The Complete Guide to Using AI in the Education Industry in Indianapolis in 2025

Indianapolis K–12 leaders are treating 2025 as a turning point: districts like Indianapolis Public Schools have approved a districtwide AI policy that limits use to district‑approved tools for teachers and staff, centers equity, transparency, privacy and human oversight, and pairs pilots with mandatory professional development and an AI advisory board (Indianapolis Public Schools districtwide AI policy overview); statewide guidance is also emerging to help districts align AI with FERPA and classroom standards (Indiana K–12 AI guidance for educators and districts).

Practical pilots already show concrete gains: an Indianapolis literacy pilot using Adira Reads helped kindergarten foundational skills increase about 20%, illustrating how background AI can free teachers for high‑impact instruction while raising real student outcomes (Brookside School Adira Reads literacy pilot results).

The takeaway: with clear procurement, privacy guardrails, and teacher training, AI can cut administrative time and deliver measurable learning gains without replacing human judgment.

“Eventually AI is not going to be a choice. Right now, it's a choice… establish some clear guardrails for what we know right now.” - Ashley Cowger, IPS chief systems officer

Federal policy in 2025 centers on the April 23 Executive Order “Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth,” which establishes a White House AI Education Task Force, a Presidential AI Challenge, and concrete agency deadlines - most notably Secretary of Education guidance on the use of formula and discretionary grant funds within 90 days and agency actions to prioritize teacher training, NSF research, and labor/apprenticeship initiatives within 120 days - so Indianapolis districts should align procurement, professional development, and grant strategies to those near‑term priorities (White House Executive Order: Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth (April 23, 2025)).

At the same time, the Administration's broader AI Action Plan signals a push for federal uniformity and procurement standards that could affect how states set their own rules, making it important for Indiana leaders to monitor OMB/NIST guidance and position district policies to both protect student privacy and remain competitive for federal partnerships and discretionary funding (Administration AI Action Plan and regulatory overview with OMB/NIST implications).

The practical takeaway: the 90–120 day clock is a real planning window - districts that draft teacher‑PD proposals, FERPA‑aware procurement specs, and apprenticeship partnerships now will be best placed to capture federal resources as guidance and competitions roll out.

“America's youth need opportunities to cultivate the skills and understanding necessary to use and create the next generation of AI technology.”

Indianapolis Public Schools turned a yearlong, 20‑person pilot into a districtwide staff policy that deliberately separates teacher/staff AI use from student guidance: the board approved rules that limit use to district‑approved tools, require responsible‑use agreements (forbid uploading full IEPs to generative models), and center equity, transparency, privacy, human oversight, and accountability while pairing pilots with monthly professional development and an online PD repository (Chalkbeat coverage of IPS AI policy, June 27, 2025).

The pilot returned concrete savings - administrators reported time reclaimed on complex tasks when “a principal transformed a master schedule” with generative AI - and the district is scaling into a second phase that will expand staff access to Google Gemini, a contracted pilot that reporting puts at roughly $122–$177 per user depending on the source (Mirror Indy report on IPS pilot expansion and Gemini pilot cost).

So what this means for Indianapolis schools: a pragmatic, staged approach that locks procurement and security up front, trains staff before classroom rollout, and creates an AI advisory board to translate pilot learnings into districtwide guardrails rather than rushing to adopt student‑facing tools without adult readiness.

“We do not at any point encourage someone going in blindly to using AI. It can be a slippery slope, which is why we have put a lot of effort into developing the professional learning roadmap for AI for the pilot users for next school year.” - Ashley Cowger, IPS chief systems officer

Indiana classrooms must treat student data protection as operational policy, not an afterthought: the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) - which applies to any school receiving federal education funds and transfers parental rights to students at age 18 - gives parents and eligible students inspection and amendment rights, requires written consent before releasing personally identifiable information (with narrow exceptions such as school officials with a legitimate educational interest, other schools, audit agents, or health/safety emergencies), and obligates schools to notify families annually of those rights (Indiana Department of Education FERPA overview).

Practically, Indianapolis districts should build FERPA protections into AI procurement: contracts must require vendor compliance, limit contractor access to PII, and keep the district in control of data use and retention (contractors and online service providers can count as school officials only when conditions are met) - and districts must keep records of disclosures and be prepared to honor requests within FERPA timeframes (e.g., the common 45‑day inspection window) because noncompliance can jeopardize federal funding (Indiana University FERPA student privacy and institutional obligations, Carmel Clay Schools FERPA legitimate-interest and contractor guidance).

The so‑what: a simple contract clause and an internal disclosure log can turn an AI pilot from a privacy risk into a defensible, auditable classroom tool.

Practical AI in Indianapolis classrooms and offices focuses on time‑back and targeted support: teachers can generate quiz questions and practice materials under supervision, enhance lesson resources, and draft family‑facing communications while principals and administrators automate repetitive tasks like newsletters, reports, and master‑schedule adjustments - one IPS principal “transformed a master schedule” with generative AI during the pilot - freeing educators for high‑impact instruction and student interventions (but only with district‑approved tools and human oversight) (IPS AI policy: acceptable uses under teacher supervision).

District pilots also show AI's operational value: using generative assistants to create data summaries, spot attendance or performance trends, and draft first drafts of communications reduces administrative friction and surfaces issues sooner - insight that matters when procurement decisions hinge on per‑user costs (the Gemini pilot is reported at roughly $122–$177 per user) and when privacy rules require only approved vendors and strict data limits (EdTech Magazine report: how IPS uses cloud and AI to scale operations).

The bottom line: well‑scoped, supervised AI tasks cut hours from paperwork and turn raw data into actionable next steps for students and staff, provided districts lock procurement, FERPA‑aware contracts, and PD into the rollout.

“We do not at any point encourage someone going in blindly to using AI. It can be a slippery slope, which is why we have put a lot of effort into developing the professional learning roadmap for the pilot users for next school year.” - Ashley Cowger, IPS chief systems officer

Indianapolis districts should scaffold student AI use with a clear, age‑banded progression grounded in the 5‑step student scaffolding scale many state guides recommend - moving from “no AI” or teacher‑mediated, simple‑prompt activities toward supervised co‑creation as students demonstrate AI literacy and digital citizenship; the statewide compendium highlights that Indiana guidance treats AI literacy and FERPA/COPPA compliance as core considerations, so districts must pair any grade‑span rubric with vendor, data‑use, and review controls (Indiana State AI Guidance for K‑12 Schools).

Practically, start small: teach simple prompts, show model interactions, use guided practice with teacher feedback, then gradually release responsibility while encouraging experimentation and timely refinement - an approach explained in hands‑on scaffolding guidance for building prompt competence (TXDLA Scaffolding for AI: Building Prompt Competence).

The so‑what: a staged, monitored progression keeps classroom AI productive and auditable - students gain authentic creativity without creating new privacy or integrity risks, because outputs remain human‑verified until the district documents readiness to advance autonomy.

“We are much more capable than our ancestors, with almost no biological drift. Our society's infrastructure - encompassing achievements like the internet and the iPhone - greatly surpasses individual capabilities. This has built a robust scaffolding that empowers us to achieve what our forebears couldn't even dream of.” - Sam Altman

Start procurement with a tight two‑stage process: a fast screening checklist to eliminate poor fits, then a deeper vendor evaluation that demands a Data Processing Agreement (DPA), evidence of FERPA/COPPA compliance, bias testing, and clear total cost of ownership - items pulled from practical K‑12 frameworks like the principal's quick screening and evaluation rubric (SchoolAI principal's AI evaluation checklist for choosing the best AI tools) and regional toolkits that tie procurement to implementation and monitoring (SREB AI tool procurement, implementation, and evaluation checklist).

Use a vendor questionnaire to force answers about model sources, PII handling, opt‑outs, and extra fees before any demo or contract talk (K‑12 AI vendor questionnaire template and sample questions).

Insist on pilot terms, SMART success metrics, and a scoring rubric - remember a recent IPS staff pilot flagged per‑user pilot costs (~$122–$177), a concrete budgeting detail that often decides scale.

The result: avoid surprise privacy exposure, choose tools that integrate with SIS/LMS, and buy only platforms that show measurable learning or time‑savings in a structured pilot.

“We do not at any point encourage someone going in blindly to using AI. It can be a slippery slope, which is why we have put a lot of effort into developing the professional learning roadmap for the pilot users for next school year.” - Ashley Cowger, IPS chief systems officer

Build AI capacity through short, practical touchpoints plus funded coaching: Keep Indiana Learning will run 16 one‑hour virtual MagicSchool AI sessions across the 2025–2026 school year to help classroom teachers, instructional leaders, paraprofessionals, and administrators adopt educator‑focused workflows (MagicSchool AI trainings by Keep Indiana Learning); the Indiana Department of Education backs this model with Digital Learning Grants, a Digital Learning Coach Grant, and free resources via the Indiana Learning Lab that districts can use to pay for coaches and sustain follow‑up (Indiana Department of Education Digital Learning & Professional Development resources).

Complement short sessions with no‑cost, immersive options - Nextech's PD offers an “AI 101: Incorporating Artificial Intelligence into your 9–12 Classroom” workshop and many programs are free to districts with stipends available for teachers - so pilots pair technical demos with coach‑led classroom coaching and an online PD repository (as IPS requires in its rollout) to lock in practice.

The so‑what: a cadence of 1‑hour trainings, monthly coach check‑ins, and grant‑funded coach time converts vendor pilots into classroom routines teachers actually use and trust, reducing paperwork while protecting student data (Nextech AI 101 professional development and PD programs).

“We do not at any point encourage someone going in blindly to using AI. It can be a slippery slope, which is why we have put a lot of effort into developing the professional learning roadmap for the pilot users for next school year.” - Ashley Cowger, IPS chief systems officer

Measuring AI's impact in Indianapolis demands a small set of transparent, repeatable metrics and a standing governance body that meets the district's stated priorities: track time‑saved on administrative tasks (the IPS pilot showed staff reclaimed work time when a principal “transformed a master schedule” using generative AI), counts of trained staff and active district‑approved tools, privacy incident rates and vendor audit results, and clear per‑user total cost figures (the Gemini pilot was reported at roughly $122–$177 per user) - all reported quarterly to an AI advisory board that includes teachers, technologists, legal counsel, and family representatives so human oversight is baked into reviews (Chalkbeat: IPS AI policy and pilot results).

Pair those KPIs with public disclosure practices, scheduled vendor audits, and a 6–12 month continuous‑review cycle recommended by state compendia so districts can retire or reprocure tools as evidence evolves (State AI guidance for K–12 schools); civilian‑facing reports and incident logs further operationalize CDT's call for transparency and risk management, turning pilots into defensible, fundable programs rather than trial‑and‑error experiments (CDT: AI policy & governance trends).

The so‑what: a short, consistent dashboard - minutes saved per staff, PD completion rate, privacy incidents, vendor audit pass/fail, and per‑user ROI - lets school boards decide whether AI is saving classroom time or simply adding cost and risk.

“We do not at any point encourage someone going in blindly to using AI. It can be a slippery slope, which is why we have put a lot of effort into developing the professional learning roadmap for the pilot users for next school year.” - Ashley Cowger, IPS chief systems officer

Indianapolis districts should convert pilot momentum into durable practice: codify pilot learnings into procurement and governance (require DPAs and FERPA‑aware contracts, track per‑user TCO such as the reported Gemini pilot cost of roughly $122–$177), stand up an AI advisory board to review quarterly KPIs, and sequence scale only after teacher PD and coach‑led fidelity checks are in place - steps already reflected in Indianapolis Public Schools' staff policy (Chalkbeat article on IPS AI policy) and in statewide planning resources that lay out phased implementation and ethical safeguards (Keep Indiana Learning AI planning guide and framework).

For practical upskilling, districts can pair short coach cycles with structured courses - for example, Nucamp's 15‑week AI Essentials for Work bootcamp offers a hands‑on curriculum to build prompt and tool literacy for nontechnical staff (Register for Nucamp AI Essentials for Work bootcamp) - so the so‑what is concrete: lock procurement and privacy first, train and measure rigorously, then scale only when time‑saved and learning gains are verifiable.

“Eventually AI is not going to be a choice. Right now, it's a choice.” - Ashley Cowger, IPS chief systems officer