Most of the debate about teachers and AI is about whether it saves time. A Gallup survey published on 14 October asks a better question: time for what?
The survey, run with the Walton Family Foundation and The Mattering Institute, reached 1,952 US K-12 educators between late July and mid-August 2026. Fifty-nine percent said they used AI tools during the 2025-2026 school year, for preparing to teach, making materials or assessments, grading, feedback or administration.
Among those who used AI, 13% said it gave them a lot more time for the parts of teaching that matter most to them, and 51% said somewhat more time. Twenty-nine percent said it made no difference. Seven percent said it cost them time.
What educators say matters most
The survey was mainly about “mattering”: the sense of being valued and able to add value. Its findings on that are striking. Eighty-five percent of educators said helping a student through something difficult makes them feel they matter a great deal. Seventy-four percent said the same about seeing students do well academically. Giving individual feedback (57%) and leading creative, hands-on activities (50%) followed.
Administrative tasks were by far the least likely to give educators that sense. Yet only 35% said they feel they matter a great deal at their school.
Put the two halves together and the case for AI in teachers' work looks different. The point is not efficiency for its own sake. It is moving time away from the work that gives educators the least and towards the work they say makes them feel they matter.
Time saved is not time spent well
A time saving does not automatically reach pupils. Saved minutes can be absorbed by more emails, more data entry or another initiative. They can also come with hidden costs if teachers stop thinking carefully about the material AI produces.
Recent UK evidence points the same way. The Education Endowment Foundation's trial of Oak National Academy's Aila found primary teachers saved around 49 minutes a week on planning, with no drop in resource quality, but the EEF warned against tools that encourage a complete hand-over of the planning task. Saving time and keeping professional judgement have to go together.
Make the time visible
The Gallup figures describe US educators, including paraprofessionals and other classroom staff, and the time savings are self-reported. But the question they raise applies anywhere.
Ask staff what the time went on. If AI saved an hour on resources this week, did it become an hour of feedback, a conversation with a pupil who is struggling, or nothing anyone can name? A short, honest staff survey will tell you more than an adoption rate.
Protect the time you free. If a department adopts AI for routine tasks, decide in advance where the reclaimed time should go, and do not fill it with new admin.
Keep the judgement with the teacher. Use AI for drafts and routine materials, and keep feedback, relationships and decisions about individual pupils in human hands. Those are the activities educators say make them feel they matter. They are also where pupils most need them.
AI use among educators is now the norm in the US survey. The schools that benefit will be the ones that decide what the time is for.
Source: Gallup, Teachers using AI say it frees up time for what matters most, 14 October 2026. Online survey of 1,952 US K-12 educators (teachers, paraprofessionals and other classroom staff) from the probability-based Gallup Panel, 28 July to 14 August 2026. Time savings are self-reported.