How AI Is Helping Education Companies in Topeka Cut Costs and Improve Efficiency

Across Topeka and Kansas, schools are turning to AI and smart ed‑tech to cut costs and free teacher time: Topeka Public Schools case study on hands-on STEM tools paired hands‑on STEM tools that boosted student engagement, while University of Kansas researchers at the Center for Innovation, Design and Digital Learning are publishing practical, human‑centered frameworks for classroom AI use (KU CIDDL AI-in-classroom framework).

Local leaders can also point to hard numbers: a Gallup‑Walton Family Foundation analysis finds frequent AI users reclaim about 5.9 hours per week - roughly six weeks back per school year - time districts can redeploy for interventions and planning (Gallup‑Walton Family Foundation study on AI saving teacher time).

The key for Kansas will be pairing tools with training and equity‑minded policy so AI benefits schools across the state, not only early adopters.

"Strawbees really came at a great time, when we were seeking what would be the best equipment to incorporate with our STEAM and STEM… it was really important to have something that was easy to translate, regardless of where it was going to fit in."

Kansas districts are adopting AI because it promises practical relief for overburdened classrooms - streamlining administrative work, helping districts cope with a national teacher shortage (roughly 55,000 vacant positions at the start of 2023) and freeing educators to focus on instruction - while also enabling more personalized learning pathways for students; CRE's recent Professional Learning and Collaboration Days sent staff into schools so educators can “learn how to use it, teach our kids how to use it and give them a step ahead,” sending 30 teachers from six districts to develop real classroom uses (CRE professional learning and collaboration days in Kansas).

At the same time, University of Kansas researchers stress that districts must pair tools with guardrails - audits, community engagement and clear limits so AI never makes final IEP, discipline or high‑stakes placement decisions (KU guidelines for responsible AI implementation in education) - and districts are eyeing practical HR and content tools that can rapidly produce standards‑aligned materials and recruit teachers more efficiently (AI solutions to address teacher shortages and recruitment).

The result: districts hope to reclaim staff time and direct it toward coaching and targeted interventions - one vivid measure of “so what?” is that those reclaimed hours translate into more one‑on‑one support for students who need it most.

"AI is not going to replace the human. It is going to supplement the human."

The University of Kansas is a clear anchor for Kansas' push to use AI thoughtfully in schools: through the Achievement & Assessment Institute (AAI) and its new KU Center for Reimagining Education (CRE), KU is pairing research, coaching and hands‑on district partnerships to help districts redesign learning with data and AI at the core - from professional learning and a resource exchange to a community of practice that centers students as co‑creators.

CRE's leadership and launch materials name a roster of KU leaders - Des Floyd, Bart Swartz, Rick Ginsberg and Yong Zhao - reflecting both practitioner experience and scholarly vision, while AAI's broader AI work (including CEEL and FLITE) translates that vision into district‑facing tools, summer convenings, podcasts and pilot supports that aim to move ideas from concept to classroom.

The approach is deliberately incremental - a “school‑within‑a‑school” pilot strategy that lets students lead small experiments and scale what works - so districts can capture efficiency gains without sacrificing equity or human judgement; KU's AAI hub pulls those strands together for Kansas districts exploring AI in practice via the KU AAI AI in Education hub.

“We want to see schools completely reimagine what they're doing,” Ginsberg said.

Across Topeka and neighboring districts, school leaders are treating AI as a practical cost‑cutting partner: teachers lean on tools to draft standards‑aligned lesson plans, tailor materials to individual learners, and speed up scoring so staff time - not vendor contracts or extra substitutes - can be redirected to coaching and targeted supports for students; local coverage of Topeka's rollout highlights how the tech “lets us do” the one‑on‑one work that's otherwise impossible in a 25‑student classroom (Topeka Public Schools AI rollout coverage).

Research from Project Topeka and similar pilots suggests automated feedback and essay‑scoring can shrink grading burdens and change what teachers focus on in class (Project Topeka research and lessons from Digital Promise), and national reporting finds those reclaimed hours add up - roughly six weeks of time per year for frequent AI users - which translates into fewer burnout‑related costs and more instructional time for students who need it most (Report on teachers reclaiming six weeks per year with AI); the bottom line for districts is clear: modest AI investments plus clear policies can convert teacher time into real budgetary and learning returns.

"You can't sit with all 25 students at the same time and work with them individually." - Gail Ramirez

Kansas education companies and districts are mixing hands‑on kits and smart software to shave hours off teacher workloads and boost engagement: Topeka's adoption of Strawbees brought tactile STEM challenges that “boosted student engagement, creativity, and confidence” across grades (Strawbees Topeka case study on tactile STEM kits), while district teachers in Topeka are piloting AI for lesson‑planning and individualized accommodations so staff can spend more time in one‑on‑one coaching instead of paperwork (WIBW article on Topeka Public Schools AI classroom implementation).

Classroom AI programs that provide immediate, standards‑aligned feedback - like the automated essay scoring and feedback tools documented in Project Topeka research - let students get same‑day critique and free teachers to design richer, targeted interventions (Project Topeka research and lessons on automated essay feedback).

Complementary offerings from vendors and nonprofits span adaptive learning platforms, grading assistants, content generators and engagement analytics, and the common thread across Kansas pilots is pragmatic: pair tools with clear guardrails, training, and protocols so technology converts reclaimed hours into deeper student support rather than extra admin.

"You can't sit with all 25 students at the same time and work with them individually." - Gail Ramirez

Measured gains are already tangible for Kansas districts that pair pragmatic pilots with teacher supports: national data show frequent AI users reclaim about 5.9 hours per week - roughly six weeks per school year - an “AI dividend” districts can convert into more one‑on‑one tutoring and coaching, and local work from KU's AAI and CRE channels those same savings into practical supports for teachers (see the Gallup‑Walton report on AI giving teachers time back); Digital Promise's Project Topeka research similarly documents how automated essay scoring and immediate feedback trimmed grading burdens and shifted classroom time toward richer instruction (see Digital Promise Project Topeka lessons on automated essay scoring and feedback).

In Kansas, AAI's outreach - podcasts, summer convenings, and district coaching - aims to turn those reclaimed hours into sustainable practices rather than ad hoc fixes, helping schools translate hours saved into higher‑quality feedback, more personalized lessons, and fewer burnout costs (see KU AAI news and resources on teacher supports).

The “so what?” is simple and vivid: six weeks back per teacher doesn't just cut spreadsheets - it buys time for the single student who needs extra help to catch up, practice a skill, or feel seen.

"I can now spend that time building relationships with my students and focusing on that deeper instruction." - Jaycie Homer

Kansas districts moving quickly to capture AI's efficiency gains also face sharp trade‑offs: local reporting shows Topeka teachers are encouraged to use AI for lesson planning and individualized supports, but students' access remains limited and most districts “are still working on specific policies around AI” (Topeka Public Schools AI rollout), leaving schools vulnerable to uneven adoption.

State and national research warns of deeper risks - algorithmic bias, privacy gaps, and the digital divide - that can widen racial and socioeconomic disparities if tools are deployed without guardrails: KU's CIDDL framework urges human‑centered planning, audits, and a prohibition on letting AI make final IEP, placement, or disciplinary decisions, while recommending cross‑stakeholder task forces and ongoing monitoring to catch unintended harms (KU CIDDL framework for responsible AI integration).

The practical “so what?” is clear - policy choices now determine whether reclaimed teacher hours buy more one‑on‑one support for struggling students or simply accelerate inequitable tech rollouts across Kansas.

“We have to focus on AI literacy. As a whole, we have to focus on information literacy; we need to embed those things together.” - James Basham

For education companies in Topeka beginning with AI, start with small, human‑centered pilots that treat models as partners - not substitutes - so teachers keep the instructional lead; Digital Promise's Project Topeka shows how positioning AI as a teaching partner, grading assistant, or substitute changes classroom roles and that tools giving immediate, standards‑aligned feedback can deliver same‑day critique that trims grading time and reshapes instruction (Project Topeka research on automated essay feedback).

Pair those pilots with KU's CIDDL roadmap: establish an AI integration task force, run audits and risk analyses, invest in ongoing professional learning, and forbid AI from making final IEP or placement decisions so equity stays central (KU CIDDL framework for responsible AI integration).

Practical steps for vendors: document how the tool shifts teacher time, build PD and parent‑communication templates, and pilot in a few classrooms so reclaimed hours translate into targeted tutoring rather than extra paperwork - that same-day feedback can be the difference between a student slipping through or catching up.

“We have to focus on AI literacy. As a whole, we have to focus on information literacy; we need to embed those things together.” - James Basham

Case studies and on-the-ground reflections in Kansas often return to the moral and practical lesson of Brown v. Board of Education as districts wrestle with 21st‑century tools: historians and teachers alike point to Linda Brown's two‑mile trek across a dangerous switchyard to reach her segregated school as a vivid reminder that access and the quality of learning matter as much as any efficiency gain - and that equity must be the yardstick for new tech.

Educators have used retrospectives like the National Archives' Brown transcript and local reflections on the ruling's 70th anniversary to frame conversations about who benefits when districts adopt new systems, urging that reclaimed teacher time be directed toward students who have historically been underserved (Brown v. Board of Education transcript - National Archives; Reflection on Brown v. Board legacy - Better Kid Care).

Those case studies - rooted in Topeka's history - keep equity front and center as Kansas schools evaluate what technologies should do: expand opportunity, not entrench old divides.

"Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

The future outlook for AI across Topeka and Kansas looks less like a single tech rollout and more like a fast-moving experiment in capacity and policy: districts such as Topeka are piloting classroom uses - lesson planning and individualized supports - while keeping access limited and policies in development (Topeka Public Schools AI rollout), and higher‑ed leaders warn that institutions must move from optimism to operational readiness or risk falling behind (the 2025 AI readiness report for higher education finds only 21% of institutions feel ahead, and 34% say their view of AI affects staff retention).

At the same time, generative models are scaling globally - ChatGPT reached roughly 700 million weekly users - so practical investments in teacher training, guardrails and local coaching will determine whether those tools buy back classroom time or amplify inequities (AI trends shaping education (KU CTE)).

Kansas' advantage is strong local supports - KU's CRE/AAI coaching and district pilots - paired with short, practical upskilling pathways like an AI Essentials for Work bootcamp (Nucamp) that teaches prompt writing and workplace AI use in 15 weeks; the clear “so what?” is that districts that couple tools with training, audits and equity‑centered policy will turn promising tech into sustained gains for students and staff.

“We have to focus on AI literacy. As a whole, we have to focus on information literacy; we need to embed those things together.” - James Basham