Skip to main content

​
Introduction

This resource provides a comprehensive directory of state-level AI guidance and policies for K-12 education. As of September 2026, 40 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 (revised to Version 26.01, May 2026)
Authority: Arizona Institute for Education and the Economy (Northern Arizona University)
  • 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 (updated 2025; new statewide Model Policy adopted June 25, 2026)
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
New in 2026: Under SB 1288, CDE’s AI Working Group published a statewide Model Policy: Artificial Intelligence in Education on June 25, 2026, alongside the refreshed 2025 implementation guidance.View California AI Guidance Hub · View 2026 Model Policy
Policy Released: August 2024
Authority: Colorado Department of Education (roadmap developed with the Colorado Education Initiative)
  • “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 (living document, refreshed March 2026)
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: September 16, 2026
Authority: Florida State Board of Education (via SB1194)
  • Parental notification, with opt-in/opt-out for direct student use of AI tools
  • Non-AI alternative must be offered where a student or parent opts out
  • Age-appropriate review requirements for pre-K through grade 5
  • Academic integrity standards, data protections, and required teacher training
Notable Approach: Moved from a 250-member, University of Florida-chaired K-12 AI Education Task Force’s iterative working-draft guidance into a formally adopted State Board rule. Local district AI policies aligned to the rule are due by July 1, 2027. Not to be confused with Florida’s separate “AI Bill of Rights” (SB482), which died in the House in March 2026.Florida approves statewide AI rules (news coverage) · SB1194 bill text
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: August 2026
Authority: Idaho State Board of Education / State Department of Education (developed per SB 1227, enacted 2026)
  • Human-centered oversight, transparency, safety, and data security principles
  • AI literacy skills defined by grade band (K-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12+)
  • Local districts and charters expected to adopt aligned policies
Notable Approach: SB 1227 (2026) directed the State Department of Education to build a statewide GenAI framework; the State Board approved it in mid-August 2026. Companion K-12 AI academic standards remain in draft form pending Legislature sign-off, expected before the 2027–28 school year.View Idaho AI in Education Framework
Policy Released: July 9, 2026
Authority: Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE)
  • 409-page advisory guidance document — not a statewide mandate
  • Developed with a blue-ribbon panel of education, technology, and public policy experts
  • Focuses on building student AI literacy and age-appropriate discussion of responsible/ethical AI use
Notable Approach: A 2025 state law directed ISBE to produce recommendations rather than binding rules, so this guidance is advisory. Drafts were themselves developed with AI assistance (primarily ChatGPT, with some Claude and Gemini use) for research, verification, and editing support.View Illinois 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: August 28, 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
Statutory Update: HB 316 became Act 964 (law without the Governor’s signature) on June 25, 2026, effective August 1, 2026 — it requires AI literacy instruction for grades 6–12 statewide.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.Addendum: DESE issued supplemental AI Deepfake Guidelines in April 2026 addressing Title IX and bullying concerns from AI-generated deepfakes of students.View Massachusetts AI Guidance
Policy Released: 2024 (superseded by a new “AI Comprehensive Guide for Districts,” June 2026)
Authority: Michigan Department of Education / Michigan Virtual
  • 52-week phased implementation timeline for districts
  • Replaces the original three-stage maturity model
  • District self-assessment across implementation domains
  • Builds on the original educator AI teaching-assistant pilot
Pilot Highlights: Michigan’s original 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 Comprehensive Guide
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 Guidance
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: April 2025
Authority: Nevada Department of Education
  • Alignment with Nevada’s Personalized Competency-Based Learning (PCBL) framework
  • Security, Transparency, Empowerment, Learning, Leadership, Achievement, Responsible use
  • 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 (living document, last updated February 2026)
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: January 2026 (Model AI Policy; supersedes the 2024 AI Toolkit)
Authority: Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (renamed from Ohio Department of Education)
  • State-mandated Model Policy required by House Bill 96 / ORC 3301.24
  • Builds on the original AI Toolkit’s 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 required every public, community, and STEM school to adopt its own AI policy by July 1, 2026 — that deadline has now passed. ODEW was required to publish the statewide Model Policy by December 31, 2025 and released it in early January 2026.View Ohio Model AI Policy
Policy Released: 2024 (now Version 3.0, September 2026)
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 v3.0
Policy Released: 2024 (now Version 3.0, March 2025)
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”
  • New in v3.0: agentic AI, cognitive-offloading, and environmental-impact considerations
View Oregon AI Guidance
Policy Released: January 2026 (replaces the 2024 guidance)
Authority: Puerto Rico Department of Education — Subsecretaría para Asuntos Académicos y Programáticos
  • Built around the “SENSE” model for responsible student AI use
  • Mandates Microsoft Copilot as the only authorized generative AI tool for students 13+
  • Fully Spanish-language document for educators and students
  • Cultural relevance and Puerto Rican identity integration
Notable Approach: The only U.S. territory with comprehensive AI guidance for K-12, now hosted directly on the Department’s own domain with localized Spanish-language framing throughout.View Puerto Rico AI Guidance (de.pr.gov)
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: April 2024 (v1); Draft Version 4 circulated February 2026, pending formal adoption
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
  • Draft v4 adds a new Guiding Principle on AI use outside school on personal devices, plus a full glossary
View Utah AI Framework Hub
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 GuidelinesPending legislation (HB1186/SB394, introduced March 2026) would require VDOE to issue updated statewide AI guidance to districts — not yet enacted.
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 (now Version 1.2, March 2025)
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 v1.2
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 Guidance Hub
Policy Released: July 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 40-state total above.

Arkansas

A 2025 task force produced AI recommendations, but no finalized statewide guidance document from the Arkansas Department of Education has been confirmed as of September 2026.

Texas

No statewide TEA guidance document exists yet. TRAIGA (HB149, a general-purpose state AI law, effective January 1, 2026) and HB2400 (bans AI from providing direct classroom instruction) are the only enacted measures so far. A UT Austin/TACC-run AI in Education Task Force released a recommendations report in 2026, but it is not official TEA guidance.

Pennsylvania

Still no statewide guidance as of September 2026. Penn State ran an educator listening tour through July 2026 to inform a forthcoming Pennsylvania Department of Education report, which has not yet been released.

​
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, Florida, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.

Pending: South Carolina (HB4582, HB5253), New York (A9190/S10133), and Texas, among others.
FutureEd’s count has continued climbing through 2026 (from ~68 in early June to 77 by mid-July); see the FutureEd and ExcelinEd legislation trackers for the current total.

​
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, using a traffic-light framework (red/yellow/green) for ~1M students and 78K teachers. Public comment closed May 8, 2026, and the final Playbook — delayed from an earlier June 24, 2026 target — was published September 2, 2026. It includes a first-in-the-nation moratorium on student-facing generative AI in grades 2K-8, limited use in high school, screen-time limits, and a companion-chatbot ban across all grades. 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 from May 11, 2026 adopted by the School Committee in June 2026. 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 adopted policy 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. Illinois has since issued statewide advisory guidance (ISBE, July 2026 — see the state directory above), but CPS’s own district policy remains in effect. 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 September 2026. Some states may have updated or released new guidance since this compilation.
Last updated: 09-22-2026