AI in Schools / State report
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.
Published
Research as of · Sources & Notes
State guidance
California, Massachusetts and Washington guidance
California published its state model in June 2026 and explicitly called compliance nonmandatory. It recommends annual consent around AI-driven collection and autonomous interactions and says detector output should not be the sole basis for punishment or a grade penalty. Massachusetts says its guidance neither recommends nor requires schools to use AI; it offers privacy, human-oversight and integrity considerations to districts choosing to do so. Washington's state guidance coexists with Seattle's revised local acceptable-use procedure. For families and students the correct document is the adopted local rule; for educators and leaders, these state texts are useful design inputs but not interchangeable mandates. [5][6][35][7][10]
What do these guidance documents establish?
California, Massachusetts and Washington offer different guidance
These state texts inform local design. They do not establish identical adopted district rules.
California, Massachusetts and Washington offer different guidance. These state texts inform local design. They do not establish identical adopted district rules. California. State guidance: The model recommends annual consent and safeguards around AI data and interactions. Limit: Compliance is nonmandatory. Detector output should not alone justify punishment or a grade penalty. Evidence state: guidance. Massachusetts. State guidance: Guidance offers privacy, human-oversight and integrity considerations. Limit: The guidance neither recommends nor requires schools to use AI. Evidence state: guidance. Washington. State guidance: State guidance coexists with Seattle’s revised local procedure. Limit: State guidance and a local acceptable-use rule require separate fields. Evidence state: guidance.
| Jurisdiction or item | State guidance | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| CaliforniaState guidance | The model recommends annual consent and safeguards around AI data and interactions. | Compliance is nonmandatory. Detector output should not alone justify punishment or a grade penalty. |
MassachusettsState guidanceSource notesSource notes [35] | Guidance offers privacy, human-oversight and integrity considerations. | The guidance neither recommends nor requires schools to use AI. |
| WashingtonState guidance | State guidance coexists with Seattle’s revised local procedure. | State guidance and a local acceptable-use rule require separate fields. |
View data and source notes
| Item | State guidance | Limit | Status | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | The model recommends annual consent and safeguards around AI data and interactions. | Compliance is nonmandatory. Detector output should not alone justify punishment or a grade penalty. | guidance | [5][6] |
| Massachusetts | Guidance offers privacy, human-oversight and integrity considerations. | The guidance neither recommends nor requires schools to use AI. | guidance | [35] |
| Washington | State guidance coexists with Seattle’s revised local procedure. | State guidance and a local acceptable-use rule require separate fields. | guidance | [7][10] |
Los Angeles AI moratorium is reported by a news source
A Los Angeles Times report says LAUSD placed a moratorium on student generative-AI use on district-owned devices for the 2026-27 school year, while teachers were not barred on those devices and no policy for student use on personal devices had been settled in the reporting. This is a secondary-reported district measure, not a recovered official directive; obtain the directive, scope and expiry before making it a definitive policy record. For now, families can ask which device and account restrictions apply; students and teachers should not infer a universal ban. [28]
What decision does each file actually document?
Final AI directives remain unverified in Los Angeles and Miami-Dade
Los Angeles remains secondary-reported. Miami-Dade documents an instruction to develop guidance. Neither file proves the missing final directive.
Final AI directives remain unverified in Los Angeles and Miami-Dade. Los Angeles remains secondary-reported. Miami-Dade documents an instruction to develop guidance. Neither file proves the missing final directive. Los Angeles. Evidence obtained: A secondary news account of a moratorium. Documented scope: Reported student GenAI use on district-owned devices in 2026-27. Teachers were not barred on those devices. What remains unresolved: Official directive, scope and expiry. Personal-device policy was unsettled in the reporting. Evidence state: secondary reported. Miami-Dade. Evidence obtained: August 12, 2025 board minutes direct guidance development. Documented scope: Proposed district guidance, tiered classroom framework, family communications and recommendations. What remains unresolved: The minutes do not establish later adoption of final guidance. Evidence state: development directed.
| Jurisdiction or item | Evidence obtained | Documented scope | What remains unresolved |
|---|---|---|---|
Los AngelesReported by a news sourceSource notesSource notes [28] | A secondary news account of a moratorium. | Reported student GenAI use on district-owned devices in 2026-27. Teachers were not barred on those devices. | Official directive, scope and expiry. Personal-device policy was unsettled in the reporting. |
Miami-DadeGuidance development directedSource notesSource notes [40] | August 12, 2025 board minutes direct guidance development. | Proposed district guidance, tiered classroom framework, family communications and recommendations. | The minutes do not establish later adoption of final guidance. |
View data and source notes
| Item | Evidence obtained | Documented scope | What remains unresolved | Status | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Los Angeles | A secondary news account of a moratorium. | Reported student GenAI use on district-owned devices in 2026-27. Teachers were not barred on those devices. | Official directive, scope and expiry. Personal-device policy was unsettled in the reporting. | secondary_reported | [28] |
| Miami-Dade | August 12, 2025 board minutes direct guidance development. | Proposed district guidance, tiered classroom framework, family communications and recommendations. | The minutes do not establish later adoption of final guidance. | development_directed | [40] |
Sources & Notes
This report reflects research as of October 6, 2026. Reference numbers link to the cited publications.
The August tracker counts describe its historical snapshot. The reviewed policy database has a separate scope and release date. Neither is a census of classroom AI use.
Limits and source differences
- The approved paragraph attributes this account to the Los Angeles Times. Reference 28 links to Education Week. The attribution remains unresolved. [28]
- Release of Model Policy: AI in Education - Letters (CA Dept of Education)www.cde.ca.gov
- Model Policy: Artificial Intelligence In Education - Professional Learning (CA Dept of Education)www.cde.ca.gov
- Classroom AI by State and District | Formative Spaceswww.formativespaces.com
- Policies : 2022SP Electronic Resources/Use of the Internet - Seattle Public Schoolswww.seattleschools.org
- LAUSD Adopts Moratorium on Student AI Use, Another Move to Limit Classroom Techwww.edweek.org
- Massachusetts Guidance for Artificial Intelligence in K–12 Educationwww.doe.mass.edu
- Microsoft Word - DRAFT August 12 2025 Regular SBM Excerptspdfs.dadeschools.net
Share this report
Download a branded preview or share the report link.
Related reporting
California law bars ed-tech use of student data for AI training, extends privacy rules to colleges
AB 1159 prohibits companies from using identifiable student information to train generative AI and broadens California's school privacy laws to cover higher education, closing a loophole that let general platforms escape regulation.
Massachusetts Graduation Council Recommends AI Literacy as Required Milestone
Final advisory report filed June 2026 proposes AI and digital literacy module within career-planning framework; legislative action still needed before any class graduates under new standards.
LAUSD bars student generative AI on district devices for 2026-27, surprising board and parents
The nation's second-largest school district imposed a moratorium on student access to generative AI tools, affecting 378,000 students. The move was disclosed at a committee meeting without a board vote, as the district studies how to regulate the technology.