跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.06762 · v1

U.S. State Guidance on AI in K-12 Education: A Comparative Content and Citation Analysis

首次提交 2026-11-05 00:40
版本更新 2026-11-05 00:40
雷达观测 2026-11-05 12:13
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

In the years following the public release of ChatGPT in late 2022, more than half of U.S. states have published formal guidelines around AI usage in K-12 education, creating a record of largely independent state education departments responding to a shared technological disruption. In this work, we analyze publicly available AI usage guidance documents from 35 states in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. We compare the guidance in these documents across various dimensions, including pedagogy and instruction, audience, actionability, workforce and career readiness, responsible use and equity, and alignment with state-level demographics and administrative capacity. Finally, we investigate who authored these documents and their cited sources, identifying epistemic foundations underlying their claims. We find that guidance priorities converge on topics anchored in laws such as data privacy and academic integrity, each addressed in 97% of documents. While most documents mention equity of access (86%) and algorithmic bias (97%), fewer discuss specific marginalized populations. Across documents, there is a common framing of urgency around AI integration to prepare students for workforce readiness (86%) and promote loosely-defined personalized learning (86%), which is not matched by specific guidance for capacity-building, actionability, or accountability. State priorities show no relationship to state demographics, capacity, or partisanship. Instead, we identify notable interdependencies between states with shared citations to non-profit organizations like TeachAI and Code.org, with some states reproducing TeachAI's model guidance near-verbatim, and peer citations concentrating on a few early states such as Oregon and Washington. No state includes parents as contributors on these documents, and only five include students.

作者备注:29 pages, 8 figures, 8 tables, Under Review

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-05 00:40 · 最新观测版本

U.S. State Guidance on AI in K-12 Education: A Comparative Content and Citation Analysis

In the years following the public release of ChatGPT in late 2022, more than half of U.S. states have published formal guidelines around AI usage in K-12 education, creating a record of largely independent state education departments responding to a shared technological disruption. In this work, we analyze publicly available AI usage guidance documents from 35 states in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. We compare the guidance in these documents across various dimensions, including pedagogy and instruction, audience, actionability, workforce and career readiness, responsible use and equity, and alignment with state-level demographics and administrative capacity. Finally, we investigate who authored these documents and their cited sources, identifying epistemic foundations underlying their claims. We find that guidance priorities converge on topics anchored in laws such as data privacy and academic integrity, each addressed in 97% of documents. While most documents mention equity of access (86%) and algorithmic bias (97%), fewer discuss specific marginalized populations. Across documents, there is a common framing of urgency around AI integration to prepare students for workforce readiness (86%) and promote loosely-defined personalized learning (86%), which is not matched by specific guidance for capacity-building, actionability, or accountability. State priorities show no relationship to state demographics, capacity, or partisanship. Instead, we identify notable interdependencies between states with shared citations to non-profit organizations like TeachAI and Code.org, with some states reproducing TeachAI's model guidance near-verbatim, and peer citations concentrating on a few early states such as Oregon and Washington. No state includes parents as contributors on these documents, and only five include students.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗