The States

Every state education department is on the same road. The question this section answers is not which states are addressing AI and which are ignoring it — because none can ignore it. Preparing students for the work and society they will actually enter is the non-negotiable charge of public education, and that future is being rewritten by AI. A state that declines to adopt an AI plan is not opting out of AI; it is opting out of preparing its students, and no department will do that. So the 50 states and the District of Columbia are not a map of haves and have-nots. They are a single road, and what differs is only how far down it each one has traveled.

This is why AI is the third dimension. Measuring outcomes — data — tells you where a student stands. Understanding circumstances — conditions — tells you why. But neither prepares the student for what comes next. AI is the instrument that runs through the entire circle of education — family, teacher, student, community — and equips the student for the requirements of work and society ahead. A state AI plan is not a technology policy bolted onto the side of education; it is the mechanism by which a state discharges its core obligation in an AI-shaped world. That is why adoption is universal and inevitable, and why the only real variable is timing.

Read the map below as motion, not membership. Each jurisdiction is placed at the furthest stage it has reached — from those that have already made a district AI policy a legal duty to those that have not yet visibly moved. Every one of them will arrive. The leaders simply show the rest the route — and they show COMPLY exactly where the obligation is already real and dated.

Stage 1 — Mandate or state model policy.

Farthest along: a district AI policy is already a legal duty, or about to be.

California — SB 1288 — state model AI policy due July 1, 2026; districts build from it. The COMPLY anchor.

Idaho — SB 1227 (enacted) — statewide generative-AI framework; districts must adopt aligned policies.

Maryland — SB 720 (enacted), AI Ready Schools Act — district policies, AI coordinators, statewide collaborative, tool certification.

Ohio — HB 96 (enacted 2025) — districts must adopt AI policies.

Oklahoma — SB 1734 (enacted) — every district a written AI policy before 2027–28; human-in-the-loop; parental opt-out.

Tennessee — SB 1711 (enacted 2025) — districts must adopt AI policies.

Virginia — HB 1186 (enacted) — AI Innovation in Education Pilot; districts adopt aligned policies.

South Carolina — HB 5253 (pending) — district policies, parental opt-in, annual disclosure.

West Virginia — HB 5205 (pending) — the State Board's model policy auto-applies to any district that fails to adopt its own by July 2027.

Stage 2 — AI law on the books.

An AI-in-education statute enacted, though not yet a district-policy mandate.

Alabama — HB 329 — a computer-science course including AI required to graduate (plus a department AI policy template).

Mississippi — SB 2426 (2025) — created a state AI task force (plus department guidance).

Utah — HB 218 and HB 273 — grade 7/8 digital-skills/AI-literacy course and AI in CS standards; SB 322 (AI sandbox) pending; plus guidance.

Stage 3 — Legislating now.

Bills moving toward law this session.

Arizona — HB 4005 — AI ethics instruction.

Florida — HB 1503 / SB 1694 — AI within computer-science coursework.

Hawaii — SB 2212 (AI-literacy course), HB 2466 (curriculum), HB 1676 (task force); plus guidance.

Illinois — HB 4411 (CS + AI graduation), HB 5113 (best-practices commission).

Iowa — HSB 610 / HF 2540 / SF 2094 — CS + AI graduation, class of 2030–31.

Missouri — HB 3139 — AI in the CS definition; half-unit graduation requirement (2027–28); plus guidance.

New Jersey — A 4352 / S 2862 — AI within computer science.

New Mexico — HB 330 — AI ethics computer-science elective; plus guidance.

New York — A 9190 (bar most classroom AI below ninth grade), A 6972 (State Education Department AI working group).

Vermont — HB 650 — edtech providers must register and certify privacy, including AI features.

Stage 4 — On the on-ramp.

A department has issued AI guidance — explicitly to help districts build toward policy.

Alaska — K-12 AI framework (October 2025).

Colorado — AI roadmap for K-12.

Connecticut — Commission for Educational Technology guidance.

Delaware — Guidance plus a January 2026 AI Education Summit.

Georgia — Guidance that explicitly includes a “Process for Districts to Adopt AI Policies.”

Indiana — Department AI guidance.

Kentucky — Department AI guidance.

Louisiana — Department AI guidance.

Maine — Interactive AI Guidance Toolkit (February 2025); integration study due spring 2026.

Massachusetts — Department guidance (August 2025).

Minnesota — Department AI guidance.

Montana — Department guidance (October 2025).

Nevada — Department AI guidance.

North Carolina — Guidance plus recurring educator AI summits.

North Dakota — K-12 AI guidance framework.

Oregon — Department AI guidance.

Rhode Island — Department guidance (August 2025).

Washington — Human-centered AI guidance.

Wisconsin — Department AI guidance.

Wyoming — Guidance written expressly “to help districts develop AI-use policies.”

Stage 5 — Not yet visibly moving.

Nothing surfaced in the trackers — earlier on the same road, not off it.

Arkansas — A 2025 state AI task-force report exists; no department guidance among the 31 and no classroom-AI statute identified.

District of Columbia — None identified in the trackers.

Kansas — None identified.

Michigan — None identified for AI (active on literacy/dyslexia).

Nebraska — None identified.

New Hampshire — None identified.

Pennsylvania — Not among the 31; the department has issued some material — flag for verification.

South Dakota — None identified.

Texas — General TRAIGA AI law effective January 1, 2026, but not education-specific.

Coverage note. Stage placement reflects the furthest instrument each jurisdiction has reached, drawn from FutureEd’s June 10, 2026 legislation tracker, Ballotpedia’s January 2026 count of 31 guidance states, and the enacted 2025 laws in Ohio and Tennessee. “Not yet visibly moving” means nothing surfaced in those sources as of June 2026 — not a guarantee a state has zero local or very recent activity. Pennsylvania and Arkansas are worth verifying directly before this review goes outward.

What it means for COMPLY. COMPLY is built for the whole road, not just the leaders. The Stage 1 states are where the obligation is already enforceable and dated — the immediate market. But the guidance states are not a different category; they are the same road, earlier, and their own documents say so: Wyoming’s exists “to help districts develop policies,” Georgia’s contains a “Process for Districts to Adopt AI Policies.” Guidance is the on-ramp to the mandate. Every jurisdiction on this list is a present or future customer for what COMPLY provides — the leaders define the timeline, and the federal retreat in Section 1 guarantees the responsibility stays with the states.