AI in Schools / Research reports
Who controls classroom AI?
Read the national analysis and selected state and district reports. Follow the rules from legal authority to a student’s assignment.
Research as of · State reports · District reports
The national analysis
Who Sets the Rules for Classroom AI
State law, district approval and teacher permission can set separate limits on classroom AI. Family choices and human-review requirements also vary.
Read the report →
State reports
Compare enacted laws, state guidance and local policy deadlines. The District of Columbia appears here as a state-level jurisdiction.
- Idaho
Idaho requires local generative-AI policies
Idaho requires districts and public charter schools to adopt policies aligned with a statewide framework. Families should check local tools and assignment rules.
Current law or policy
- Illinois
Illinois law requires state AI guidance
The state must provide AI guidance. Its tool examples neither endorse products nor require districts to use them.
Current law or policy
- Maryland
Maryland ties local AI policy deadlines to state guidance
Local policies are due within 120 days after state guidance. These sources do not establish a guidance release date.
Enacted law · future deadline
- North Carolina
North Carolina sets separate AI policy and training deadlines
The enacted schedule sets separate dates for the state model, local policies and teacher training. The linked amendment source is a legislative summary.
Enacted law · future deadline
- Ohio
Ohio requires local AI policies and offers optional model terms
The law required local AI policy adoption by July 1, 2026. The state’s sample policy language remains optional.
Current law or policy
- Oklahoma
Oklahoma allows written opt-outs from student-facing AI
Parents or guardians can opt students out of student-facing AI in writing without academic penalty. District policies are due before 2027–28.
Enacted law · future deadline
- Tennessee
Tennessee separates local AI policy and teacher-training deadlines
Districts and charter governing bodies needed AI-use policies by 2024–25. Specified grades 6–12 teachers need training by August 1, 2028, or within two years of licensure if later.
Current law or policy
- Utah
Utah limits AI assignments and independent grading
The law requires a state AI model before December 1, 2026. Local agencies must base their policies on that model.
Enacted law · future deadline
- Virginia
Virginia requires local AI policies with human safeguards
School boards must adopt policies consistent with state guidance. The framework covers student-data use, human decisions and teacher access to student-AI transcripts.
Current law or policy
- California
California’s AI model is optional
The state model recommends annual consent for specified AI data collection or autonomous interactions. Compliance with the model is optional.
State guidance
- Florida
Florida announced AI rules. Final terms remain unverified
The board announced adopted AI rules on September 16, 2026. These sources do not establish the final operative wording or effective date.
Announced adoption · final text unresolved
- Massachusetts
Massachusetts guidance does not require schools to use AI
The guidance neither recommends nor requires schools to use AI. It offers safeguards for districts that choose to use it.
State guidance
- New York
New York state policy and NYC AI rules
The August 23, 2026 tracker listed New York without a statewide classroom-AI rule. NYC’s March guidance sets separate local limits.
No statewide rule in the August snapshot
- Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania state policy and Philadelphia AI tools
The August 23, 2026 tracker listed Pennsylvania without a statewide classroom-AI rule. Philadelphia names district-approved AI products.
No statewide rule in the August snapshot
- Texas
Texas state policy and Houston AI rules
The August 23, 2026 tracker listed Texas without a statewide classroom-AI rule. Houston sets local grade, consent and assignment limits.
No statewide rule in the August snapshot
- Washington
Washington state guidance and Seattle AI safeguards
Washington’s state guidance coexists with Seattle’s local rules. Seattle’s revised procedure addresses attribution, responsible use and protection of student data.
State guidance
- District of Columbia
DC policy and DCPS AI rules
The August 23, 2026 tracker listed DC without a statewide classroom-AI rule. DCPS has separate approved-tool and staff-use safeguards.
No statewide rule in the August snapshot
District reports
Check product approval, device limits, parent choices and teacher permission. Provisional reports state what the sources have yet to establish.
- New York City
NYC requires product review before student-data use
March 2026 guidance requires ERMA review before an AI tool uses student data. It reserves grades and other consequential decisions for people.
Official guidance
- Chicago
Chicago pairs vetted AI tools with teacher permission
Students need age-appropriate tools from the vetted EdTech Catalog and teacher permission. The district calls for investigation of suspected academic misuse.
Official guidance
- Houston
Houston ties student AI access to grade, consent and task
Students in grade eight and above need written parent consent and task-specific teacher permission. Younger students face device and network limits with approved educational-tool exceptions.
Official district guide
- Seattle
Seattle separates AI safeguards from general network restrictions
The district expects attribution, responsible use and protection of student data. Its restricted-network request is a general network provision, not an AI-specific opt-out.
Official district procedure
- Fairfax
Fairfax does not approve general-purpose AI on district-issued student devices
The district does not provide or approve student access to general-purpose AI on district-issued devices. The personal-device guide puts teacher assignment rules first and advises asking a caregiver before account creation.
Official student guide
- Boston
Boston policy calls for tool vetting and family information
TECH-06 and the spring 2026 policy call for privacy-impact assessment, approved tools and family information. Families should ask which products the district approves.
Official district policy
- Philadelphia
Philadelphia names its approved AI tools
The district names Google Gemini and Adobe Express with Firefly as vetted tools. Nonapproved AI tools for district work violate the acceptable-use policy.
Official district notice
- DCPS
DCPS separates policy acknowledgement from AI consent
The AUP addresses approved learning tools and staff expectations. Annual enrollment acknowledgement records policy receipt, not separate consent to AI use.
Official acceptable-use policy
- Los Angeles
Los Angeles AI moratorium is reported by a news source
A news report describes a 2026–27 student AI moratorium on district-owned devices. Teachers were not barred, and personal-device rules remained unsettled in that reporting. The official directive remains unverified.
Reported by a news source
- Miami-Dade
Miami-Dade directed AI guidance development. Adoption remains unverified
August 12, 2025 board minutes directed development of AI guidance and family communications. They do not establish subsequent adoption of an operative policy.
Guidance development directed
These reports link each finding to its sources. The August tracker is a dated snapshot. The reviewed policy database and visual edition retain their own coverage and source dates.