Skip to content
KinsentAI

Family portal · State rules

AI rules in schools, state by state.

What has passed, what is still proposed, and what is guidance rather than law. Read the official sources and how each state's approach relates to schools and families.

Weekly state law and policy review

Official sources are scheduled for review every Monday for major changes to school AI laws, rules and policies. Verified updates are published after editorial approval.

Last updated:

Where does your state stand?

State entries separate enacted school AI laws, adopted board rules, pending proposals and guidance, with official sources and check dates.

What the colors mean

  • Enacted school AI law

    An enacted statute addresses AI in schools. Scope and start dates vary; it does not necessarily require parental consent.

  • Adopted board rule

    An adopted education board rule addresses AI in schools. Read the state entry for its scope and effective date.

  • Pending proposal

    A school-related proposal or rule is not confirmed as enacted or effective. It is not a current requirement.

  • Published guidance

    Official education guidance or resources were found. Guidance itself is not a binding district policy mandate.

  • Status not confirmed

    A current school-specific statewide status could not be established from accessible official records. This does not mean no rules exist.

Each state has its own last-checked date. A law about AI is not necessarily a parental consent requirement. Unconfirmed findings do not mean no law exists. This overview is not legal advice.

How to read these findings

The map focuses on school-related AI action, not every general AI law. Each color reflects the strongest school-specific evidence confirmed in the sources below. Enacted laws may have future deadlines, and a duty to publish guidance is not the same as requiring every district to adopt a policy or obtain consent.

Where a record was inaccessible or a current status could not be established, the entry says so. A last-checked date records this review, not a guarantee that the state's record is complete or unchanged.

Official sources

Every state, with its sources

51 state entries

  • Alabama

    Status not confirmed

    The official statewide AI acceptable-use policy applies to state information systems. A current school-specific district AI policy mandate or official school guidance template was not independently confirmed.

    Last checked:

    The cited record does not establish a current statewide school AI policy mandate. Other laws and local policies may apply. Do not infer that the state has taken no action.

  • Alaska

    Published guidance

    Alaska publishes a K-12 AI framework and district guidance described as recommendations and considerations. A framework appearing in board materials is not proof of a binding administrative rule.

    Last checked:

  • Arizona

    Published guidance

    ADE publishes educator AI resources and documents optional AI learning programs. Resources, recommendations and participation do not establish a statewide district AI policy or consent mandate.

    Last checked:

  • Arkansas

    Enacted school AI law

    Act 848, approved April 17, 2025, requires public-entity AI policies and expressly directs the Department of Education to develop policies for state educational institutions. It addresses human final decisions, training and policy availability on request, not a universal parental opt-in requirement.

    Last checked:

    The exact effective date and current education implementation materials were not confirmed.

  • California

    Published guidance

    CDE school AI guidance explicitly says following it is not required. Legislative duties to develop guidance or AI literacy should not be confused with requiring every district to adopt an AI-use policy or obtain parental consent.

    Last checked:

  • Colorado

    Published guidance

    CDE hosts AI instructional guidance and resources. General AI laws and computer science standards do not automatically establish a universal district AI policy or parental consent mandate.

    Last checked:

  • Delaware

    Pending proposal

    DOE has published nonbinding guidance for including AI in school policies. An AI and extended-reality pilot proposal, HS1 for HB404, was awaiting Senate committee consideration in the reviewed record, not enacted. This is not a universal district policy mandate.

    Last checked:

  • District of Columbia

    Published guidance

    OSSE released an optional model policy for staff AI use on September 1, 2026. OSSE explicitly says adoption is not required; this is not a binding rule for every school or a family consent mandate.

    Last checked:

  • Florida

    Adopted board rule

    Rule 6A-1.0957 was approved September 16, 2026 and filed October 9, 2026. The official final-adoption record lists October 29, 2026 as its effective date, so it is adopted but not yet effective on this review date. It addresses school internet safety policies and instructional AI.

    Last checked:

    Filing and effective dates were confirmed through the official indexed registry record; direct access was blocked. The July 1, 2027 local-policy deadline and specific parental opt-in duties were not independently confirmed against final filed text and are not presented as verified here.

  • Hawaii

    Published guidance

    HIDOE publishes an AI readiness toolkit with templates for site-specific guidelines. General technology responsible-use conditions should not be relabeled an AI-specific board rule without separate evidence.

    Last checked:

  • Idaho

    Enacted school AI law

    2026 SB1227 is codified in Chapter 70, Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education. Section 33-7004 addresses local policy adoption, alongside a state framework. The operative local deadline was not independently retrieved and is not stated here.

    Last checked:

    The final chapter, governor-action date, effective date and operative local policy deadline were not confirmed.

  • Illinois

    Enacted school AI law

    Public Act 104-0399 requires ISBE to develop statewide AI guidance for districts and educators. ISBE published guidance in June 2026. The law creates a state guidance duty, not a requirement that every district adopt its own AI policy or obtain parental consent.

    Last checked:

  • Iowa

    Status not confirmed

    DOE reports local AI policies in Winterset. A statewide instructional technology policy requirement is not by itself an AI-specific policy mandate, and a local district policy is not statewide action.

    Last checked:

    The cited record does not establish a current statewide school AI policy mandate. Other laws and local policies may apply. Do not infer that the state has taken no action.

  • Kansas

    Status not confirmed

    KSDE publishes AI course competencies. Curriculum materials do not establish a statewide school AI-use policy requirement or parental consent mandate.

    Last checked:

    The cited record does not establish a current statewide school AI policy mandate. Other laws and local policies may apply. Do not infer that the state has taken no action.

  • Kentucky

    Published guidance

    KDE publishes AI implementation and procurement guidance to help schools evaluate tools and develop local practices. These guidance documents do not establish a universal district policy mandate.

    Last checked:

  • Louisiana

    Published guidance

    LDOE publishes school AI guidance, updated September 3, 2026. School systems can use it to create local policies; the document is not itself a law requiring every district to adopt a policy.

    Last checked:

  • Maryland

    Enacted school AI law

    The AI Ready Schools Act, SB720, Chapter 634, was approved May 26, 2026 and took effect June 1, 2026. Each local school system must have an AI policy aligned with departmental guidance within 120 days of its release, name an AI coordinator and use state evaluation tools. This is not a universal parental opt-in requirement.

    Last checked:

    The triggering guidance release date was not confirmed, so a calendar policy deadline is not stated.

  • Massachusetts

    Published guidance

    DESE publishes K-12 AI guidance and encourages districts to develop local approaches. Guidance and encouragement do not establish a binding statewide policy or consent mandate.

    Last checked:

  • Michigan

    Published guidance

    MDE released AI guidance resources on May 7, 2026 and encourages district conversations and planning. These resources are not themselves a binding district policy mandate.

    Last checked:

  • Minnesota

    Published guidance

    MDE publishes AI education resources and curriculum guidance. Local school board AI policies do not establish a statewide mandate; no universal district policy adoption requirement was established here.

    Last checked:

  • Mississippi

    Published guidance

    MDE officially announced K-12 AI guidance and implementation resources in April 2024. A binding statewide district AI policy requirement was not established in the reviewed evidence.

    Last checked:

    The guidance current revision and any later statutory mandate were not independently established.

  • Missouri

    Published guidance

    DESE publishes AI guidance for local education agencies and AI literacy implementation resources. The reviewed guidance does not itself require every district to adopt an AI policy.

    Last checked:

  • Nebraska

    Status not confirmed

    NDE has internal AI guidance for its staff. That agency-only document should not be expanded into an obligation for all school districts or families.

    Last checked:

    The cited record does not establish a current statewide school AI policy mandate. Other laws and local policies may apply. Do not infer that the state has taken no action.

  • Nevada

    Enacted school AI law

    NDE memorandum 26-08 identifies an enacted restriction under AB406 (2025): AI may not perform student mental-health services, while administrative support is allowed. This narrow restriction is not a universal classroom AI policy or parental consent mandate.

    Last checked:

    The enrolled text is corroborated by the education department implementation memorandum; the chaptered-act record was not separately retrieved.

  • New Hampshire

    Status not confirmed

    An education department announcement verifies an optional school AI pilot for 2025-26. Participation is not mandatory, and the state executive-branch AI policy should not be treated as a school district mandate.

    Last checked:

    The cited record does not establish a current statewide school AI policy mandate. Other laws and local policies may apply. Do not infer that the state has taken no action.

  • New Jersey

    Pending proposal

    DOE publishes AI resources. S4469 proposes requiring school boards to adopt an AI policy, but the reviewed June 15, 2026 document is introduction text, not evidence that the proposal became law.

    Last checked:

    A final disposition was not confirmed. Pending here means a proposal with enactment unconfirmed, not verified ongoing legislative movement.

  • New York

    Status not confirmed

    The RAISE Act regulates large frontier AI developers, not school district AI policies. NYC Public Schools has local AI guidance, which should not be presented as a statewide law or education board rule.

    Last checked:

    The cited record does not establish a current statewide school AI policy mandate. Other laws and local policies may apply. Do not infer that the state has taken no action.

  • North Carolina

    Published guidance

    NCDPI publishes school AI recommendations and encourages districts to develop local guidelines. Encouragement is not a statewide legal duty to adopt an AI policy or secure parental opt-in.

    Last checked:

  • North Dakota

    Published guidance

    NDDPI publishes a K-12 AI framework and school leadership checklist. They recommend human review and local policy development; these recommendations are not an enacted policy adoption mandate.

    Last checked:

  • Ohio

    Enacted school AI law

    Ohio Revised Code 3301.24, enacted through HB96 and effective September 30, 2025, required districts, community schools and STEM schools to adopt an AI-use policy by July 1, 2026. Schools may use the state model but are not required to. This section does not itself require parental opt-in or AI deployment.

    Last checked:

  • Oklahoma

    Enacted school AI law

    SB1734, approved May 12, 2026, requires district AI policies before the 2027-28 school year, educator oversight, annual written parental disclosure and a written opt-out at any time without academic penalty. Opt-out is different from requiring opt-in before first use.

    Last checked:

    The enrolled text contains both a July 1, 2026 effective-date provision and an emergency clause. This review does not resolve their precise commencement interaction.

  • Oregon

    Published guidance

    ODE publishes guidance and frameworks supporting district AI policy development. The reviewed resources are not proof of compulsory statewide adoption or universal parental opt-in.

    Last checked:

  • Pennsylvania

    Published guidance

    PDE publishes AI implementation guidance and literacy resources. Recommendations to evaluate tools and protect privacy do not by themselves establish a statewide district AI policy adoption requirement.

    Last checked:

  • Rhode Island

    Published guidance

    RIDE published school AI guidance in August 2025 and explicitly says its distribution does not constitute formal recommendations or regulations. A binding district policy mandate was not established.

    Last checked:

  • South Carolina

    Pending proposal

    SCDE publishes an AI curriculum framework. H4582 proposes optional AI instruction and state guidance; the reviewed record showed introduction and committee referral on January 13, 2026, not enactment. Neither curriculum guidance nor a proposed elective establishes a current consent mandate.

    Last checked:

    Final disposition was not confirmed. The previously cited H5253 consent claim was not substantiated by this review.

  • South Dakota

    Status not confirmed

    The state has adopted computer science academic standards. Academic standards alone are not a rule requiring districts to adopt AI-use policies or secure parental AI consent.

    Last checked:

    The cited record does not establish a current statewide school AI policy mandate. Other laws and local policies may apply. Do not infer that the state has taken no action.

  • Tennessee

    Enacted school AI law

    SB1711/HB1630, Public Chapter 550, signed and effective March 11, 2024, requires local school boards and public charter governing bodies to adopt policies on AI instructional and assignment use, with implementation by 2024-25 and annual July 1 reporting. It does not itself establish a universal parental opt-in duty.

    Last checked:

  • Texas

    Status not confirmed

    DIR describes general public-sector AI legislation and model policies. These records do not by themselves establish a universal school board requirement to adopt a classroom AI policy or secure parental consent.

    Last checked:

    The cited record does not establish a current statewide school AI policy mandate. Other laws and local policies may apply. Do not infer that the state has taken no action.

  • Utah

    Adopted board rule

    Board rule R277-334, Classroom Technology and Artificial Intelligence Governance, took effect October 8, 2026. It requires each LEA to adopt an AI use policy based on the Board model, keep an inventory of approved AI tools, and give written parent notification when generative AI is used for classroom instruction, assessment or activities. AI sandbox courses also need written parent consent and voluntary participation. Enacted HB273 separately requires an AI use policy before July 1, 2027.

    Last checked:

    The rule's effective date is confirmed by the official effective-date notice; the exact board vote date was not retrieved. The rule requires written parent notification for generative AI used in class, and written consent only for optional AI sandbox courses. It is not a universal opt-in requirement for every AI tool.

  • Vermont

    Published guidance

    The Agency of Education issued AI guidance on January 23, 2026 to support local decision-making. It is an advisory framework, not evidence of a binding statewide district AI policy mandate.

    Last checked:

  • Virginia

    Enacted school AI law

    Virginia Code 22.1-20.2:1 requires education department AI guidance and requires each school board to establish, implement and enforce policies consistent with it. Guidance addresses privacy, human oversight and transparency. A district policy mandate is not the same as parental opt-in.

    Last checked:

    The session-law chapter, signing date and exact effective date were not independently confirmed; no unsupported deadline is stated.

  • Washington

    Published guidance

    OSPI publishes human-centered AI guidance and a recommended leadership checklist for local policy development. Recommendation language is not evidence of a statewide statutory mandate.

    Last checked:

  • West Virginia

    Pending proposal

    WVDE publishes nonbinding AI guidance. HB5205 proposes county AI policy duties but the reviewed history showed only a February 5, 2026 House Education referral, not enactment. Guidance aligned with existing board policies is not itself a newly adopted binding rule.

    Last checked:

    Final disposition was not confirmed; proposed duties are not presented as current requirements.

  • Wisconsin

    Published guidance

    DPI publishes evolving AI guidance for K-12 and library education, including policy and governance recommendations. Recommendations do not by themselves establish a binding statewide district AI policy requirement.

    Last checked:

Whatever your state has done, ask your school which AI tools are used, how they are used and who decides. Our family guide covers the questions to ask.

Keep reading

State rules, in depth