Classroom Use Guardrails
This comparison page brings together the jurisdictions currently tagged for classroom use 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 |
|---|---|
| Alberta | In April 2026, the Alberta government announced a $2.7 million partnership with the Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute (Amii) to integrate AI literacy into K-12 classrooms. |
| New Brunswick | New Brunswick is updating its provincial digital literacy strategy to fully integrate AI across all grade levels and subjects by September 2026. |
| Northwest Territories | The Northwest Territories focuses on building educator capacity and digital literacy through partnerships and federal funding. |
| Nova Scotia | Nova Scotia focuses on integrating AI literacy within its existing Information and Communication Technology (ICT) curriculum. |
| Nunavut | Nunavut focuses on digital competency and safe technology use as part of its broader curriculum modernization efforts. |
Europe
| Jurisdiction | Short summary |
|---|---|
| Albania | Albania, as a non-EU member, is integrating AI into its secondary education through regional collaborations and specific youth-focused programs. |
| Estonia | Estonia leverages its highly digitized education system to integrate AI within existing e-school frameworks and national digital literacy strategies. |
| 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… |
| Poland | Poland has integrated AI into its long-term development policy, focusing on classroom infrastructure and curriculum reform. |
| Spain | Spain is a European leader in AI integration, with education deeply embedded in its “Digital Spain 2026” strategy and a strong focus on pro-social AI use. |
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… |
| Arizona | Arizona House Bill 2409, titled the “Getting Arizona Ready for AI Act,” establishes a voluntary, statewide artificial intelligence (AI) education program within the Arizona Department of Education (ADE). |
| Arkansas | Enacted in April 2025, this law requires every public school and government entity in Arkansas to establish clear policies for the use of Artificial Intelligence and automated decision tools. |
| California | No AI education policy or guidance has been identified for California in this collection. |
| Colorado | This bill is part of a major pivot in Colorado’s approach to AI regulation, moving away from the complex governance of SB 24-205 toward a more streamlined framework for “Automated Decision-Making Technology” (ADMT). |
| 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. |
| Florida | Florida currently lacks a centralized “AI Education Act” as several major 2026 legislative efforts (including an “AI Bill of Rights”) failed to reach final enactment. Instead, AI education is managed through specialized Career… |
| Georgia | This bill makes computer science, including artificial intelligence, a mandatory high school graduation requirement in Georgia. |
| Hawaii | Hawaii’s approach to AI is deeply rooted in its local cultural framework, Nā Hopena Aʻo (HĀ), which emphasizes Belonging, Responsibility, and Excellence. |
| 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. |
| Indiana | Indiana has taken a “Governance First” approach, focusing on how state agencies use AI before mandating classroom changes. |
| Iowa | Iowa is currently debating and passing significant updates to its computer science standards to explicitly include Artificial Intelligence. |
| Kansas | Kansas is currently studying AI impacts through a state task force while relying on a comprehensive “Responsible AI” framework developed by the University of Kansas. |
| Kentucky | Kentucky’s approach is defined by its early adoption of state-level guidance and the Kentucky Education Technology System (KETS) Master Plan (2024-2030). |
| 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. |
| Maryland | No AI education policy or guidance has been identified for Maryland in this collection. |
| 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. |
| Michigan | Michigan’s strategy is built on a “leader-led” model, where the state provides frameworks and trains regional educators to lead AI integration at the local level. |
| Minnesota | Minnesota’s 2026 legislative session is characterized by a “safety-first” approach to AI, specifically targeting protections for minors and student data. |
| Missouri | Missouri maintains a strong “local control” stance, with the state providing a menu of voluntary options and frameworks for districts to adopt. |
| 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 Jersey | New Jersey Assembly Bill A4352 requires school districts to incorporate instruction on artificial intelligence (AI) into their K-12 curricula as part of the implementation of the New Jersey Student Learning Standards in Computer… |
| New Mexico | New Mexico utilizes a dynamic framework (NMPED Guidance 1.0) that mirrors the federal AI Bill of Rights, with a strong emphasis on equity and tribal engagement. |
| 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… |
| North Carolina | North Carolina’s Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) maintains a “living” guidebook that provides highly specific pedagogical advice for AI integration. |
| North Dakota | North Dakota emphasizes a “workflow” approach to AI, positioning technology as a middle step between human inquiry and human evaluation. |
| 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. |
| Oklahoma | No AI education policy or guidance has been identified for Oklahoma in this collection. |
| 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. |
| South Dakota | South Dakota positions AI as a component of digital literacy, emphasizing that technology should serve the student under human guidance. |
| 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. |
| Utah | Utah has moved beyond voluntary guidance to enact The Balance Act, which codifies the relationship between students, teachers, and AI technology. |
| 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.