Schools urge Pennsylvania to create policies for artificial intelligence in education
American schools are sending a clear message to lawmakers: artificial intelligence has already arrived in classrooms, and waiting is no longer an option.
In Pittsburgh, educators and researchers gathered at a public hearing to push the state of Pennsylvania to create formal policies and guidelines on the use of AI in K-12 education. The meeting took place at the Pittsburgh Public Schools headquarters in the Oakland neighborhood and was organized by the state House Education Committee.
The problem is that Pennsylvania still has not done anything concrete about it — and the rest of the country has already moved well ahead.
At least 35 American states have already published guidance on artificial intelligence in schools. Another 33, along with Washington D.C., have created task forces or commissions dedicated to the topic. And Pennsylvania? Still empty-handed.
But the argument that got the most attention at the hearing was not about technology — it was about history. Remember what happened when social media grew faster than any policy could keep up? The educators present said, in unison, that they do not want to repeat that mistake with AI. Below, you will find what was discussed, what other states are already doing, and what education professionals are asking for so they do not fall behind. 👇
AI is already inside classrooms — with or without permission
This is the central point that educators brought to the hearing in Pittsburgh: artificial intelligence is no longer a promise of the future. It is already part of students’ daily lives, being used to complete assignments, research topics, generate summaries, and even write entire essays. What still has not arrived, at least in Pennsylvania, are the guidelines that spell out what is allowed, what is not, and how this technology should be responsibly integrated into the school environment.
Mark Holtzman, superintendent of the Hempfield Area School District, was one of those who testified at the hearing and left no room for doubt. According to him, artificial intelligence is actively reshaping how we consume, create, and evaluate information across every sector. Holtzman pointed out that the technology already influences workforce expectations, college readiness, and even young people’s civic engagement. For him, the role of educators goes beyond teaching students how to use these tools — it requires developing critical thinkers who understand the capabilities, limitations, and ethical implications of AI.
Teachers described situations in which students use AI tools without any kind of instructional guidance, raising serious questions about genuine learning, development of critical thinking skills, and even academic integrity. Without a clear policy, each school ends up making its own decisions — some banning AI use entirely, others ignoring the issue, and a few trying to incorporate the technology with no adequate technical or instructional support.
Receive the best innovation content in your email.
All the news, tips, trends, and resources you're looking for, delivered to your inbox.
By subscribing to the newsletter, you agree to receive communications from Método Viral. We are committed to always protecting and respecting your privacy.
This fragmented landscape is exactly the kind of environment that creates inequality among students, since access to and preparation for dealing with artificial intelligence varies enormously from one institution to another. The gap between actual use and formal regulation is what concerns education professionals who were present at the hearing the most.
What educators are asking for is not a ban, nor unrestricted access. What they want is a framework — something that gives teachers the confidence to make informed decisions, that protects students from harmful uses of the technology, and that at the same time does not stifle innovation inside schools. It is a balanced position, but one that depends on concrete action from lawmakers to become reality.
What other states have already done — and what Pennsylvania can learn
While Pennsylvania is still debating whether or not to act, other American states are already several steps ahead. The data presented by Katja Krieger, a policy analyst at the Education Commission for the States — a nonprofit organization based in Denver focused on education policy — painted a picture that should set off alarm bells for Pennsylvania lawmakers.
At least 35 states have published formal guidance on the use of artificial intelligence in schools, covering everything from student data privacy to instructional recommendations on how to integrate AI tools into the curriculum. Another 33 states and Washington D.C. went further and created specific task forces to study the topic in greater depth, bringing together technology experts, educators, parents, and civil society representatives to build more robust and inclusive policies. Of that total, 26 of those commissions have already published reports with recommendations on topics such as AI literacy, educator training, and ethical uses of the technology.
Krieger summed up the patterns emerging among states in a straightforward way: policies have focused on adopting state and local models, permitted and prohibited uses of AI in education, data privacy protections, and AI literacy instruction.
Concrete examples of states that have already acted
The hearing featured specific examples of how different states are approaching the issue, and a few of them are worth knowing:
- Georgia: The Georgia Professional Standards Commission published guidance for educators on ethical considerations in using AI, including a set of ethical principles, standards, and guiding questions on how to use the technology in the classroom.
- Nevada: A law passed in 2025 expressly prohibits schools from using artificial intelligence to perform the functions and duties of school counselors, psychologists, or social workers — a measure that protects the human side of students’ emotional and psychological support.
- Idaho: A 2026 bill requires the state department of education to develop a statewide framework for generative AI education and mandates that every school district adopt a policy governing its use.
These examples show that there is no one-size-fits-all formula. Each state is finding its own path based on its needs and local context. But they all share something in common: the decision to act instead of wait.
The lesson Pennsylvania can take from other states’ experiences is that acting early makes a difference. States that created guidelines sooner were able to adapt their guidance as the technology evolved, while those that waited had to deal with more complex situations and, in some cases, with damage already caused by the lack of regulation. The window of opportunity is still open for Pennsylvania, but it will not stay open forever — and the educators who showed up to the hearing in Pittsburgh know that better than anyone. 🎯
The ghost of social media and the urgency of not repeating the mistake
One of the most powerful arguments at the hearing was the comparison to the rise of social media. For years, platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and others grew at breakneck speed within the school environment without any kind of public policy or educational guideline to steer their use. The result was a series of problems that only came to light when it was already too late: impacts on adolescent mental health, cyberbullying, misinformation, and an entire generation that grew up without the tools to think critically about what they consumed on their screens.
Melissa Costantino-Poruben, a sixth-grade math teacher at Avonworth Middle School, brought this reflection with a clarity that resonated across the room. She said that schools need to be leaders in the responsible use of AI and asked the state to be a partner in that effort. Her closing argument was direct: we have already seen what happens when technology outpaces guidance, as it did with social media — this time, we need to be proactive.
The educators present at the Pittsburgh hearing were emphatic on this point: artificial intelligence has a much greater potential for impact than social media, for better and for worse, and the cycle cannot repeat itself. The speed at which tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, and other language models were adopted by students of all ages surpassed every prediction, and schools simply were not prepared to handle it in a structured way.
The absence of clear policies created a vacuum that was filled by individual decisions, often inconsistent and without a solid instructional foundation. One school bans AI use entirely, the school next door allows it with no criteria, and the ones who pay the price are students left without any reference on how to use this technology ethically and productively.
The final message from the hearing is powerful and simple: regulation does not mean stalling innovation. It means ensuring that innovation happens responsibly, equitably, and with students’ real learning at the center of every decision. The guidelines that educators are asking for are not walls — they are rails that help technology move in the right direction within the educational environment. 🚀
What education professionals are asking for, in practical terms
During the hearing, educators did not just show up to voice concerns — they arrived with concrete, well-articulated proposals. Members of the House Education Committee directly asked the professionals present what they expected from the state legislature, and the answers were clear.
Mark Holtzman, from the Hempfield Area School District, said he would like the state to provide guidelines that give autonomy to individual school districts. In other words, a framework broad enough to serve as a foundation but flexible enough for each school community to adapt the guidance to its local reality. This approach recognizes that the needs of an urban district like Pittsburgh are different from those of a rural district in the Pennsylvania countryside.
Mark Stuckey, chief technology officer at Pittsburgh Public Schools, was even more specific. He asked lawmakers to work directly with school districts to build an equitable statewide framework. The key points of that framework, according to Stuckey, should include:
- Transparency from AI vendors about the student data their tools collect
- Equity impact standards and algorithmic bias audits to ensure no group of students is disadvantaged
- Investment in educator preparation with targeted support for all school districts, not just the wealthiest ones
- Equitable distribution of state funding earmarked for AI in education
Stuckey’s statement carried significant symbolic weight when he said that Pittsburgh Public Schools should not have to figure this out alone, and neither should any other district. That declaration sums up the frustration of many education professionals who feel abandoned by the state in the face of a challenge that grows every semester.
Teacher training: the bottleneck no one can ignore
Another point raised forcefully at the hearing was teacher training. There is no point in creating guidelines if educators do not have the support they need to understand them and apply them day to day. Many teachers reported feeling lost when it comes to AI — not because they resist technology, but because they have never had access to adequate training on the subject.
Investing in the professional development of education professionals was identified as one of the most critical steps for any AI policy in schools to actually work in practice, not just on paper. This includes everything from hands-on workshops on how the tools function to deeper training on critical thinking, digital ethics, and evaluating content generated by artificial intelligence.
The importance of involving students themselves in the process of creating these policies was also discussed. After all, they are the biggest users of artificial intelligence tools in the educational context, and their perspectives on how the technology impacts learning are irreplaceable. Listening to students is not just a best practice — it is a necessity for the guidelines created to be realistic, functional, and connected to what actually happens inside and outside classrooms. 📚
The clock is ticking for Pennsylvania
Lawmakers present at the hearing openly admitted that they are concerned about the possibility of Pennsylvania falling behind on AI policy in education. And the numbers show that concern is well-founded. With more than 30 states already taking action in some form — whether through published guidance or formal commissions — Pennsylvania’s absence from this landscape is increasingly hard to justify.
The positive takeaway is that the Pittsburgh hearing signals the process is getting started. The fact that the House Education Committee traveled to the city, listened to educators, researchers, and public policy experts shows there is political will to move forward. Now the challenge is turning these conversations into concrete legislative action before the technology evolves once again and schools are left playing catch-up all over again.
Artificial intelligence in education is not a topic for tomorrow. It is a topic for today. And as the educators themselves made clear at this hearing, the question is not whether Pennsylvania will act, but whether it will act fast enough to make a difference in the lives of its students.
