The urgent need for rethinking the basic structure of American education, some argue, is growing alongside demand for clear state policies that address what skills students will need for the labor market.
GUIDANCE IS OUTPACING MANDATES
Ohio last summer passed a law requiring all K-12 public schools to adopt policies for AI use by mid-2026, and the state intends to provide a model policy by the end of this year. In 2024, Tennessee passed legislation mandating local school boards implement policies regarding the use of AI by students, faculty and staff.
But while NCSL’s legislative tracker shows AI bills in every state, many are broader and not education-specific. In the absence of specific legislation, many states are offering AI guidelines and frameworks for districts to refer to.
For example, in 2024, the Utah State Board of Education (USBE) released a framework for grades pre-K-12 covering “appropriate and responsible use of AI tools, particularly generative AI tools, in classroom instruction, school management, and systemwide operations where permitted by local policy.” USBE also launched an AI steering committee to monitor risks and opportunities, and the state has hosted educator AI summits that provide stipends for lesson-plan development. Beyond guidance, the Utah Education Network, a digital broadcast network serving Utah schools, now offers an AI toolkit with self-paced courses and resources for school leaders.
Colorado has similarly taken a guidance-driven approach, providing resources rather than a statewide mandate. In 2024, Colorado released a statewide Roadmap for AI in K-12 Education that calls for rethinking classroom models amid emerging tech, in addition to encouraging districts to adopt local policies on procurement, data use and acceptable AI behaviors. In August 2025, the state published a K-12 AI Skills Progression Guide aligned with state computer science standards and grade-level expectations for AI literacy.
In Washington state, guidance from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction promotes a human-centered approach to AI adoption in schools that focuses on academic integrity, privacy and safety. The state also created an AI advisory board of educators, tech workers and students, in addition to an AI task force to develop recommendations for statewide AI governance.
STUCK IN RISK-MITIGATION MODE
Beyond immediate implementation of an emerging technology like AI, some ed-tech leaders say the structure of U.S. schooling itself needs to change.
Many of the AI policies and guidelines states have released are unlikely to push districts forward in meaningful ways, according to Sari Factor, vice chair and chief strategy officer at the education software company Imagine Learning. Specifically, Factor said she worries that rapidly issued AI guidelines for schools focus on things like privacy and plagiarism, but not on the deeper demands for teaching, learning and the future of the workforce.
“The technology is changing so fast it makes it really hard to think about policies,” she said. “[Districts are] dealing with crumbling schools, they're dealing with declining enrollments, they're dealing with so much, and so AI is one more thing that they have to deal with.”
Even as more states enter the policy arena, the majority of proposed legislation remains focused on risk mitigation rather than strategic transformation of schooling, Factor said.
“Schools are not built to change. Not only are they not built to change, they’re not good at change,” she said, referencing the industrial model of education that persists in U.S. schools today. “That is what we're not really talking about. And so a lot of these policies are not actually looking at, what are the skills of today and the future, and how are we going to reframe teaching and learning in schools and systems?”
UNPREPARED AND UNDERTRAINED TEACHERS
Factor also lamented that educators are often expected to implement new policies with little support or professional development.
“We passed legislation that all the educators should be trained, yet most of them have not been trained,” she said. “I've met some educators that are doing a wonderful job using the tools, and they are coming up with new ways to think about pedagogy and new ways to deliver their lessons. But the vast majority have not been trained. ... We need to prepare the teachers to help them understand how they can use it and how they should be instructing students.”
In some states, such as Utah and Ohio, AI training is being incorporated into existing professional development infrastructure. But across much of the U.S., there is a widening gap between policy and practice, according to Amanda Bickerstaff, founder and CEO of the AI literacy company AI for Education.
In Bickerstaff's view, AI implementation often hinges on informal champions within districts, such as IT staff or teachers promoting innovation in their classrooms. Funding, though, remains almost entirely absent from state guidance.
“Until there is a groundswell of support — monetary, technical research, infrastructure, access, professional development at the district level and even at the school level — I don’t think we’re going to see a massive shift,” she said. “I thought that there would be a recognition more quickly that we need a plan for generative AI in schools as a national priority. ... There's very little evidence bases of how these tools are impacting teaching and learning.”
PREPARING STUDENTS FOR AN EVOLVING WORKFORCE
Though states have acted to protect students from harm caused by AI, such as deepfakes and cyber attacks, and prepare teachers for changes to their pedagogy amid emerging tech, some ed-tech leaders see state policies and guidelines lagging behind the reality of a changing labor market.
“We can't talk about which tools are or are not going to work. We have to actually figure out the answer to the question, what is the future of education? What is the future of work?” said Alex Kotran, co-founder and CEO of the nonprofit aiEDU. “The workforce isn't at the center of the conversation yet, because truly nobody can describe the jobs of the future. And so it's very hard to have a policy conversation about, how do we rethink the way we teach career pathways?”
Without clear answers, he said, state-level efforts often drift toward tool management rather than a coherent vision for a workforce of the future. According to Kotran, several states promoting AI innovation efforts, including industry partnerships, vendor collaborations or technology pilots, are still not connecting those initiatives to long-term workforce priorities. He referenced Oregon’s recent AI education initiative with the tech company NVIDIA: “It’s a pipeline to NVIDIA’s developer ecosystem. That’s not a strategy for the future of work ... that’s not a workforce strategy.”
Moreover, Bickerstaff, Factor and Kotran all noted a misalignment between state-level policy timelines and the rapid pace of change in the workforce. With AI advancing faster than traditional curriculum cycles, they said they see little evidence that existing state guidance can keep pace.
“We've been slow as a country, and as you know, in states, the usage has outpaced the policy,” Factor said. “What are the jobs of the future? We have no idea, but I do think that if we focus on the durable skills — critical thinking, communication, collaboration — and look for ways to help measure that, teach that explicitly and measure it, we're going to have kids who are adaptable and can move from job to job.”
