Ohio HB 96 School AI Policy Requirements After July 2026

Current status: Last reviewed August 11, 2026. This resource summarizes cited public sources and is not legal advice. Districts should confirm obligations and remediation with Ohio counsel and the responsible state authorities.

Ohio Revised Code Section 3301.24 required each Ohio school district, Chapter 3314 community school, and Chapter 3326 STEM school to adopt a policy on the use of artificial intelligence by July 1, 2026. The deadline has passed. Covered organizations should now be able to identify the adopted policy, approval record, effective date, responsible owners, and the procedures that put the policy into operation.

The statute does not require every covered school to use the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce model. It says a district or school may adopt the model policy. That distinction matters when a district describes what state law requires.

The requirement at a glance

The Ohio Department of Education and Workforce AI hub repeats the covered entities and deadline and links the state model and implementation resources.

What the statute requires

Section 3301.24 contains two operative duties.

First, the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce had to develop a model policy by December 31, 2025. The statute says that model must address appropriate use of AI by students and staff for educational purposes.

Second, each named district or school had to adopt an AI-use policy by July 1, 2026.

The section is concise. It does not itself prescribe a complete local-policy outline, approval form, reporting schedule, professional-development program, audit format, or enforcement technology. It also does not say that every covered school must copy the state model.

This does not mean other Ohio or federal requirements are irrelevant. Student records, privacy, accessibility, procurement, academic standards, employment, security, and board-governance obligations may arise from other authorities and local policies. It means those separate duties should not be inaccurately attributed to Section 3301.24.

What the statute does not say

Avoid converting recommendations into statutory claims.

Section 3301.24 does not itself:

• require adoption of the Department’s model policy;
• mandate AI literacy instruction;
• prescribe a particular AI curriculum;
• require a specific vendor or technical control;
• establish a named district AI committee;
• require a public dashboard or prompt archive;
• prescribe a recurring state report from every district; or
• guarantee that policy adoption alone satisfies other legal duties.

The Department’s model and supporting resources can still be valuable. They provide a structured starting point and discuss appropriate use, academic integrity, privacy and security, third-party tools, and alignment with related policies. Districts should label those provisions accurately as model language, local choices, or requirements arising from another authority.

Who is covered

The statute expressly names:

1. each Ohio school district;
2. each community school established under Chapter 3314; and
3. each STEM school established under Chapter 3326.

Do not automatically extend this list to an entity the section does not name. Organizations with a different legal status should ask counsel which provisions apply to them.

Within a covered organization, the proper approving authority and procedure depend on Ohio law, the organization’s structure, and existing local governance. Preserve the board or governing-authority record that shows when the policy was adopted and which version was approved.

Post-deadline implementation checklist

Policy adoption is the legal milestone named in Section 3301.24. The work after adoption is operational.

1. Verify the authoritative record

• Locate the final adopted policy, not a draft or staff guidance document.
• Record the board or governing-authority action and date.
• Confirm the policy’s effective date and version.
• Identify incorporated or referenced policies.
• Store the record in the district’s normal policy and records system.

If no adopted policy can be located, promptly involve counsel and the responsible governance authority. Do not treat a website draft, AI committee memo, or acceptable-use handout as proof of adoption without confirming the local action.

2. Map the policy to owners and procedures

For each policy statement, identify:

• the responsible role;
• the people and systems covered;
• the operational procedure;
• the approval or exception process;
• the evidence that demonstrates implementation; and
• the event that triggers review.

For example, a policy stating that only approved AI tools may be used needs an application register, review owner, approval criteria, communications path, and a response when an unapproved AI feature appears inside another product.

Use the AI application register template and AI tool vetting template to turn the policy into maintainable records.

3. Define acceptable use precisely

An acceptable-use rule should distinguish among:

• students, teachers, staff, contractors, and administrators;
• grade bands and developmental needs;
• instruction, assessment, homework, administration, and operations;
• approved accounts and personal accounts;
• allowed assistance, required disclosure, and prohibited substitution;
• sensitive data and ordinary classroom content; and
• direct AI use and AI operating inside district applications.

The K-12 AI acceptable-use checklist can help districts evaluate whether local language is actionable without treating the checklist as Ohio law.

4. Connect privacy promises to the moment of use

A signed DPA and a provider no-training commitment do not decide whether a particular prompt contains only the information needed for an authorized purpose. Districts should pair procurement controls with user guidance, data boundaries, least-privilege access, and point-of-use protections on supported paths.

Read Why Data Loss Prevention Matters in K-12 AI and the AI vendor DPA review questions for separate evaluations of user disclosure and provider obligations.

5. Establish review and incident paths

Document how the district will respond when:

• an AI vendor changes a feature or data practice;
• an unapproved chatbot appears inside an existing application;
• a teacher needs an assignment-specific rule;
• a student or staff member discloses sensitive information;
• an AI response causes instructional, accessibility, or safety concern;
• a control produces a false positive; or
• a product no longer fits the approved use.

The K-12 AI incident response playbook provides a practical structure for triage, containment, evidence, communication, and corrective action.

6. Set a maintenance cadence

Section 3301.24 does not prescribe a review interval in its text. A district should nevertheless assign a practical review schedule because AI products, state guidance, vendor terms, and local use cases change.

Consider review after:

• a material vendor or feature change;
• a significant incident;
• a new state or federal requirement;
• a change in approved products or account tiers;
• a new use involving student records or consequential decisions; and
• the district’s ordinary annual policy cycle.

Label this cadence as a local governance decision unless another authority makes it mandatory.

From policy adoption to policy execution

An adopted document tells the community what the district intends. Implementation determines whether users receive the right rule at the right time.

A district can connect policy to operations through five records:

These records also make the next board review more useful. Leaders can evaluate whether the policy is understood, testable, and maintained rather than simply confirming that a document exists.

Questions for an Ohio board or leadership review

1. Can we produce the adopted policy and approval record?
2. Does the policy cover both students and staff in the ways our organization intends?
3. Which AI applications and features are currently approved?
4. How are users told which rules apply to their role, grade, class, subject, and assignment?
5. What prevents unnecessary student-data disclosure on supported paths?
6. How do we handle AI features embedded inside otherwise approved applications?
7. Who reviews vendor and policy changes?
8. What evidence do we keep, and what sensitive data do we deliberately avoid collecting?
9. How do students, families, and staff raise concerns or request correction?
10. When will the policy and procedures be reviewed next?

The K-12 AI governance guide provides a broader operating model, while the state laws and guidance tracker distinguishes Ohio’s binding requirement from other states’ laws and nonbinding guidance.

Sources

• Ohio Revised Code Section 3301.24
• AI in Ohio’s Education, Ohio Department of Education and Workforce
• Ohio Department of Education and Workforce releases AI model policy
• Ohio AI in Education Model Policy

Frequently asked questions

What did Ohio HB 96 require schools to do about AI?

Ohio Revised Code 3301.24 required each school district, Chapter 3314 community school, and Chapter 3326 STEM school to adopt a policy on the use of artificial intelligence by July 1, 2026.

Did Ohio schools have to adopt the state model AI policy?

No. Section 3301.24 says a district or school may adopt the Department’s model policy. A covered school could adopt the model or develop its own local policy, subject to its legal and governance process.

Does Section 3301.24 prescribe every required section of a local AI policy?

No. The section requires covered schools to adopt an AI-use policy but does not enumerate a complete set of mandatory local-policy sections. The statute separately directs the Department’s model to address appropriate student and staff use for educational purposes.

Does Ohio HB 96 require AI literacy instruction?

Section 3301.24 does not itself require districts to provide AI literacy instruction. The state model and other Ohio resources may recommend curriculum, training, or implementation practices, but those recommendations should not be restated as duties imposed by this section.

What should an Ohio district do if it missed the July 1, 2026 deadline?

The district should promptly involve counsel and the responsible board or governing authority, compare its current policies with Section 3301.24 and state resources, adopt or document the required policy through the proper local process, and retain evidence of the action. This resource does not determine legal consequences or cure.

What should districts maintain after adopting an AI policy?

Maintain the adopted text, approval record, effective date, owners, related procedures, approved-tool process, staff and student communications, training evidence, incident path, and a review schedule. These are practical implementation records, not additional statutory requirements attributed to Section 3301.24.