AI in Math RFPs are no longer speculative; they’re active, specific, and growing in volume. Districts across the U.S. are seeking tools that use AI to improve math instruction, save teachers’ time, and support diverse learners. For EdTech companies, this means the opportunity is real, but so is the responsibility to deliver usable, compliant, and scalable solutions.
Seems like education brands (and the world at large) can’t stop talking about AI. There’s chatter about AI-generated content, about AI taking jobs, even AI writing break up letters. It’s no question, the noise surrounding AI is real.
Can it really be considered noise, though, when districts are putting real money and real RFPs into AI and math?
And since that’s true, the real question isn’t if schools want AI; they do. It’s whether EdTech companies can deliver what districts are asking for.
Connecticut explored AI tools for grades 7–12, but they approached it with caution and clarity.
This RFI shows that they’re looking for tools that can genuinely support instruction in saving teachers time with features like content creation, feedback, and student monitoring.
CSDE wants to be seen as AI-forward but cautious. They’re positioning themselves as
visionary, not reckless. They’re looking to experiment with a pilot, but the RFI shows they’re tight on optics, compliance, and student safety.
The fact that this is mandated by Public Act 24–151 suggests that legislators are applying pressure to get AI into classrooms.
Districts may feel hesitant, but this top-down push gives vendors a window to lead the way with confidence and clarity.
If you’re a vendor reading this, your response needs to solve for risk, workload, and equity.
Providence wants an AI toolbox. This will help teachers in all subjects: ELA, math, science, social studies, and electives. They want tools that help with real classroom tasks like:
This RFP is part of a larger effort to improve the school experience for students and families. The district hopes to achieve the goals of its community-driven Turnaround Action Plan.
The scope of work here is clear: deliver something teachers can use immediately and affordably. The cap is $100K, but proposals that include pilots, trials, or bonus features stand out. Providence wants innovation, but only if it’s practical, easy to implement, and measurable in impact.
District-Wide Usability.
The strongest bids will show how the tool works across content areas, fits into daily instruction, and supports the work already happening in schools, already being the operative word. If you’re pitching, be ready to speak directly to implementation, cost, and district alignment.
Budgets are tightening.
Districts are being pushed to do more with less. A centralized, interoperable tool is easier to justify and scale, and it delivers more consistent ROI.
NYSED is seeking digital instructional modules in ELA and math that adapt to individual student needs in real time. While AI isn’t explicitly mentioned, the emphasis on adaptivity, engagement, immediate feedback, and standards alignment strongly points to intelligent learning technologies. The modules must be research-based, accessible, and easy to integrate into school and district systems across New York.
AI Without Saying AI
The term “AI” isn’t in the RFP, but NYSED wants tech that personalizes learning. They need solutions with built-in assessments and tools to help teachers customize instruction.
EdTech companies that bake in AI thoughtfully will stand out, especially if they serve large, diverse student populations. If your product uses AI to achieve these goals, this is your chance to connect the dots for them.
Equity and Scalability Are Non-Negotiable
Solutions must work for all students, including multilingual learners and those with IEPs, and scale across large districts. NYSED is signaling that adaptability, accessibility, and strong implementation support are just as important as the tech itself.
NewSchools believes generative AI can greatly change math teaching, especially for students who need it most. In their request, they asked for bold, early-stage ideas that use specialized foundation models. The goal was to provide high-quality, personalized math tutoring to many students. While technical innovation is central, the call for proposals made it clear: products must also align with evidence-based math pedagogy, core instructional standards, and be classroom pilot–ready by 2026.
AI Alone Won’t Cut It.
Even the investor side is hungry for AI too, but they want rigor. They’re looking for equity-driven, instructionally sound tutoring models built on GenAI. The focus is on creating tools that work in real classrooms, support diverse learners, and are co-designed with the students, families, and educators they serve.
Research, Readiness, and Reach Matter.
Applicants were expected to be ready for external evaluation and show long-term vision for scaling impact.
It doesn’t matter if AI is explicitly named or just strongly implied, here’s what K–12 decision-makers are consistently prioritizing when it comes to AI:
Districts aren’t chasing flashy AI features. They want tools that:
If your product doesn’t directly support teaching and learning, it’s a harder sell.
Student data protection is front and center. Tools must:
AI tools must be trustworthy by design.
The best tools are interoperable and centralized. Districts want:
Being “easy to adopt” matters more than being cutting-edge.
Districts need more than a demo—they need a partner. Tools should offer:
Professional development is now part of product–market fit.
Every RFP emphasized inclusion, whether named explicitly or baked in. The AI tools with the most competitive advantage:
This is the checklist your product needs to pass, not just to get interest, but to win deals and retain usage.
Building AI tools isn’t the hard part of coding. It’s the AI that actually works in math classrooms.
Districts want differentiation, personalization, real-time feedback — and oh, it needs to align with standards, protect student data, and work on a Chromebook with 14 open tabs.
So while headlines about AI in math are exciting (and those RFPs are very real), the real question for EdTech companies is this:
Can your product actually deliver what districts are asking for, without overpromising or burning out your dev team?
Edify is the build team behind the build team. The ones who:
With AI, it’s easy to build a product. But that doesn’t mean you’ve built the right one. The education market isn’t short on software. It’s short on solutions that fit how schools actually operate.
We’re not anti-AI. We’re anti-guesswork. Edify helps EdTech companies move beyond prototypes and into real adoption. In the education market, the hard part isn’t spinning something up. It’s building a product schools actually trust, buy, and use.
AI can accelerate your build. But getting to production, and getting into classrooms, still takes strategy, tooling, and a deep understanding of your users.
We help you build the version educators want. In this saturated space, specs, support, and usability matter more than features alone.
Whether you’re applying for a grant, responding to an RFP, or just trying to get ahead of what districts will ask for next — we can help.
The future of AI is not about replacing humans, it’s about augmenting human capabilities.
Sundar Pichai
CEO, Google
Are K–12 districts actually investing in AI, or is this just hype?
It’s real. Multiple RFPs and RFIs from states like New York, Connecticut, and districts like Providence show a clear intent to explore and implement AI, particularly in math. The focus is on tools that save time, personalize learning, and improve student outcomes.
What kind of AI tools are districts asking for?
Our product uses AI, but it’s not built specifically for math. Do we still have a chance?
If AI isn’t mentioned in the RFP, should we bring it up anyway?
How can we stand out when budgets are shrinking?
What are the most common deal-breakers in AI-focused RFPs?
How does Edify help EdTech companies respond to AI-focused RFPs?