California Educators · October 2026
Artificial Intelligence and K–12 Education
A Curated Resource Guide for California Educators
Start Here: What Every California Administrator Needs to Know
1. What California now requires
Three laws now shape AI in California schools. AB 2876 (2024) requires AI literacy to be incorporated into K–12 curriculum frameworks. SB 1288 (2024) directed the CDE to develop AI guidance and a model policy — both delivered on time (guidance January 2026, model policy June 2026). AB 1159 (2026) prohibits edtech vendors from using student data to train AI models — the strongest student data privacy law in the nation. AB 2148 (2026, effective January 1, 2027) establishes that public school employees and contractors must be natural persons — AI cannot replace a teacher, counselor, or any school staff role. A 13-bill package signed September 10, 2026 adds the nation's strongest companion chatbot protections for children (Adam's Law, SB 1119), bans addictive social media features for users under 16 (AB 1709), and expands child exploitation law to cover AI-generated content. The CDE model policy is not mandatory, but it is the official state template and the starting point for every California district. See Section 1.
2. Where your peers are — and how far apart they are
California districts are taking dramatically different approaches — from full student AI bans (LAUSD, 420,000+ students, September 2026) to comprehensive district-wide integration with board-adopted policies (Elk Grove, San Dieguito, Portola Valley, Castaic). A September 2026 PACE study of 83 California districts found that 39% have no organized AI response at all. Only 20% have a broader organizational strategy. Most districts are somewhere in the middle: staff are already using AI, but policy and professional learning haven't caught up. Section 2 catalogs California districts across the full spectrum.
3. Where to start if you're building a policy
Most California districts have found it helpful to begin with the CDE Model AI Policy and CSBA's BP 0441 template (Section 4). Then use the TeachAI Toolkit or EDSAFE AI Policy Lab resources to structure your community engagement and drafting process. Look at 2–3 district examples from Section 2 that match your size and community context. The most important thing is not to wait for the perfect policy — the districts furthest ahead started with a draft, involved stakeholders, and revised as they learned.
How to use this guide: Entries marked ★ are especially recommended. Sections 1–4 are California-specific. Sections 5–12 provide national context, frameworks, curriculum tools, and professional learning. Section 13 addresses the broader screen time and device policy landscape — essential context for any district AI decision. Use the sidebar to navigate directly to what you need.
This guide is free to share. The link is public — forward it to colleagues, share it with your board, or distribute it to your network. No login or download required. This guide is updated frequently as California legislation evolves and new resources emerge. Bookmark the link rather than saving a copy to ensure you always have the most current version: avagyanconsulting.com
This guide is free to share. The link is public — forward it to colleagues, share it with your board, or distribute it to your network. No login or download required. This guide is updated frequently as California legislation evolves and new resources emerge. Bookmark the link rather than saving a copy to ensure you always have the most current version: avagyanconsulting.com
1.
California AI Policy — Laws, Guidance & Model Policy
California has moved faster than nearly any other state on AI in education. This section documents California's legislation, official guidance, and model policy — essential reading for every California educator and district leader.
California AI Education Legislation
Three laws passed between 2024 and 2026 establish California's legislative framework for AI in K–12. Together they address curriculum integration, district guidance and model policy, and student data privacy.
AB 2876 (Berman, signed September 2024) — AI Literacy in K–12 Curriculum
Directs California's Instructional Quality Commission (IQC) to incorporate AI literacy into the mathematics, science, and history-social science curriculum frameworks and instructional materials at their next revision. Defines AI literacy broadly to include how AI works, its core concepts, applications, limitations, ethical issues, and real-world impacts. Also strengthens media literacy across subject areas. Passed the state Assembly and Senate unanimously.
SB 1288 (Becker, signed 2024) — AI Working Group, Guidance & Model Policy
Required the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to convene a statewide AI in Education Working Group. Charged the group with: (1) developing guidance for school districts on the safe use of AI — due January 1, 2026; and (2) developing a model policy for LEAs and charter schools with equity considerations — due July 1, 2026. Both deliverables were completed on time. The model policy and guidance are nonmandatory but serve as the official California template.
AB 1159 (Addis, signed September 2026) — Student Data Privacy & AI Training Prohibition
California's landmark student data privacy law. Prohibits education technology companies from selling student data and from using it to train or develop AI models. Extends protections to both K–12 and higher education students. Any edtech vendor contract in California must be reviewed for compliance. Expected to influence national vendor contract terms.
13-Bill Package: Children's Online Safety & AI Protections (signed September 10, 2026) ★
Governor Newsom signed 13 bills at the Bay Area Discovery Museum, establishing the most comprehensive state-level framework in the U.S. for protecting minors online. Key laws for California educators and district leaders: SB 1119 — "Adam's Law" (Padilla): the most far-reaching companion chatbot regulation in the nation, named after 16-year-old Adam Raine, a California student who died by suicide in 2025 after ChatGPT isolated him from family and friends. Requires crisis protocols for suicidal ideation queries, parental controls, mandatory notifications if a child disables safety settings, independent child safety audits, and annual risk assessments. Creates a private right of action for children harmed by violations. AB 1709: prohibits social media platforms from providing "addictive features" (algorithmic feeds, autoplay, infinite scroll) to users under 16; creates an e-Safety Advisory Commission. SB 1276: expands criminal liability for child exploitation material to expressly include AI-created or AI-modified content. AB 2246: updates child-appropriate design requirements for any service reasonably likely to be accessed by children under 18. AB 2: makes social media companies financially liable for harm to children, with statutory damages of $5,000 per violation or $1 million per child for platforms with annual revenue above $100 million. See CalMatters coverage: calmatters.org
AB 2148 (Muratsuchi, signed June 30, 2026) — AI Cannot Replace Public School Employees or Contractors
Adds Section 98 to the California Education Code, establishing that public school employees — including teachers, administrators, counselors, nurses, psychologists, and social workers — and contractors providing services in a public school must be natural persons. AI cannot fill either role. Passed unanimously (76-0 in Assembly, 37-0 in Senate). Takes effect January 1, 2027. The law is narrow and precise: it does not prohibit teachers from using AI as a tool, ban AI tutoring software, or regulate student data — those are addressed in other laws. It is best understood as a human-accountability floor. Co-sponsored by the California Federation of Teachers (CFT). In a statement on social media, Muratsuchi wrote: "While technology can be a valuable tool to support teaching and learning, it cannot replace the professional judgment, compassion, and care that educators and school employees provide to California's students every day." See EdSource coverage.
Official CDE AI Guidance & Model Policy
Released June 25, 2026, pursuant to SB 1288. Provides LEAs and charter schools a ready-to-adapt template organized around 26 core principles: Privacy by Design, Data Entry Restrictions, Transparency and Informed Consent, AI Tool Evaluation, Vendor Contract Requirements, Academic Integrity, Equitable Access, and Student Risk Protocols. Nonmandatory but the official California template.
California's comprehensive 47-page AI guidance for TK–12 educators, developed by the CDE with the AI Working Group. An update to the 2023 "Learning With AI, Learning About AI" guidance. Organized into six substantive chapters: (1) Introduction — California's AI definition from Education Code, types of AI (Generative, Agentic, General), and the dual-focus framework of "learning about AI" and "learning with AI"; (2) Human-Centered AI — AI as enhancer not substitute, student well-being and chatbot risks, cognitive/developmental considerations, risks of human-replacement AI, and 8 Guiding Questions for LEAs; (3) AI Literacy — grade-band progression table (TK–12) with focus goals, sample activities, and evaluation questions; three-level educator training framework (Basic/Intermediate/Advanced); 5 Big Ideas in AI (AI4K12 alignment); K–12 sample activities for both "How AI Works" and "Ethical Considerations" aligned to California standards; TPACK framework for lesson design; subject-specific AI applications (ELD, Special Education, CTE, Arts, World Language, Mathematics, History-Social Science); (4) Equitable Access — Special education and UDL, digital equity and the digital divide, expanding STEM pathways for underrepresented groups; (5) Academic Integrity — 5-level responsible use rubric (No AI Assistance → AI as Co-creator), student AI output evaluation rubric (Accuracy/Relevance/Clarity/Fairness), unacceptable uses table, 7-step process for co-developing ethical use guidelines with students; (6) Data Privacy, Security, and Procurement — summaries of CCPA, SOPIPA, AB 1584, FERPA, COPPA, and PPRA with time-sensitive compliance requirements; open vs. closed AI systems guidance; and a 10-category procurement checklist (Instructional & Operational Alignment, Functional Evaluation, Data Privacy & Security, Equity & Accessibility, Transparency & Explainability, Implementation & Integration, Vendor Reliability, Risk Assessment, Cost & Sustainability, Pilot & Evaluation Plan). Nonmandatory but the authoritative California TK–12 AI implementation guide. Signed by State Superintendent Tony Thurmond.
CDE's central page for all AI-related guidance, model policy, legislation updates, and educator resources. The single best starting point for California educators and district leaders.
Official page for the AI in Education Working Group convened under SB 1288. Includes the full member roster (48 members), all public meeting agendas, and the group's mandate. Members represent classroom teachers, students, administrators, classified staff, county offices, higher education, and industry — including representatives from several districts featured in this guide (Portola Valley SD, San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools, San Juan USD, Fresno USD, Anaheim UHSD, ABC Unified, Clovis USD). Topics addressed: data privacy, academic integrity, professional development, equitable access, and effective classroom AI integration. All meetings were held under the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. The workgroup's final session was October 12, 2026 — a completion and celebration meeting, signaling the legislative report is finalized. Page last reviewed October 2, 2026.
The CDE's official letter to county and district superintendents announcing the model policy release. Useful context for district leaders on the intent and scope of the document.
Context, Analysis & Implementation Support
Legal analysis of the CDE Model AI Policy from Lozano Smith. Explains the 26 core principles, vendor contract implications, and practical steps for districts around privacy, procurement, and data audits.
Legal overview of AB 2876 and SB 1288. Explains requirements, timelines, and what districts should do next. Recommended for district and site leaders preparing board presentations.
Accessible overview of the SB 1288 workgroup launch — useful for briefing school board members and stakeholders on California's legislative intent.
Plain-language overview of AB 2876 — excellent for sharing with teachers, parents, and community stakeholders.
September 2026 CalMatters investigative piece on AB 1159 — explains how edtech companies have been using student data and what the new law requires.
Technical analysis distinguishing state-level duties from local recommendations. Clarifies that the California model policy is exemplary (nonmandatory) at the district level.
EdSource's coverage of AB 2148 — the clearest explanation of what the law does and doesn't do. Includes the author's statement from Assemblymember Muratsuchi and context on why legislators narrowed the bill from its original sweeping restrictions to a focused human-accountability floor. Essential reading for any California educator or administrator navigating the "will AI replace teachers?" question.
A practical risk management perspective from Keenan & Associates, a California-based firm specializing in public agencies and educational institutions. Covers how AI is showing up in classrooms beyond academic use — particularly deepfake harassment, which can intersect with Title IX obligations, cyberbullying policies, and student conduct codes. Includes a checklist of practical steps for K-12 districts: updating acceptable use policies to cover AI-generated content, integrating AI into bullying prevention frameworks, strengthening reporting pathways, and training staff to recognize AI-generated content. Also addresses community college contexts. Note: Keenan is a risk management and insurance vendor; the content is practical and California-specific but written from a liability and compliance perspective.
An analysis of data from Business Insider and the National Center for Education Statistics finds 602 data centers or buildings-in-progress located within one mile of schools in California — more than any other state. Fueled by demand for artificial intelligence, data centers are essential infrastructure for the internet-based tools schools use daily, but communities near them are reporting concerns about pollution, construction noise, "heat islands," traffic, and water quality. Some schools report that cooling system fans and generators produce noise comparable to a jet engine. A forthcoming study from Brown University suggests math scores are lower among students whose schools are located closer to a data center — though the research base on long-term effects remains limited given the recency of the phenomenon. For California education leaders: as AI tool adoption accelerates, the physical infrastructure that powers those tools is increasingly likely to be a local community issue. Worth monitoring in facilities planning, community engagement, and environmental justice conversations.
Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) practice brief based on interviews with leaders from 83 California school districts. Key finding: 39% of California districts have no organized AI response; only 20% have a broader organizational response. Recommends communities of practice for building educator adaptive expertise. Co-authored by Lead by Learning and Stanford. PACE is housed at USC Rossier, Stanford GSE, UC Berkeley, UC Davis, and UCLA.
Legal alert from Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo (AALRR), one of California's leading K-12 education law firms. Covers the 2026 AI laws most consequential for school districts as public employers: SB 947 (automated decision systems in discipline/termination, effective July 1, 2027), AB 1883 (AI workplace surveillance, emotion recognition, neural data), SB 574 (attorneys using generative AI), and the AI audit framework. Includes a practical compliance checklist. Recommended for district HR, general counsel, and senior leadership.
Comprehensive legal summary of all 25+ California AI and privacy bills signed in the 2026 legislative session, organized by six themes: protecting minors online, AI accountability, consumer data rights, surveillance and tracking, clinical AI, and AI transparency. Includes a full table of every law with effective dates.
Adopted at the 2026 California State PTA Convention — the only formal PTA resolution on AI in California. Six RESOLVED clauses call for: equitable AI access for all learners; AI literacy and ethics in teacher preparation and PD; hardware/software/internet support for schools; state/federal AI safety and risk assessments; environmental sustainability practices; and submission to National PTA. A strong community accountability anchor for district AI policy work.
2.
California District AI Policies — Who Has Adopted & What They Look Like
California districts are taking dramatically different approaches to AI — and that spectrum is part of the story. On one end: LAUSD imposed a full student AI moratorium in September 2026. On the other: districts like Elk Grove, San Dieguito, Portola Valley, and Castaic have board-adopted policies, staff ARs, and public-facing implementation pages. Most districts sit somewhere between those poles — staff using AI informally, guidance developing, board action still pending. California does not mandate districts to adopt AI policies; the CDE model policy is nonmandatory. CSBA is the central infrastructure supporting district-level policy development through its AI Taskforce and GAMUT policy service.
The CSBA Role — Central Resource for California Districts
CSBA convened an AI Taskforce to help board members navigate AI from a governance perspective. The taskforce identifies policy areas affected by AI and provides sample policy language through CSBA's GAMUT policy service — updated quarterly. Many California districts adopting AI policies are using CSBA's template as their starting point. Includes a Promising Practices and Policies page with California LEA examples, board-adopted resolutions, and real scenarios boards have faced. Free for CSBA members.
CSBA released sample Board Policy 0441 – Artificial Intelligence as part of its June 2025 Policy Update Packet. Emphasizes ethical and human-centered AI use, outlines the board's role in ensuring AI supports rather than replaces instruction, and can be adapted by any California district to reflect local context.
February 2025 article by LA County Superintendent Debra Duardo documenting how LACOE has been collaborating with local districts on AI integration — with profiles of Lynwood USD, Torrance USD, and El Segundo USD.
July 2025 EdSource brief covering the CSBA AI Taskforce resource launch — fact sheets, research briefs, and four webinars on legal considerations, ethical frameworks, policy and procurement, and AI performance in schools.
California Districts with Formally Adopted Policies
These districts have formally board-adopted AI policies or comprehensive guidance adopted through a formal district process.
Board adopted BP 0441 Artificial Intelligence in January 2026. Also updated BP 6163.4 / E 6163.4 (student tech use), BP 4040 (staff tech use), and BP 5131.9 (academic honesty). Covers data privacy aligned to SOPIPA and CA NDPA, academic integrity, equitable access, and ongoing staff PD. One of the most transparent district AI implementations in California.
Governing Board adopted an AI policy on September 3, 2025. Includes district-developed AI Guidance created by staff from all school sites, as well as school-managed versions of AI tools with enhanced data-privacy protections and content filters. Clear public-facing AI page with guidance, policy, and parent/guardian contact information.
Developed comprehensive Ethical and Responsible Use of AI Guidance through a community process including three public roundtable meetings and a month-long public comment period. Updated by an AI Literacy Task Force in 2025–26. Uses Google Gemini for grades 7–12. Created a unique "transparency badge" system — AI Collab and HI (Human Intelligence). One of the most community-engaged AI policy processes in California.
Board adopted BP 0441 – Artificial Intelligence in April 2026, along with two supporting Administrative Regulations: AR 0441.04 (Employee Use of AI) and AR 0441.05 (Student Use of AI). The AI Task Force formed in August 2025 led the policy development process, which included virtual community forums. The district's Digital Citizenship hub includes AI literacy definitions, Common Sense Education curriculum for grades 6–12, parent guides, and links to CDE resources.
Formal AI Guidelines explicitly aligned to CDE 2026 Guidance and California privacy laws. Single authorized AI environment: Google Gemini Enterprise (district-issued accounts only) — with a "Privacy Wall" contractually protecting data from training global models. Uses a Traffic Light Model for student assignments (Red = No AI, Yellow = AI Assisted, Green = AI Empowered). Bans AI for student placement or disciplinary decisions, IEP goals generated entirely via AI, and AI emotion surveillance.
One of the most research-informed small district AI implementations in California. AI Guidelines formally adopted June 2026. Grounded in Stanford University's PEERS Framework (Privacy, Ethics, Equity, Resource, Student Success). 5-level AI Use Levels Rubric. Community survey of 118 parent/guardian respondents with student focus groups (grades 4–8). Notes that 100% of surveyed middle schoolers had already used AI for school. A model for how small districts can develop research-informed, community-grounded AI policy.
Districts with Active Task Forces or Guidance in Progress
These districts have taken meaningful steps — forming task forces, developing guidance documents, or launching community engagement processes — but had not yet adopted a formal board policy as of this guide's publication.
Active AI Task Force with student, parent, educator, and administrator representation. Page last updated October 1, 2026. Roadmap includes launching an approved AI tool list, a student AI literacy curriculum for 2026-27, and a family education series. The district's Curriculum and Instruction department houses the AI in Education page alongside multilingual learner programs and instructional technology.
2026 AI K–12 Student Agency Award honoree. Formed an AI Task Force in November 2023 — one of California's earliest. The Lynwood AI Collaborative (launched 2024–25) positions students as civic problem-solvers who use AI as a thought partner. Students and teachers co-design AI tools including PlayLab bots for tutoring and classroom discourse. By May 2025, the majority of participating teachers at Firebaugh High used AI tools weekly or more.
Major policy shift as of September 2026: LAUSD restricted ALL student access to generative AI tools for the 2026-27 school year — a dramatic reversal from its previous position. The district formed a Generative AI Ad Hoc Committee on September 3, 2026, which will report policy recommendations to the school board by end of the 2026-27 year. Makes LAUSD one of the largest districts in the country to impose a full student AI moratorium, alongside NYC.
2026 AI K–12 Student Agency Award honoree and a member of the inaugural 2024-25 EDSAFE AI Policy Lab cohort — one of only two California districts in that first national cohort (alongside Lynwood USD). Launched its AI Policy Lab in December 2023 in partnership with the EdSAFE AI Alliance, grounded in the SAFE Framework. A strong early-mover model in California for community-engaged AI policy development.
One of the most comprehensive district AI implementation pages in California. San Juan conducted a full evaluation pilot before purchasing a district-wide MagicStudent license for grades 2 and above. The Instructional Technology page includes detailed sections for families and students on what generative AI is, how MagicStudent was selected, non-negotiables for tool use (data privacy, accessibility, multilingual support), and a clear position against AI detector tools.
2026 AI K–12 Student Agency Award honoree. IUSD has a dedicated Director of Learning Design, Differentiation & AI Integration, approved platforms (Gemini for high school, MagicSchool and Snorkl for younger grades), and a well-organized public-facing AI hub with subpages on AI Literacy, Academic Honesty, AI Tips for Parents, and a district FAQ. Launched AI Literacy modules for all grades 4–12. Conducted 40+ student focus group classroom visits to ground next steps in actual student needs.
California's largest Central Valley district. Comprehensive AI hub with four subpages: AI Guidance, AI Guidebook, AI Literacy, and AI Governance. Uses Microsoft 365/Copilot ecosystem. Particularly relevant for educators working with large multilingual learner populations — Fresno Unified serves a high-needs, highly diverse community.
High-performing TK-12 district (ranked #1 in Ventura County, 4 National Blue Ribbon Schools) with a well-organized public AI page. Includes an AI philosophy statement, appropriate/inappropriate use guidance organized by student and staff roles, data privacy guidance, and AB 2876 legislative context with citations. Explicit guidance that AI is a tool, not an emotional companion.
Board unanimously approved AI guidelines in October 2025, with notable buy-in from student board trustee Jessica Salas: "Students are using AI constantly — we need to teach responsibility." The policy establishes nine principles: student-centered, ethical and transparent, equitable and accessible, secure and private, and accountable. Board president requested AI staff training become mandatory with annual policy review.
Active Technology Advisory Committee with student ambassadors from every school site. Board-approved Educational Technology Plan includes AI in the digital literacy and citizenship curriculum for all students. Approved district tools include Snorkl, MagicSchool, and Google Gemini. Board Policy 5131.9 addresses academic honesty and AI use.
Strong implementation framework with AI Lead Teachers at school sites, student listening sessions (separate sessions for middle and high school students in spring 2026), and districtwide staff development on AI literacy and classroom practice. Published Generative AI Guidelines for course syllabi.
Active AI Committee comprised of educators, administrators, and technology specialists. A Torrance Unified EdTech team member served on the LACOE 40-member AI Task Force that developed LACOE's 2024 generative AI guidelines — giving TUSD direct influence on county-level guidance. The district has received media recognition for responsible AI implementation.
District trustee Susan Markarian serves as Chair of the CSBA AI Taskforce and is a leading voice in California on AI governance for school boards. No confirmed adopted district AI policy as of the date of this guide — included here because of the district's prominent role in shaping statewide guidance through CSBA.
2026 AI K–12 Student Agency Award Honorees
2026 AI K–12 Student Agency Award honoree. AUHSD's Student AI Framework was approved December 2025 and co-authored by student interns, centering "Youth Voice & Purpose" across grades 7–12. Skrappy AI metacognitive coach logged 151,000+ student reflections in one year. Multilingual AI Town Halls held in Spanish, Korean, and Vietnamese.
2026 AI K–12 Student Agency Award honoree. Family-student AI testing events let grades 2 through high school test tools alongside parents as equal co-designers. High school students design and deliver digital literacy lessons to middle school peers on AI ethics. AI ethics embedded directly into teacher lesson-planning tools at the point of design.
2026 AI K–12 Student Agency Award honoree. Launched an AI Institute in 2025–26 through a "10% Club" of early-adopting teachers who design replicable AI-integrated lessons. AI Taskforce was a co-design body — students, parents, Board members — producing the CUSD AI Guidelines.
2026 AI K–12 Student Agency Award honoree. Integrates AI literacy across TK–8 through a newly developed Digital Literacy Progression. The AI+ Committee includes educators, parents, Cal State Fullerton Educational Technology professors, and community members. Students are guided as active trainers and evaluators of AI.
2026 AI K–12 Student Agency Award honoree. Built the most rigorous AI governance framework in the district's history: 36 educators generating 223 approval criteria through an AI Task Force, with 71% of criteria explicitly protecting student data privacy. Equity audits are built into the approval process as a non-negotiable threshold.
2026 AI K–12 Student Agency Award honoree. Charter school treating AI as a shared learning journey through an Explore → Create → Learn framework. Students co-designed the school's AI framework, launched companies that won state pitch competitions, and were accepted into the Fall 2025 Y Combinator cohort.
Key Cautionary Cases for California Leaders
September 2026 report on LAUSD's full student AI moratorium for 2026-27 — affecting 420,000+ students. Context on the Generative AI Ad Hoc Committee, the prior "Ed" chatbot failure, and what the broader implications are for AI policy in large urban districts.
An incident involving Adobe AI software at an LAUSD elementary school raised questions about AI tool vetting and the adequacy of state-level guidance. Useful for understanding what can go wrong when AI tools are deployed without robust approval processes.
Survey of California districts documenting the full spectrum of approaches — from fully embraced to loosely defined. Recommended reading for any California leader developing or updating an AI position.
3.
California Resources — Curriculum, PD & Community
Beyond policy, these California-specific resources support curriculum alignment, professional learning, and community engagement.
Curated by the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) AI Task Force for California TK-12 administrators and education leaders. Includes a free 5-part AI Rising online learning course, state and national policy resources, district examples, and an AI Policy Generator tool powered by GPT-4.1. The primary ACSA entry point for California school leaders engaging with AI.
LACOE's comprehensive AI hub for Los Angeles County educators. Includes the LACOE AI Blueprint, the 2024 Generative AI in TK-12 Education Guidelines, an AI Literacy Communications Toolkit, six professional development workshop modules, video resources including the Ed Buzz LA County series, and a curated resource library. To schedule workshops, contact edtech@lacoe.edu.
Comprehensive AI hub from RCOE. Signature offering is the AI-Ready Educator certification course. Additional offerings include a Student AI Summit in a Box (free for Riverside County districts), an AI Seal of Readiness for students, and a curated School District Guide to AI Implementation. Explicitly integrates AI into the Superintendent's strategic priorities. Contact: Dr. Jeff Oldfield (joldfield@rcoe.us) and Dr. Heidi Baynes (hbaynes@rcoe.us).
One of the strongest county office AI resource hubs in California. Organized by role — Administrators, Educators, Counselors, and Family Engagement Leaders. Includes links to Lozano Smith legal resources, CDE 2025 AI Guidelines, TeachAI Toolkit, sample AI guidance/policy documents from California districts, and an SBCSS family parent letter template. Page last updated October 1, 2026. Contact: Dr. Sonal Patel, Program Manager for Digital Learning and Computer Science.
Panel resources and professional learning from CS for CA focused on making AI accessible and understandable for California educators and students — aligned to state standards.
California's statewide higher education AI initiative, launched in 2024 across California Community Colleges, CSU, and UC campuses. Awarded nearly $12 million in AI Challenge Grants to 33 faculty-led projects. Three downloadable research briefs summarize early findings: AI Literacy, AI Ethics & Responsibility, and AI Workforce Preparation. The FIRST team curated a searchable spreadsheet of vetted AI tools, webinar recordings, faculty spotlights, and a PLC syllabus — all free. "My Robot Teacher" podcast hosted by CSU professors explores AI in classrooms, faculty work, and student experience. Primarily higher education but directly relevant for K–12 leaders thinking about the college and career readiness pipeline.
The UC AI Council was established to institutionalize the UC Responsible AI Principles across all ten UC campuses. See also the UC AI News Hub for a regularly updated feed of UC AI research stories — including a landmark UC Berkeley study on undergrad AI use revealing significant disparities in access and rates of academic dishonesty by subject area and socioeconomic status, UC San Diego's new AI undergraduate major, and AI applications in health, climate, and energy research. Useful for California K–12 leaders tracking how AI is shaping the postsecondary landscape their students will enter. In 2021, UC became the first university in the nation to develop and adopt systemwide ethical AI recommendations — a milestone that predates most state and federal AI guidance. The hub includes an AI 101 training module, a model risk assessment guide, legal guidance on California and federal AI regulations, a UC AI glossary, and documentation of AI-enabled technologies across the UC system for transparency. The Governance and Transparency section covers applicable laws, UC policy, and the principles framework guiding AI development and deployment. Primarily higher education focused, but directly relevant for California K–12 leaders engaging with UC on dual enrollment, college readiness, or research partnerships — and a useful benchmark for what rigorous institutional AI governance looks like.
The CSU AI Commons serves students, faculty, staff, and the 4 million alumni of California's 23-campus CSU system. Organized around four audiences, the hub covers AI literacy, curriculum integration with case studies and training, workforce AI development, and ethical and legal considerations (algorithmic bias, fairness, privacy, academic integrity, intellectual property). CSU technology teams evaluate AI tools for security and accessibility before recommending them. Each of CSU's 23 universities has its own AI initiatives; the Commons aggregates exemplary practices systemwide. Directly relevant for California K–12 leaders — CSU is the primary pipeline for California's teacher workforce, and CSU's AI literacy and ethics frameworks will shape the educators entering California's classrooms in the years ahead.
AVID's open-access resources for integrating AI thoughtfully — particularly valuable for urban and underserved school contexts common in California.
4.
Tools for Creating District AI Policy
Practical, action-oriented tools for districts actively writing or revising an AI policy — templates, toolkits, step-by-step processes, and sample board language. If you need something to put in front of your board or bring to a community meeting, start here. (For broader national policy context and research frameworks, see Section 6.)
California's official model policy template for LEAs and charter schools, released June 25, 2026. Organized around 26 core principles. The starting point for every California district. Nonmandatory but the official state template.
The California School Boards Association's AI Taskforce provides sample policy language (BP 0441) and governance guidance through CSBA's GAMUT policy service. Updated quarterly. The dominant tool for California district policy development.
The gold-standard national policy toolkit — co-developed by Code.org, CoSN, Digital Promise, PACE, and the European EdTech Alliance. Seven guiding principles, sample language, real-world examples, and a three-stage framework. Free.
Released June 2025. Structured, action-oriented guide with ready-to-use templates, implementation guides, and customizable resources. Emphasizes community input, equity, and compliance. Free.
A Google.org-funded national community of practice now in its third cohort (2026-27), uniting 36 school districts and 15 states. Guided by the SAFE Framework (Safety, Accountability, Fairness & Transparency, Efficacy). Produces shared resources including acceptable use policies, parent communication and consent guidelines, PD materials, and ethical frameworks — all open-licensed under Creative Commons. Notable California districts in previous cohorts: El Segundo USD, Lynwood USD, and Santa Ana USD. Includes a self-paced Policy Essentials course and the "Polly C." AI policy chatbot.
The NEA's sample school board resolution and policy on AI, grounded in best practices from across the country. Covers academic integrity, student data privacy, teacher training, equity, and ethical AI use. Particularly useful for boards wanting a peer-reviewed starting point beyond CSBA's GAMUT template.
Includes a clearly structured 6-step process, model board policy template, statewide policy examples, and an AI EdTech Vendor Vetting Checklist — practical for any district.
Oregon's practical protocol guide: self-assessment, readiness checks, policy language examples, and connections to existing policies (AUP, data privacy, academic integrity). Includes real district examples.
California Association of Learning Innovation and Equity (CALIE, formerly CUE) infographic article. Includes a shareable Canva infographic, discussion stems, sample email prompt, and strategies for distributing the resource to staff and leadership. A low-barrier starting point for teachers who want to advocate for AI policy development at their site or district.
October 2025 EdWeek article based on interviews with district leaders and the EdWeek Research Center survey (nearly half of educators say their district has no AI policy). Five practices: community input; build in flexibility; define appropriate use and data protection; address AI bias and equity explicitly; pair with professional development. Cites La Vista High School in Fullerton CA.
Guidance from the Consortium for School Networking on AI governance, tool procurement, policy development, and stakeholder engagement.
What school AI policies actually include — definitions, access, ethical use, data privacy, academic integrity — with real district examples and the stoplight framework.
5.
Existing State & District AI Policies — National Examples
Real-world policy examples from states and districts across the U.S. As of mid-2026, 37 states plus Puerto Rico have official AI guidance for K–12. These national examples provide benchmarks and models for California districts developing their own policies.
Interactive database tracking 122 school organizations across 38 states on a 1–5 policy permissiveness continuum. Key findings: 44% of organizations sit at Level 3 (Conditional/Teacher-Directed); only 13 have confirmed board-adopted policies; board-adopted policies average 0.4 levels more permissive than guidance-only. A practical benchmarking tool for California leaders assessing where their district sits nationally. Data current as of 2025.
The most comprehensive and current directory of state-level AI policies for K–12 education. As of June 2026, covers 37 states plus Puerto Rico. Updated regularly.
One of the earliest and most substantive district-level board-adopted generative AI policies in the country, adopted August 29, 2024. Covers student and staff responsibilities, defines appropriate AI use and academic integrity expectations, requires FERPA compliance, and explicitly addresses AI bias and inaccuracy. A practical model for California districts drafting their first board policy.
New York City Mayor Mamdani and Schools Chancellor Samuels launched a student AI moratorium and screen time policy for 2026-27 — one of the largest student AI bans in the country alongside LAUSD. The NYC approach pairs restriction with literacy: a mandatory AI literacy module twice per year for high schoolers covering bias, ethics, risks, and career impacts.
Ohio released a model policy all districts were required to adopt by July 1, 2026. One of the strongest state mandates in the country.
Comprehensive state guidance covering risk profiles, implementation examples, collective bargaining considerations, and community engagement strategies.
Oregon's March 2025 policy guide, including examples from Salem-Keizer, Eugene 4J, and Hillsboro districts.
Interactive map and tracker of U.S. state guidance plus international examples. Excellent for cross-state comparison.
September 10, 2026 national news report documenting the wave of AI restrictions taking effect at the start of the 2026-27 school year — LAUSD and NYC student moratoriums, California's SB 813 and AB 1405, Illinois's 400-page AI Blueprint, and Arizona's pending AI instruction mandate. Useful for understanding the national climate in which California's approach sits.
April 2026 analysis tracking 134 AI education bills in 31 states across three themes: student data privacy, AI usage boundaries and oversight, and AI literacy/graduation requirements. Useful for California leaders contextualizing their state's approach within the national legislative landscape.
2026 report on Idaho, Maryland, Oklahoma, and Virginia mandating district-level AI policies — including parental opt-out rights and annual AI tool disclosure requirements.
2026 overview of where states are leading on AI policy and where gaps remain. Includes an interactive U.S. State AI Legislation Tracker.
6.
National Policy & Frameworks
National frameworks, research, and policy landscape resources — useful for understanding where California fits nationally, grounding your own approach in evidence, and briefing board members or community stakeholders on the bigger picture. (For practical tools to write a policy, see Section 4.)
The National Education Association's comprehensive AI in Education hub. Includes the NEA Task Force Report and Policy Statement (2024), 12 AI micro-credentials, a webinar series with ISTE, seven independent study courses, an AI Glossary, a vetting guide, a sample school board resolution and policy, FERPA and COPPA overviews for school leaders, and EDSAFE AI policy trackers. Recommended for district leaders making the case for teacher voice in AI governance.
CSTA & AI4K12's foundational framework defining what all K–12 students should know about AI, organized by grade band. Updated 2025. Referenced in California's 2025 CDE AI Guidance.
From the Center for Innovation, Design, and Digital Learning (CIDDL), funded by a U.S. Department of Education cooperative agreement. Published April 2025, updated January 2026. Specifically designed to account for the full range of learner needs — including students with disabilities and diverse learners. Free downloadable PDF. Particularly valuable for California districts with significant special education populations or multilingual learners.
Developed by Regional Comprehensive Centers 2, 13, and 15 for the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Educational Technology. Based on a webinar series with seven state education agencies and national AI experts including PACE's H. Alix Gallagher. Ten practical considerations for state and district leaders navigating AI governance.
The Council of Chief State School Officers' growing repository of state AI resources, organized by state and national organization. Covers California through Wyoming, with links to state guidance documents from 20+ states. A useful one-stop cross-reference for leaders wanting to compare California's approach to other states.
The landmark 2023 federal report with insights and recommendations covering learning, teaching, assessment, equity, and research.
Resources for superintendents and district leaders from the School Superintendents Association.
Education Commission of the States' national overview of state AI guidelines, legislation, and executive orders as of April 2026.
Official U.S. Copyright Office guidance on AI and copyright — essential for educators and students working with AI-generated content.
7.
Curriculum & Lesson Design
Structured curricula and lesson-design tools for teaching about AI and with AI across grade levels.
AI4K12 ★
The definitive K–12 AI curriculum framework from CSTA and AAAI. Grade-band progressions aligned to the Five Big Ideas in AI. Referenced directly in California's 2025 CDE AI Guidance.
Free, hands-on curriculum for K–12 students introducing AI and its real-world impacts. Developed by MIT RAISE and trusted by 2M+ students. Updated 2026.
Stanford-developed curricular resources for teaching about AI across disciplines.
Free course collection from OpenAI's Academy specifically designed for K–12 educators. Updated 2025.
OpenAI's practical guide for teachers on using ChatGPT responsibly in the classroom.
Generate engagement activities, learning objectives, success criteria, assessments, rubrics, and more.
Create any classroom resource, writing exemplar, lesson plan, or activity with AI assistance.
Streamlines planning and prep for teachers with AI-powered workshop tools and lesson design features.
Curriculum-aligned lesson and assessment generator for structured lesson planning.
Free curriculum for teaching young students how AI works using screen-free activities. Best for early elementary and robotics-based learning.
AVID's open-access resources for integrating AI thoughtfully into K–12 classroom instruction.
8.
Professional Learning & PD
Courses, training, and ongoing professional development for educators and administrators.
ISTE's flagship initiative helping educators and students develop AI literacy and responsible AI practices.
Learn to use Gemini and NotebookLM to save time, personalize instruction, and enhance lessons.
Comprehensive professional learning course from ISTE for educators ready to go deeper with AI.
Comprehensive path covering AI history, LLMs, generative AI, prompt engineering, responsible AI, and Copilot tools.
Harvard's teaching resources for using generative AI in course design, instruction, and learning environments.
Curated, regularly updated list of the best free AI courses available to K–12 educators.
Specialized training covering generative AI tools, responsible use, and AI policy development.
Faculty-led AI projects, AI Challenge Grants, curated tools, webinar recordings, and the "My Robot Teacher" podcast — California-focused across CC, CSU, and UC campuses.
9.
AI Tools for Teachers
Practical tools to use in planning, instruction, and student support.
Teacher-focused AI platform with 50+ tools for lesson planning, rubric creation, differentiation, IEP support, parent communication, and more. Widely used in K–12 schools.
AI tool for lesson creation, feedback, and classroom workflows. Frequently recommended by teachers as a practical first tool. Approved for teacher use in ABC Unified.
AI research and study assistant for organizing and synthesizing source-based materials. Valuable for teacher prep, curriculum mapping, and student research support.
Khanmigo is Khan Academy's AI-powered tutor for students and assistant for teachers — free, world-class, and equity-focused.
Generate content including engagement activities, learning objectives, success criteria, assessments, and rubrics.
Adobe's educator hub covering generative AI tools, Express, Firefly, and classroom-ready creative tools.
10.
AI Literacy & Ethics
Resources for teaching responsible, equitable, and critical approaches to AI.
Practical guidance for what educators can do as AI technology evolves — covering academic integrity, student safety, and responsible use.
Expanded resource hub including student data privacy, deepfakes, and media literacy in the age of AI.
Research-based AI literacy framework defining what it means to critically understand, evaluate, and use AI systems.
Created by a teacher to give students and educators a voice in AI use and integration. Includes templates, prompts, ethical considerations, and a global map of advisory boards.
Official U.S. Copyright Office guidance on AI — critical for students and educators working with AI-generated content.
Research-based practices for district leaders developing AI literacy programs.
Peer-reviewed journal article calling for systemic K–12 AI literacy — grounded in research.
11.
Research & Featured Articles
Research reports, articles, and thought leadership on AI and K–12 education.
Landmark California research brief from Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), based on interviews with 83 California district leaders. Finds that individual AI use has far outpaced organizational response in most districts — only 1 in 5 has a broader organizational response. Recommends sustained communities of practice for building educator adaptive expertise. Co-authored by Lead by Learning and Stanford. PACE is housed at USC Rossier and four other California universities.
Presented at the Student and Community Voice AI Summit in partnership with the Orange County Department of Education and AI for Equity. Profiles 12 district and school honorees — including Anaheim UHSD, Cajon Valley USD, Capistrano USD, El Segundo USD, Irvine USD, La Habra City SD, Lynwood USD, and Val Verde USD. A window into what leading California districts are doing right.
The federal government's foundational report on AI in education — covers learning, teaching, formative assessment, equity, and R&D.
Stanford HAI's current K–12 dedicated resource hub — updated regularly with research, tools, and guidance.
First national state-by-state analysis of AI education policies, standards, and graduation requirements. December 2025.
Comprehensive 2025 guide defining AI literacy, its importance for students, and how to teach it across grade levels.
Peer-reviewed research article on AI literacy in K–12 — covers why it matters and what systemic change is needed.
12.
Tool Directories & Discovery Hubs
Places to discover, compare, and evaluate AI tools for education — updated regularly.
The leading independent directory of AI tools for education, with trusted reviews, safety data, and editorial guidance.
The largest AI tools directory, updated daily across all categories including education.
Downloadable AI guidance including state-level guidance and key questions for teachers and students.
Curated list of 30+ AI tools for classroom use, with educator-friendly descriptions and use cases.
Community-sourced Padlet including presentations and tools compiled by CUE. Crowd-maintained — quality may vary.
Resources for educators exploring responsible AI use with students, including guidance on using Claude in educational contexts.
13.
Screen Time, Devices & Technology Use
Most student AI use happens on a screen, so district AI policies now sit inside a fast-growing body of screen time rules. California requires every LEA to have adopted a smartphone policy by July 1, 2026 (AB 3216). Under SB 1128 (2026), CDE must publish model policies on school-issued devices by July 1, 2027. Approaches nationally fall along a spectrum — from time limits to instructional-value frameworks. Districts drafting or revising AI guidance should decide where they stand on this spectrum. It will shape how AI tools fit into the instructional day.
California
Chaptered September 10, 2026 (Chapter 191, Statutes of 2026). Requires CDE to develop and post model policies for the age-appropriate use of school-issued devices by July 1, 2027, considering developmentally appropriate screen exposure by grade level and the effect of devices on early literacy, arithmetic, and fine motor development. Also encourages LEAs to review their screen time policies regularly with input from current teachers and administrators. Sets model policy, not mandated limits.
The committee's bill analysis is a concise overview of California's legal landscape on classroom technology. Affirms that LEAs retain authority over whether and how to use devices as instructional tools, and summarizes how California districts have approached screen time.
This bill would have replaced local flexibility under AB 3216 with a statewide bell-to-bell smartphone ban, later narrowed to TK–8. The California School Boards Association opposed it on local-control grounds. It stalled in Senate Appropriations in August 2026 and is listed here for context — the issue may return in a future session.
EdSource's breakdown of one of the nation's first systemwide, grade-by-grade instructional screen limits. No screen time from early education through first grade. 20 minutes per day for grades 2–3 and 30 minutes per day for grades 4–5 (starting November). Per-subject weekly caps for grades 6–8 (60 min/subject, 360 min/week) and grades 9–12 (90 min/subject, 600 min/week), starting January. Homework counts toward caps. Parents can opt children out of bringing a device home. Cross-reference: see Section 2 for LAUSD's parallel AI tool restrictions — together, the two show how one district is regulating both how much students use screens and what they use them for.
The full resolution text that launched LAUSD's screen time policy. A useful model for boards drafting their own. Calls for limits by grade level and subject, guardrails distinguishing active from passive screen time, monitoring and usage reports, and professional development on using screen time effectively.
Reports the final adopted policy, including blocking of streaming and some gaming platforms, a family opt-out for taking devices home, and a commitment to update the policy each year.
The official LAUSD implementation page for the district's Guidelines for Student Screen Time Policy — the most comprehensive public-facing district screen time resource in California. Contains the full policy PDF, the board resolution (Res-048-25/26 "Using Technology with Intention"), and grade-by-grade screen time guidance: no screens in TK-1; 30 min/day grades 2-3 (starting November); per-subject weekly caps for grades 6-8 (60 min) and 9-12 (90 min, starting January); homework counts toward caps. Platform and content restrictions: YouTube, social media, streaming platforms, and non-approved gaming are blocked. Five research-based considerations frame the policy: limit take-home devices prior to high school; design devices for educational use only; ensure technology supplements teacher-led instruction; manage cumulative screen exposure; apply age-appropriate guardrails. Equity exceptions for students with IEPs, 504 plans, assistive technology needs, and English Learners. Parents have the right to receive information on device use and opt-in their children for take-home devices. Resources organized by role — teachers, principals, parents — in English and Spanish. Parent webinars scheduled October–November 2026. Implementation resources include a professional learning overview course for all LAUSD staff. The gold standard California district screen time implementation hub.
PBS NewsHour interview (June 26, 2026) with LAUSD Board Member Nick Melvoin, who sponsored the district's landmark screen time resolution. Full transcript and audio available. Policy details: no screen time before 2nd grade; 6 hours/week for middle schoolers; 10 hours/week including homework for high schoolers. Melvoin's equity argument is worth reading carefully: lower-income students actually benefit most from screen limits because they are the ones spending more time on screens outside school when parents are working multiple jobs — reversing the usual digital divide framing. After the earlier smartphone ban, over 90% of LAUSD teachers reported engagement up and mental health challenges down. Core philosophical shift: moving from "technology as the default" to "technology as an instructional tool." Melvoin: "When we know better, we need to do better." A must-read for any California district leader considering screen time policy.
The first large-scale California study on the impact of school cell phone policies on learning and school culture. Led by Dr. Angela Duckworth (University of Pennsylvania) in partnership with ACSA and the California County Superintendents Association. Data from 5,516 California educators representing 22% of the state's schools, collected April 2025–July 2026. Preliminary findings were shared with state educational leaders in August 2026 and reviewed on the August 12 episode of ACSA's Legislative Lunch Break. Key finding: "In general, the stricter the policy, the happier the educator." Teachers with stricter policies reported more consistent enforcement, greater student focus in class, and less distraction from social interaction between classes. Notably, the initial research does not show a positive correlation between stricter phone policies and improved test scores — Duckworth cautions that "cell phones are a very important issue but it's not all of education and there are many other factors we shouldn't neglect." Poway USD Superintendent Dr. Ben Churchill shared that 80–85% of families and 90–95% of educators in his surveys supported stricter policies, while only 15–20% of students agreed. A follow-up project, "Screens in Schools," will examine classroom laptop and tablet use. Context: AB 3216 (2024) required all LEAs to adopt policies limiting or prohibiting cell phone use by July 1, 2026.
California District Example: ABC Unified School District
ABC Unified (Los Angeles area, ~18,000 students) offers one of the most community-engaged approaches to screen time in California — focused on "screen value" rather than screen time limits. Cross-reference: see Section 2 for ABC Unified's AI policy, which similarly emphasizes community input and transparency.
Article by Mike Lawrence, Director of Instructional Technology, ABC Unified School District. ABC's Digital Wellbeing Task Force conducted a listening tour with 44 student attendees across five live dinners and five livestreams, plus child advocates. Students received a copy of Growing Up: A Guide for Technology, Media, and Social Choices and participated in an interactive Q&A session where they could upvote questions they most wanted answered — resulting in district teachers and coaches responding to the most-asked questions in real time. The district also hosted a parent symposium, "Navigating Student Screen Time," co-produced with Superintendent Dr. Gina Zietlow, author Devorah Heitner, and a student panel. The district's framework centers on screen value — the question isn't how many minutes but whether the screen use has genuine instructional, creative, or social purpose. Results and findings were shared across school campuses district-wide.
The foundational resource behind ABC Unified's approach. Shifts the frame from "how much time on screens?" to "what value does this screen use provide?" Practical guidance for classroom teachers and instructional coaches evaluating ed tech use. Recommended by ABC Unified's Digital Wellbeing Task Force.
Book featured at ABC Unified's parent symposium on student screen time. Heitner addresses how to help young people navigate digital life with intention — particularly relevant for family engagement sessions. ABC Unified partnered with Heitner as a speaker for their community events.
Consortium for School Networking resource cited by ABC Unified's Digital Wellbeing Task Force. Addresses how districts can move from compliance-focused technology mandates to meaningful, instructionally grounded guidance.
Other States
September 2026 analysis from the Education Commission of the States — the most comprehensive nonpartisan state-by-state overview of enacted screen time legislation beyond cell phones. Covers Alabama (HB 78: ECE screen time standards, no screens as substitute for teacher-led instruction), Iowa (HF 2676: 60-minute daily digital instruction cap for K-5), Tennessee (HB 2393/SB 2310: K-5 digital device prohibition), and Utah (HB 273: model policy requiring K-3 screen-free classrooms except for CS standards). Also covers state task forces and research mandates in Kansas, Maine, New Mexico, and New Hampshire. Links to ECS's state education policy tracker for further state examples. Regularly updated; the go-to reference for state-level screen time policy comparison.
Readable summary of the four states that enacted laws in 2026: Iowa (caps K–5 digital instruction at 60 min/day), Utah (restricts K–3 screen time and one-to-one devices in elementary), Tennessee (requires K–5 device policies), and Alabama (sets early childhood standards). Includes industry counterarguments.
April 2026 analysis tracking the full national landscape of elementary classroom screen time legislation — 20 bills introduced, Alabama and Utah first to enact. Covers the driving forces: parental concern about technology replacing teacher-led instruction and socially isolating students in "technology bubbles." Includes the ed tech industry counterargument: not all screen time is equal, individualized ed tech can boost engagement and teacher efficiency. State-by-state comparison: Iowa and Oklahoma (60 min/day K-5 cap), Kentucky and Missouri (45 min/day), Kansas (full digital device ban K-5 with physical textbook requirement), Tennessee, Alabama. California context: LAUSD's systemwide grade-by-grade limits are cited as a notable district-level example. Background: the 2024 global ed tech market was $163.49 billion; projected to reach $348.41 billion by 2030. Useful for understanding the economic and political context of screen time debates.
A state-by-state tracker of passed and pending screen time bills, updated periodically. Note: maintained by an ed tech vendor.
Federal
Dear Colleague letter distinguishing instructional technology from recreational use. Affirms that screen time policy belongs to states and local communities. Urges districts to evaluate tools by demonstrated learning outcomes, require evidence of effectiveness in procurement, and invest in teacher professional development. Guidance, not enforcement.
Summarizes the advisory's school recommendations: physical textbooks, paper-and-pencil work at all grade levels, and bell-to-bell phone restrictions, with exceptions for students whose special education plans require digital tools. Does not set specific in-school time limits.
Explains the advisory from the perspective of educational service agencies, including the possibility that federal E-rate funding could someday be tied to screen time requirements.
National Professional Guidance
A national policy briefing co-produced by CoSN (Consortium for School Networking), Digital Promise, FullScale, and SETDA, designed specifically for state education agency leaders and policymakers. Addresses the complex questions raised by proposals to limit or ban screen time in K–12 schools — student well-being, academic outcomes, digital equity, and workforce readiness. Available as a slide deck and YouTube recording. Provides balanced, research-informed perspectives for thoughtful policy decisions rather than advocacy for a single position. Recommended for California district leaders preparing to present screen time policy to their board or state legislators.
October 2025 educator-facing article from Common Sense Education covering the key considerations for purposeful technology integration in K–12 classrooms. Addresses: the SAMR framework (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition) for evaluating edtech integration quality; screens vs. paper for reading comprehension; accessibility and differentiation benefits of screens; managing distraction and cellphone policies; and how to communicate with families about screen use at school. Students pick up their phones a median of 43 minutes during the school day. Includes downloadable templates: AUP samples from San Ramon Valley USD, Digital Learning Agreement for grades 6–12, Devices for Learning guide for families, and an in-person learning daily routine template. Pairs well with the ABC Unified "screen value" framework and the CoSN policy briefing.
Covers the Consortium for School Networking's guidance on reducing "low-value" screen use and ensuring every device use has a clear instructional purpose. The leading national counterpoint to minute-cap policies.
Essential reading for California district leaders developing screen time policy. Written by Ashley Stewart, Director of the Youth SPHERE Lab at the Brookings Center for Technology Innovation. Central finding: Florida's statewide phone ban in its first year of implementation coincided with a marked rise in in-school suspensions concentrated almost entirely among Black students, while white and Hispanic students experienced no significant change — a function of enforcement discretion, not behavioral differences. Key equity dimensions the article raises: (1) Discretionary enforcement — 70%+ of the national K-12 teaching workforce is white; implicit bias in how identical behavior is coded (verbal warning vs. formal discipline) will shape outcomes unless policies build in explicit enforcement standards; (2) Disability and assistive technology — Black students are overrepresented in special education, and policies without carefully constructed IEP/504 exceptions risk withdrawing tools some students need to access instruction; (3) Digital divide — blanket restrictions risk allowing wealthier students to continue building digital fluency while underserved students lose access; (4) Belonging and safety — for many families, especially in underserved communities, personal devices provide emergency connection and links to cultural networks outside school. Proposes "targeted universalism" as a framework: establish a universal goal (student attention and sense of belonging) but pursue it through strategies calibrated to the specific barriers different student groups face, rather than a single uniform rule. Directly relevant for California districts serving large Black, Latino, multilingual, and special education populations — which describes most of the districts in this guide.
A useful caution for policymakers: evidence linking screen time to harm is largely correlational, and the line between harmful recreational use and beneficial ed tech is still being defined.
Global Perspectives
The foundational global reference. Recommends introducing technology into education only where evidence shows it is appropriate, equitable, scalable, and sustainable. Notes that good, impartial evidence on ed tech's impact is scarce and that products change roughly every three years.
The OECD's review of the most-cited policy reversal. After decades of heavy digitalization, Sweden redirected its national agency toward reducing and regulating devices in schools while keeping digital tools targeted and age-appropriate.
A narrative account with teacher voices. Reports that Sweden's one-to-one laptop policy did not improve results, and that funding concentrated on hardware rather than pedagogy or teacher training.
PISA data linking heavy weekday leisure use (social media, internet for fun) to lower math scores. Frames the solution as building students' digital skills and habits, not restriction alone.
The European Commission's summary of the Dutch model — a national policy where each school writes its own rules, with exceptions for educational use and student medical or well-being needs. A useful middle path between mandates and full local control.
Research Foundation
#1 New York Times bestseller by NYU social psychologist Jonathan Haidt — the most widely read and widely debated book on youth mental health and technology in recent years, and the intellectual foundation behind much of the current phone-free school movement. Central argument: the shift from a "play-based childhood" to a "phone-based childhood" between 2010 and 2015 is the primary driver of the global mental health crisis among adolescents. Haidt proposes four collective-action norms: (1) no smartphones before high school; (2) no social media before age 16; (3) phone-free schools (bell-to-bell, including lunch and recess); (4) more independence, free play, and responsibility in the real world. Free downloadable resources on the companion site (anxiousgeneration.com): an Educator Guide, Parent Guide, and Youth Guide (PDF thought-starters), Collaborative Review Docs in which Haidt addresses researcher critiques of his methodology, chapter supplements, evidence pages, and errata. Important note for educators: Haidt's causal claims have been contested by researchers, including a 2024 Nature commentary signed by hundreds of scholars arguing the evidence for a causal link between social media and mental illness is weaker than the book suggests. Haidt posted his Collaborative Review Docs to address these critiques transparently. District leaders using this book as policy justification should be aware of the ongoing research debate — and pair it with the peer-reviewed CDC, PMC, and AAP resources also in this section for a more complete evidence base.
Peer-reviewed book review published in Nature (Vol. 628, April 2024) by Dr. Candice L. Odgers — associate dean for research and professor of psychological science and informatics at the University of California, Irvine. The most substantive and widely cited scientific critique of The Anxious Generation. Open access — freely readable. Core finding: "The book's repeated suggestion that digital technologies are rewiring our children's brains and causing an epidemic of mental illness is not supported by science." Dr. Odgers draws on multiple meta-analyses and systematic reviews, a 72-country analysis showing no consistent associations between social media rollout and well-being, and the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study — the largest long-term study of adolescent brain development in the United States — all of which found no evidence of drastic changes associated with digital-technology use. Critically, the article is not dismissive of the youth mental health crisis: "Two things can be independently true — first that there is no evidence using these platforms is rewiring children's brains, second that considerable reforms are required." Raises alternative causes that Haidt underweights: gun violence, racial discrimination, the opioid crisis, economic hardship for families in the bottom income quintile, and severely inadequate school mental health services (1 psychologist per 1,119 students nationally). Essential pairing with the Haidt entry above for any California district leader using the youth mental health crisis to justify screen time policy — the science is genuinely contested and policy built on contested evidence is vulnerable in board meetings and community challenges.
Peer-reviewed open-access review article published in Cureus and indexed in PubMed Central (NIH). Examines the effects of excessive screen time across three developmental domains: cognitive development (executive functioning, sensorimotor development, academic outcomes), language development (caregiver interaction quality, vocabulary acquisition, co-viewing effects), and social-emotional development (depression, anxiety, aggression, emotional comprehension, sleep disorders, obesity). Key findings for education leaders: each one-hour increase in TV exposure at age 2 correlates with a 7% decrease in class participation and 6% decrease in math proficiency by fourth grade; children who watch two or more hours per day are more likely to experience behavioral problems and poorer vocabulary acquisition; video gaming correlates with anxiety severity; parental screen limits and the absence of screens in bedrooms both significantly reduce children's screen usage. Also covers recommended daily limits by age group and the critical role of role modeling by adults. Useful as a research anchor when presenting screen time policy rationale to boards, families, or community stakeholders.
Peer-reviewed original research published in the CDC's Preventing Chronic Disease journal (July 2025), from the National Center for Health Statistics. Uses data from the 2021–2023 National Health Interview Survey-Teen (NHIS-Teen) — a nationally representative survey of 1,952 teenagers aged 12–17 who self-reported their own screen time and health outcomes, rather than relying on parent report. Key definition: "high screen time" = 4 or more hours of daily non-schoolwork screen use. Results: 50.4% of all U.S. teens reported 4+ hours daily. After adjusting for sociodemographic factors, high screen time teens were significantly more likely to have infrequent physical activity (1.33x), infrequent sleep/irregular sleep routines (1.45–1.58x), weight concerns (1.42x), depression symptoms (2.51x), anxiety symptoms (2.12x), and infrequent social and emotional support (1.29x). Higher rates of high screen time were found among older teens (15–17), non-Hispanic Black teens, and teens whose parents had less education. The study is the first nationally representative analysis using teen self-report rather than parent report, which has historically underestimated actual screen use. Directly relevant for California district leaders making the case for screen time governance as a student wellness issue, not just an academic performance issue.
The American Academy of Pediatrics' Center of Excellence on Social Media and Youth Mental Health, funded by SAMHSA. A continuously updated, evidence-based Q&A portal answering submitted questions from youth, educators, parents, clinicians, and the general public on social media and youth mental wellbeing. Organized by audience group. Key nuance from the portal: there is no single recommended amount of screen time for teens, because the relationship is complex and depends on content type, context, which activities screen time displaces, and individual differences — a meaningful counterpoint to simple minute-cap policies. Includes the AAP Family Media Plan tool, 4 Social Media Tips for Teens, the 5 Cs of Media Use framework, and resources for educators on media literacy curricula. Useful for California school leaders wanting an evidence-based framework that goes beyond "how much" to ask "how and what." Last updated July 2024.
Harvard Medical School "On The Brain" feature (Summer 2019) by pediatrician Dr. Michael Rich, director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Boston Children's Hospital and associate professor at HMS. A concise, accessible, and authoritative neuroscience perspective on screen time — written for a general audience and ideal for sharing with board members, parents, and community stakeholders. Key insight: "It's not how long we're using screens that really matters; it's how we're using them and what's happening in our brains in response." Covers neural development — how the growing brain constantly builds and prunes connections, and how screen media provides "impoverished" stimulation compared to real-world experience; blue light and melatonin suppression — teens who use devices before bedtime lose REM sleep essential for consolidating learning from that day; and the variable reward system — gaming and social media are designed like slot machines, activating the brain's reward system in ways that young people's underdeveloped self-control systems struggle to resist. Also introduces the Growing Up Digital (GUD) Study, a longitudinal international study following 3,000–5,000 youths over 10 years to examine technology's impact on physical, mental, and social well-being. Includes practical "Digital Media Tips" from Dr. Rich including screen-free family meals, letting minds wander, and playing online games with children rather than forbidding them. Pairs well with the ABC Unified "screen value over screen time" framework in this section.
Questions for Your District
Use these with your leadership team, AI task force, or board study session.
- Does student AI use count toward screen time limits? If so, how will AI literacy goals required under California's AB 2876 be met within those caps?
- Do our limits distinguish active use (creating, coding, writing) from passive use (watching, scrolling)?
- How are English learners protected? Are digital ELD programs, translation tools, and text-to-speech for newcomers addressed alongside IEP and 504 exemptions?
- Do our limits include homework, and how will that affect families without home internet access?
- How will we monitor use and report it to the board and families?
- What evidence of learning impact do we require before buying or renewing an ed tech tool?
- Who is at the table? SB 1128 encourages input from current teachers and administrators. Are students and families included too?
About This Resource Guide
This guide was compiled by Dr. Mariné Avagyan — international speaker, educator, and leadership coach with 25+ years in urban K–12 education as a classroom teacher, instructional coach, and school and district administrator. She holds the International Coaching Federation's Professional Certified Coach (PCC) credential. She partners with schools and districts on ELD and multilingual learner programs, instructional leadership, state and federal program compliance, and helping education leaders use AI tools to work more efficiently. She also coaches aspiring and new women leaders through her signature Own Your Leadership™ 90-day private coaching program.
It is designed to support California educators, instructional coaches, and school leaders who are navigating the AI landscape with intention and equity at the center.
Resources were reviewed and verified in October 2026. Links may change over time. If you find a broken link or would like to suggest an addition, please reach out via email or by phone.
marine@avagyanconsulting.com | 818-200-5086