career platform; student respondents are platform users (nonprobability, weighted to NCES) and the hiring-manager comparison comes from a separate opt-in commercial panel (Centiment). The AI-as-reason-for-pessimism figures are percentages of pessimistic students, not of all seniors.
Corrections applied. Fill in the methodology: student survey fielded July 7-23, 2025 to a random sample of Handshake users, 2,440 Class of 2026 bachelor's-degree students from 641 institutions retained after cleaning, weighted by gender, race/ethnicity and institutional selectivity to NCES enrollment. The hiring-manager comparison is a separate survey fielded July 3-30, 2025 through the panel vendor Centiment, n=1,042 entry-level hiring managers at organizations with 50+ employees that hired entry-level talent in the past 12 months - our entry mentions this survey exists but gives no N or vendor. Job-posting figures run from 2023 through Aug. 11, 2025 with a disclosed keyword list. No margin of error is reported.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: College rising seniors/Class of 2026 only. Workstream coverage in the CSV was
Citation caveat. Generation Lab student panel: a +/-3 point margin of error is reported, but IHE's own methods page describes a randomized college list plus 'proprietary methods' to obtain student contacts that the vendor says 'closely resembles a probability sample' -- a vendor characterization, not an audited probability design. Weighting is not disclosed.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: Higher-education students only. Workstream coverage in the CSV was rechecked
Citation caveat. Self-published by a career platform; respondents are platform users (nonprobability), weighted to NCES benchmarks, with no margin of error reported.
Corrections applied. Fill in the methodology: between Feb. 11-28, 2025 Handshake randomly invited students across its platform to an online survey; after cleaning, 2,871 Class of 2025 bachelor's-degree students from 658 institutions completed it; responses were weighted by gender, race/ethnicity and institutional selectivity to NCES enrollment figures. No margin of error is reported. Generative-AI posting figures come from Handshake job postings Jan. 1, 2023-March 31, 2025 using a disclosed keyword list. Date: no publication date is printed on the report or the landing page; field dates (Feb. 2025) and application data running through mid-April 2025 bound the release to no earlier than mid-April 2025, consistent with our 2025-05 date, but record it as inferred. The 'more than a quarter' of computer science majors is 28% (vs 18% for the Class of 2024).
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: College graduates/Class of 2025 only. Workstream coverage in the CSV was rech
Citation caveat. Vendor analysis of its own product's usage logs, not a survey — the population is self-selected Claude.ai users with higher-ed email addresses, so it cannot be read as representative of university students. Anthropic has a commercial interest in the findings.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Weighted nonprobability sample: students self-selected into the survey at 37 self-selecting institutions (90% public), recruited via EDUCAUSE marketing emails and its analytics portal, and weighted only by institution size to IPEDS. It is not a probability sample of U.S. undergraduates and no margin of error is reported. Also note the full report is behind an EDUCAUSE member login, so a reader following the citation link cannot see the data.
Corrections applied. All attribution correct. Additional detail from the report's methodology section: the instrument was the 2024 EDUCAUSE student survey, 63 closed- and open-ended items, distributed via EDUCAUSE marketing emails and EDUCAUSE's analytic services portal; inclusion criterion was a 30%+ item-completion rate; data were weighted by institution size classification to IPEDS Fall 2022 benchmarks (weighting was by institution size only, not by student demographics). Respondents skew public (5,806 of 6,468 = 90% public institutions vs 80% of the IPEDS population). Authors: Nicole Muscanell and Kristen Gay. ERIC ID ED678855 confirmed.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: Higher-education students only. Workstream coverage in the CSV was rechecked
Added by independent audit (net-new)
Citation caveat. Commissioned and funded by Chegg, an education company with a direct commercial interest in how students seek study help and in the claim that general-purpose AI tools are less accurate than education-specific ones. Online survey with recruitment method, sampling frame, weighting and margin of error undisclosed; countries were 'selected to represent a broad range of student views,' not sampled probabilistically.
Corrections applied. Date should be 2025-01, not 2025-02 — the press release is dated January 28, 2025. Also correct the entry's note claiming the survey is 'publicly reported with full methodology': the report discloses fieldwork dates, total and per-country sample sizes, ages, countries, online mode, and respondent demographics, but does NOT disclose the sampling frame (panel vs. quota vs. random), any weighting scheme, or a margin of error. 'Global (15 countries)' is accurate; 'worldwide' in the findings text is Chegg's own framing and should be read as 15 selected countries.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: Global undergraduates ages 18-21 only. Workstream coverage in the CSV was rec
Citation caveat. Sponsored by Kortext, an AI study-tools vendor whose product is named as an example option in the questionnaire ('Summarising, note-taking or quizzing university textbooks e.g. Kortext'); weighted non-probability online panel (Savanta). Disclose the sponsorship when citing.
Corrections applied. None. Confirmed verbatim in the Policy Note: "we polled 1,041 full-time undergraduate students through Savanta in December 2024. The responses were weighted on demographics such as gender, institution type and year of study... The margin of error is approximately 3%." Author Josh Freeman; published 26 February 2025.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: United Kingdom undergraduates only. Workstream coverage in the CSV was rechec
Citation caveat. Vendor self-published analysis of its own product's usage data, released by OpenAI's Global Affairs (policy/government-relations) arm, which has a direct commercial and regulatory interest in showing high student adoption and an institutional training gap. No methodology is disclosed anywhere: no sample size, sampling frame, weighting, or field dates for either the usage analysis or the survey, and the usage figures cannot be independently audited. Do not cite the '3 in 4 students want AI training / only 1 in 4 institutions provide it' statistic externally — it is the most quotable claim in the report and is traceable to no disclosed methodology at all.
Corrections applied. Publication date of 20 February 2025 confirmed. Organization (OpenAI Global Affairs) correct. The method field should distinguish two separate components: an analysis of ChatGPT usage data for US 18-24 year olds, and a wholly separate OpenAI-run survey of higher-ed students and institutions whose methodology is never described. The top-adoption-state list may be a top five including Arizona.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Self-selected convenience sample recruited through 52 DEC member institutions; not representative of global faculty. The report discloses no fieldwork dates, no sampling frame, no weighting and no margin of error, and no respondent demographic profile. DEC is a membership/advisory body with a commercial interest in higher-ed AI advisory work.
Corrections applied. No attribution errors. Confirmed from the report: 1,681 faculty responses, 52 participating institutions, 28 countries; published Jan 20, 2025; distribution assisted by DEC member institutions. Note the report discloses NO fieldwork dates anywhere.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: Higher-education faculty only. Workstream coverage in the CSV was rechecked a
Citation caveat. Generation Lab student panel (nonprobability). The article discloses N and fielding month but no weighting or margin of error.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Opt-in sample distributed through DEC member institutions; no sampling frame, weighting, or margin of error disclosed, and the full report is members-only. Cite as an indicative global convenience sample, not a representative student population estimate.
Corrections applied. No errors. Landing page confirms 3,839 responses, 16 countries, bachelor's/master's/doctoral students, published Aug 2, 2024; newsroom summary confirms July 2024 fieldwork.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 2 of 7 numeric tokens
Citation caveat. 3.9% response rate from a list-frame email invitation, so respondents self-selected; no weighting is disclosed. The report itself notes the respondent pool skews 75% white, 75% aged 45 and older, 51% women, 61% tenured/tenure-track, and disciplinarily toward the social sciences (44%) and humanities (29%). Four-year institutions only - excludes community colleges. Findings are a February-March 2024 snapshot and are now over two years old on a fast-moving topic.
Corrections applied. Fielding window is February 7 - March 10, 2024, not February 7 - March 20, 2024. Add: the survey was sent via Qualtrics to a frame of 135,284 faculty at U.S. four-year postsecondary institutions; 5,259 completed (3.9% response rate); 2,654 were randomly assigned to and completed the four-question generative AI module. Published June 20, 2024. Third author is Sage Jasper Love. No external funder is named - this is part of Ithaka S+R's own triennial US Faculty/Instructor Survey series.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Sponsored by Kortext, a commercial vendor of AI-powered study tools (the report carries a box promoting Kortext Premium); UCAS-sourced non-probability sample weighted to the student population. Note the 5% vs 3% discrepancy between HEPI's headline and its own Figure 4.
Corrections applied. Fieldwork was November 2023, not December 2023. Sample is 1,250 UK undergraduate students (rounded to nearest five), polled through UCAS - the note does not describe them as 'full-time' (that qualifier appears only in the 2025 and 2026 waves). Add UCAS as the polling channel to partners_funders alongside Kortext. Responses weighted for age, sex, country and ethnic group; MoE +/-3% at 95% confidence. Author Josh Freeman and February 1, 2024 publication date are correct.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Inside Higher Ed's own Student Voice flash survey, fielded on College Pulse's student panel; the article discloses no fielding dates, sampling frame, weighting, or margin of error. Not a probability sample of U.S. college students.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 4 of 8 numeric tokens
Citation caveat. Opt-in online panel (Pure Spectrum), no weighting or margin of error disclosed; BestColleges is a commercial rankings site, so this is gray literature. When citing the trend, use 22% (March 2023) as the baseline for assignment/exam use — not 43%.
Corrections applied. Attribution correct. Page updated Nov 22, 2023; fieldwork by Pure Spectrum Sept 29-Oct 5, 2023; N=1,000 currently enrolled undergraduate and graduate students (on-campus, online, or hybrid), ages 17-49 with 95% aged 18-38; quality control via Relevant ID screening and manual response review.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Publisher-run survey with no disclosed sampling frame, weighting, or margin of error - almost certainly drawn from Wiley's own instructor contacts. Wiley sells courseware and adaptive-learning products, so it has a commercial interest in findings that show edtech and AI adoption rising. Higher education, not K-12.
Corrections applied. Organization, date (Sept 21, 2023), and both samples (1,078 North American instructors, August 2023, for the AI items; 2,452 instructors, August 2022, for the rest) are correct. Geography should read 'North America' rather than 'United States and Canada' - the release only says North America. The note claiming the newsroom.wiley.com URL persistently returns HTTP 429 to automated requests is stale: the page fetched cleanly. No recruitment frame, response rate, weighting, or margin of error is disclosed anywhere; the 'Higher Ed's Next Chapter, 2023-2024' full report is not publicly downloadable, and the wiley.com landing page for it 403s.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Opt-in online panel (Pure Spectrum), no weighting or margin of error disclosed; BestColleges is a commercial rankings site (gray literature). Useful mainly as an early post-ChatGPT baseline rather than a precise population estimate.
Corrections applied. Publication date is March 17, 2023 (entry's 2023-03 is correct). Fieldwork by Pure Spectrum March 6-13, 2023, N=1,000 students currently enrolled in undergraduate or graduate degree programs. One detail the entry omits: the age range runs 16-61 (94% aged 16-32), so a small number of respondents are minors despite the 'college students' framing.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 5 of 5 numeric tokens
Major non-US work — the UK, Canada, Australia, and global bodies — labeled by geography.
Citation caveat. Publisher-funded (McGraw Hill) survey of an opt-in Morning Consult online educator panel; data not weighted for population size and no margin of error published; N=1,314.
Corrections applied. Publication date of July 29, 2026 is confirmed (Business Wire release, 'Screen Time Emerges as Top Obstacle to Student Success Worldwide'). Fieldwork April 10 - May 8, 2026 via Morning Consult online panel interviewing across six regions; 567 PreK-12 educators and 747 higher-education instructors (1,314 total) across 19 named countries; data not weighted to account for population size.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Commissioned and funded by the Fraser Institute, a market-oriented advocacy think tank, and the framing of the release reflects that; N=756 across all of Canada means provincial/regional cells (e.g. Manitoba/Saskatchewan at 24.3%) are small and carry wide error; no margin of error, weighting scheme, or panel type is disclosed anywhere reachable. Also note the unresolved 46.8% vs 49.3% conflict below.
Corrections applied. Sample size IS available and should replace 'N not stated in release': N=756 grades 6-12 teachers across Canada, fielded November 2025 to January 2026 (confirmed in Human Resources Director Canada coverage, consistent with the entry's assumed dates). Pollster Leger and funder/commissioner Fraser Institute are confirmed in Fraser's own press release. Panel type, weighting, and margin of error are not disclosed in any source I could reach. Method field 'online poll of teachers' remains unverified as to mode — no reachable source states the survey was online.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Corrections applied. Add the survey mode: fielded by YouGov over the internet. The margin of error is ±2.83% unadjusted and ±3.47% when adjusted for weighting — the source gives both, and the weighting-adjusted figure is the one to cite. Post published June 22, 2026.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Real state poll, out of scope. Every URL present in the CSV primary/additional-source fields was resolution-checked; any better underlying report/topline located during verificatio
Citation caveat. Remove the Argentina claim before citing — it is not a finding of this brief. Argentina is not one of the 10 surveyed countries and 9-11 year-olds are not a surveyed age band (the brief covers ages 12-17). That statistic (58% of children, including 37% of 9-11 year-olds, using ChatGPT) comes from separate Argentine reporting and was mistakenly folded into this entry. Also note the sample is internet-using children only, and the 10 countries skew to Latin America, the Balkans, the Caucasus and South Asia — it is not a global average and should never be presented as one. Corrected figures above were verified from UNICEF's own project-page methodology description and a summary quoting the brief directly, not from the brief PDF itself, which I could not open.
Corrections applied. Sample description is wrong. The brief surveyed approximately 1,000 internet-using children aged 12-17 AND approximately 1,000 of their parents/caregivers PER COUNTRY across 10 countries — i.e. roughly 10,000 children plus roughly 10,000 adults, not "~12,000 children and their parents/caregivers" combined. The "~12,000" total could not be confirmed in any UNICEF source. Ages surveyed are 12-17 only. Sampling design targeted full or near-full national coverage (91-100%) via nationally representative household surveys. Country list, Disrupting Harm phase 2 provenance, ECPAT/INTERPOL partnership and Safe Online funding are all correct as listed.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Greek in-service teachers, not US - do not generalize to US educators without saying so. The AI-deference effect appears only when the AI recommends an unfairly harsh grade, not a lenient one. The outcome is a response to a vignette with a stated objective benchmark, not observed grading behavior in a real classroom.
Corrections applied. Authors, journal, volume and date are correct: Sofoklis Goulas, Rigissa Megalokonomou and Panagiotis Sotirakopoulos, PNAS Nexus vol 5 issue 6, June 2026, article pgag146. Method field should record that this is a preregistered 2x2 factorial design, not just a 'randomized labeling experiment'. The blank partners_funders field should note Goulas's affiliations with foundry10 (a philanthropic education research organization), the Yale MacMillan Center, the University of Crete and IZA@LISER; co-author affiliations include Monash, Queensland, CESifo and Curtin. The recruitment frame for the 1,339 teachers is not stated in the accessible abstract and summary.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Self-selected union-member survey run and published by the union itself, timed to its Annual Conference, and reported alongside the union's stated opposition to the government's AI-tutor plan — the 14%-support figure in particular is a finding an interested party chose to publish. Reweighted to the School Workforce Census but not a probability sample; no margin of error given. The year-on-year trend line is compared against the NEU's own previously unpublished private member polling, which cannot be independently checked.
Corrections applied. Add field dates: 'The online survey of National Education Union members was conducted between 5-16 February 2026.' Sample size needs a flag — the source contradicts itself: the lead paragraph says '9,408 teacher members in English state schools gave us their views,' while the Editor's Note says 'This release focuses on the responses from 10,311 teachers and 2,996 support staff in English state schools.' Recommend citing as 'roughly 9,400-10,300 NEU teacher members in English state schools' or reproducing both figures. Add weighting: responses were 'reweighted by personal and professional characteristics in line with data from the most recent School Workforce Census.' Geography: respondents were drawn from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but this release reports only English state schools — 'United Kingdom' overstates coverage; 'England (state schools)' is correct. The AI-tutor question was fielded roughly one week after the government's late-January 2026 announcement, so it captures immediate reaction.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Added by independent audit (net-new)
Citation caveat. Self-run convenience survey of 100+ Florida practitioners recruited through Impact Florida's district network (June 2025); no N by role, no recruitment or weighting details, no question wording, and the percentage denominators are ambiguous - the page says '22.0% of all participants' while our entry says '22.0% of responses,' and the figures look like shares of selected multi-select responses. Cite role-level figures from the brief rather than the whole-sample figures, and always state N as 'just over 100.'
Corrections applied. Date is wrong. The brief is headed 'AI in Florida Schools | Summer 2025' and states the insights were 'gathered across 35 Florida districts by Impact Florida in June 2025.' Change date from 2026-01 to 2025 (fieldwork June 2025, brief published Summer 2025); the 2026-01 sitemap timestamp reflects a web page update, not the study. Sample and geography ('100+ teachers, school leaders, and district administrators across 35 Florida districts') and the self-run, no-external-pollster attribution are correct.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Added by independent audit (net-new)
Citation caveat. Do not put a number from this entry in front of funders as it stands. The findings are thematic, not quantitative; the only reachable account is an opinion piece authored by a CTF staffer writing about her own organization's survey; and the specific survey wave, sample size basis, field dates, and instrument are undisclosed. If it must be used, attribute it as 'CTF researchers report' rather than 'a CTF survey found,' and obtain the primary Parachute report from CTF first.
Corrections applied. The wave cannot be pinned down and the entry's own note guesses wrong. CTF's Parachute series page lists these editions: Fall 2024 (first edition, fielded Oct 21-Nov 15, 2024, nearly 5,000 education professionals), Spring 2025 (attrition), Fall 2025 (class size and complexity), and Spring 2026 (deprofessionalization, released July 2026). No edition is described as AI-focused, and no edition on that page reports ~6,200 or ~7,000 respondents. The entry's note attributing the 6,200+ figure to a Fall 2025 edition with ~7,000 responses released Feb 2026 is not supported by CTF's own series page; the Spring 2026 deprofessionalization edition is the likelier match, but I could not confirm it. Parachute's general method is disclosed as a mixed-method (closed and open-ended) 10-12 minute survey on Alchemer, distributed biannually via direct email through CTF/FCE member organizations plus snowball recruitment on social media — that is an opt-in, self-selected design, not a probability sample of Canadian teachers. Field dates, N, and instrument for the AI findings specifically: not disclosed anywhere I could reach.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Source conflation/unverifiable record; linked news predates claimed wave and official series topics do not match. Every URL present in the CSV primary/additional-source fields was
Citation caveat. Convenience (non-probability) sample of 320 university students at Saudi Arabian universities — not a US or representative sample, and the author explicitly notes this 'limits cultural and population generalizability.' Measures reactions to a hypothetical written vignette, not real behavior; the author cautions the effect sizes 'may represent upper bounds that naturalistic settings would attenuate.' The manipulation is confounded (teacher endorsement is bundled with human review, content source, and course-difficulty framing), and there was no manipulation check — the author calls this 'a genuine threat to internal validity.' The Trust and Acceptance Scale was validated only by expert content/face validity plus internal consistency, with no confirmatory factor analysis, so the four-factor structure is 'not independently established.' Do not describe this as evidence about 'messenger identity' — that is not what was manipulated. Published in an MDPI journal with a ~8-week submission-to-acceptance turnaround.
Corrections applied. Title is truncated — full title is 'From Teacher to Algorithm: Teacher Endorsement and Student Acceptance of AI-Generated Content Within the Trust Transfer Theory Framework.' ORGANIZATION is wrong: 'Education Sciences (MDPI)' is the publication venue, not the researcher. The study is by a single author, Fawzia Omer Alubthane, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; published in Education Sciences (MDPI), vol. 16, issue 7, article 1118. DATE: received 14 May 2026, accepted 9 July 2026, published 13 July 2026 (year 2026 is correct). PARTNERS/FUNDERS (blank in our entry): funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at IMSIU, grant IMSIU-DDRSP2604; author declares no conflicts of interest and states the funder had no role in study design. GEOGRAPHY is wrong: not 'not stated' — the paper explicitly states participants were drawn from Saudi Arabian universities. This is not a US study. SAMPLE ('see article'): convenience sample of 320 university students aged 18+, 160 per condition; 226 female / 94 male; 238 undergraduate / 82 postgraduate; majors Admin & Economics 99, Humanities 147, Scientific 74. METHOD: 'randomized messenger experiment' is a misnomer — it is a between-subjects randomized scenario-based vignette experiment delivered online via Google Forms with automated random assignment, using a 13-item Trust and Acceptance Scale (overall alpha = 0.904, subscales 0.771-0.879), analyzed with independent-samples t-tests, ANCOVA, simple linear regression and one-way ANOVA in SPSS v.28. Randomization applies to condition assignment only, not to recruitment.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. England and Wales only, not US. Opt-in online research panels (Savanta, multiple platforms) with quota sampling and RIM weighting - not a probability sample; the technical report notes panel exhaustion and a mid-project change of panels. The 25% is self-reported past-year use of AI chatbots for mental health support, with no measure of frequency or intensity.
Corrections applied. The AI figure is verifiable in YEF's own publications - its news release and the 'Mental health and experiences of violence' theme page - not only via The Independent; the note understates the available sourcing. Fieldwork was conducted by Savanta over six weeks, 16 May to 2 July 2025. Final sample is 10,835 completed responses (original target 10,000, extended to boost low-SES, Black and London representation), ages 13-17; the parenthetical '(Independent coverage cites 13-16)' is a distractor and should be dropped - the frame is 13-17. Method should read: online survey across multiple opt-in research panels using demographic quotas (single year of age, gender, ethnicity, region, socio-economic group) with RIM post-stratification weighting, not just 'online survey'. Main report and technical report published 24 November 2025; the mental-health theme carrying the AI chatbot finding was released in December 2025, so the 2025-12 date is defensible for this finding but the survey itself is a Nov 2025 publication.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Qualitative listening sessions plus four interviews; the number of student and teacher participants and the session dates are never disclosed, so nothing in it supports a prevalence claim. Critically, every quantitative figure in this report is borrowed from someone else: the ~50%-of-districts and 67%-of-low-poverty-districts training statistics come from RAND (Diliberti, Lake & Weiner, 2025, 'More Districts Are Training Teachers on Artificial Intelligence'), and the 38% daily/weekly staff-use figure comes from AI for Equity's own 2023-24 survey. Cite those originals for the numbers and cite this report only for D.C. voice and local context.
Corrections applied. The partners_funders field is misleading as written. 'AI for Equity, The Learning Accelerator, Leading Educators, Bellwether, RAND' are works CITED in the report, not partners or funders of it. No funder or sponsor is disclosed anywhere in the publication. Suggested value: 'No funder/partner disclosed; report cites secondary research from RAND, AI for Equity, The Learning Accelerator, Leading Educators, and Bellwether.' Also worth recording: the four named interviewees are Ashley Jeffrey (Chief Strategy Officer, Washington Leadership Academy PCS), Janie Scanlon (Founding Partner, Elevant Strategies), Aaron Cuny (Founder & CEO, AI for Equity), and Samuel Price (a senior at Washington Leadership Academy) — which confirms the entry's 'school leader, consultant, nonprofit founder, student' description. Author: Hannah Mason; published November 6, 2025.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Corrections applied. All correct. Optional addition: authors are Ian Klaus, Mark Baldassare, Rachel George, Scott Kohler, Marissa Jordan, and Abigail Manalese. Published October 9, 2025 (confirmed). YouGov fielded June 27–July 24, 2025 in English and Spanish; n=1,601 including the 101 community-college oversample; MoE ±3.4 at 95% CI; grant support from Omidyar Network — all confirmed.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Corrections applied. Publication date 7 October 2025 and sample (280,000 educators across 55 education systems) are confirmed correct. One clarification to add: all AI figures cited are for lower secondary (ISCED 2) teachers specifically; the report reports primary (ISCED 1) and upper secondary (ISCED 3) separately in Box 1.5. Also note TALIS defines AI broadly — 'the capacity for computers to perform tasks traditionally thought to involve human intelligence' — explicitly beyond generative AI and LLMs, so these use rates are not directly comparable to ChatGPT-specific surveys elsewhere in the corpus.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Small, AI-experienced Chinese convenience sample; the staged model was researcher-presented; adult-dominated sessions limit US transfer and child-voice claims.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier B); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. N=17, self-selected early adopters recruited from AI-in-education social media groups — 16 of 17 already had technology-integration experience and 6 were ICT coordinators or trainers, so this documents enthusiast practice, not Israeli secondary teaching generally. The 'significant' results are chi-square tests on how often themes were mentioned in interviews, not survey responses, and are driven by very small cell counts (e.g. 20→5, 10→2). Critically, a 'decline' means teachers mentioned a competency less often over time — it is not evidence that student competency fell, and must not be cited that way.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Citation caveat. Vendor-run survey by Microsoft, which sells AI products and services to schools; fielded by PSB Insights on a non-probability online panel with no sampling frame named, no margin of error reported, and weighting by World Bank education spend. Per-country and per-audience cells are as small as n=50-63, so international subgroup numbers carry wide error. Do not attribute the 86% adoption figure to Microsoft (it is IDC's) or the 66% hiring figure to Microsoft's education survey (it is LinkedIn's).
Corrections applied. Add research partner: survey conducted in partnership with PSB Insights. Sample: 1,851 respondents across the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil, Japan and Saudi Arabia; international audiences were educators and academic leaders across K-12 and higher ed, while U.S. audiences also included students (ages 16+) and IT leaders. Weighted base sizes per cell are small (n=50-63 for each international audience in each country; n=100 for U.S. leader and IT-leader groups). Online quantitative survey fielded February 13 - March 9, 2025; global data weighted by World Bank education-spend estimates; significance tested at 95% CI. Publication date August 20, 2025 is correct.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Added by independent audit (net-new)
Added by independent audit (net-new)
Citation caveat. UK-only, and self-run by a child-online-safety advocacy organisation whose remit is arguing for stronger protections. Percentages about chatbot use rest on n=638 users, not the full 1,000; vulnerable-child figures rest on n=133. The survey is described only as a 'representative sample' - panel provider, recruitment method, weighting, and margin of error are not disclosed. Focus-group and user-testing components are explicitly labelled indicative, not representative.
Corrections applied. Sample is wrong as written. It is not '1,000 UK children aged 9-17 who use AI chatbots.' The Internet Matters Pulse survey covered a representative sample of 1,000 UK children aged 9-17 AND 2,000 parents of children aged 3-17, fielded April-May 2025; chatbot-user percentages are based on the 638 children who had used at least one chatbot, and parent figures on the base of 2,000 parents. Add: 4 focus groups (60 min each) with 27 children aged 13-17 in June 2025; user testing across 17 days with two fictional child profiles; 4 expert interviews in June 2025. All research conducted by Internet Matters between March and July 2025. Publication date 13 July 2025 is correct. The OxfordCCAI partner attribution is correct (Dr Zhao was one of the four experts) though the report itself does not name the experts.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Ipsos Global Advisor is a weighted nonprobability online panel; Ipsos states that samples in roughly a dozen emerging markets (Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, Turkiye) are more urban, educated and/or affluent than their general populations. The '30-country average' is an unweighted country average, not a population-weighted global figure.
Corrections applied. Refine sample to 23,216 online adults under age 75 across 30 countries, interviewed March 21 - April 4, 2025 (age frames vary: 18+ India, 18-74 Canada/Ireland/Malaysia/South Africa/Turkiye/US, 20-74 Thailand, 21-74 Indonesia and Singapore, 16-74 elsewhere; India partly face-to-face via IndiaBus). Everything else is correct.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: full primary report/article or complete topline reviewed. Relevance decision: Global adult AI attitudes with no education measure. Workstream coverage in the CSV w
Added by independent audit (net-new)
Added by independent audit (net-new)
Citation caveat. Quantitative fieldwork was December 2023 — roughly two and a half years old and predating mainstream GenAI diffusion in schools, so the 75% non-use figure must never be presented as current. The two arms are not interchangeable: the 995-teacher survey IS a genuine stratified random national probability sample, but the 20 interviews were snowball-recruited from self-declared active GenAI users and represent enthusiast practice only. Poland-only; grades 4–8 only.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Citation caveat. UK-only, so not transferable to US audiences. The 50/50 trust finding comes from Children's Media Lives, a longitudinal qualitative panel of 21 children — it is not a national statistic and must never be presented as a survey percentage. Cite 50% (2025) rather than 46% for the AI-use figure.
Corrections applied. Organization, date (published 7 May 2025), geography, method and funder are all correct. The 2025 edition is titled 'Children's Media Literacy Report 2025' per Ofcom's own filename, worth carrying in the title field.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Publisher-funded (McGraw Hill) survey of an opt-in Morning Consult online educator panel; data not weighted for population size, no margin of error; N=1,305 and fieldwork predates the publication year.
Corrections applied. Fieldwork was 11/22/24-1/3/25 - the '2025' report is built on late-2024/early-2025 data, which matters if it is cited as '2025 data.' Sample is 1,305 educators - 556 PreK-12 educators and 749 higher-education instructors - collected by Morning Consult via online panel interviewing across 19 countries in six regions; 'data is not weighted to account for population size.' Press release date of April 7, 2025 is confirmed.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. Only three teachers were interviewed, in two schools in one very small country, all teaching Maltese-language lessons to Year 4–5 — this is a case study of practice, not evidence of prevalence, and cannot support any claim about how teachers generally feel. Perceptions were captured after a structured lesson-study professional-development cycle, so the positive attitude shift is intervention-conditioned by design. Interviews were conducted by email, which the authors flag as having 'restricted our search to delve deeper' into teachers' thoughts and emotions. Never quote the motivation or critical-thinking findings without naming N=3.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Citation caveat. Commissioned and funded by Google, whose commercial interest runs toward the optimistic reading these toplines deliver. Twenty of the 21 country samples come from opt-in online panels, partner panels and river sampling (nonprobability); only the U.S. sample is a probability panel. No weighting scheme or margin of error is disclosed for any market.
Corrections applied. Add publication date January 14, 2025 and the mode detail: the 20 non-U.S. countries were interviewed online using Ipsos online panels, partner panel sources, and river sampling; only the U.S. sample (~1,036) used the probability-based KnowledgePanel. Everything else - 21 countries, 21,043 adults 18+, ~1,000/country, fielded Sept 17 - Oct 8, 2024, Google-commissioned, title 'Our Life With AI: From innovation to application' - is correct.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: full primary report/article or complete topline reviewed. Relevance decision: General adult multi-country AI survey with no education measure. Workstream coverage
Citation caveat. Opt-in volunteers surveyed immediately after completing a GenAI training seminar — sentiment is intervention-conditioned and self-selected toward enthusiasts. Hundreds of teachers across 20 schools were invited and only 76 responded, with no response rate reported, so this is a small self-selected slice rather than a school-system sample. Purely qualitative: there are no percentages to quote and the authors make no representativeness claim. Access limit: I could not open the full text (Elsevier CAPTCHA, which I did not attempt to bypass), so the 73 teachers / 3 leaders / 20 schools breakdown is corroborated only from the indexed publisher page, not read at source.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Citation caveat. The teacher findings rest on a Prolific opt-in crowdsourcing pool with only a gender quota applied; the authors state plainly that because of the pool available to them (n=3,283) they 'were unable to account for any other key demographic features of the teaching workforce. As such, the sample is not a fully representative sample.' Quote that limitation when citing any teacher figure. The children/parents component is a weighted YouGov opt-in panel with November 2024 fieldwork, so the child-usage rates are over a year old. Both work packages were funded by the LEGO Group, a commercial toy company with an interest in children's play and creativity.
Corrections applied. Add the sample sizes and vendors, all fully disclosed in the report: the children and parents/carers survey was N=780 children aged 8-12 plus their parents/carers, conducted by YouGov Plc UK, fieldwork 12-25 November 2024, nationally representative quotas set for UK adults 18+, and weighted to be representative of UK children aged 8-12 by age and gender. The teacher survey was N=1,001 teachers working with children aged 1-16 in UK schools, designed and conducted by the Turing research team itself using the Prolific crowdsourcing platform with participant screeners, with a 76% female / 24% male quota to match the England School Workforce Census. The WP1 report was published June 2025 (PDF dated 10 June 2025); the combined briefing is May 2025. WP2 details (40 children aged 9-11, two state-funded schools in Scotland, with Children's Parliament) are confirmed exactly as stated.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
Citation caveat. Small purposive qualitative component; all interviewed teachers were already AI-engaged; survey estimates must not be attributed to the interviews.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier A); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. Deliberately selected early adopters and some FE settings; useful for governance mechanisms, not average sentiment or prevalence.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier A); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. Convenience sample of early adopters; one German region only; all participating students were over 18 despite being in secondary education.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier A); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. N=61, self-selected via one Twitter hashtag (#edchatNZ) and one Facebook group ('NZ Teachers (Primary)'), so respondents skew heavily toward digitally engaged veteran teachers. The author's own limitations section states it is 'hard to make generalisations about New Zealand primary teachers or even more broadly, educators as a whole.' Data collected mid-August 2023 and about ChatGPT specifically, not GenAI generally. Three of the 61 were not classroom teachers. The author also flags that the 'improved teaching' finding lacks supporting qualitative data.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Citation caveat. Sponsor-commissioned advocacy polling (Texas 2036 is a nonpartisan policy nonprofit with a stated agenda). Mode split and media-market distribution are disclosed but the sampling frame and weighting are not, and no toplines or questionnaire are published — only a designed brochure. The AI content is a single question about state-government use of AI; there is no AI-in-education item in this wave.
Corrections applied. Date should be 2024-12: fielded November 16-20, 2024 and released December 11, 2024 (the PDF is titled '8th Voter Poll Brochure_12/11/24_final' with a December 11, 2024 creation date, and the Texas 2036 poll index lists this wave as December 2024). The method field's 'results released early 2025' is wrong and contradicts the entry's own notes. Add the disclosed mode split: 51% live phone interviewing, 14% text-to-cell, 35% web panelists. N=1,001 registered Texas voters, MoE ±3.1%, conducted by Baselice & Associates — all confirmed on the methodology page.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Evidence review: official/publisher page, release, or accessible summary reviewed. Relevance decision: Texas voter AI questions concern state-government use; separate workforce/edu
Citation caveat. Purposive, nonrepresentative deliberative sample in three English cities; transfer to US districts should focus on mechanisms, not prevalence.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier A); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. Not a probability sample of UK young people: the Annual Literacy Survey is administered through schools and settings that opt in and register to take part, and neither this report page nor the Annual Literacy Survey page describes the sample as nationally representative or reports any weighting or margin of error. Large N (53,169 answered the genAI questions) buys precision, not representativeness. Also note the headline 37.1%->77.1% jump compares two separate school-recruited waves, so some of the change could reflect differing school participation rather than pure behavior change.
Corrections applied. No corrections needed to organization, date, sample, geography or method. Two optional additions: the page was published 25 June 2024 and last updated 26 February 2025; and the Annual Literacy Survey is typically fielded January-March of the survey year (the NLT's own survey page states 'We conducted our latest Annual Literacy Survey between January and March 2026'), though the 2024 field window is not stated on this report page. No funder or research partner is disclosed, so the empty partners_funders field is correct.
Verified by independent audit (Verified official or publisher results/source page; Official or publisher source page/results release reviewed; no separate public full report was available)
Citation caveat. N=24 purposefully sampled secondary science educators — qualitative and non-representative, no generalizable percentages. Three of the study's 'respondents' were AI chatbots, and ChatGPT authored two of the three survey instruments and analyzed the qualitative results, so the study is partly an artifact of AI-assisted research on AI rather than an independent measurement of teacher sentiment.
Corrections applied. Organization should be Queens College, City University of New York (both authors' institution: 65-30 Kissena Blvd, Queens, NY), not 'Science & Education,' which is the publishing journal. Full citation: Science & Education, vol. 34, issue 2, pp. 893-912. Published online June 3, 2024; assigned to the 2025 print issue. Geography remains undisclosed in the abstract, though both authors are US-based at CUNY.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 0 of 4 numeric tokens
Citation caveat. Self-funded Microsoft survey with no disclosed methodology whatsoever for this edition — no N, no fielding dates, no countries, no sampling frame, no weighting — and the underlying report has been de-published, leaving only a marketing blog post. The percentages cannot be checked against any documented sample, so do not present them as representative of educators, students, or leaders generally.
Corrections applied. The full 2024 report PDF is no longer published: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/education/msdownloads/AI-in-Education-A-Microsoft-Special-Report.pdf now 301-redirects to the 2025 blog post, and the cdn-dynmedia equivalent returns 404. No sample size, fielding dates, country list, respondent breakdown, research partner, or weighting is disclosed anywhere reachable for this edition. The 2025 report's survey appendix labels the prior wave 'late 2023', so the April 2024 publication reflects a survey fielded in late 2023, not in 2024 — the entry's method field should say so rather than leaving fielding undated. The successor editions were run by PSB Insights across six countries, so this wave was probably the same program, but that is inference, not disclosure.
Outside audit scope (survey-only screen) — Deep pass reviewed every CSV-listed URL plus recovered sources where available. Exclude under the strict workstream screen. Automated text extraction located 6 of 6 numeric tokens
Citation caveat. Vendor telemetry from Turnitin's own detector, published as a press release with no methodology, no validation data, and no error rates. "AI-written" here means flagged by Turnitin's classifier, not confirmed AI authorship — cite it as detector output, never as a measured rate of student AI use. If the ~1% false-positive figure is retained, it must carry Turnitin's own qualifier: it applies only to documents flagged at 20% or more AI writing; Turnitin's published sentence-level false-positive rate is about 4%, and it does not quantify error at lower AI proportions.
Corrections applied. The papers-reviewed total carries a footnote: "As of March 21, 2024," not April 2024. The release is dated 9 April 2024.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Citation caveat. Non-probability online survey with unusually thin methodological disclosure: no fieldwork agency, no sampling or weighting description, and no margin of error is published, so precision cannot be assessed — treat every figure as indicative rather than estimable. Critically, NO TEACHERS OR SCHOOL STAFF WERE SURVEYED: the widely-cited '60% of schools have not spoken to students' and the 'schools are unprepared' headline are parent and child self-report about school behavior, not evidence from schools. Watch the denominators — '54%' is of child gen AI users, not of all children; the '1 in 4 children' figure is Internet Matters' own derived estimate. Internet Matters is industry-funded (founded by BT, Sky, TalkTalk, Virgin Media; members include Google, Meta and TikTok) while campaigning for government guidance, so both the funding base and the advocacy posture are disclosure-worthy. Finally the data is old: fielded November 2023, essentially the first year of ChatGPT, and UK-only — do not use it for current levels or for US claims.
Added Aug 17, 2026 — recovered from the qualitative addendum candidate/exclusion files and independently source-verified
Citation caveat. The primary research here is qualitative (23 settings, 14 experts). The quantitative headline numbers are secondary, drawn from other organisations' surveys: the 42%/17% teacher figures are TeacherTapp (a self-selected teacher app panel, not a representative sample of English teachers) and the 74% figure is Ofcom's Online Nation 2023. Attribute those to their originators rather than to DfE, and check for double-counting if TeacherTapp or Ofcom appear elsewhere in the corpus. The report itself warns its methodologies are mixed — "weighted representative online panels, non-representative samples, and annual snapshot surveys" — and that figures may date quickly.
Not assessed by audit (qualitative/usage-analysis/index — outside its survey-only screen)
Added by independent audit (net-new)
Citation caveat. Volunteer follow-up sample mixing school and college practitioners; exposes reasoning and language, not Scottish prevalence.
Added Aug 17, 2026 from the qualitative research addendum (evidence tier A); source-validated in that bundle
Citation caveat. Do not cite any percentage from the D2L/PR Newswire press release. Three of its four headline numbers (13% 'describe GenAI use', 56% 'concerns about biases', 32% 'mixed feelings') are simply the counts of respondents who answered each optional open-ended question divided by 438 — they are item-response rates dressed up as findings. Cite only the corrected figures from the CDLRA report itself, and state that the 13% policy figure covers just the 91 institutions with internally consistent responses. Also disclose that the study is sponsor-funded by an LMS vendor and that respondents were self-selected, recruited partly through open social-media promotion.
Corrections applied. Organization and partner are inverted. The research was conducted and published by the Canadian Digital Learning Research Association (CDLRA/ACRFL); the report author is Dr. George Veletsianos; D2L is the SPONSOR, not the research organization ('We thank D2L for their sponsorship of the 2023 Special Topics Report'). Title: 'Generative Artificial Intelligence in Canadian Post-Secondary Education: AI Policies, Possibilities, Realities, and Futures — 2023 Special Topics Report.' Fieldwork was the 2023 Spring Pan-Canadian Digital Learning Survey, open May 1-June 30, 2023 — not October 2023, which is only the publication date (Oct 11, 2023). Sample: 438 respondents (394 English, 44 French) at 126 institutions, all provinces/territories except Nunavut; 37% faculty and 63% administrators. Method should read 'online survey; email invitations to a roster of publicly funded Canadian post-secondary institutions, additionally promoted via CDLRA social media and sponsor/partner newsletters,' with three optional open-ended questions.
Verified by independent audit (Verified primary full report/article/topline; Full primary report, article, or complete topline reviewed)
No studies match — clear the search or filters.