What the numbers cover

Computer science: what has been checked?

The national learning audit remains open. Reviewed CS records are indexed in 50 of the 51 state/D.C. jurisdictions. This measures where evidence has been indexed, not how many jurisdictions have a requirement. No empty row establishes absence.

The October 5 review checked the 12 jurisdictions previously missing a reviewed statewide CS entry. A follow-up added source-scoped plan/support findings for Oregon and D.C.; Vermont remains unresolved. Course access, integrated standards, voluntary standards, draft standards and learning recommendations remain separate. These are newly indexed authorities, not new laws passed on the review date.

The graduation inventory contains 13 source-linked state requirements with CS content, including future cohorts. It includes Idaho’s digital-literacy credit with mandatory CS content. Course offerings, standards and voluntary proficiency seals are recorded separately. All 2026 amendments still need a systematic nationwide reconciliation.

Download scoped review notes · Download graduation records and benchmark note

The current research footprint

Search district coverage · State ledger and original historical comparison · Proposals and future starts

What a fuller national service needs

1. Finish the fixed-panel audit first. Review current and dated 2024/2025 board policies, device handbooks, AI access instructions and amendments for the same 106 systems. Keep unknowns explicit. Verify every material change against its earlier version.
2. Build the national directory. Attach stable NCES agency IDs and the directory year. Define operating districts, charter agencies, service agencies and statewide systems. Then expand beyond large urban systems to suburban, rural and small districts. Publish systems reviewed and enrollment represented separately; neither is the number of pupils affected by a policy.
3. Complete both sides of the state inventory. For every state and D.C., review restrictions alongside required CS/AI/digital-literacy learning, course offerings, standards, support and funding. Record cohorts, grade bands, exceptions, compliance dates and the entity responsible for implementation.
4. Create a continuing document-review process. Use authorized official bill-status feeds, rulemaking notices and board agendas where available. Save document versions, detect substantive changes and route them for review before publication. Publicly label the latest source check, unresolved conflict and next scheduled review.
5. Verify what happened after adoption. Follow regulations, local implementation, course catalogs, curriculum adoption, staffing and budget decisions. Separate planned instruction from evidence of delivery, and school enrollment from the grade-specific population covered.
6. Add independent quality review and corrections. Maintain classification examples and decision rules. A second reviewer should check headline counts and borderline cases. Accept source-backed district submissions into a review queue; do not publish them automatically. Missing histories may require district confirmation or public-records requests.

NCES directory · NCES enrollment ranking used for this panel

How the forward look should work

Follow observable steps: a published draft, committee hearing, recorded vote, chamber passage, signature, final rule, effective date and implementation deadline. Preserve amendments, reversals, expirations and failed proposals. A meeting on the calendar is not necessarily a vote; a vote is not a guarantee of passage.

A useful next layer would show a reader’s state and district together, followed by the next dated event, the affected grades and what would change if adopted. State rules and selected district examples must never be added as if they were separate populations.

Parent and educator views belong beside the policy

The Research & views collection currently includes eight survey and implementation reports. Further coverage of screen time, school devices and technology learning is still needed. Each survey needs the exact question, field dates, sample, weighting, sponsor and geographic coverage. Support for teaching AI literacy is not the same as support for unrestricted chatbot use. National polling cannot establish what parents in a particular district believe or why its board acted.

Read the headline counts carefully

Restriction counts include future starts and duties to make local policy; they are not counts of blanket bans. District results are selected verified findings, not a national census or a representative estimate. D.C. is searched separately and is not counted as a state. Hawaii DOE is one school system; the Nevada charter-authorizer aggregate needs school-level review.

Learning counts include reviewed records only. A missing record is not proof of no instruction. Even a full policy inventory would not prove compliance, educational effectiveness or actual classroom use.

National picture and state map · Current restriction records · Suggest a correction