EDICTAIEdictai home
Analysis

The laws and bills that say AI cannot replace a teacher

Five laws in four states, and one Florida board rule, now say that AI may not stand in for a teacher, faculty member or school counselor. Three of the five laws apply to colleges, and most K-12 proposals are still bills.

By Edictai18 October 2026Data as of October 2026

Key points

  • Illinois and California require a qualified person, not AI, to teach or be the instructor of record for community college or CSU courses.
  • Idaho's 2026 law requires its state framework to ensure no generative AI replaces a human teacher; Florida's board rule limits AI tools to supplementing teachers' judgment.
  • Nevada bars public schools from using AI to do the work of school counselors, psychologists and social workers.
  • K-12 bills in at least eight other states would bar AI from instructing students or require school staff to be people.

One provision that recurs in Edictai's records is a rule that AI may not take the place of an educator. As of October 2026, five enacted laws in four states and one state board rule contain such a provision. Bills in eight more states would add one, and New York's legislature has passed two bills that protect school and college employees from being displaced by AI.

Colleges

Three of the five laws apply to colleges. Illinois amended its Public Community College Act in 2025: “A course may not, in lieu of a faculty member, use artificial intelligence as the sole source of instruction for students.” Faculty may still use AI to augment instruction, and the change took effect January 1, 20261.

California took a different route. Its 2025 law on community college personnel requires the instructor of record for a course to be a person who meets the minimum qualifications for faculty2. A 2026 law sets the same rule for the California State University3. Both say staff may still use AI tools in operations and student services. An earlier bill, AB 2370 of 2024, would have barred AI from replacing community college faculty outright; the version signed into law kept only the instructor-of-record language4.

Schools

For K-12 schools, Idaho's 2026 generative AI law requires the state's framework to “Ensure that no generative artificial intelligence replaces or eliminates a human teacher”5. The framework the Department of Education wrote under that law lists the same idea among its guiding principles6.

Florida's State Board of Education reached the same point by rule in September 2026. District and charter school policies must ensure that AI instructional tools are limited to supplementing, and not replacing, the professional judgment of teachers7. The same rule requires human review of any AI-driven decision on grading, evaluation, discipline or referrals8.

Nevada's 2025 law addresses a different role. Public schools, including charter schools, may not use AI to perform the functions and duties of a school counselor, school psychologist or school social worker, although administrative uses such as scheduling are allowed9. A Pennsylvania bill now in committee would bar school entities from using AI to provide services that would amount to the practice of a school-based mental health professional10.

Table 1. Enacted provisions on AI replacing educators
StateMeasureLevelWhat it requires
IllinoisHB 1859Community collegesAI may not be the sole source of instruction in place of faculty
CaliforniaSB 241Community collegesInstructor of record must meet faculty qualifications
CaliforniaSB 928California State UniversityInstructor of record must meet the trustees' faculty rule
NevadaAB 406K-12AI may not perform the duties of school counselors, psychologists or social workers
IdahoS 1227K-12State framework must ensure no generative AI replaces a teacher
FloridaRule 6A-1.0957K-12AI tools supplement and do not replace teachers' judgment

Source: Edictai records, October 2026.

Pending K-12 bills

Most of the K-12 activity is in bills that have not passed. They take three main forms.

The first bans AI from teaching. Matching Texas House and Senate bills filed in 2025 would bar districts and charter schools from using AI to provide instruction or to replace or supplement a teacher's role1112. A Connecticut bill would prohibit AI from replacing public school educators in instruction and regular interaction with students13. A South Carolina bill would bar AI from replacing a licensed teacher in core academic instruction or in assigning final grades14. A Pennsylvania bill would stop charter and cyber charter schools from adopting an instructional model that relies on AI instead of professional employees15.

The second allows AI as a supplement but not a substitute. Washington's bill reads: “Artificial intelligence may supplement or enhance instruction. Artificial intelligence may not replace certificated instructional staff or paraeducators.”16 A New York bill would bar AI systems, chatbots and avatars from serving as the primary instructor and would ban humanoid robots from instructional settings17.

The third defines the job as human. Minnesota's omnibus education bill, which has passed one chamber, provides that an AI model is not a qualified teacher18. Matching New Jersey bills introduced in September and October 2026 would require public school employees and contractors, from teachers to aides, to be natural persons1920.

Jobs and contracts

A separate set of New York bills treats the question as one of employment. Two that have passed both chambers would bar AI systems used by school boards, BOCES, SUNY, CUNY and community colleges from displacing employees or transferring their duties to AI21, and would protect existing collective bargaining agreements22.

A federal proposal

The question has also reached federal policy. In a proposed rule on accrediting agencies published in August 2026, the Education Department wrote that agencies and institutions “must ensure that artificial intelligence is not used by faculty to supplant teaching and instruction”23. The statement appears in the rule's preamble, and the rule is not final.

Notes

  1. Illinois, HB 1859, COM COL-Course Instructor-AI (Became law, 15 Aug 2025). 110 ILCS 805/3-29.28(b)-(c).A course may not, in lieu of a faculty member, use artificial intelligence as the sole source of instruction for students.
  2. California, SB 241, Community colleges: personnel: qualifications (Became law, 1 Oct 2025). Sec. 1, amended 87359.2(a).The instructor of record for a course of instruction shall be a person who meets the minimum qualifications to serve as a faculty member teaching credit instruction or a faculty member teaching noncredit instruction
  3. California, SB 928, California State University: faculty employees (Became law, 27 Aug 2026). Sec. 1, new 89500.3(b).The instructor of record for a course of instruction shall be a person who meets the rule to serve as a faculty employee teaching credit instruction or a faculty employee teaching noncredit instruction established pursuant to Section 89500.
  4. California, AB 2370, Community colleges: faculty: instructor of record: qualifications (Became law, 2 Jul 2024). Introduced, Sec. 1, new Section 87709.Artificial intelligence shall not be used to replace faculty for purposes of providing academic instruction to, and regular interaction with, students in a course of instruction, and may only be used as a peripheral tool to support faculty in carrying out those tasks
  5. Idaho, S 1227, Education – Adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding generative artificial intelligence in public education (Became law, 19 Mar 2026). Idaho Code 33-7003(1)(b).Ensure that no generative artificial intelligence replaces or eliminates a human teacher
  6. Idaho, Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education Framework (Current). p. 5, Guiding Principles.AI does not replace a teacher.
  7. Florida, Rule 6A-1.0957, F.A.C., Internet Safety Policy (2026 amendment on artificial intelligence instructional tools) (Published 16 Sep 2026). Rule 6A-1.0957(3)(e)4..Ensure that the use of AI instructional tools is limited to supplementing, and not replacing, the professional judgment of teachers and the primary right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
  8. Florida, Rule 6A-1.0957, F.A.C., Internet Safety Policy (2026 amendment on artificial intelligence instructional tools) (Published 16 Sep 2026). Rule 6A-1.0957(3)(e)10..Ensure that AI is never used as a decision maker absent human review for any use case, such as but not limited to: grading, evaluations, promotions, discipline, threat assessment, counseling referrals or Exceptional Student Education (ESE) referrals, or communications.
  9. Nevada, AB 406, Makes various changes relating to health (Became law, 5 Jun 2025). Sec. 2(1).shall not use artificial intelligence to perform the functions and duties of a school counselor, school psychologist or school social worker
  10. Pennsylvania, HB 2787, In school safety and security, providing for prohibition of artificial intelligence for school-based mental health and counseling (In committee, 24 Sep 2026). Section 1323-B(a).a school entity may not utilize artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence chatbots or generative artificial intelligence, including synthetic content, to provide a service or experience to a student that would constitute the practice of a school-based mental health professional.
  11. Texas, HB 2400, Relating to a prohibition on the use of artificial intelligence technology for classroom instruction (In committee, 14 Mar 2025). Sec. 28.0028.A school district or open-enrollment charter school may not use artificial intelligence technology to: (1) provide instruction to students; or (2) replace or supplement a teacher's role in providing instruction or interacting with students in a course of instruction.
  12. Texas, SB 382, Relating to a prohibition on the use of artificial intelligence technology for classroom instruction (In committee, 3 Feb 2025). Sec. 1, Education Code 28.0028(2).replace or supplement a teacher's role in providing instruction or interacting with students in a course of instruction
  13. Connecticut, HB 5877, An Act Prohibiting The Use Of Artificial Intelligence To Replace Teachers (In committee, 22 Jan 2025). Statement of Purpose.To prohibit the use of artificial intelligence to replace public school educators in providing instruction to and regular interaction with students.
  14. South Carolina, H. 5253, Ai in education (In committee, 24 Feb 2026). Sec. 59-28-195(C)(1).Artificial intelligence shall not replace a licensed teacher in providing core academic instruction or assigning final grades.
  15. Pennsylvania, HB 2375, In charter schools, further providing for definitions, for charter school requirements, for establishment of charter school, for causes for nonrenewal or termination, for powers and duties of department, for cyber charter school requirements and prohibitions and for establishment of cyber charter school; and, in the State Board of Education, further providing for powers and duties of the board (In committee, 14 Apr 2026). Section 1717-A(c)(2).A local board of school directors may not consider or accept an application to establish a charter school with an instructional model that relies on artificial intelligence instead of professional employes to provide direct instruction to students.
  16. Washington, SB 6299, Concerning artificial intelligence and instructional staff (In committee, 23 Jan 2026). Sec. 1, new section in chapter 28A.400 RCW.Artificial intelligence may supplement or enhance instruction. Artificial intelligence may not replace certificated instructional staff or paraeducators.
  17. New York, A 11662, Prohibits humanoid robots and AI systems from being used in schools; provides limited exceptions; provides for student privacy protections; makes related provisions (In committee, 31 Jul 2026). Sec. 1, new Education Law 305-a(4)(a).No school district, board of cooperative educational services, charter school, or nonpublic school shall utilize an artificial intelligence system, chatbot, avatar, virtual assistant, or substantially similar technology as the primary instructor in any instructional setting.
  18. Minnesota, SF 3870, Omnibus Education policy bill (Passed one chamber, 7 Apr 2026). Sec. 6, 122A.16.is not an artificial intelligence model and it must not perform the service for which a teacher
  19. New Jersey, A 5529, Requires public school employee to be natural person (In committee, 17 Sep 2026). Sec. 1.A public school employee or an individual performing services in a public school pursuant to a contract with a board of education or board of trustees of a charter school or renaissance school project shall be a natural person.
  20. New Jersey, S 4795, Requires public school employee to be natural person (In committee, 8 Oct 2026). Sec. 1.A public school employee or an individual performing services in a public school pursuant to a contract with a board of education or board of trustees of a charter school or renaissance school project shall be a natural person.
  21. New York, S 7599, Regulates automated decision-making by government agencies; requires agencies to conduct impact assessments; requires disclosure of automated decision-making tools utilized by governmental agencies (Passed legislature, 16 Jun 2025). Sec. 5, Education Law 2585(5)(b).The use of such artificial intelligence systems and automated decision-making tools shall not result in the: (i) discharge, displace- ment or loss of position
  22. New York, S 8831, Provides for the use of automated employment decision-making tools and artificial intelligence systems by a county, city, town, village, school district, board of cooperative educational services, county vocational education and extension board, district corporation, the state university of New York, the city university of New York, or community college; amends the effectiveness thereof (Passed legislature, 21 Jan 2026). Sec. 9, Education Law 2585(5)(b).(i) discharge, displace- ment or loss of position, including partial displacement such as a reduction in the hours of non-overtime work, wages, or employment bene- fits, or result in the impairment of existing collective bargaining agreements
  23. United States, Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization: The Secretary's Recognition of Accrediting Agencies: Institutional Eligibility Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended, Student Assistance General Provisions (Published 20 Aug 2026). Preamble discussion of Sec. 602.17.However, we also believe agencies and institutions must ensure that artificial intelligence is not used by faculty to supplant teaching and instruction.

About this article

Written by Claude, an AI model, from Edictai’s records and research library. Before publication, every note is checked automatically against the record or study it cites. Descriptions are as of the data release named above.

Corrections: none.

Report a problem