Skip to content

Session Expired

Your session has expired. Please sign in again to continue where you left off.

Sign In Again

MA S429: To establish a commission to investigate AI in education

Dead/Failed Massachusetts · 2025–2026 session

Last verified Oct 1, 2026 · official bill text

S429 · where it stands

This bill did not become law (dead/failed) · last action Dec 4, 2025.

What do these statuses mean?
Introduced
Filed in the legislature; may be waiting for a committee hearing.
Passed a chamber
Approved by one or both chambers; awaiting further action.
Enacted
Signed into law, or became law without a signature or over a veto.
Effective date
The date the law says it takes effect. Once it has passed, the page shows "Effective" and the date. A court order can still block a law; if we know of one, the summary says so.
Dead / vetoed
Vetoed, failed, or the session ended without action.

In one paragraph

Not law. S 429 would have created a commission in the Massachusetts Executive Office of Education to study AI in schools and recommend regulations, limits, standards and safeguards. It would have surveyed how public and private school systems use generative AI and automated decision systems (for grading, scheduling, lesson planning and budgeting), examined bias, transparency, data protection, plagiarism and a possible watermark requirement, and produced guidelines for ethical use. On December 4, 2025 it was sent to a study order (S 2792), ending it for the 2025-2026 session.

Plain-English summary, written with AI assistance. The official text controls.

What it means for business

None: the bill died. It would only have created a study commission, with no duties for schools or vendors.

Key provisions

  1. Creates a commission in the Executive Office of Education, chaired by the Secretary of Education, to study AI in education
  2. Survey all uses of generative AI and automated decision systems (grading, scheduling, lesson planning, budgeting, bus routes) in public and private school systems
  3. Examine policies, training, testing, transparency, auditability, due process and disparate impacts of those systems
  4. Examine data protection, plagiarism and intellectual property, and a possible mandatory watermark for generative AI used by schools
  5. Recommend regulations, limits, standards and safeguards, guidelines for ethical use by educators, and ways to keep student AI use effective, safe and equitable
  6. Members include legislators, the Attorney General, teachers' unions, academic experts, one high school student from each county, and school committee and superintendent representatives
  7. Hearing scheduled before the Joint Committee on Education November 12, 2025; accompanied a study order (S 2792) December 4, 2025

Latest legislative action

Dec 4, 2025. Accompanied a study order, see S2792

Sponsors (showing 5 of 16)

NameRole
Primary
R Primary
Primary
D Primary
Primary

Topics and industries

Affected industries

This page is general information, not legal advice. Summaries are AI-assisted and may contain errors; read the statute for the controlling text and talk to a lawyer about your situation. Full disclaimer · Report an error