[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 70 (Monday, April 13, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18774-18780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-07087]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 75
[Docket ID ED-2025-OS-0118]
Final Priority and Definitions--Secretary's Supplemental Priority
and Definitions on Advancing Artificial Intelligence in Education
AGENCY: U.S. Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority and definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces one
priority and related definitions for use in currently authorized
discretionary grant programs or programs that may be authorized in the
future. The Secretary may choose to use an entire priority for a grant
program or a particular competition or use one or more of the
priority's component parts. This priority and definitions augment the
initial set of three Secretary's Supplemental Priorities on Evidence-
Based Literacy, Educational Choice, and Returning Education to the
States published as final priorities on September 9, 2025; the
additional Secretary's Supplemental Priorities on Meaningful Learning
Opportunities, published as a final priority on February 12, 2026, and
Career Pathways and Workforce Readiness, published as a final priority
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register; and the additional
proposed Secretary's Supplemental Priority on Promoting Patriotic
Education, published as a proposed priority on September 17, 2025.
DATES: The priority and definitions are effective May 13, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zachary Rogers, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202-6450.
Telephone: (202) 260-1144. Email: [email protected].
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of this Regulatory Action: On July 21, 2025, the Department
published a notice of proposed supplemental priority and definitions
(NPP) in the Federal Register (90 FR 34203). This final priority and
definitions may be used across the Department's discretionary grant
programs.
Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: Through
this regulatory action, we establish one supplemental priority and
associated definitions. Each major provision is discussed in the Public
Comment section of this document.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, 6301 et seq., 5 U.S.C.
311 et seq.
The NPP in the Federal Register published on July 21, 2025, (90 FR
34203) contained background information and our reasons for proposing
the priority and definitions. There are differences between the
proposed priority and definitions and the final priority and
definitions established in this notice of final priority and
definitions (NFP), as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes
section in this document.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, over 300
parties submitted comments on the proposed priority and definitions.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or
suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to make under
applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general
comments regarding concerns not directly related to the proposed
priority or definitions.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities and definitions since publication of
the NPP follows.
Comments: Many commenters expressed strong support for Secretary
McMahon's proposed supplemental priority on Advancing Artificial
Intelligence (AI) in Education, outlining a vision for preparing
students and teachers for an AI-driven future. A significant number of
commenters, including families and educators, appreciated the
Department's leadership to incorporate AI literacy and technology into
education, recognizing its potential to prepare students for an
advanced-technology-driven workforce. Many commenters expressed general
support for the priority's emphasis on AI literacy, professional
development, and integration into existing educational systems. Some
commenters stated that the priority reflects a thoughtful understanding
of where advanced technology can be most impactful, and these efforts
are essential to building a future-ready workforce and ensuring that
American students are not only users of AI technologies, but also
active creators and innovators. A few commenters stated that the
Department's forward-thinking priority aligns with the belief that the
most impactful learning experiences happen when cutting-edge technology
is guided by the skill, insight, and empathy of human educators. Some
commenters applauded the Department for advancing the goal of ensuring
all our youth and educators have opportunities to learn about and
engage with AI.
Some commenters stated that technological advances of AI technology
can increase administrative efficiencies and promote effective teaching
practices and student learning, which would free up institutional
resources for enhanced student engagement and improve measurable
student outcomes.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for the priority
of advancing AI in education. We agree with the commenters that
efficiencies can come from AI technology, which can lead to improved
student outcomes. We are adding section (b)(xi) to the
[[Page 18775]]
priority to more broadly recognize the potential for building evidence
of increased efficiencies and improved program outcomes by use of AI
technology across the Department's programs.
Changes: We added a section (b)(xi) ``The use of AI technology to
improve program outcomes'' to the priority.
Comments: Many commenters expressed general opposition to the
proposed priority. Some commenters voiced strong opposition to
advancing AI technologies in K-12 classrooms and urged the Department
to prevent children from using AI. Several commenters stated that use
of AI technology in education is dangerous because it is unstudied and
unregulated, and noted that untested AI tools could be harmful for
children.
Multiple commenters stated that children's basic academic skills
need to be developed before they start using AI. In addition, some
commenters expressed their opposition to the priority because of
potential cognitive and emotional harm to children, particularly for
children and students who are in their ongoing development of basic
cognitive skills, critical thinking skills and emotional intelligence.
Some commenters urged the Department not to allow AI into
classrooms because they claim that the research points to lower
educational outcomes and higher environmental costs for children, and
scientific studies have demonstrated the danger and lack of utility for
AI in education.
One commenter stated that the Department does not have the right to
give children technology that has not been diligently tested to be safe
and effective.
Discussion: The comments submitted to the Department reflect an
important dialogue about the role of AI in education. While there are
strong calls for innovation and the integration of AI literacy, there
is also a need for a commitment to preserving the essential human
elements of teaching and learning. It is important to note that by
finalizing this priority, the Department is not directly providing
students with AI technology. Families and educators may consider the
potential benefits of AI with the imperative to protect students'
mental health and privacy. While the Department appreciates the
comments that expressed their opposition to the Secretary's proposed
priority, the Department believes that to ensure the United States
remains a global leader in this advanced technology, the Department
must provide our Nation's youth with opportunities to learn how to use
AI technology effectively to enable them to be competitive in a rapidly
evolving technical workforce. Educators would play a critical role in
using AI as a tool in ways that expand access to high-quality learning
opportunities that connect with student interests. The Department also
believes that it is critical for every American to have the opportunity
to learn about AI in ways that are age-appropriate, fostering a culture
of innovation and critical thinking that will solidify our Nation's
leadership in the AI-driven future.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters made recommendations about evidence
building of effectiveness of AI technology.
Multiple commenters recommended that the Department establish clear
accountability in evidence building, including requirements for vendors
to provide comprehensive data governance policies that transparently
detail how student data will be collected, used, protected, and
destroyed, and whether it will be used to train AI models.
Several commenters recommended that the Department provide funding
for school-district-level pilots to build evidence of success and to
measure impacts of AI education, paired with scalable professional
development for educators.
Some commenters recommended that the Department develop or support
an evaluation framework of evidence building for AI integration in
education. The commenters stated that the framework could help grant
recipients assess tools for AI-related data safety, evidence-based
practices, accessibility, usability, and interoperability.
Discussion: The Department appreciates these comments that
emphasize the need to build evidence about what works and ongoing
support for teachers and administrators to ensure that AI serves as a
beneficial tool in education. As with any new and innovative practice
or technology, building evidence to understand what works is important
in the use of AI in education. The Department will consider whether and
how to use evidence components in each grant competition, consistent
with program authority, where this priority is used.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters made recommendations for revisions to the
proposed priority to strengthen students' data privacy and security,
with suggestions for requirements about safeguards, including privacy,
cybersecurity, student data protection, guidelines, and oversight to
ensure ethical and effective AI usage with comprehensive training for
educators on the ethical use of AI.
Additionally, some commenters suggested school districts should be
required to vet and disclose the AI technology vendor's privacy
policies and data-sharing practices.
Many commenters offered recommendations to address safety and
privacy related to integration of AI in education.
Numerous commenters emphasized the necessity of obtaining parental
consent before employing AI tools in educational settings. Some
commenters stated that parental consent is essential to AI in K-12
education, because of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
(COPPA) and Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and
recommended the Department mandate parental notification requirements
and opt-out provisions as a standard when AI tools are implemented in
schools.
Some commenters stressed the importance of safety considerations in
dealing with AI models in schools. One commenter stated the importance
of security considerations for the use of AI in education, and that any
AI project in education should include data security, securing the AI
model itself, a secure AI supply chain, and safe and secure use of AI
by staff and students. The commenter suggested revisions to the
priority to include these considerations.
Some commenters stated that the first considerations in integrating
AI technology in education must be to maximize safety and privacy.
Discussion: Thank you to all the commenters who noted the
importance of student privacy, the role of families, and safeguards
around AI technology in K-12 classrooms. The Department is committed to
upholding all student privacy protections under law and the central
role of families in the education of their children. The Department
believes that how best to ensure safety and communicate about
technology use is optimally decided at the state and local level and
declines to enact requirements at the federal level.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters recommended that AI systems used in
schools must have protection for cybersecurity, and student data must
never be shared, exploited, or used inappropriately by vendors or
platforms. Some commenters suggested inclusion of industry recognized
standards for cybersecurity for AI related projects in schools would
help ensure K-12 education entities are utilizing AI in a way that is
safe and secure for both students and staff.
[[Page 18776]]
Some commenters recommended the Department provide support on
professional training on cybersecurity to help school systems shore up
their cybersecurity programs to prevent the targeting of schools.
Discussion: The Department appreciates these comments and
recommendations and agrees that schools should ensure a strong
cybersecurity posture that protects student data privacy, including AI
usage.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters stressed the importance of connections
between students and educators and argued that introducing AI in
classrooms would reduce the interactive time between students and
teachers by increasing screen time above current levels. Some
commenters stated that according to American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry's research (AACAP 2025), children already spend
an average of 7.5 hours a day on screens for non-school activities.
Discussion: The Department thanks to all the commenters who
expressed concerns about students' screen time. The Department agrees
with the comments on the importance of connections between students and
educators. Families and educators are best positioned to consider the
potential benefits of AI with the imperative to protect students'
overall well-being, including the appropriate management of screen
time.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters called for age-appropriate AI learning
for children and recommended that the Department define clear age-
appropriate AI learning policies in the priority for how students at
all grade levels in K-12 education may learn AI in schools
appropriately, effectively and safely.
Some commenters recommended that the Department establish national
standards for children's AI literacy instruction. The commenters
recommended that to ensure age-appropriate AI education, training for
educators on clear ethical frameworks should be provided before AI
tools are introduced in classrooms and child development experts and
family representatives should be included in any future policymaking on
AI in education.
One commenter recommended adding a new provision in the proposed
priority as (a)(xi): Support age-appropriate AI education methodologies
that emphasize foundational concepts and critical thinking skills while
considering developmental readiness and students' safety factors in
tool selections.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and agrees with
the commenters on the importance of age-appropriate AI literacy
teaching in K-12 education. We made changes to the priority based on
the commenters' recommendations. The Department believes decisions
about what is age-appropriate are best made by families and those
closest to the students and therefore declines to establish national
standards.
Changes: We inserted words ``age-appropriate'' in the paragraph of
(a)(ii) of the Proposed Priority, and added a new paragraph of (a)(xi)
``Provide support and training to educators on age-appropriate AI
education methodologies that emphasize foundational concepts in AI
literacy and critical thinking skills while considering developmental
readiness and students' safety factors in AI tool selections in K-12
education.''
Comments: Some commenters suggested the Department provide funding
to support AI-related projects, including funding AI-related rural-
specific capacity building projects.
To ensure educational integrity and success of AI- related
initiatives in schools, one commenter urged the Department to support
state pilots and demonstration projects that would allow AI-driven
accommodation on standardized tests based on functional need rather
than diagnosis.
Several commenters recommended the Department provide funds to
support technical assistance (TA) for advancing AI in education.
Some commenters expressed strong support for the Department to
provide TA to teachers, school leaders, and education agencies on
advancing AI in education. The commenter recommended that TA to
educators and administers be provided through professional development
for educators and school administrators alongside pilot programs to
build their professional knowledge, skills and confidence in AI
literacy and technologies. The commenter believed that TA to educators
would help ensure success of the AI implementation in education.
One commenter recommended the Department prioritize funding for
providing TA to State Educational Agencies (SEAs) and Local Educational
Agencies (LEAs) to help them develop educational AI policies and
guidance.
One commenter recommended including a new paragraph addressing TA
in the priority and proposed language for use in the priority to
reflect this recommendation.
Another commenter recommended that the Department funds a TA Center
for AI Security in Education. The commenter stated that the TA center
for AI Security could focus on providing AI-specific privacy and
security TA to schools, which would provide invaluable guidance to
educational entities at all levels, including those in rural
communities, helping them implement AI responsibly and securely.
Discussion: The Department thanks the commenters for the
recommendations for providing financial support for pilots and
demonstrations to build evidence of the impact of AI education, and
funding for TA to schools/grantees to ensure the success of advancing
AI in education. We believe that the provision in paragraph (a)(x)
could be used for evidence-building activities that could include
pilots and demonstration projects. The Department will consider how to
use the priority to fund projects to support schools in advancing AI in
education in future grant opportunities.
Changes: None.
Comments: Multiple commenters stressed the importance of ethical
design of AI projects in education.
One commenter suggested that rigorous testing for bias in AI models
to be used in education should be mandatory.
Several commenters recommended that the Department clarify that all
grantees must comply with all Federal education, disability, and civil
rights laws and consider the necessary legal and ethical considerations
to ensure AI is responsibly implemented in school systems.
Some commenters suggested that the Department make clear that AI
adoption should not be evaluated solely by efficiency or automation
metrics, but by its demonstrated impact on student engagement, learning
progress, and readiness for future opportunities.
One commenter recommended mandatory documentation requirements for
AI projects, including documentation of AI data sources, limitations,
and biases for high-stakes decisions (such as grading, placement,
evaluations), including required vendor-neutral guardrails with bias-
testing for AI technologies that will be implemented in educational
settings. In addition, one commenter recommended legal and ethical
considerations in the use of generative AI in content creation as it
could raise concerns around copyright, authorship, liability, and
clinical validity.
Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenters on the
importance of ethical design of AI projects in
[[Page 18777]]
education and that it is essential for grantees to comply with all
federal education, disability, and civil rights laws and consider the
necessary legal and ethical considerations to ensure AI is responsibly
implemented in school systems. The Department accepts the
recommendation to stress the importance of ethical design and
implementation of AI project in education. The Department also agrees
with the commenters that AI adoption should not be evaluated solely by
efficiency or automation metrics, but by its demonstrated impact on
student engagement, learning progress, and readiness for future
opportunities. We did not accept all recommended changes because we
believe that the Department's July 2025 Guidance on the Use of Federal
Grant Funds to Improve Education Outcomes Using Artificial Intelligence
(AI) addresses many of these issues. For example, the guidance outlines
how AI may be used across key educational functions including training
educators, providers, and families to use AI tools effectively and
responsibly. In addition, the guidance specifically indicates that
stakeholders, especially parents, should understand how systems
function and participate meaningfully in decisions about the adoption
and deployment of new technologies. In addition, grant requirements can
be found in the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles,
and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, in the Education Department
General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), and other applicable laws,
regulations, and federal policies that address the concerns of
commenters. For example, in EDGAR (Sec. 75.623), grantees are required
to ensure that any publishing or copyright agreements concerning
submitted articles fully comply with the regulations, and Sec. 200.334
require that grantees and subgrantees in their contracts must contain
provisions that permit federal agencies to access records and awarding
agency requirements and regulations pertaining to copyrights and rights
in data. We already have grant requirements, and these requirements
would be applicable to Department funded AI projects in education and
ensure grantees meet federal laws and regulations. If this priority is
used for future competitions, applicable grant requirements would be
specified in a notice inviting applications based on the requirements
of that program; and projects funded through discretionary grants using
this priority must already adhere to the applicable federal education,
disability, and civil rights laws and regulations regarding
documentation. Therefore, adding requirements on project documentation
would be duplicative of existing laws and regulations, including
federal grants management regulations, policies and guidance.
Changes: We made changes to the text of paragraph (b) by inserting
words ``and ethical'' in the text.
Comments: Multiple commenters stressed the importance of universal
design or inclusive design of AI projects in education. These
commenters argued that AI projects or AI tools being funded should be
accessible, bias-aware, and inclusive of multilingual learners,
students with disabilities, and lower-resourced communities. The
commenters suggested that the requirements should include universal
design to ensure all students, including those students with
demonstrated academic barriers and those with disabilities, can access,
learn, and/or use AI technology.
Discussion: The Department appreciates these comments and agrees
with commenters on the importance of accessibility and universal design
\1\ of AI projects in education. In the Department-issued Guidance on
the Use of Federal Grant Funds to Improve Education Outcomes Using
Artificial Intelligence (AI) (July 2025), the Department recommended
that AI tools or systems should be accessible for those who require
digital accessibility accommodations, including children, educators,
providers, and family members with disabilities. The Department
believes that the use of AI technology should be accessible and
effective for all students and supports projects to achieve this goal.
The Department accepts commenters' recommendations to stress the
importance of accessibility and universal design in advancing AI in
education. Therefore, we are adding a paragraph (x) under paragraph (b)
of the priority to support incorporation of the principles of universal
design for learning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Universal design (29 U.S.C. 3002: Definitions): The term
``universal design'' means a concept or philosophy for designing and
delivering products and services that are usable by people with the
widest possible range of functional capabilities, which include
products and services that are directly accessible (without
requiring assistive technologies) and products and services that are
interoperable with assistive technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: We added a new paragraph of (b)(x) ``Incorporate the
principles of universal design for learning (as ascribed it in section
103(24) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended).''.
Comments: Several commenters suggested revisions to expand or
clarify the definition of AI and not relying on the meaning set forth
in 15 U.S.C. 9401(3). The commenters stated that just referring to a
legal reference as AI definition lacks clarity. They recommended
revising the AI definition to include that AI as technology that can
not only answer questions but also make decisions based on human
intelligence.
Discussion: While the Department appreciates the comments regarding
the definition of AI, the Department believes that using this
definition as specified in the statute is most appropriate as it has
been widely used in other federal documents and executive orders.\2\
For example, in the three of President Trump's executive orders,
including Removing Barries to American Leadership in Artificial
Intelligence (January 23, 2025), Advancing Artificial Intelligence
Education for American Youth (April 23, 2025), and Unlocking Cures for
Pediatric Cancer with Artificial Intelligence (September 30, 2025), use
the same AI definition. The priority's use of this definition maintains
consistency in implementation of federal AI policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See President Trump's Executive Order Advancing Artificial
Intelligence Education for American Youth, Executive Order 14277
(Apr. 23, 2025), Sec. 3. Definition: For the purposes of this order,
``artificial intelligence'' or ``AI'' has the meaning set forth in
15 U.S.C. 9401(3). https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/advancing-artificial-intelligence-education-for-american-youth/ (Accessed March 9, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: For clarity, we have included the text of 15 U.S.C.
9401(3) in the footnote of the final priority.
Comments: One commenter commended the Department's leadership in
elevating the importance of AI literacy, by stressing responsible use
and innovation in education in the definition. Some commenters
suggested revising the definition of AI literacy to emphasize critical
inquiry, ethical interrogation, and the socio-political impact of AI
systems. Some commenters suggested that the Department adopt a
definition that supports interdisciplinary approaches to AI literacy.
Another commenter recommended adding stronger emphasis on durable
skills to include critical thinking, collaboration, problem solving,
and creativity.
One commenter said that a technically skilled population that is
prepared to operate AI tools, but that does not have civic awareness
and ethical reasoning, would not support a strong American role in the
use of AI. The commenter emphasized the
[[Page 18778]]
importance of thinking critically about AI's political, cultural, and
regional impacts.
One commenter recommended refining the definition of AI literacy to
read as ``AI literacy is the knowledge and skills that enable humans to
critically understand, evaluate, and use AI systems and tools to safely
and ethically participate in an increasingly digital world.''
Discussion: The Department appreciates these comments, suggestions,
and recommendations. We agree on the importance of ethical reasoning,
critical social inquiry, interdisciplinary problem-solving, and
creativity in AI literacy for career readiness and responsible use and
have revised the definition of AI literacy to include reference to
these factors. However, we did not accept other recommended changes to
this definition, as we believe that the proposed definition allows for
AI literacy to be flexibly applied across the Department's programs,
and that commenters' other proposed additions would result in a more
cumbersome of proscriptive definition.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In the President's executive order Preventing Woke AI in the
Federal Government (July 23, 2025) Sec. 4. (a)(iii): ``avoid over-
prescription and afford latitude for vendors to comply with the
Unbiased AI Principles and take different approaches to
innovation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: We have revised the definition by inserting ``including AI
related ethical reasoning, critical social inquiry, interdisciplinary
problem-solving, and creativity,'' before ``required to thrive in a
world influenced by AI.''
Comments: Some commenters appreciated the Department's recognition
of the importance of foundational computer science as an essential
component of meaningful AI literacy in the proposed priority. Some
commenters recommended expanding the definition for the purpose of this
priority to include language about ``computer science education'' and
to clarify that computer science education should be inclusive and
accessible, with real-world applications, and be taught by qualified
educators; and to include language about personalized computer science
learning opportunities that extend from classrooms into homes. Another
commenter suggested to include ``digital literacy'' or ``media
literacy'' as knowledge and skills required for computer science
education. The commenter stated that though things like browsing the
internet and using software tools do not fall within the definition of
computer science--these skills are required and critical to be able to
access AI learning materials.
One commenter suggested that the Department should expand the
definition of computer science to explicitly recognize the study or
practice of AI literacy as an essential component of this term.
Discussion: While the Department appreciates the comments on the
definition of computer science, the Department believes that the
proposed definition of computer science is appropriate for the purpose
of this priority. Real-world applications are included in the proposed
definition, and computer science education is implied in the proposed
definition, so the Department believes no updates are needed to respond
to these comments. Similarly, we find that the other suggested updates
would not meaningfully expand the definition of computer science, as
the current examples of what computer science ``often'' includes and
``does not involve'' have sufficient overlap with the more specific
feedback raised by commenters. We also find that a more explicit
inclusion of AI literacy within the definition of computer science is
unnecessary, given that the proposed definition already makes reference
to AI more broadly.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters suggested adding additional
definitions for the priority. The suggested or proposed additional
definitions include ``AI Agency,'' ``AI fluency,'' ``Creative AI Co-
Creation,'' ``Career and Technical Education,'' ``Dual Enrollment,''
``Educational Choice,'' ``Elementary Education,'' ``families and
caregivers,'' ``Generative AI,'' ``high impact tutoring,'' ``Innovation
in Education,'' ``media literacy,'' ``Metacognitive Thinking (with
AI),'' ``Postsecondary Education,'' ``Prompting (in AI contexts),''
``Responsible Ethical Safe AI Use,'' ``Secondary Education,''
``Supplemental Educational Services,'' and ``statistics.''
Discussion: The Department appreciates these suggestions. However,
the Department notes that many of the suggested definitions already
appear within authorizing statutes applicable to Department programs.
For example, the term of ``Career and Technical Education'' has been
defined in the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act
of 1998, as amendment (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.); the term of
``Elementary Education'' is part of the definition of ``elementary
school,'' which is defined in the Section 7013 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (Through P.L. 118-159,
Enacted December 23, 2024) (ESEA); and the term of ``Secondary
Education'' is part of the definition of ``secondary school,'' which is
defined in the Section 8101(45) of the ESEA. The Department does not
believe it is necessary to add any of the suggested additional
definitions under the priority because the Department believes the
proposed definitions would limit flexibility in how the priority could
potentially be used, and may be more appropriately supplemented by a
non-binding note or invitational priority clarifying the Department's
intended application of the priority within a particular program or
competition.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
The Secretary establishes the following priority for use in any
Department discretionary grant program.
Priority: Advancing Artificial Intelligence in Education
Projects or proposals to do one or more of the following:
(a) Expand the understanding of artificial intelligence through one
or more of the following:
(i) Support the integration of AI literacy skills and concepts into
teaching and learning practices to improve educational outcomes for
students, including how to detect AI-generated disinformation or
misinformation online;
(ii) Expand offerings of age-appropriate AI and computer science
education in K-12 education;
(iii) Expand offerings of AI and computer science courses as part
of an institution of higher education's general education and/or core
curriculum;
(iv) Embed AI and computer science into an institution of higher
education's general preservice or in-service teacher professional
development or teacher preparation programs;
(v) Provide professional development for educators on the
integration of the fundamentals of AI into their respective subject
areas;
(vi) Provide professional development in foundational computer
science and AI, preparing educators to effectively teach AI in stand-
alone computer science and other relevant courses, including
instruction about how to use AI responsibly;
(vii) Partner with State educational agencies or local educational
agencies to encourage the offering of dual-enrollment course
opportunities to earn postsecondary credit or industry-recognized
credentials in AI coursework concurrent with high school education;
[[Page 18779]]
(viii) Create opportunities for high school students through the
development or expansion of AI courses and career-relevant, in-demand
certification programs;
(ix) Support dissemination of appropriate methods of integrating AI
into education;
(x) Build evidence of appropriate methods of integrating AI into
education; or
(xi) Provide support and training to educators on age-appropriate
AI education methodologies that emphasize foundational concepts in AI
literacy and critical thinking skills while considering developmental
readiness and students' safety factors in AI tool selections in K-12
education.
(b) Expand the appropriate and ethical use of AI technology in
education through one or more of the following:
(i) Use AI to support K-12 or postsecondary instruction,
supplemental learning, or other assistance or resources to students who
are gifted and talented (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(27)), or those
who are otherwise in need of accelerated or other advanced learning
opportunities;
(ii) Use AI to support K-12 or postsecondary instruction,
supplemental learning, or other assistance or resources to students who
are below grade level, in need of remedial or developmental education,
struggling to graduate with a regular credential from their education
program, or otherwise in need of additional assistance to complete
their program of study;
(iii) Use AI to support early intervention, K-12, or postsecondary
instruction or services, including early intervention, special
education and related services, for children and students with
disabilities and their families;
(iv) Integrate AI-driven tools into classrooms to personalize
learning, improve student outcomes, and support differentiated
instruction. This integration may include, but is not limited to,
adaptive learning technologies, virtual teaching assistants, tutoring,
and data analytics tools to support student progress;
(v) Provide resources and support to grantees for the use of AI in
teaching and/or tutoring in an education program or teacher training
program;
(vi) Provide resources and support for the use of AI in teacher
preparation programs;
(vii) Use AI technology to improve teacher training and evaluation;
(viii) Promote efficiency in classroom and school operations
through the application of AI technologies that reduce time-intensive
administrative tasks;
(ix) Use AI technology to provide high-quality instructional
resources, high-impact tutoring, college and career pathway
exploration, advising, and navigation to improve educational outcomes;
or
(x) Incorporate the principles of universal design for learning \4\
(as ascribed it in section 103(24) of the Higher Education Act of 1965,
as amended).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Universal design for learning (20 U.S. Code Sec. 1003--
Additional definitions): The term ``universal design for learning''
means a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational
practice that--(A) provides flexibility in the ways information is
presented, in the ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and
skills, and in the ways students are engaged; and (B) reduces
barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations,
supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement
expectations for all students, including students with disabilities
and students who are limited English proficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(xi) The use of AI technology to improve program outcomes.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Defintions
The Secretary establishes the following definitions for use in any
Department discretionary grant program in which the final priority is
used.
Artificial intelligence (AI) \5\ has the meaning set forth in 15
U.S.C. 9401(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 15 U.S.C. 9401(3) defines ``artificial intelligence'' (AI)
as: ``a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-
defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations, or decisions
influencing real or virtual environments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artificial intelligence (AI) literacy means the technical
knowledge, durable skills, civic awareness and future ready attitudes,
including AI related ethical reasoning, critical social inquiry,
interdisciplinary problem-solving, and creativity, required to thrive
in a world influenced by AI. It enables learners to engage, create
with, manage, and design AI, while critically evaluating its benefits,
risks, and implications.
Computer science means the study of computers and algorithmic
processes, including their principles, their hardware and software
designs, theories, computational thinking, coding, analytics,
applications, machine learning, and Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Computer science often includes computer programming or coding as a
tool to create software, including applications, games, websites, and
tools to manage or manipulate data; or development and management of
computer hardware and the other electronics related to sharing,
securing, and using digital information. In addition to coding, the
expanding field of computer science emphasizes computational thinking
and interdisciplinary problem-solving to equip students with the skills
and abilities necessary to apply computation to the digital world.
Computer science does not involve using computers for everyday
tasks, such as browsing the internet or using tools like word
processors, spreadsheets, or presentation software. Instead, it focuses
on creating and developing technology, not just utilizing it.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14192
Regulatory Impact Analysis: This regulatory action is not a
significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
These priorities are not considered an ``Executive Order 14192
regulatory action.'' We have also reviewed this regulatory action under
Executive Order 13563. We are issuing the priorities and definitions
only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify
their minimal costs. The Department believes that this regulatory
action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563. We
also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of
their
[[Page 18780]]
governmental functions. In accordance with these Executive Orders, the
Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential
costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have
determined are necessary for administering the Department's programs
and activities.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits: The priorities and definitions
would impose no or minimal costs on entities that receive discretionary
grant award funds from the Department. Additionally, the benefits of
implementing the priorities and definitions outweigh any associated
costs, to the extent these de minimis costs even exist, because the
priorities and definitions would result in higher quality grant
application submissions. Application submission and participation in
competitive grant programs that might use the priorities and
definitions is voluntary. We believe, based on the Department's
administrative experience, that entities preparing an application would
not need to expend more resources than they otherwise would have in the
absence of these priorities and definitions. Because the costs of
carrying out activities would be paid for with program funds, the costs
of implementation would not be a burden for any eligible applicants
that earn a grant award, including small entities.
Intergovernmental Review: This action is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. This document provides
early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: This section considers
the effects that the final regulations may have on small entities in
the educational sector as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq. The Secretary certifies that this regulatory action
would not have a substantial economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards
define proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are
independently owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of
operation, and have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit
institutions are defined as small entities if they are independently
owned and operated and not dominant in their field of operation. Public
institutions are defined as small organizations if they are operated by
a government overseeing a population below 50,000.
Paperwork Reduction Act: The priorities and definitions do not
contain information collection requirements or affect a currently
approved data collection.
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file,
braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or another accessible
format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. You may also access documents
of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the
article search feature at www.federalregister.gov.
Linda McMahon,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2026-07087 Filed 4-10-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P