AI in Schools / State report
Illinois law requires state AI guidance
The state must provide AI guidance. Its tool examples neither endorse products nor require districts to use them.
Published
Research as of · Sources & Notes
Current law or policy
State law and guidance
Illinois PA104-0399 requires statewide guidance by July 1, 2026, rather than directly ordering each district to adopt an AI policy under that provision. Its June guidance includes a sample assessment in which individual consumer ChatGPT accounts are not approved in a student-data scenario, while stating that listed tools are neither endorsed nor required by the state board. Students should follow their district rule; educators and leaders should distinguish a procurement example from a statewide product ban; families can ask for the local approved-tool list. Chicago supplies the contrasting local case below. [3][2]
Is a tool assessment a state prohibition or a district decision?
Illinois guidance and Chicago approval are different decisions
The state must publish guidance. Its consumer-ChatGPT example does not establish a statewide ban. Chicago maintains its own approval route.
Illinois guidance and Chicago approval are different decisions. The state must publish guidance. Its consumer-ChatGPT example does not establish a statewide ban. Chicago maintains its own approval route. Illinois PA104-0399. Role: Requires statewide guidance by July 1, 2026. Limit: This provision does not directly order each district to adopt an AI policy. Evidence state: statutory guidance duty. ISBE illustrative assessment. Role: Assesses consumer ChatGPT accounts in a student-data scenario. Limit: The listed tools are neither endorsed nor required by the state board. Evidence state: illustrative guidance. Chicago student guidance. Role: Students use age-appropriate vetted catalog tools with teacher permission. Limit: The Chicago catalog is separate from the state example. Evidence state: district scope.
| Jurisdiction or item | Role | Limit |
|---|---|---|
Illinois PA104-0399Guidance required by lawSource notesSource notes [3] | Requires statewide guidance by July 1, 2026. | This provision does not directly order each district to adopt an AI policy. |
ISBE illustrative assessmentExample in guidanceSource notesSource notes [2] | Assesses consumer ChatGPT accounts in a student-data scenario. | The listed tools are neither endorsed nor required by the state board. |
Chicago student guidanceDistrict scopeSource notesSource notes [4] | Students use age-appropriate vetted catalog tools with teacher permission. | The Chicago catalog is separate from the state example. |
View data and source notes
| Item | Role | Limit | Status | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois PA104-0399 | Requires statewide guidance by July 1, 2026. | This provision does not directly order each district to adopt an AI policy. | statutory_guidance_duty | [3] |
| ISBE illustrative assessment | Assesses consumer ChatGPT accounts in a student-data scenario. | The listed tools are neither endorsed nor required by the state board. | illustrative_guidance | [2] |
| Chicago student guidance | Students use age-appropriate vetted catalog tools with teacher permission. | The Chicago catalog is separate from the state example. | district_scope | [4] |
Chicago pairs vetted AI tools with teacher permission
Chicago Public Schools says students may use age-appropriate GenAI tools vetted and approved in its EdTech Catalog with teacher permission, and its guidance calls for investigation of suspected academic misuse rather than automatic assumptions. The Illinois sample's consumer-ChatGPT assessment is neither the Chicago catalog nor a state prohibition. Families and students should request the tool name and assignment instructions; teachers should use the approved route; leaders should keep the catalog accessible. [4][2]
Does district tool approval settle every assignment?
Chicago and Philadelphia set their own AI tool approvals
Chicago combines catalog approval with teacher permission. Philadelphia names approved products and preserves school-level assignment variation.
Chicago and Philadelphia set their own AI tool approvals. Chicago combines catalog approval with teacher permission. Philadelphia names approved products and preserves school-level assignment variation. Chicago. Product approval: Age-appropriate tools vetted in the EdTech Catalog. Assignment scope: Teacher permission still applies. Suspected misuse calls for investigation. Evidence state: district scope. Philadelphia. Product approval: The notice names Google Gemini and Adobe Express with Firefly. Assignment scope: A Masterman handbook describes teacher discretion. Its continuum does not apply automatically to every district classroom. Evidence state: district scope.
| Jurisdiction or item | Product approval | Assignment scope |
|---|---|---|
ChicagoDistrict scopeSource notesSource notes [4] | Age-appropriate tools vetted in the EdTech Catalog. | Teacher permission still applies. Suspected misuse calls for investigation. |
| PhiladelphiaDistrict scope | The notice names Google Gemini and Adobe Express with Firefly. | A Masterman handbook describes teacher discretion. Its continuum does not apply automatically to every district classroom. |
View data and source notes
| Item | Product approval | Assignment scope | Status | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chicago | Age-appropriate tools vetted in the EdTech Catalog. | Teacher permission still applies. Suspected misuse calls for investigation. | district_scope | [4] |
| Philadelphia | The notice names Google Gemini and Adobe Express with Firefly. | A Masterman handbook describes teacher discretion. Its continuum does not apply automatically to every district classroom. | district_scope | [42][41] |
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.
- Artificial Intelligence Guidancewww.isbe.net
- Public Acts - 104-0399www.ilga.gov
- AI Guidance for Students | Chicago Public Schoolswww.cps.edu
- 2025-2026 Community Handbook (Version 1.3)masterman.philasd.org
- AI Resources – PSTVwww.philasd.org
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.