Check what students may use, what is restricted, and what schools must teach about computer science, AI and digital literacy. Then compare states by grade and timing.
Independent research by Stewart Brown · K–8 computer science, AI literacy & education partnerships · About the researcher
1 Number of selected districts with matching evidence. State fill describes statewide evidence. District markers describe local findings separately.
Select a state for grades, dates and sources. Legend totals include D.C. A missing finding is a research gap, not proof that no policy exists. Learning means required CS, AI or digital-literacy instruction or demonstrated competency; standards and course offerings are separate. Coverage & method
State rules and learning policies are the focus. Device provision and approved AI tools are documented only where verified. Gray means an evidence gap, not no policy. Check coverage
How to read the map
A statewide action may cover a specific grade, school type or cohort. The overview includes all affected K–12 grades; details show the actual scope. A current action takes priority over an upcoming action. District evidence is a selected sample and is never treated as a statewide rule.
Counts include adopted future duties. “Upcoming only” means there is no current matching state requirement in the published findings; a state with both current and upcoming requirements counts once under current. The combined view adds personal-device rules to required student instruction. The school-technology view covers instructional screens, school-issued devices and student AI access conditions, including requirements for local policies. Required learning covers instruction or demonstrated competency in computer science, AI or digital literacy; it excludes course offerings, standards alone and optional resources.
Learning categories distinguish instruction, course availability, standards alignment and resources. “Varies by grade” means the personal-device rules differ across grade bands. Proposals appear separately from adopted requirements. Policy details distinguish documented funding from related support programs.
50-state denominator; D.C. has its own profile. Reviewed findings in this collection, not a certification of exhaustive coverage. Categories overlap.
Required learning
21 states with findings
CS, AI or digital-literacy instruction or demonstrated competency for a covered grade or cohort; includes future starts.
Which states count?
Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia.
50-state denominator; D.C. has its own profile. Reviewed findings in this collection, not a certification of exhaustive coverage. Categories overlap.
National, all-grade totals. Different questions, different counts. Phone restrictions do not automatically limit school-issued technology. Learning requirements can cover specific grades or cohorts. Definitions & counting method
Selected district examples · local detail
What the detail reveals · selected district examples
Access and understanding are separate decisions.
These districts show why “allows AI” or “bans AI” cannot tell the whole story.
Fairfax County, VA
Teach about AI without student chatbot use
Elementary generative-AI use is prohibited on district devices; secondary exceptions need written authorization.
K–12: one digital-literacy lesson each quarter. Grade 2 examines how data affects AI responses; grade 8 evaluates bias in teacher-provided output. Students do not use AI tools in these lessons.
Grades 6–12 have Gemini access, but teachers decide assignment use. Other named chatbots are blocked. Device access and digital-citizenship lessons have their own grade-specific rules.
Check whether schools must teach a subject, offer a course, or follow learning standards.
What does the policy require?
Grade view: All K–12. A grade-band finding may apply to only some grades; each source gives the precise scope.
Timing: adopted, including future starts. Counts show reviewed findings; a missing state may still have a requirement. Coverage & gaps.
Required learning includes instruction and graduation competency routes. A competency requirement specifies what students must demonstrate; it does not necessarily prescribe a separate course.
Where is computer science documented?
Required learning · All K–12 · Adopted, including future starts. National view; state policies only.
Current findingFuture start onlyNot established in this collection
Gray means a research gap, not that a state has no requirement. A finding may cover only particular grades or cohorts. District examples remain separate in the table below.
Break down by subject · overlapping counts
Required learning · Overlapping subject coverage, not separate mandates or complete national totals
Subject covered by policy
States
Selected districts
Computer scienceAny covered grade; broader than graduation alone
Explore graduation requirements with CS content · 13 verified states
Includes adopted future cohorts where selected. Requirements may allow proficiency routes or approved embedded instruction. Idaho is included because its digital-literacy credit explicitly requires algorithms and programming. This is broader than a count of courses titled computer science.
See the 13 states and their start dates
Alabama
Law effective October 1, 2026; graduation provision begins with class of 2032. Detailed approved coursework and embedded-standards guidance is to follow. Requirement and source
Arkansas
Applies to students entering grade 9 in 2022–23 and later; the first standard graduating cohort is 2026. Requirement and source
Idaho
Rule effective July 1, 2025; one-credit requirement applies to students graduating after January 1, 2028. Requirement and source
Indiana
First graduating cohort: class of 2029. This does not apply to all current graduating students. Requirement and source
Current half-credit graduation requirement. The 2023–24 guidance supersedes earlier versions; a qualifying high-school-level course may be completed in middle school. Requirement and source
North Carolina
Graduation requirement begins with grade 9 entrants in 2024–25. SL2026-41 §7.53 extends implementation-delay notifications for Wake/Johnston only through 2026–27; affected units must submit a course-offering plan by January 1, 2027. Older DPI pages stating no 2026–27 waiver do not reflect this later local exception. Requirement and source
North Dakota
Graduation rule: 2025–26, after July 31, 2025. Board-approved integration-plan alternative remains distinct. Requirement and source
Current policy; the cited source does not provide a confirmed start date. Requirement and source
Tennessee
Incoming freshmen from fall 2024; first graduating cohort is the class of 2028. Requirement and source
West Virginia
Beginning with grade 9 entrants in 2027–28, one full CS credit is required. May be completed in grades 8–12; approved courses and Policy 2510 implementation are governed by WVDE/WVBE guidance. Requirement and source
Cross-check: Code.org’s 2025 report reports 12 states using data finalized December 1, 2025. Our broader definition includes Idaho’s digital-literacy requirement. This difference is a classification correction, not an additional law passed in 2026. Nationwide amendment review remains open.
How we count learning requirements
District counts reflect reviewed local requirements, not every district covered by state law. Course access duties include offering alternatives: Kansas permits an implementation plan, which does not prove that a course is available now.
Each state counts once per subject and requirement type. D.C. is displayed in its own profile, not counted as a state. Subjects overlap. Required instruction or demonstrated competency can apply to specific grades or graduation cohorts; it does not mean every child takes a separate course. A required offering does not mean every pupil takes it. Standards alone do not establish a must-take course or actual classroom delivery.
National examples: what learning looks like in district documents
Kansas · Learning opportunities required
Wichita Public Schools
Requires support for students and staff in developing AI literacy, including foundational concepts and when and how to use AI. Supports teachers in adapting instruction. It does not prescribe a separate course or graduation credit.
Directs teaching about AI limitations, bias, critical evaluation and citation, with subject-area integration and staff professional learning. This is a district commitment; classroom delivery has not been independently measured.
CS4All supports schools in expanding computer-science experiences and computational thinking. The program page does not establish that every student currently receives a specified course or number of hours.
Requiring every student to learn a subject is different from making a course available. Neither alone shows what happens in classrooms. State and district briefs identify which is documented.
These requirements have passed. Open one to check when it starts and which students it covers.
S.L. 2026-41 — Safe and Responsible AI in Schools
Requires K–12 AI-literacy standards and aligned AI instruction in covered computer-science courses, with revised standards and course lists for 2028–29. A standards requirement does not establish a separate AI course for every pupil.
Required standards / alignment · All K-12
Grades, dates & source
Legal effective date
Jul 1, 2026
Who it covers
K–12 standards duty; AI instruction in covered CS courses, not a separate universal AI course.
School obligation
Required standards / alignment
Implementation / school deadline
Revised K–12 CS standards and aligned approved-course lists: 2028–29.
Public Act 104-0391 — online safety and media literacy
Beginning in 2027–28, requires age-appropriate online-safety instruction at least annually in grades 3–8 and a media-literacy and internet-safety unit in grades 9–12.
Required student learning (see course or competency route) · Multiple / mixed
Grades, dates & source
Legal effective date
Aug 15, 2025
Who it covers
Grades 3–8 annually; grades 9–12 media-literacy unit
School obligation
Required student learning (see course or competency route)
Implementation / school deadline
Act effective August 15, 2025; revised instruction begins in the 2027–28 school year.
Would fund state policies restricting student possession or use of personal electronic devices during school hours. Eligible policies would cover public elementary and secondary schools, include health and disability exceptions, and be developed with district and community input. School-authorized instructional laptops and tablets meeting specified safeguards are excluded.
What happens next: No next official date announced.
Would prohibit most K–5 classroom device use, limit daily device time in grades 6–12 and restrict individually assigned or take-home school devices by grade band.
What happens next: No next official date announced.
Instructional technology policy · State Board draft
The draft would require local technology plans to specify devices and shared/individual assignment, permitted activities, take-home conditions and AI use by grade or grade band. It would require publication and submission of plans by the end of 2026–27, with parental acknowledgment before individual device access from 2027–28.
What happens next: Regular board meeting; no item-specific vote verified: 2026-10-13
U.S. public schools reporting a program that provides every pupil a school-issued device. This does not measure time on screens or require take-home use.
Earlier NCES comparison: devices assigned to take home
Public-school principals reported devices assigned to every student to take home at 23% before the pandemic (2019–20), rising to 45% in spring 2020. This narrower measure excludes other in-school access.
Different surveys, populations and measures: these figures are not one continuous trend. Measures, access notes & data. They cannot establish when states adopted 1:1 policies or whether device access caused later restrictions.
Sep 21, 2026
Restriction / duty adopted
Seattle Public Schools
Moves K–2 from assigned one-to-one iPads to shared classroom devices, with a general daily screen-time range of zero to 30 minutes.
The district letter and FAQ give January 4, 2027 for shared classroom devices. A Key Takeaways bullet instead says January 1; confirm the precise start with the district. The change remains upcoming.
Ends FCPS-issued tablets and laptops in pre-K and kindergarten, makes student generative AI unavailable in elementary school and requires principal authorization for secondary use pending policy.
What do different groups want from school technology?
Explore reported views on limits, use and learning. People can support boundaries and technology education at the same time.
These are selected studies, not a single measure of public opinion. Audience filters identify who was studied; each finding names whose response it reports. These studies do not follow your state or grade filters.
8 studies shown. Publication year and fieldwork year can differ. Mixed-audience studies may report different questions for different groups.
Survey · Parents · Published 2026-09-28
Parents on school AI, screens and instruction
National Parents Union / Echelon Insights · Source checked 2026-10-05
71%Support banning student chatbot use during the school day
85%Support schools teaching AI safety
77%Support teaching effective AI use
78%Prefer limiting K–2 learning screen time; 11% prefer a ban
58%Prefer laptops on carts for designated use; 38% prefer desks all day
Useful for: Pair age-specific limits with the separate question of teaching safe and informed use.
Read with care: Responses to separate questions cannot identify which individual parents support both. Different May wording prevents a simple trend. These are national views, not local district opinion or evidence of learning effects.
Sample, questions and methods
Fieldwork
September 7–11, 2026
Who was surveyed
1,528 U.S. parents of K–12 public-school pupils
Question / measure
Separate policy-support items and screen/device questions. The publisher provides wording and response tables. Support combines strong and somewhat support where applicable.
Method
Online non-probability sample from Cint/Lucid; quotas and demographic weighting. Publisher reports ±2.6 points using a random-sample calculation; this does not capture all non-probability sampling error.
Sponsor / research organization
Commissioned by National Parents Union, an advocacy organization.
Gallup / Walton Family Foundation / Joan Ganz Cooney Center · Source checked 2026-10-05
61%Want less student time on learning devices
59%Agree the digital tools they use help students learn effectively
34%Strongly support a daily maximum for device time
Useful for: Ask about purpose and classroom oversight alongside screen duration.
Read with care: Teacher perceptions and self-reported use do not establish causal effects. Learning devices are distinct from personal phones.
Sample, questions and methods
Fieldwork
May 6–29, 2026
Who was surveyed
2,101 U.S. K–12 public-school teachers
Question / measure
Different items measure preferred device time, perceived effectiveness and strong support for a daily maximum. “Strongly support” is not total support.
Method
National probability-based teacher panel; see the linked study for weighting and questionnaire.
Sponsor / research organization
Walton Family Foundation–Gallup study with the Joan Ganz Cooney Center.
Survey · Students / Parents · Published 2026-02-24
Teen chatbot use and parents’ comfort with it
Pew Research Center · Source checked 2026-10-05
54%Of teens report ever using chatbots for schoolwork help
18%Of parents would accept chatbot emotional support for their teen
36%Of teens expect AI to affect their own lives positively over the next 20 years
15%Of teens expect AI to affect their own lives negatively over the next 20 years
Useful for: Distinguish homework assistance, information seeking and companionship.
Read with care: Fieldwork was in 2025 despite the 2026 publication. Comfort differs by use case. Neither statistic measures support for a school ban.
Sample, questions and methods
Fieldwork
September 25–October 9, 2025
Who was surveyed
1,458 U.S. teens ages 13–17 and their parents
Question / measure
Separate teen-use, parent-acceptability and future-impact questions. Positive and negative personal-impact answers do not include the equally-positive-and-negative or unsure groups. Original wording and tables are linked.
Method
Online Ipsos KnowledgePanel recruitment through parents; weighted national estimates. Overall margin of error ±3.3 percentage points for each population.
Sponsor / research organization
Published by Pew Research Center; survey collection by Ipsos.
Survey synthesis · Students / Parents / Teachers / Administrators · Published 2025-09-30
How students, parents and district leaders view AI
RAND · Source checked 2026-10-05
61% / 22%Parents / district leaders agreeing that more AI use could harm student critical thinking
35%District leaders reporting student AI training in spring 2025
Useful for: Surface differences between leadership assumptions and family/student concerns.
Read with care: These are beliefs and reports, not measured cognitive harm or verified policy coverage. Different populations and dates are not a single matched trend.
Sample, questions and methods
Fieldwork
October 2024–June 2025 across eight survey samples
Who was surveyed
Eight samples, including 984 parents of 12–17-year-olds and 232 district leaders; denominators differ by item
Question / measure
Item wording appears in figure notes; the Data Sources and Methods section lists eight samples. The parent–leader comparison uses different samples.
Method
National survey panels plus a small, nonrepresentative leader-interview sample. District sample weighting cannot eliminate unobserved selection differences.
Sponsor / research organization
See report acknowledgments for funding and partner details.
Gallup / Walton Family Foundation · Source checked 2026-10-05
18%Report formal guidance on AI work tasks
48%Report informal guidance only
34%Report no guidance across the measured tasks
Useful for: Check whether adopted rules reach the educators expected to use them.
Read with care: A teacher reporting no guidance does not prove the district has no policy. These figures concern staff work, not student AI permission.
Sample, questions and methods
Fieldwork
February 9–March 2, 2026
Who was surveyed
2,069 U.S. K–12 public-school teachers
Question / measure
Formal means written policy or official guidance; informal includes discussions and shared norms. Ten work tasks were measured.
Method
National probability-based teacher panel.
Sponsor / research organization
Walton Family Foundation–Gallup research partnership.
Provider implementation report · Teachers / Administrators · Published 2024-06
How educators implement digital-citizenship lessons
Common Sense Media · Source checked 2026-10-05
49%Of sampled implementers report covering all six curriculum topic areas
Useful for: Check whether a curriculum listing translates into a complete learning sequence.
Read with care: Provider research and self-selected users. This statistic measures reported coverage, not causal effectiveness or national teaching prevalence.
Sample, questions and methods
Fieldwork
May 2023 implementation survey; report also combines other evidence
Who was surveyed
Implementation analysis of 1,749 experienced curriculum users within 2,097 educator respondents
Question / measure
Implementation section, pages 10–12: educator-reported lesson coverage. Do not combine with the separate quiz or annual-survey samples.
Method
Survey of registered educators, conducted with University of New Hampshire researchers. Selected curriculum users, not a representative national teacher sample.
Start with your state, check the affected grades and dates, then follow the evidence to the original policy.
Take these questions to your next planning meeting
Which grades and students does the rule cover, and when does it take effect?
Does the learning policy require instruction, an available course, or standards only?
Who will teach it, with what time, preparation and evidence of delivery?
Which proposals should we monitor before committing budget or changing practice?
What this tracker can tell you
Documented rules, learning requirements, selected local approaches and proposed changes. Every policy brief links to its source and explains the type of requirement.
Some topics, district histories and superseding policies remain incomplete. A missing finding is a research gap. Published requirements do not establish delivery in every classroom.
This tracker brings limits and learning duties into one comparison. It does not replace these organisations’ research or claim to contain every finding they publish.