Washington state guidance and Seattle AI safeguards

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]}

Seattle revised its electronic-resources procedure on April 29, 2026 and expects attribution, responsible use and protection of student data. Its general network provision allowing a family to request a restricted-access group is not an AI-specific opt-out. The district describes a 2024-25 pilot of five high schools and two middle schools, showing exploration alongside district controls. Students should attribute help and avoid sharing protected data; families can ask what a restricted network group actually blocks; leaders should keep product instructions aligned with the procedure. ^[10][12]