AI as a Capacity Builder, Not a Classroom Distraction

Kris Hagel, Chief Information Officer, Peninsula School District

Kris Hagel, Chief Information Officer, Peninsula School District

Kris Hagel is the Chief Information Officer of Peninsula School District, with more than 25 years of experience in K–12 technology. Over the course of his career, he has led technology operations, instructional technology, and district-wide digital strategy, with a focus on secure infrastructure, thoughtful AI adoption, and measurable impact on teaching and learning.

In this feature, Hagel explains how he aligns technology with the district's instructional priorities. He discusses purposeful AI integration and the development of adult capacity, highlighting outcome-driven decision-making, adoption challenges and the growing demand for accountability in today’s evolving education technology industry

A Career in School Technology

I am in my 26th year in education technology, approaching my 27th. I began my career in 2000 as a computer operator at Bethel School District after studying computer science in college. It was an entry-level role, but it gave me a thorough understanding of how school systems truly operate.

Over time, I progressed through different roles at Bethel moving up to data management. In 2007, I joined the Peninsula School District, where I have spent more than 18 years serving as a technology operations supervisor, director of technology, executive director of technology, and now Chief Information Officer. Along the way, I have also overseen communications and school safety and security.

That range of experience has shaped how I view technology in schools. Early on, I believed the job was to introduce new tools and drive adoption. Over time, I learned that technology does not always fit and automatically have a place. The real work begins with instructional goals, not devices.

Instruction at the Center of Digital Change

For the past six or seven years, our district has centered its work on universal design for learning, and that commitment guides every decision we make. My responsibility is to ensure our infrastructure, hardware, and software align with that instructional vision so technology strengthens teaching and learning rather than leading it.

One of the most significant barriers to digital transformation is time. Schools are complex organizations, so changing directions requires effort and patience rather than force. There is never enough time to support every teacher completely. No teacher wants to stand at the front of the classroom feeling unsure. That emotional reality matters.

"Technology for its own sake is no longer sufficient. If we cannot clearly show a meaningful educational benefit, it has no place in front of students."

I used to worry about the pace of adoption, especially with generative AI. When I mapped teacher engagement against the diffusion of innovation curve, it aligned almost perfectly. I focused on those at the back end and questioned how to move them forward faster. A mentor reminded me that organizations create their own pull. Over time, momentum builds, and the system brings people along

You cannot rush the final 20 percent at the start. As the organization shifts, individuals either adapt or choose different paths. The system continues to move forward.

That perspective changed my leadership approach.

AI in Service of Educators

We are now in our 4th year of embracing AI as a district. Our teachers were participating in AI professional development on AI even before ChatGPT was released. AI itself is not new to us.

What has evolved is our clarity about where it delivers the most impact. The most powerful applications are not necessarily student-facing. They are the tools that strengthen adult performance. In some cases, that means reducing administrative load. In others, it means designing custom solutions grounded in our instructional philosophy.

With universal design for learning, adoption has been gradual. AI allows us to embed good pedagogical practices directly into the tools teachers use. Any AI system can generate a lesson plan. The difference lies in intentional design. When you anchor AI tools in a clear instructional framework, the output reflects your standards rather than generic content.

Over the past year, we developed our own AI platform to assist with much of the coding. That foundation allows us to create tailored applications aligned to district priorities.

One practical example involves principal observations. Before we formalized a solution, several principals were already experimenting informally with AI to streamline their documentation and reflection process. We expanded on the idea by designing an AI tool that allows principals to upload observation notes and receive quality feedback. The system identifies elements they may have missed and suggests potential coaching conversations.

The goal is to improve the quality of feedback principals provide to teachers. Better feedback supports stronger instruction. That is where AI becomes transformative.

Impact on Adoption in the Next Phase of EdTech

Looking ahead three to five years, I expect significant disruption in the education technology market. AI changes what districts can build internally. Tools we once had to purchase from vendors may now be developed in-house.

At the same time, parents are demanding clearer outcomes. For more than a decade, the prevailing belief was that increasing students' device access would automatically drive improvement. The dominant narrative was to put more devices in students' hands, and achievement would follow. That assumption is now being challenged, and appropriately so.

There are productive and unproductive uses of educational technology. Families are no longer satisfied with access alone; they want evidence. They want to know what students are actually doing on those devices and what measurable gains should result from that time.

As CIOs and district leaders, we must be more discerning. Every tool must be evaluated based on its impact on learning. If we cannot articulate the intended outcome, it does not belong in the classroom. Technology for technology’s sake erodes trust. We need clarity on how students are using devices and what measurable gains we expect. That accountability will define the next phase of education technology.

The pace of change today also means no one has all the answers. Early in my career, I hesitated to speak unless I had something to say. That mindset no longer works. Leadership requires comfort with uncertainty. There is credibility in acknowledging what you do not know and committing to finding the right solution. That transparency builds trust.

Ultimately, education technology is not about devices or platforms. It is about supporting educators, strengthening instructional leadership, and ensuring that students benefit from a purposeful, evidence-based use of technology.

Technology will continue to evolve. If we remain grounded in instructional priorities and honest about impact, technology will serve as a powerful enabler rather than a distraction.