Current status: Last reviewed August 17, 2026 against Chapter 634 and its fiscal and policy note. The exact local-policy deadline depends on the official guidance-release date. This is not legal advice.
Maryland SB 720, enacted as Chapter 634, requires each local school system to designate a central-office AI coordinator and develop and implement an AI policy aligned with state guidance within 120 days after that guidance is released. The act took effect June 1, 2026, but the local policy clock is event-driven: the district must track the official guidance-release date.
The law also directs state work on an AI-tool evaluation rubric, procurement alignment, K-12 AI literacy standards, professional development, and reporting. That makes Maryland’s approach more than a one-time policy document. It establishes connected owners and implementation artifacts.
The requirements at a glance
| Workstream | What Chapter 634 establishes | District preparation |
|---|---|---|
| State guidance | MSDE develops and publishes guidance for districts, educators, parents, and students | Assign an owner to monitor the official release and preserve the source and date |
| Local policy | Local system develops and implements an aligned policy within 120 days after guidance release | Prepare governance process, gap analysis, board calendar, and implementation plan |
| AI coordinator | Each local system designates a central-office, noninstructional staff member | Document the person, authority, reporting line, responsibilities, and succession path |
| Evaluation rubric | State develops and publishes an AI-tool evaluation rubric | Reconcile the rubric with current privacy, security, accessibility, procurement, and instructional review |
| Procurement | Local procurement must be consistent with the cited state procurement subtitle | Map current purchasing and renewal gates to the final state requirements |
| Standards | State incorporates AI literacy into specified K-12 standards by June 1, 2027 | Identify curriculum and professional-learning owners for resulting changes |
| Professional development | State develops a train-the-trainer program with later implementation milestones | Identify trainers, covered educators, time or compensation, completion evidence, and refresh cadence |
Districts should work from the final chapter, later MSDE guidance, current Maryland law, and qualified review.
Do not start the 120-day clock from the wrong date
Chapter 634 became effective June 1, 2026. That is not necessarily the beginning of the local policy deadline. The act ties the 120-day period to release of the state guidance.
A defensible deadline record should contain:
- the official guidance title and URL;
- the releasing agency;
- publication or release date;
- the district’s calculated due date;
- the calculation method and reviewer;
- responsible policy owner;
- board or governing calendar; and
- later corrections if the agency clarifies the trigger.
Avoid relying on a press article, draft, presentation, or undated web update as the trigger without confirming the official release event.
Give the AI coordinator real authority
Naming a coordinator without defining the role can turn the requirement into a mailbox rather than a governance function.
The coordinator’s operating charter should address:
- monitoring state guidance, rubrics, standards, and deadlines;
- maintaining the district AI application register;
- routing privacy, security, accessibility, curriculum, procurement, and legal review;
- coordinating local policy adoption and implementation;
- documenting approved, conditional, prohibited, and retired uses;
- coordinating training and communications;
- overseeing incident and exception workflows;
- reporting to leadership and the board; and
- managing periodic review and succession.
The district AI governance committee charter template can distribute this work across the right functions without obscuring who is accountable.
Connect the state rubric to a district decision
A rubric only creates value if it ends in a controlled decision that can be maintained.
For each AI application or feature, record:
- exact product, account tier, feature, and model path;
- instructional or operational purpose;
- covered users and age range;
- data inputs, outputs, retention, sharing, and subprocessors;
- privacy, security, accessibility, equity, and instructional findings;
- human authority and prohibited decisions;
- implementation and failure behavior;
- approval status, conditions, owner, and review date; and
- the evidence that would suspend or retire the use.
Use the AI tool vetting and approval template and AI vendor and DPA review questions as working records. When the Maryland rubric is published or updated, map those records to the official criteria rather than running two disconnected reviews.
Policy language must survive contact with the classroom
The local policy should answer questions users actually face:
- Which AI products and features are approved?
- Which account must be used?
- What may students and staff submit?
- Which assistance levels are allowed for this assignment?
- Who reviews AI output before it affects a learner?
- What must be disclosed or cited?
- What happens when a vendor adds an AI feature?
- Which uses are prohibited even inside an approved tool?
- How are exceptions, incidents, and corrections handled?
- What evidence is retained, and what sensitive content is intentionally not collected?
The K-12 AI acceptable-use policy checklist and AI assistance ladder help translate broad language into role- and learning-specific decisions.
How Tenet may support a Maryland implementation
Tenet by TrueMadeAI is K-12 AI governance software. Tenet Edge applies district and classroom policy on supported direct-use AI surfaces on managed Chrome. Tenet Gateway is a founding-district program for approved backend AI operations.
For a Maryland implementation, a district could evaluate Tenet as one control layer for:
- delivering current district and classroom rules on supported AI products;
- distinguishing district, grade, roster, class, teacher, subject, and schedule context where supported;
- blocking supported unapproved AI chat or writing interfaces;
- applying supported on-device data-loss-prevention controls;
- governing approved backend AI applications by application identity, purpose, data boundary, model route, and failure behavior; and
- producing bounded operational evidence for the district’s governance program.
Tenet is not the policy, AI coordinator, procurement review, state rubric, training program, or legal determination. Product coverage varies by surface and configuration. Review the dated capability matrix and validate the district’s actual workflow.
If your team wants to map the Maryland state rubric and one local policy to enforceable controls, request a Tenet District conversation.
A practical implementation sequence
Before the official guidance release
- Designate or identify the likely AI coordinator.
- Inventory policies, tools, embedded features, contracts, training, and incidents.
- Reserve the governance and board calendar needed for a 120-day response.
- Establish the cross-functional review team and decision record.
- Compare current practice with known Chapter 634 workstreams.
When guidance is released
- Preserve the official source and release date.
- Confirm the deadline calculation with qualified reviewers.
- Map every guidance provision to current policy, gap, owner, and evidence.
- Reconcile the state rubric with district vetting and procurement.
- Draft policy and procedures together so the document is implementable.
Before adoption and rollout
- Test representative student, educator, administrator, and backend use cases.
- Validate approved-tool communications and point-of-use rules.
- Train owners, reviewers, educators, and support staff.
- Establish incident, exception, correction, and product-change paths.
- Retain the adopted record, implementation evidence, and review calendar.
What this guide does not establish
This guide does not establish the final MSDE guidance-release date, calculate a district’s legal deadline, determine whether a particular procurement is permissible, or prove that a product satisfies Maryland law. It also does not replace current statutes, regulations, state publications, board process, or counsel.
Sources
- Maryland SB 720, Chapter 634
- Maryland SB 720 fiscal and policy note
- Maryland SB 720 official bill record
- State K-12 AI laws and guidance tracker
Frequently asked questions
When does Maryland’s 120-day school AI policy deadline begin?
Chapter 634 ties the local school system policy deadline to the release of Maryland State Department of Education guidance. The district should record the official release date and calculate the deadline from that event rather than from the act’s June 1, 2026 effective date.
Who must serve as a Maryland local school system AI coordinator?
The act requires each local school system to designate a central-office employee who is a noninstructional staff member as its AI coordinator. The district should verify the current statutory text and document the designation, authority, and responsibilities.
Does the Maryland law require districts to buy a specific AI product?
No specific product is required by Chapter 634. The law calls for state guidance, a tool-evaluation rubric, local policy alignment, procurement consistency, standards work, professional development, and reporting.
Does adopting a Maryland AI policy complete implementation?
No. A usable program also needs an owner, approved-use inventory, procurement and evaluation process, training, communications, operational controls, incident handling, and evidence that the adopted policy works in practice.
When must Maryland AI literacy enter K-12 standards?
Chapter 634 directs the state to incorporate artificial intelligence literacy into specified workforce and computer-science standards by June 1, 2027. Districts should follow the resulting state standards and implementation guidance.