California AB-1170, SEC. 46 (AI in Education Working Group 2025)

• Authority: California
• Parent authority: State governments
• Jurisdiction: United States
• Collections: U.S. state and local documents
• Most recent activity: Enacted
• Most recent activity date: 2025-07-28

Risk subdomain coverage

Good coverage — Comprehensive governance measures or mitigations with clear procedures relating to the risk subdomain are explicitly described.

• Compromise of privacy
• Overreliance and unsafe use

Minimal coverage — Brief mention but no specific mitigations, recommendations or governance measures relating to the risk subdomain are described.

• Unequal performance across groups
• AI system security vulnerabilities
• False or misleading information
• Fraud, scams, and targeted manipulation
• Loss of human agency and autonomy
• Increased inequality and decline in employment
• Economic and cultural devaluation of human effort
• Lack of capability or robustness
• Lack of transparency or interpretability

All other risk subdomains had no coverage in this document.

Risk Coverage Summary

The document has minimal to good coverage of approximately 6-8 subdomains, with primary focus on privacy (2.1), academic integrity concerns related to misinformation (3.1), fraud/plagiarism (4.3), overreliance (5.1), inequality (6.2), and lack of transparency (7.4). Coverage is concentrated in educational context risks including data privacy, academic integrity, and equitable access.

Sector coverage

Good coverage — Comprehensive governance measures or mitigations with clear procedures relating to the sector are explicitly described.

• Educational Services

Minimal coverage — Brief mention but no specific mitigations, recommendations or governance measures relating to the sector are described.

• Public Administration (excl. National Security)

All other sectors had no coverage in this document.

Sectors Summary

This document primarily governs the Educational Services sector, specifically addressing AI use in K-12 public education including school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools. It also has minimal coverage of Public Administration through the Superintendent's role and legislative reporting requirements.

Legislative Status

Hard Law

Legislative Status Summary

This is a binding California state statute (Education Code amendment) with mandatory language requiring the Superintendent to convene a working group, develop guidance and model policies, and submit reports to the Legislature by specified deadlines.

Actors

Proposer

• Entity Types: AI_Governance_Actor
• Entities: California State Legislature; The People of the State of California
• Summary: This is a California state statute enacted by the state legislature, as indicated by the opening phrase 'THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS' and the amendment to the Education Code.

Target

• Entity Types: AI_Governance_Actor, AI_Deployer
• Entities: Superintendent of Public Instruction; Local educational agencies (school districts and county offices of education); Charter schools; Working group members
• Summary: The statute directly mandates actions by the Superintendent and creates obligations for a working group. The guidance and model policies developed will target local educational agencies and charter schools that deploy AI in educational settings.

Enforcer

• Entity Types: AI_Governance_Actor
• Entities: California Department of Education; Superintendent of Public Instruction; California State Legislature (oversight)
• Summary: The Superintendent and Department of Education are responsible for implementing the statute's requirements. The Legislature exercises oversight through mandatory reporting requirements and the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act applies.

Monitor

• Entity Types: AI_Governance_Actor
• Entities: California State Legislature; Appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature
• Summary: The Legislature monitors implementation through mandatory reporting requirements. The working group must submit a comprehensive report by January 1, 2027, presenting assessments, findings, and recommendations.

AI Lifecycle Stages

Lifecycle stages covered by the documents, as defined in the OECD Framework for the Classification of AI Systems

• Plan and Design
• Collect and Process Data
• Verify and Validate
• Deploy
• Operate and Monitor

AI Lifecycle Summary

The document addresses multiple AI lifecycle stages with primary focus on deployment and operational monitoring in educational settings. It covers planning through requirements for developing guidance and policies, and emphasizes ongoing monitoring through assessment of current AI use and development of effective practices.

Technical Scope

Terms relating to technical scope that are mentioned or implicitly referenced in the document

• AI Systems
• Open Weight / Open Source

Technical Scope Summary

The document explicitly defines and covers artificial intelligence broadly as 'an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy.' It does not distinguish between specific AI types (frontier, general purpose, task-specific, generative, predictive) or mention compute thresholds or open-weight models. The focus is on AI systems and technologies deployed in educational settings.