AI in Schools / The Visual Edition / Story 08

NYC, Oklahoma and DC set different limits on AI decisions

NYC prohibits AI in student decisions. Oklahoma bars AI as the primary basis for high-stakes decisions. DC offers an optional staff model.

Formative Spaces · Research reviewed October 6, 2026

NYC, Oklahoma and DC set different limits on AI decisions. NYC prohibits AI in student decisions. Oklahoma bars AI as the primary basis for high-stakes decisions. DC offers an optional staff model. This comparison covers the NYC district directive, Oklahoma enacted law and DC optional staff model. Each has different authority and limits. NYC directive. Staff cannot use AI for grading, behavior monitoring, placement, promotion, graduation or other student decisions. Document status: District policy. Oklahoma enacted law. AI cannot be the primary basis for grading, discipline, placement, promotion, retention or other high-stakes decisions. Document status: Enacted · effective date unresolved. DC optional staff model. The model recommends human discipline decisions. It leaves summative grading decisions with educators. Document status: Guidance. Official records establish Oklahoma enactment. This release withholds the exact effective date pending comparison with the session law. The DC model is optional. — Official records establish Oklahoma enactment. This release withholds the exact effective date pending comparison with the session law. The DC model is optional.

Key findings

NYC prohibits AI for specified student decisions and other student decisions. Oklahoma prohibits AI as the primary basis for specified decisions with major consequences. These restrictions differ in scope.

DC recommends human judgment in discipline and summative grading. Local education agencies may adopt or adapt the model. The file does not establish adoption by every DC school.

Animated chart

Eight-second animation

The animation shows the same data as the chart. Use the controls to play, pause or expand the video.

Download and share

Each download includes the Formative Spaces name, brandmark and source context. Share the complete graphic. Include a link to this story. Site terms apply. Original policy sources retain their own rights.

Still graphics

Landscape PNG 1200 × 900 Square PNG 1080 × 1080 Vertical PNG 1080 × 1920 Scalable SVG Full graphic

Animations

Landscape MP4 8 seconds · silent Vertical MP4 8 seconds · silent Animated SVG Reduced-motion aware

PNG and MP4 files can be uploaded to social platforms. Available sharing destinations depend on your device and the platform.

Chart data and sources

selected instruments. This comparison covers the NYC district directive, Oklahoma enacted law and DC optional staff model. Each has different authority and limits.

Text and values represented in this visual
Document	Limits on decisions	Evidence
NYC directiveDistrict policy	Staff cannot use AI for grading, behavior monitoring, placement, promotion, graduation or other student decisions.	New York City Public Schools: Student-facing AI and screen-time policy Provision references nyc-ai-2026-27-8065ca4c14e4-a6
Oklahoma enacted lawEnacted · effective date unresolved	AI cannot be the primary basis for grading, discipline, placement, promotion, retention or other high-stakes decisions.	Oklahoma: Responsible Technology in Schools Act Provision references oklahoma-responsible-technology-a2a33057c3fb-a0
DC optional staff modelGuidance	The model recommends human discipline decisions. It leaves summative grading decisions with educators.	District of Columbia: LEA AI model policy for staff use Provision references dc-staff-ai-model-853fdcf9bcc0-a1 dc-staff-ai-model-853fdcf9bcc0-a2

Official records establish Oklahoma enactment. This release withholds the exact effective date pending comparison with the session law. The DC model is optional.

Sources & Notes

Guidance on Artificial Intelligence and Screen Time
New York City Public Schools · Source checked October 6, 2026
- AI Use by Educators and School Staff
Reviewed record and version →
Responsible Technology in Schools Act — official document
Oklahoma Legislature · Source checked October 6, 2026
- §1(E)(3)
Reviewed record and version →
Bill Information
Oklahoma Legislature · Source checked October 6, 2026
Official SB 1734 bill history
Reviewed record and version →
LEA AI model policy for staff use — official document
Office of the State Superintendent of Education · Source checked October 6, 2026
- PDF page 10 — Student discipline
- PDF page 14 — Reviewing and grading student work
Reviewed record and version →

Release and evidence identity

Research release 2026-10-06-875e416b4116. Headlines and comparisons use this reviewed release. A changed record requires a new editorial review.

Source projection SHA-256: 9cd6a4996022129f1a1a1060c399a65f12c8f18bc7774fea67463c4d0dd981eb

nyc-ai-2026-27 / q13: 8065ca4c14e4a4c2006240db676bac63657eb202ff7ea09c1c1705a2dacb00f2
oklahoma-responsible-technology / ok_sb1734_enrolled: a2a33057c3fbeaf1f165a6a28500b0438382aa95a54eca6d5cdf638b589baefc
oklahoma-responsible-technology / ok_sb1734: e28a8f07aaeffb74b21a37e8f0581072943b6b4949110963dc41461094d395b3
dc-staff-ai-model / dc_staff_model: 853fdcf9bcc04b2ac6cadbd3e4373dfff8dbc33c1a58cfac6a519632504165c6

Public policy data for this release (JSON) · Collection and coverage notes

Citation

Formative Spaces, “NYC, Oklahoma and DC set different limits on AI decisions,” AI in Schools: The Visual Edition, research release 2026-10-06-875e416b4116, reviewed October 6, 2026. https://www.formativespaces.com/topics/classroom-ai/visuals/human-judgment-has-boundaries