Student Privacy and Data Governance
This comparison page brings together the jurisdictions currently tagged for student privacy in the policy archive. Each entry is a short reading of the linked jurisdiction overview; follow the link for official sources, policy status, and the full record.
Return to the policy themes overview.
Canada
| Jurisdiction | Short summary |
|---|---|
| British Columbia | British Columbia employs a decentralized approach for K-12 AI policy while providing centralized model principles for the post-secondary sector. |
| Manitoba | In April 2026, the Manitoba government announced plans to implement a ban on social media and AI chatbots for children, specifically targeting schools as the initial implementation site. |
| Newfoundland and Labrador | Newfoundland and Labrador addresses AI through its long-term education reform strategy, focusing on ethics and responsible use. |
| Nova Scotia | Nova Scotia focuses on integrating AI literacy within its existing Information and Communication Technology (ICT) curriculum. |
| Ontario | Ontario addresses AI in public services and education through the Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI) Framework, the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence Directive, and the Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act… |
| Prince Edward Island | The Government of Prince Edward Island has established a policy on the use of AI that applies across government departments, including Education Authorities. |
| Quebec | Quebec provides a reference framework for the responsible use of AI, with a significant focus on the higher education sector. |
| Saskatchewan | Saskatchewan employs a decentralized approach with support from the School Boards Association and strategic explorations into secure platforms. |
| Yukon | Yukon treats AI as an educational tool similar to calculators, providing guidance for stakeholders on its balanced use. |
Europe
| Jurisdiction | Short summary |
|---|---|
| Austria | As an EU member state, Austria’s AI education policy is governed by the EU AI Act, with a focus on compliance for “high-risk” applications. |
| Belgium | Belgium implements AI policy through system-level strategies in Flanders and Wallonia-Brussels, aligned with the EU AI Act. |
| Denmark | The Danish Ministry of Children and Education published a practical “AI mini-guide” in January 2026 to support educational institutions in the lawful and responsible use of AI. |
| Finland | Finland established official guidelines for AI in schools in late 2025, serving as the foundational policy for the current transition to full EU AI Act compliance. |
| France | France issued official guidelines for AI in schools in late 2025, providing a standardized approach for the transition to the EU AI Act’s regulatory environment. |
| Germany | Germany’s AI education policy is decentralized across its federal states, with a central focus on GDPR compliance and the mandates of the EU AI Act. |
| Ireland | Ireland’s AI education policy is being structured to align with the EU AI Act, focusing on the responsible use of AI tools in schools and higher education. |
| Italy | Italy has implemented national guidelines regarding the use of AI in educational settings, aligned with European regulatory standards. |
| Luxembourg | Luxembourg has implemented national guidelines to manage the integration of AI in its multilingual education system, with a focus on data protection. |
| Netherlands | The Netherlands focuses on AI literacy and strict data protection within its decentralized education system, moving toward formal policy frameworks. |
| Norway | Norway’s national direction is age-sensitive and precautionary: primary pupils should generally not use generative AI, lower-secondary use may be introduced gradually once teachers are prepared, and upper-secondary students… |
| Switzerland | Switzerland aligns its national AI education policies with European regulatory trends and international guidance from UNESCO and the OECD. |
| United Kingdom | The UK government prioritizes a phased roadmap of safety standards, teacher training, and curriculum integration for AI in schools. |
United States
| Jurisdiction | Short summary |
|---|---|
| Alabama | Enacted on April 16, 2026, HB 329 mandates that starting with the graduating class of 2032, all public K-12 students in Alabama must earn at least one credit in an approved computer science course. The definition of “computer… |
| Alaska | Released in October 2025, this framework serves as official state guidance for school districts in Alaska. It emphasizes a human-centered approach and provides a foundation for districts to build their own local AI policies. |
| California | No AI education policy or guidance has been identified for California in this collection. |
| Connecticut | This landmark legislation establishes a comprehensive framework for the ethical and transparent use of AI in Connecticut, with a strong focus on child safety and workforce development. |
| Delaware | The Delaware Department of Education (DDOE) maintains a “living” document to guide districts in the ethical and safe integration of Generative AI. |
| Idaho | No AI education policy or guidance has been identified for Idaho in this collection. |
| Illinois | No AI education policy or guidance has been identified for Illinois in this collection. |
| Louisiana | The Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) provides a framework that prioritizes data privacy and local district flexibility. |
| Maine | Maine integrates AI guidance into its established Maine Learning Technology Initiative (MLTI), focusing on local control and human-centered learning. |
| Massachusetts | Released in August 2025, the Massachusetts Guidance for Artificial Intelligence in K-12 Education is one of the most structured frameworks in the country. |
| Minnesota | Minnesota’s 2026 legislative session is characterized by a “safety-first” approach to AI, specifically targeting protections for minors and student data. |
| Montana | Montana’s approach is currently advisory, focusing on the ethical and secure use of AI tools within the existing state education technology standards. |
| Nebraska | Nebraska treats AI as an extension of its broader “Digital Safety” and “Digital Wisdom” initiatives, rather than a standalone legislative category for education. |
| Nevada | Nevada’s approach is defined by its comprehensive STELLAR framework and a strict legislative boundary regarding student mental health. |
| New Hampshire | New Hampshire avoids top-down mandates, instead utilizing a framework developed by the New Hampshire AI Education Collaborative (NHAIEC). |
| New York | New York State has an introduced proposal, Senate Bill S10133, that would prohibit most artificial intelligence in classrooms before ninth grade, with exceptions for diagnostic purposes, disability-related instructional… |
| New York City | New York City Public Schools (NYCPS) has adopted a one-year moratorium on student-facing generative AI in grades 2-K through 8. High-school students receive two required AI-literacy modules and may use five centrally approved AI… |
| Ohio | Ohio has taken one of the most proactive regulatory steps in the nation by mandating AI policy adoption at the local level through its 2026-27 state budget. |
| Oregon | Oregon’s approach combines voluntary classroom guidance with strict legislative regulations on the platforms students and minors can access. |
| Rhode Island | Rhode Island’s Department of Education (RIDE) uses a non-regulatory guidance framework while the legislature moves to codify technology safety standards. |
| South Carolina | South Carolina’s 2026 legislative session features highly restrictive proposals aimed at ensuring parental authority and human oversight in the age of AI. |
| Tennessee | Tennessee has formalized AI education by mandating instruction for students starting in the 2026-2027 school year. |
| Texas | The Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA), effective January 1, 2026, establishes a comprehensive framework for the governance of artificial intelligence within the state. |
| Vermont | Vermont’s approach to AI in education is advisory and integrated into the state’s broader Agency of Education (AOE) technology and data privacy initiatives. |
| Virginia | Virginia’s strategy is built on a “leader-led” model established by Executive Order 30, emphasizing that AI should augment the educator’s role rather than replace it. |
| Washington | Washington State’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) promotes a human-centric workflow where technology acts as a bridge between human inquiry and human empowerment. |
| West Virginia | West Virginia uses a flexible, guidance-based model for AI in K-12 schools, prioritizing adaptability over rigid mandates. |
| Wisconsin | Wisconsin’s Department of Public Instruction (DPI) utilizes a “role-based” support model, providing specific guidance for different members of the school community. |
| Wyoming | Wyoming positions AI as a workforce readiness tool, focusing on clear definitions and tiered usage in the classroom. |
Reading the comparison
The presence of a jurisdiction on this page reflects the theme tags on its current overview page. A tag indicates the policy concern or mechanism represented in the archive; it does not imply that the jurisdiction has enacted a standalone law or that the approach is identical across jurisdictions.