An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 22.1-20.2:1, relating to Department of Education; artificial intelligence system use in instructional settings; development of AIS safety guidance required; AIS Innovation in Education Pilot Program established; report.
SB394 adds a new section to the Code of Virginia directing the Department of Education to study and guide the use of artificial intelligence systems in public elementary and secondary schools. The bill requires the Department, working with local school divisions and other stakeholders, to compile information on current AI uses in instruction and publish public guidance on safe, ethical, and equitable AI use in classrooms and school operations. That guidance must address student privacy, teacher training, transparency, bias and discrimination, accessibility, alignment with Standards of Learning, and limits on relying solely on AI for certain high-stakes decisions.
The bill also establishes the AIS Innovation in Education Pilot Program, funded only if appropriations are made, to support school divisions in testing AI applications for instruction, tutoring, student engagement, operational efficiency, and teacher support. Participating divisions must provide educator professional development and evaluate impacts on learning, teacher workload, and equity. The Department must report annually to legislative education committees on funded projects, outcomes, risks, and recommendations for expansion or regulation. The pilot program authority expires on July 1, 2030.
SB394 affects the Code of Virginia by creating § 22.1-20.2:1 and imposing new responsibilities on the Department of Education and local school boards. School boards must adopt and enforce policies consistent with state guidance, while the Department must issue guidance and oversee a pilot program focused on AI in public schools. The bill also sets privacy and governance expectations for AI vendors and school divisions, including restrictions on using school or student data to train external models, requirements for teacher access to student-AI transcripts, and monitoring tools such as dashboards, alerts, and audit logs.
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and was ultimately enacted, with strong favorable votes in both chambers and only isolated opposition. The voting history suggests general agreement that AI in schools should be encouraged but carefully managed through guardrails, oversight, and pilot testing. The House and Senate conference process indicates that differences over the substitute were resolved, leading to final passage and enactment.
The main points of contention appear to have centered on the structure and scope of the House substitute and the details of how AI should be governed in schools, rather than on whether the state should address the issue at all. The Senate rejected the House substitute before the chambers reached a conference agreement, indicating disagreement over specific policy language. Likely areas of debate included the degree of state control versus local flexibility, privacy and data-use restrictions, and how strongly to prioritize division-managed platforms and monitoring requirements. The final compromise preserved a cautious, oversight-heavy approach while still authorizing innovation through a time-limited pilot program.