Education - Artificial Intelligence - Guidelines, Professional Development, and Task Force
SB 906 establishes a new subtitle in the Education Article on artificial intelligence in K-12 education. It directs the State Department of Education, working with the State Board of Education and the existing Task Force on Artificial Intelligence in K-12 Education, to develop or update statewide guidance on classroom use of AI by August 1, 2026. That guidance must promote safe, responsible, and ethical use of AI, keep students and teachers at the center of educational technology, and prioritize evidence-based educational needs. The Department must also publish separate guidance for students, teachers, and administrators, and develop strategies to help county boards and superintendents implement the guidance and best practices.
The bill would add new duties for the State Department of Education, county boards of education, and the Career and Technical Education Committee. It requires the Department, with the Department of Information Technology, to create and annually update a list of approved AI tools for schools, ensure those tools protect privacy and security, and administer a statewide needs assessment to determine local school systems’ capacity to integrate AI. County boards must designate an employee to facilitate AI use and report annually on AI-related purchases, instructional use, student use, performance results, and compliance with state data privacy laws. The bill also requires AI literacy to be included in workforce preparation, expands professional development expectations for educators, and creates a temporary task force to study AI use in schools and report recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly.
The bill appears generally supportive and forward-looking, reflecting an intent to help schools adopt artificial intelligence in a structured and cautious way. Its language emphasizes responsible use, privacy, security, professional development, and statewide coordination rather than unrestricted adoption. Because there were no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided, there is no documented opposition or amendment debate in the available materials.
The main potential points of contention are likely to be the scope of state oversight, the administrative burden on county boards, and concerns about student data privacy and security. The requirement for annual reporting, a designated AI employee in each county, and a statewide approved-tools list could be viewed as helpful guardrails by supporters but as added compliance obligations by local school systems. Another likely issue is how quickly schools can implement AI literacy and professional development, and whether the state budget will provide sufficient funding for training and support. The bill’s emphasis on ethics, privacy, and evidence-based use suggests those concerns are central to its design.