State Legislation Tracker  ·  2026

K-12 AI Legislation: What Your State Requires

Twenty-seven states have active AI-in-education bills in 2026. Six now bind every school district to an AI policy, five by statute and one by a State Board rule. This hub maps each mandate, deadline, and required district action, and connects every requirement directly to what Novo helps districts build.

27
States with Active Bills
6
Binding District Policy Mandates
Jul 1, 2027
Florida District Policy Deadline

How Novo counts: a state is counted as a binding district mandate when a signed law or a State Board rule approved for adoption requires every school district to adopt an AI policy. Ohio, Idaho, Maryland, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Florida meet that test. Georgia SB 179, a computer science graduation requirement, and laws that regulate specific uses or vendors, such as Tennessee SB 1580, are tracked below but not counted. The homepage uses the same definition.

Signed into Law · Action Required Now
Signed Law
Idaho
Senate Bill 1227 · AI Framework Requirement
Law in effect July 1, 2026. The State Board approved the statewide Generative AI in Education Framework on August 12, 2026; every district must adopt policies aligned with it covering instruction, administration, student data privacy, tool approval, and governance leadership.
Read the Novo Analysis →
In Effect
Since July 1, 2026
Signed Law
Ohio
House Bill 96 · AI Policy Mandate
Every school district must adopt a formal, board-approved AI policy. A compliant document is required, not aspirational guidance. 600+ districts affected.
Read the Novo Analysis → Already adopted a policy? Audit it for $497 →
Jul 1, 2026
Deadline
Signed Law
Georgia
Senate Bill 179 · Computer Science Graduation Requirement
Beginning in the 2031-2032 school year, every local board must require a computer science course for students graduating in 2037 or later. The law defines computer science to include artificial intelligence. It does not require a district AI policy.
Read the Novo Analysis →
2031-32 SY
Requirement Begins
Signed Law
Maryland
Senate Bill 720 · Artificial Intelligence Ready Schools Act
Signed May 26, 2026 (Chapter 634). Every local school system must designate a non-instructional, central-office AI coordinator. State guidance and evaluative tools follow, plus a statewide AI Education Collaborative and AI literacy in state standards by June 1, 2027. The most comprehensive coordinator requirement in the country.
Read the Novo Analysis →
In Effect
Now
Signed Law
Virginia
House Bill 1186 · Chapter 937 · Code § 22.1-20.2:1
Approved April 13, 2026. The Department of Education publishes guidance on artificial intelligence in public schools, and each school board shall establish, implement, and enforce policies consistent with that guidance. Also creates the AIS Innovation in Education Pilot Program (expires July 1, 2030). A district policy mandate, the same legal shape as Ohio, Idaho, Maryland, and Oklahoma.
Read the Novo Analysis →
In Effect
Board policy required
Adopted Rule
Florida
Rule 6A-1.0957 · AI in District Internet Safety Policy
Adopted by the State Board of Education September 16, 2026, filed with the Department of State October 9, 2026, and effective October 29, 2026 (Florida Administrative Code notice 31488060). Every district and charter school must fold artificial intelligence requirements into its internet safety policy: parental consent before a student uses an AI instructional tool (an opt-in, not an opt-out), a non-AI alternative, and local policy adopted by July 1, 2027. AI designed for companionship or social and emotional support is excluded from the instructional-tool definition.
Read the Novo Analysis →
July 1, 2027
Policy Deadline
In Effect
Oklahoma
Educator AI Supervision Mandate
Educator supervision requirements for AI use in classrooms are now in effect. Districts must document compliance. No deadline extension has been announced.
Now
In Effect
Signed Law
Tennessee
Senate Bill 1580 · Student Mental Health AI Restriction
Restricts AI tools used to assess or screen student mental health. Carries a private right of action, the first K-12 AI statute that lets families sue directly. Districts must audit any AI surfacing mental-health flags and document parental consent.
Read the Novo Analysis →
In Effect
Now
Guidance In Effect
Michigan
MDE AI Guidance: Six Essential Practices
Michigan Department of Education released default AI guidance organized around six essential practices: keeping AI purposeful and safe, protecting privacy and integrity, building AI literacy, maintaining human oversight, promoting equity and accessibility, and supporting transparency and continuous improvement. Districts are expected to align local policy to the framework. Not a statute, but the de facto state procurement spec.
Read the Novo Analysis →
2026
Active
Advancing · Watch These Now
Pending
South Carolina
HB 5253 · Student AI Data Guardrails
Strictest student data AI guardrails proposed in the country. Covers vendor contracts, parental consent protocols, data use restrictions, and district audit requirements.
TBD
Pending
Notable Movement · Repeals + Litigation
Repealed
Colorado
SB 189 · Repeal of the Colorado AI Act
Colorado repealed the Colorado AI Act in May 2026 and replaced it with a narrower disclosure framework that carves out FERPA-covered educational institutions. Districts that built compliance programs around the old statute now need to re-scope. The state-law backstop for K-12 AI governance is thinning, not strengthening.
Read the Novo Analysis →
May 2026
Repealed
Litigation
Kansas
Lawrence Public Schools · Gaggle Fourth Amendment Case
Pending federal case challenging K-12 AI monitoring on Fourth Amendment grounds. The first U.S. lawsuit to test whether AI-surveillance of student communications violates constitutional protections. Outcome will set precedent for every district running Gaggle, GoGuardian, Securly, or similar AI monitoring tools.
Read the Novo Analysis →
Pending
Federal
What These Laws Require Districts to Build · Novo Maps Directly
Policy & Framework
AI Governance Architecture
Board-ready AI policy, governance framework, and accountability infrastructure that satisfies every state mandate tracked on this page. The document plus the operational systems behind it.
Coordinator Readiness
AI Coordinator Support
For Maryland and other states requiring designated AI coordinators: role definition, training, decision authority frameworks, and interim coordinator services for districts without a ready candidate.
Staff & Cabinet
Leadership Capacity Building
Superintendent and board AI briefings, staff literacy plans, and cabinet-level governance workshops. Every state mandate includes a staff awareness or training requirement. Novo delivers it.
Data & Vendor
AI Tool Vetting & Privacy
Vendor review protocols, student data guardrail audits, and procurement process design. Required by Idaho, South Carolina, and every law that addresses how districts acquire AI tools.
Featured Analysis
New: Edition 40 · New York Lists the AI Companion Features Minors May Not Get as States Struggle to Verify Vendor Claims →
Edition 39 · Two Senators Ask Google About the Missing Off Switch as Maryland's AI Policy Deadline Passes →
Edition 38 · Eight States Sue OpenAI and 40 Attorneys General Guard Children's Chat Data in a Bankruptcy Sale →
Edition 37 · Frederick County Banned Student AI Because No One Could Turn It Off, and the Evidence Settled Nothing →
Common Questions from District Leaders
Does our state’s law apply to charter schools and private schools?
Most state mandates apply to public school districts receiving state funding. Charter school applicability varies by state and authorizer. Private schools are generally exempt. Novo advises districts on their specific jurisdiction before building any governance framework.
Can we use a template policy to satisfy the mandate?
A template alone does not satisfy the framework requirement in Idaho or Ohio. These laws require evidence of operational governance: defined roles, vendor protocols, staff training, and data practices, not just a document on file. Districts that submit templates without the infrastructure behind them are compliant on paper and exposed in practice.
What happens if our district misses the deadline?
Non-compliance consequences vary by state and are still being defined in administrative guidance. The clearer risk is governance exposure: when an AI-related incident occurs in a district without a documented framework, the absence of policy becomes a liability regardless of whether the state has enforced deadlines. Novo advises building governance before an incident forces it.
How long does it take to build a compliant AI governance framework?
Novo builds compliant, board-ready governance infrastructure in 6 to 10 weeks depending on district size, existing policy landscape, and cabinet availability. In Ohio and Idaho, where the adoption deadlines have now passed, the priority shifts from filing a document to making the adopted policy operational and defensible, so Novo runs a policy audit and completes the governance framework behind it. For Georgia’s 2026-27 school year window and Maryland’s new coordinator mandate, the full build window remains open.
Stay Current on State Legislation

The AI in Public Education Brief

Weekly analysis on new state mandates, governance policy, and what district leaders need to know before the next deadline. Free. No noise. Practitioner-written.

Join district leaders, superintendents, and board members across the country. Unsubscribe anytime.

Novo Innovative Pathways

Every Law on This Page Creates a Problem Your District Has to Solve

Novo helps K-12 leaders build the governance infrastructure, not just the document. If your state is on this page, the conversation is worth having now.

Last updated: November 1, 2026. Legislative status reflects publicly available bill tracking as of this date. Novo monitors state legislation weekly. Information is provided for district leader awareness and does not constitute legal advice.