SB 6299
In CommitteeSenate
AI & K-12 instruction
Concerning artificial intelligence and instructional staff.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill permits the use of artificial intelligence in Washington’s K-12 schools to help support and improve teaching, but explicitly bans AI from replacing licensed teachers or paraeducators. It ensures that human educators remain central to instruction.
- Allows artificial intelligence (AI) tools to be used to supplement or enhance K-12 classroom instruction.
- Prohibits AI from replacing certificated instructional staff (e.g., teachers, specialists with teaching credentials).
- Prohibits AI from replacing paraeducators (e.g., teacher assistants, paraprofessionals).
- Clarifies that AI is intended to support—not take over—human-led teaching and learning.
Who is affected
- Certificated instructional staff — K-12 public school teachers and other certificated instructional staff may use AI tools to support their work, but cannot be replaced by AI in their roles.
- Paraeducators — Paraeducators (paraprofessionals or teacher assistants) are protected from being replaced by AI tools in their roles.
- School districts and educators — School districts and educators may explore how to responsibly integrate AI tools into teaching and learning, as long as human educators remain in charge of instruction.
- K-12 students — Students may benefit from AI-enhanced learning tools, but will continue to be taught primarily by licensed educators—not AI systems.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (4)
By explicitly banning AI from replacing licensed teachers and paraeducators, the bill protects jobs and instructional continuity for frontline education workers—many of whom earn modest wages and rely on stable employment. This helps preserve the human element in education, which research shows is critical for student engagement, social-emotional development, and academic success, especially for vulnerable student populations.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1The bill allows AI to *supplement* instruction, enabling teachers to use tools for grading, differentiation, or personalized learning support—potentially reducing non-instructional workload and freeing up time for direct student interaction. This could improve teacher retention and job satisfaction, particularly in high-stress environments.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1Students—especially those with learning differences, language barriers, or in under-resourced districts—may benefit from AI-assisted tutoring, adaptive practice, or real-time feedback tools, as long as a human educator remains in control. This could help narrow achievement gaps if implemented equitably.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1The bill provides legal clarity for school districts seeking to experiment with AI responsibly, reducing liability risk and preventing costly legal challenges over staffing decisions. This supports stable, predictable governance of public education without requiring new regulatory infrastructure.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1
Potential Concerns (1)
The bill prohibits AI from replacing certificated staff or paraeducators, which may limit schools’ ability to respond to chronic educator shortages—especially in high-need areas—by deploying AI as a temporary or cost-effective supplement where hiring is not feasible. While the intent is to protect jobs, the rigid ban may prevent innovative solutions to staffing gaps, potentially worsening class size and access issues.
EducationRef: Sec. 1
Who Is Most Affected
Certificated instructional staff (e.g., teachers, specialists) benefit most: the bill protects their jobs from displacement and affirms their central role, but does not provide new funding or training to implement AI tools effectively. Their workload may decrease if AI is used for administrative tasks, but without support, adoption may be inconsistent.
Paraeducators gain explicit legal protection from substitution by AI, preserving their roles and income stability—especially important in districts where they often serve as the primary support for students with disabilities or English learners. However, they may not directly benefit from AI tools unless schools integrate them into co-teaching models.
K-12 students—particularly those in high-poverty or rural districts—may gain access to enhanced learning tools if districts have capacity to deploy AI responsibly. However, without equity safeguards, benefits may accrue to districts with stronger tech infrastructure, potentially widening resource disparities.
School districts gain flexibility to explore AI use without fear of violating staffing laws, but the bill imposes no funding, training, or oversight requirements—so implementation will be uneven. Wealthier districts may adopt AI more readily, while under-resourced districts may lack capacity to participate.
AI education technology vendors may see increased demand for tools that comply with Washington’s restrictions (e.g., tools designed for teacher-led use, not autonomous instruction). However, the bill does not create procurement mandates or set standards, limiting direct commercial benefit.