Author(s): Yerin Seung, James Basham, Ph.D., and Angelica Fulchini Scruggs, Ph.D.
Design: McKenzie Nichols
At a Glance
CIDDL's ongoing review of state AI guidance documents for K-12 education identified nine emergent themes across 33 qualifying state guidance documents, updated as of June, 2026.
33
qualifying states
23
address students with disabilities
9
emergent themes identified
8
states with AI governance legislation
About This Analysis
The Center for Innovation, Design, and Digital Learning (CIDDL) systematically reviews publicly available state AI guidance documents to identify patterns in how states are approaching artificial intelligence in K-12 education. To qualify, a document must:
- Originate from an official state agency website or a state-endorsed organization, and
- Focus on K-12 students and include the words "guidance" or "guideline," and "students."
As of June 2026, 33 State Education Agencies (SEAs) meet these criteria: AK, AL, CA, CO, DE, GA, HI, IN, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, RI, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, and WY.
Two states have enacted legislation directing their SEA to develop qualifying guidance (ID, IL); their guidance is pending publication. Three additional states have released education AI resources that do not currently meet CIDDL criteria (AZ, CT, NJ).
Key Finding 1: Nine Emergent Themes
Analysis of the 33 qualifying guidance documents identified nine emergent themes.
- Definition of AI
- AI for Personalized Learning
- Potential Benefits of AI
- Potential to Enhance Accessibility
- Potential Risks of AI
- Ethical Use of AI
- Need for Ensuring Equal Access
- Need for Human Readiness and Support
- Recommendations for K-12 Policy Development
Key Finding 2: Most Widely Shared Priorities
Three sub-topics are addressed by 31 of the 33 qualifying states, making them the most universally shared priorities across the nation:
Academic Integrity
State guidance consistently focuses on preventing AI-assisted plagiarism, establishing honest disclosure practices, and building student responsibility in AI-supported learning environments.
Privacy and Data Security
As AI tools proliferate in classrooms, states are increasingly focused on what student data AI systems collect, how it is stored, and who has access to it.
Teacher-Focused Preparation
States broadly recognize that responsible AI implementation depends on teachers having the knowledge, skills, and ongoing support to use these tools effectively.
Key Finding 3: Students with Disabilities
23 of 33 qualifying states (70%) address SWDs within their AI guidance. However, how they are included is uneven across themes:
Themes with the strongest SWD inclusion
- AI for Personalized Learning for SWD (11 states)
- Potential to Enhance Accessibility for SWDs (20 states)
- Accessibility aligning with IDEA, Section 504, ADA (12 states)
- Assistive Technology (9 states)
- Equal Access to Education for SWDs (9 states)
Areas where SWD are largely absent
- AI governance and policy development
- Ethical frameworks and human oversight
- AI literacy and student preparation
- Privacy and data security for students who use AI-based assistive tools
- Risk mitigation specific to SWDs
Key Finding 4: The Legislative Shift
The most significant structural change since CIDDL's March 2026 analysis is the rapid growth of enacted state legislation governing AI in K-12 education. Eight states have now signed laws requiring state agencies to develop AI guidance and/or requiring local school districts to adopt formal AI policies: ID, IL, MD, OH, OK, TN, UT, VA. Check our full report for more details of the key requirements of each legislation.
Significance and Implications
Across these documents, states show broad consensus on several priorities: academic integrity, privacy and data security, and educator preparation are near-universal concerns. AI's potential to support personalized learning and improve accessibility for all learners, including students with disabilities, is widely acknowledged.
At the same time, this analysis identifies an important gap: students with disabilities are most visible in guidance addressing learning benefits and accessibility, but far less visible in the governance, ethics, privacy, risk, and AI literacy conversations that will shape how AI is actually implemented in classrooms.
The rapid growth of state legislation also marks a turning point. What began as voluntary guidance is becoming law in a growing number of states. Policymakers, district leaders, and educators should expect increasing compliance obligations and should look to states with enacted legislation as early indicators of where the national policy landscape is heading.
What does this mean for Personnel Preparation?
State AI guidance reflects a strong and growing consensus that AI fluency is a core professional competency for all educators. Effective preparation requires more than technical skills. Personnel must develop the judgment to evaluate AI-generated information, protect student privacy, recognize algorithmic bias, uphold academic integrity, and determine when human expertise should take precedence over AI recommendations.
This need is particularly pronounced in special education, where educators make individualized decisions under IDEA and Section 504 related to accommodations, accessibility, assessment, and family collaboration. Personnel preparation programs are responsible for developing the full range of AI knowledge and skills needed in special education practice — from learning design and accessibility to governance, ethics, data privacy, and risk management.
Developing AI-fluent special educators is not a future priority but a present one. As the policy landscape shifts from voluntary guidance to enacted law, personnel preparation programs, professional development systems, and certification requirements should ensure that educators can effectively support all learners with equal access across AI-mediated educational environments.
Do you have questions or want assistance? Reach out to us at info@ciddl.org.
This is a working document.
If you believe your state qualifies and is not listed here, or you would like to provide feedback on your state's guidance, please contact us at info@ciddl.org. This document is updated roughly every quarter.
Last Updated: June 17, 2026