Skip to main content

​
Introduction

This resource provides a comprehensive directory of state-level AI guidance and policies for K-12 education. As of June 2026, 37 states plus Puerto Rico have developed official guidance or policy frameworks addressing artificial intelligence implementation in educational settings. Each state’s approach reflects unique local contexts, regulatory environments, and educational priorities. At the federal level, the April 23, 2025 White House Executive Order “Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth” sets overarching priorities for AI in K-12 schools. See Federal AI Policies for details.
State AI policies are continuously evolving as technology advances and implementation experience grows. Policy documents may be updated frequently, and new states may release guidance regularly. Always verify current policy status directly with state education departments.

​
State AI Policy Directory

The following directory includes all states that have released official AI guidance for K-12 education, organized alphabetically with direct links to policy documents and key highlights:
Policy Released: June 2024
Authority: Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE)
  • Eight foundational pillars framework
  • Strong emphasis on human oversight requirements
  • Detailed data protection measures with vendor contract language
  • AI Governance Committees mandate
  • NIST-based risk management framework
Notable Approach: Alabama developed this template through collaborative stakeholder engagement including the Governor’s office, requiring establishment of AI Governance Committees and explicit human-in-the-loop development requirements.View Alabama AI Policy Template
Policy Released: October 2025
Authority: Alaska Department of Education & Early Development (AKDEED)
  • Human-centered implementation across rural and remote contexts
  • District-level governance teams to evaluate AI tools
  • Flexible guidance prioritized over strict mandates
  • Emphasis on ethics, digital literacy, and human oversight
  • Support for districts moving beyond blanket AI bans
Notable Approach: Developed with the Alaska AI K-12 Advisory Group; specifically addresses connectivity, broadband, and rural Alaska contexts that differ from urban-focused frameworks.View Alaska AI Framework
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Arizona Institute for Education and the Economy
  • Human agency and oversight imperative emphasis
  • Five ethical considerations framework
  • Three-stage implementation model
  • Integration of AI for Education’s “Top 6 Questions for GenAI EdTech Providers”
Implementation Stages:
  1. Create a Strong Foundation: Policy and infrastructure development
  2. Build Momentum: Pilot programs and professional development
  3. Continuous Improvement: Ongoing evaluation and refinement
View Arizona AI Guidance
Policy Released: September 2023
Authority: California Department of Education
  • Integration with California computer science standards
  • ”5 Big Ideas of AI” framework for K-12 education
  • Guidance on developing AI in schools (not just using AI tools)
  • Emphasis on human relationships in education
View California AI Framework
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Colorado Department of Education
  • “If and How Checklist” for AI decision-making
  • ”AI Resource Evaluation Tool” for tool assessment
  • Student voice integration throughout development
  • Colorado-specific local control structure alignment
View Colorado AI Roadmap
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Connecticut Commission for Educational Technology
  • Types and applications of AI in K-12 education
  • Instructional and decision-making best practices
  • Strong emphasis on human oversight
  • Social-emotional risks and considerations
  • Policy considerations and resources for educators
Statutory Context: Public Act 24-151 directs the Connecticut State Department of Education to create an AI education tool pilot program and a model digital citizenship curriculum in collaboration with the Commission.View Connecticut AI Guidance
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Delaware Department of Education
  • Substitution: Basic AI tool replacement
  • Augmentation: Enhanced functionality with AI
  • Modification: Significant task redesign
  • Redefinition: Revolutionary learning transformation
Implementation Features:
  • Version history tracking for continuous policy updates
  • Short-term and long-term action planning
  • Delaware-specific policy and initiative alignment
  • Continuous review and adaptation emphasis
View Delaware AI Framework
Policy Released: January 2025 (Updated June 2025)
Authority: Georgia Department of Education
  • Red: AI not allowed (academic dishonesty prevention)
  • Yellow: AI allowed for content creation assistance
  • Green: AI encouraged with proper citation
Unique Elements:
  • Clear distinction between high-stakes and non-high stakes AI uses
  • Comprehensive Evaluation Process Rubric for AI tools
  • Integration with TrustEd Apps platform for vetting
  • District self-check sections throughout document
View Georgia AI FrameworkView Georgia Ethical Considerations Guide (June 2025)
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Hawaii State Department of Education
  • Accountability and responsibility in AI use
  • Fairness and equity considerations
  • Human oversight requirements
  • Assessment and effectiveness evaluation
  • Professional development integration
  • Data protection and privacy safeguards
Notable Guidance:
  • Recommendation against AI detection tools for plagiarism
  • Emphasis on citing AI-generated content
  • Focus on transforming assessments and personalized instruction
View Hawaii AI Guidance
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Indiana Department of Education
  • AI Literacy: Essential for empowered learners and citizens
  • Instruction and Learning: Personalization and efficiency enhancement
  • Impact Assessment: Understanding AI’s educational implications
  • Security: FERPA/COPPA compliance and PII protection
Unique Approach:
  • Integration of AI literacy with computer science concepts
  • Comparison of student and educator AI experiences
  • Emphasis on AI principles and ethical use understanding
View Indiana AI Guidance
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Kentucky Department of Education
  • AI-Directed: System-controlled learning experiences
  • AI-Supported: Human-guided with AI assistance
  • AI-Empowered: Human-controlled AI utilization
Implementation Features:
  • Integration with Kentucky Educational Technology Systems (KETS) Master Plan
  • “Policy-in-Action Spotlights” highlighting specific role implementations
  • Connection to digital citizenship and computer science education initiatives
View Kentucky AI Guidance
Policy Released: Fall 2024
Authority: Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE)
  • AI-Empowered: Full integration with learning transformation
  • AI-Enhanced: Significant learning improvement
  • AI-Assisted: Basic support for existing practices
  • AI-Prohibited: Restricted or inappropriate uses
Distinctive Features:
  • Four-component cyclical approach (Purpose & Research, Policy & Guidance, Engage Stakeholders, Evaluation & Monitoring)
  • SAMR model alignment for technology integration
  • Louisiana-specific legal framework references (R.S. 17:3914)
  • Comprehensive technical implementation guidance
View Louisiana AI Framework
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Maine Department of Education
  • ROOTS leadership framework for AI implementation
  • Human-centered design principles throughout
  • Educator agency emphasized in tool selection
  • Maine-specific rural and small-district considerations
Notable Approach: Delivered as an interactive Genially presentation rather than a static document — itself a model of digital pedagogy.View Maine AI Guidance
Policy Released: State Board materials February 24, 2026 (guidance V2 distributed Fall 2025)
Authority: Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE)
  • Grounded in equity, transparency, privacy, accountability, and continuous improvement
  • Defines roles across MSDE, LEAs, educators, students, families, and vendors
  • Accompanied by a Local Action Planning Guide and a Classroom Companion
  • Goes beyond principles to vendor-evaluation considerations and local implementation supports
Statutory Context: The A.I. Ready Schools Act (SB720 / Chapter 634), enacted in 2026, mandates statewide AI guidelines, a district-level AI coordinator, the Maryland AI Education Collaborative, and the integration of AI literacy into state standards by June 1, 2027.View Maryland AI Guidance (MSDE State Board)
Policy Released: August 2025
Authority: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)
  • Understanding AI types and capabilities
  • Implementation frameworks for districts of any size
  • Equity considerations addressing three digital divides
  • Academic integrity guidance for assessment redesign
  • Legal compliance, AI literacy, and district operations
Notable Approach: Voluntary guidance for districts exploring or implementing AI; designed to be a starting point rather than a mandate, with explicit attention to access, use, and design divides.View Massachusetts AI Guidance
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Michigan Department of Education / Michigan Virtual
  • Maturity framework spanning eight implementation domains
  • District self-assessment across each domain
  • Phase-appropriate strategy recommendations
  • Two-phase educator AI teaching assistant pilot
Pilot Highlights: Michigan’s AI teaching-assistant pilot supported exit-ticket creation, learning objectives, and rubric drafting for teachers, while students used AI to dialogue with literary characters and explore college admissions.View Michigan AI Resources
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Minnesota Department of Education
  • Responsible AI use with human-centered decision making
  • Advancing equity and addressing bias concerns
  • Innovation encouragement with knowledge sharing
  • AI literacy prioritization for all staff and students
Minnesota-Specific Features:
  • State statute references and local district examples
  • Building on existing guidance and policy frameworks
  • Comprehensive resource compilation from state and national sources
View Minnesota AI Guidance
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Mississippi Department of Education
  • Digital Citizenship: Responsible technology use
  • Standards-Aligned Content: Curriculum integration
  • Active Learning: Engagement strategies
  • Formative Assessment: Feedback mechanisms
  • Accessibility: Universal design principles
Implementation Support:
  • Mississippi-specific academic standards alignment
  • Detailed stakeholder strategies for each learning component
  • AI training needs assessment for all education roles
  • Curated AI tool and resource compilation
View Mississippi AI Framework
Policy Released: 2025–26 School Year
Authority: Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)
  • Step-by-step policy development methodology
  • Educator prompt frameworks for AI use
  • Continuous review and revision cycle
  • Missouri-specific district variation considerations
View Missouri AI Guidance for Local Education Agencies
Policy Released: October 2025
Authority: Montana Office of Public Instruction (OPI)
  • Tribal and Indigenous data sovereignty integration
  • Compliance with Montana Pupil Online Personal Information Protection Act
  • FERPA and COPPA alignment with state-specific requirements
  • Cultural responsiveness and rural community considerations
Notable Approach: One of the only state AI frameworks to center Indigenous data sovereignty as a foundational principle, reflecting Montana’s constitutional Indian Education for All requirement.View Montana AI Guidelines
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Nevada Department of Education
  • Alignment with Nevada’s Personalized Competency-Based Learning (PCBL) framework
  • Safety, Transparency, Equity, Literacy principles
  • Local district autonomy with state-level scaffolding
  • Integration with Nevada Digital Learning Initiative
View Nevada Digital Learning Resources
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: New Jersey Department of Education
  • Foundational AI terms and concepts glossary
  • AI system classifications and risk categories
  • Resources for learning about and teaching AI
  • Workforce-preparation framing across grade bands
Notable Approach: Rather than a formal policy document, New Jersey provides curated resources and a glossary — designed to support educators and students in navigating AI systems without prescribing a single framework.View New Jersey AI Resources
Policy Released: May 2025
Authority: New Mexico Public Education Department (NMPED)
  • Monitor data privacy and security
  • Assess for accuracy and reliability
  • Zero-in on bias and fairness issues
  • Evaluate educational value and effectiveness
Unique Elements:
  • Human-centric four-step cycle: Inquiry, Input, Interpretation, Insight
  • Five-level AI Assessment Scale for coursework
  • Integration with NM Digital Equity in Education Act (2023)
  • Partnership opportunities with New Mexico AI Consortium
  • Addressing digital divides: access, use, and design
View New Mexico AI Guidance
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
  • Leadership and vision development
  • Human capacity building
  • Curriculum and instruction integration
  • Data privacy and cybersecurity
  • Technology infrastructure requirements
Key Resources:
  • AI implementation roadmap based on AI for Education’s work
  • CRAFT framework for effective AI prompting
  • AI for Education’s EVERY framework for responsible use
  • Comprehensive free resource compilation
View North Carolina AI Guidance
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: North Dakota Department of Public Instruction
  • Grade-level-specific AI implementation considerations
  • District readiness self-assessment
  • Step-by-step roadmap from pilot to district-wide adoption
  • Rural and frontier district adaptation guidance
View North Dakota AI Guidance Framework
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Ohio Department of Education
  • Step-by-step policy development methodology
  • Analysis of 21 AI guideline sets
  • Resources tailored for policymakers, teachers, and parents
  • Summary coverage of policy development steps
Ohio-Specific Resources:
  • Trusted resource compilation for Ohio educators
  • Methodical approach to translating principles into actionable policies
  • Stakeholder-specific resource organization
Statutory Context: Ohio requires every public, community, and STEM school to adopt its own AI policy by July 1, 2026 — a state-level adoption mandate alongside the voluntary toolkit.View Ohio AI Toolkit
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Oklahoma State Department of Education
  • Detailed management system for student AI use in assignments
  • Three essential classroom elements: transparency, rigor, curiosity
  • Risk assessment framework (low, medium, high risk categories)
Implementation Support:
  • Comprehensive resource lists for school leaders and staff development
  • Curriculum and prompt library integration
  • Oklahoma-specific academic standards alignment
View Oklahoma AI Guidance
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Oregon Department of Education
  • Detailed strategies to address AI bias and inaccuracy
  • Support for students with disabilities and multilingual learners
  • Oregon Student Information Protection Act compliance
  • Integration with “Key Components of Digital Learning”
View Oregon AI Guidance
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Puerto Rico Department of Education
  • Teacher autonomy and professional judgment prioritized
  • Spanish-language educator resources
  • Cultural relevance and Puerto Rican identity integration
  • Equity considerations for resource-constrained schools
Notable Approach: The only U.S. territory with comprehensive AI guidance for K-12, with localized Spanish-language framing throughout.View Puerto Rico AI Guidance (via AI for Education tracker)
Policy Released: August 15, 2025
Authority: Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE)
  • Letter from Commissioner Infante-Green framing statewide vision
  • Sections on Instructional Guidance, Equity and Bias, and Diverse Learners
  • Provides structure for ongoing district conversations rather than formal regulation
  • Accompanied by an AI Guidance Series for educators and leaders
View RIDE AI Guidance for LEAs (PDF) · Rhode Island AI in Schools hub
Policy Released: June 2024 (Model Policy 4.214)
Authority: Tennessee School Boards Association (TSBA)
  • Public Chapter 550 (2024) requires every TN K-12 district, charter school, and university to adopt its own AI policy
  • TSBA Model Policy 4.214 provides a baseline most districts adopt verbatim
  • Covers use, academic integrity, data privacy, and discipline
  • Most district-mandate-driven approach in the country
Notable Approach: Unlike most states where guidance is voluntary, Tennessee state law makes district-level AI policies mandatory — the TSBA model serves as the de-facto statewide framework even though no state-issued guidance exists.Learn more about Tennessee Public Chapter 550
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Utah State Board of Education
  • Maintaining student and teacher agency
  • AI literacy education commitment
  • Clear prohibited uses guidelines
  • Regular review and update framework
  • Utah-specific state code alignment
View Utah AI Framework
Policy Released: January 27, 2026
Authority: Vermont Agency of Education
  • Comprehensive guidance for responsible AI adoption
  • No chatbot use recommended for PreK-2 students
  • Grade-band-specific implementation strategies
  • Emphasis on AI enhancing rather than replacing educator-student relationships
  • Human-centered implementation philosophy throughout
Notable Approach: Not a mandate, but a practical framework to support local decision-making. One of the few state frameworks to explicitly restrict generative AI/chatbot use for the youngest learners, prioritizing direct human interaction in early childhood education.Vermont AI Guidance press release · AI in Education hub
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Virginia Department of Education
  • AI literacy development across all grade levels
  • Ethical considerations and responsible implementation
  • Professional development and educator support
  • Balancing benefits with privacy and equity safeguards
View Virginia AI Guidelines
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
  • 5-step scaffolding scale for student AI use
  • Sample classroom protocols and student AI code of conduct
  • Professional ethics framework for educators
  • Comprehensive equity considerations
Implementation Resources:
  • Washington state-specific policy examples
  • Local school district implementation case studies
  • AI use disclaimer acknowledgment in policy creation process
View Washington AI Framework
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: West Virginia Department of Education
  • Human-centered AI integration philosophy
  • Computational thinking framework for AI literacy
  • Canvas self-enrolling resource directory
  • Version history tracking for policy evolution
View West Virginia AI Framework
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
  • Human inquiry and oversight
  • AI assistance and augmentation
  • Human reflection and decision-making
Wisconsin-Specific Elements:
  • Joint K-12 education and public library guidance
  • Five training pillars for K-12 educators
  • Grade-span-specific AI literacy recommendations
  • SLATE conferences and CESA workshop integration
View Wisconsin AI Framework
Policy Released: 2024
Authority: Wyoming Department of EducationImplementation Approach:
  • Cyclical policy development process
  • “Student AI Usage Continuum for Empowered Learning”
  • Diverse stakeholder AI guidance teams
  • Alignment with Wyoming Digital Learning Plan
View Wyoming AI Guidance

​
Developing — Legislated or In-Progress, Not Yet Released

The following states have legislation, task forces, or working drafts underway but have not yet published finalized statewide K-12 AI guidance. They are tracked here but are not counted in the 37-state total above.

Florida

A K-12 AI Education Task Force (chaired by the University of Florida, ~250 members) has produced an iterative working-draft guidance document rather than a finalized state-issued framework. Florida has also advanced an “AI Bill of Rights” / parental-notification bill (SB1194).

Idaho

S.B. 1227 (2026) directs the state education department to develop a generative-AI framework. The framework has not yet been published.

Arkansas

A 2025 task force produced AI recommendations, but no finalized statewide guidance document from the Arkansas Department of Education has been confirmed.

​
AI-in-Education Legislation (2026)

Alongside voluntary guidance, states are increasingly turning to statute. FutureEd tracked roughly 71 AI-in-education bills across 27 states in the 2026 legislative session.
Enacted in 2026 (per ExcelinEd): Maryland, Idaho, Alabama, California, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.

Pending: South Carolina, New York (A9190), Florida (SB1194), and Texas, among others.
For current bill status, see the FutureEd and ExcelinEd legislation trackers.

​
Major Districts in States Without Formal Guidance

Several large U.S. school systems have released district-level AI policies that effectively serve as de-facto guidance for their region — particularly in states where no statewide K-12 AI framework exists. These documents are often cited alongside state policies.

NYC Public Schools (New York)

Preliminary guidance released March 24, 2026 — at 30+ pages, widely cited as the most comprehensive K-12 AI policy from any major U.S. school system. Uses a traffic-light framework (red/yellow/green) for ~1M students and 78K teachers. Public comment closed May 8, 2026; the final Playbook was delayed on June 24, 2026 and is now expected in summer 2026. New York State has not issued formal P-12 statewide guidance, making NYCPS the de-facto reference for the state. See full district policies →

Boston Public Schools (Massachusetts)

Originally released 2023, updated 2025, with a new policy proposal May 11, 2026 (School Committee vote pending). Boston also launched a public-private initiative (announced March 26, 2026 by Mayor Wu and Supt. Skipper) to make every high-schooler AI-proficient, rolling out 2026–27. The proposal includes a deepfake ban, vetting requirements, and data-protection rules. See full district policies →

Chicago Public Schools (Illinois)

Released July 2024 — 300K+ student district. Age-based framework (elementary/middle/high) with required citation of AI assistance. See full district policies →
Based on analysis of state-level AI policies, several key trends emerge in how states are approaching AI integration in K-12 education:

​
Common Framework Elements

Human-Centered Approach

Most state policies emphasize maintaining human oversight and decision-making authority, with AI serving as a supportive tool rather than replacement technology.

Graduated Implementation

States typically recommend phased or tiered approaches to AI integration, often with grade-level or risk-based differentiation.

Professional Development

Nearly all policies include requirements or strong recommendations for educator training and AI literacy development.

Data Privacy Emphasis

Consistent focus on FERPA, COPPA, and state-specific privacy law compliance across all policy frameworks.

​
Policy Evolution and Updates

AI policies in education are characterized by rapid evolution as technology advances and implementation experience grows. We will update this page with any additional states that enact state wide policies or update their existing policies.
State policy information current as of June 2026. Some states may have updated or released new guidance since this compilation.
Last updated: 06-26-2026