House Bill 981 requires the Maryland State Department of Education to conduct a statewide evaluation of the use and potential use of artificial intelligence in public schools. The evaluation must include a survey of every local school system, including Baltimore City, asking whether districts have AI policies for students and instructional use, whether AI tools are already being used to support student learning, how prepared districts are in terms of technology and staffing, and what assistance they need from the State. The survey also asks districts to identify commonly used AI systems and describe how State support could improve implementation.
In addition to the survey, the bill directs the Department of Education to review available AI systems that could help with student learning, curriculum development, lesson planning, grading, and school administration. The Department of Information Technology must assist by evaluating the relative costs and benefits of existing tools, additional tools that meet the bill’s goals, and the possible use of one or more statewide AI systems aligned with the Governor’s Artificial Intelligence Subcabinet strategies. The bill also sets deadlines for an interim report by January 1, 2026, and a final report by December 15, 2026, and it is temporary, expiring automatically on June 30, 2027.
The bill’s practical impact would be to create a formal state-level inventory and policy review of AI use in Maryland public schools, without immediately mandating that schools adopt AI. It would affect the State Department of Education, the Department of Information Technology, county boards of education, and Baltimore City schools by requiring data collection, analysis, and reporting. It could also influence future statewide guidance, procurement, and policy development around educational technology, student privacy, accessibility, and instructional use of AI.
The available context shows no committee testimony or recorded votes, and the bill was ultimately withdrawn by the sponsor in the House. That suggests the measure did not advance to a contested floor vote, and there is no documented formal opposition or support in the provided materials. Based on the bill text alone, the proposal appears exploratory and policy-focused rather than regulatory, which may have made it less controversial than a mandate to deploy AI in schools.
The main points of potential contention are likely to have been the scope of the evaluation, the role of statewide versus local control, and concerns about AI’s effects on students with disabilities and English learners, since the survey specifically asks about differentiated policies for those groups. Another possible issue is whether the State should consider a statewide AI system for schools, which could raise questions about cost, implementation, data security, and local flexibility. However, no specific disagreements are documented in the provided record.
The bill would add a temporary, one-time evaluation mandate to the duties of the State Department of Education, with support from the Department of Information Technology, regarding artificial intelligence in public schools. It would not directly amend school curriculum law or require AI adoption, but it would require county boards of education and Baltimore City to respond to a state survey and would likely inform future education policy, procurement, and guidance related to educational technology, student support, and statewide AI strategy.
The overall sentiment appears neutral to mildly supportive in concept, but largely exploratory rather than directive. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes and the bill was withdrawn by the sponsor, there is no evidence of active floor controversy or a clear coalition for or against the measure in the provided materials. The bill’s temporary, study-oriented structure suggests it was framed as a fact-finding effort to inform future policy rather than a contentious immediate change.
The most likely areas of contention are the balance between state oversight and local district autonomy, the feasibility and cost of implementing AI systems, and the adequacy of safeguards for student privacy, equity, and accessibility. The bill specifically asks districts to report on policies for students with disabilities and English learners, which could raise concerns about whether AI tools are appropriate or reliable for those populations. Another possible point of debate is the idea of a statewide AI system, since districts may differ on whether a centralized approach would improve consistency or instead limit local choice and create new administrative burdens.