This bill creates a new regulatory framework in Title 28A RCW and amends RCW 43.386.080 to limit how schools and government agencies use artificial intelligence, automated decision systems (ADS), school surveillance technologies, biometric data, and facial recognition. It prohibits using an ADS as the sole or determinative basis for any student discipline-related decision (including emergency removal, suspension, expulsion, referral to law enforcement, exclusion from class/activities/transportation, or assignment to alternative education) and prohibits generating individual risk scores or maintaining watchlists of students when those results are based wholly on an ADS. The bill also prohibits using biometric data to generate or infer sensitive psychological or personal characteristics of students, while allowing limited exemptions for voluntary adult employee secure access, federal-law-required uses narrowly limited and not used for discipline, and biometric uses to measure student engagement solely for educator professional development. The bill restricts disclosure of student personal information derived from AI/ADS/school surveillance to law enforcement to situations required by law (including court orders) or when there is an imminent likelihood of serious physical harm, and then only the minimum information reasonably necessary; such disclosures must comply with specified state statutes and federal law including FERPA. It also narrows government use of facial recognition services by barring ongoing surveillance, real-time or near-real-time identification, and persistent tracking without a warrant, exigent circumstances, or a court order (with limited ex parte authority); it prohibits targeting facial recognition by protected characteristics or First Amendment activity, prohibits sole reliance on facial recognition to establish probable cause, disallows identification from sketches, and bars certain substantive image manipulations. The provision explicitly forbids school districts from using facial recognition for ongoing surveillance or real-time identification and tracking of students. Statutorily, sections 1–7 are designated as a new chapter in Title 28A RCW, and the act adds new sections to chapters 28A.345, 28A.710, and 28A.715 while amending RCW 43.386.080. The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) is directed to update guidance on human-centered AI in K–12 education during its regular review cycle (text of that direction is incomplete in the provided material). The Washington State School Directors' Association (WSSDA) must develop and post, at no cost to districts, a model policy and procedure by February 1, 2027 (and update it periodically) aligned with OSPI guidance; the model must address human oversight, strategies to avoid discriminatory or disproportionate impacts on protected groups, and criteria for evaluating vendors and AI/ADS tools. The extracts provided do not include the full text of section 9 or the new sections added to the cited chapters, nor do they show any enforcement mechanisms, penalties, effective dates, or other implementation details.

If enacted, school districts, charter schools, and state-tribal compact schools will need to stop relying on automated predictions or surveillance-generated labels as the sole reason to discipline, remove, or place a student, and they will have to stop using facial recognition or biometric inference to track or judge students’ emotions or identities. Practically, this means districts will have to change contracts and day-to-day practices for any vendor tools they use, add clear human review steps to discipline decisions, limit what student information is shared with law enforcement to what is legally required or needed to address an imminent threat, and follow updated OSPI guidance; a statewide model policy must be developed and posted for districts by February 1, 2027. The people most affected are school administrators, teachers, and vendors of classroom surveillance or AI tools: districts will likely face one-time and ongoing costs to revise policies, retrain staff, renegotiate or terminate vendor contracts, and implement human-review processes, while the Washington State School Directors’ Association must develop and host the free model policy. The measure leaves key implementation details unclear in the provided text—such as precise definitions of “independent human investigation,” “imminent likelihood of serious physical harm,” and enforcement mechanisms—so districts will need guidance from OSPI and legal review to interpret and apply the new requirements.