Welcome to the Monday, December 9, Brew.
By: Briana Ryan
Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:
- Twenty states have released AI guidance for public schools
- Massachusetts voters to decide on firearm regulations veto referendum in 2026
- President Joe Biden (D) issued one executive order about a New Jersey transit union dispute in November
Twenty states have released AI guidance for public schools
In the two years since ChatGPT debuted, online generative artificial intelligence (AI) has become a source of both optimism and anxiety in K-12 education spaces. So far, 20 state education departments have issued AI guidance or policy frameworks for K-12 public school districts. The U.S. Department of Education also released an AI toolkit for K-12 stakeholders and guidance on “Avoiding the Discriminatory Use of Artificial Intelligence.”
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, lawmakers in at least 45 states proposed AI-related legislation in 2024—and at least 31 states adopted bills. Some of those bills covered AI in K-12 schools.
Tennessee lawmakers, for example, approved SB 1711 on March 19, requiring local school boards to “adopt a policy regarding the use of artificial intelligence technology by students, faculty, and staff for instructional and assignment purposes.”
Lawmakers have also filed bills addressing deepfakes—videos, images, or audio files generated or manipulated by AI to realistically portray something that did not actually occur. For example, lawmakers in New Jersey introduced Bill A4736 on Sept. 12. The bill would extend “the public school law on harassment, intimidation, and bullying to apply to certain acts of fraudulent impersonation or false depiction by means of artificial intelligence or deepfake technology.”
According to an October EdWeek Research Center survey of educators, 58% of teachers said they had received no professional development on using AI in the classroom. Twenty-four percent said they had received one session on AI usage and 13% said they had received more than one. A third of teachers said they had not used AI tools in their classrooms and did not plan to start.
Such debates over AI are increasingly likely to play out in courtrooms. That’s the case in Massachusetts, where a U.S. district court temporarily sided with K-12 school officials in a lawsuit over academic dishonesty and AI.
On Nov. 20, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Judge Paul Levenson denied Dale and Jennifer Harris’ request that Hingham High School (HHS) officials raise their son’s AP U.S. History grade after the school failed him for including AI-generated text in an assignment. The parents had requested a preliminary injunction while the case proceeded.
The Harris’ argued school officials unfairly punished their son and hurt his chances at getting into an elite college. The parents said the school’s student handbook did not mention AI. The family’s lawyer said, “We should be embracing artificial intelligence, developing an appropriate curriculum and integration with that in our schools, and in this case this young man is caught in the middle of that.” District officials later updated the student handbook to prohibit students from using AI without authorization. However, HHS officials argued that the handbook prohibited the “unauthorized use of technology during an assessment” and that students were taught about the proper use of AI in other classes.
Levenson said the school was likely to win the lawsuit on the merits, writing that “school officials could reasonably conclude that [the son’s] use of AI was in violation of the school’s academic integrity rules and that any student in [the son’s] position would have understood as much.” Levenson also wrote that school officials “reasonably concluded that this case did not implicate subtle questions of acceptable practices in deploying a new technology, but rather was a straightforward case of academic dishonesty.” The parties will meet again on Dec. 4 for the next hearing in the case.
Hall Pass, our weekly newsletter on school board politics and education policy, also featured this story. To read more stories like this, click here. You can also click here to check out our AI deepfake legislation tracker, a free tool that allows you to monitor and track deepfake legislation in all 50 states.
Massachusetts voters to decide on firearm regulations veto referendum in 2026
Voters in Massachusetts will decide on a veto referendum to repeal House Bill 4855 (H. 4855), also known as Acts of 2024 Chapter 135, An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws. The omnibus-style bill changed the state’s firearm regulations. On Nov. 22, the secretary of the commonwealth’s office certified the veto referendum for the Nov. 3, 2025 ballot.
The Legislature passed, and Gov. Maura Healey (D) signed the bill in July 2024. H. 4855 enacted multiple changes to firearm policies, including:
- developing an electronic tracking system;
- prohibiting assault-style firearms (as defined in law);
- requiring safety certificates to obtain firearm permits;
- mandating serial numbers for firearms;
- allowing school administrators and licensed healthcare providers to request that a court issue an Extreme Risk Protection Order; and
- permitting courts to order firearm surrender when issuing Harassment Prevention Orders.
A “yes” vote would uphold H. 4855, while a “no” vote would repeal it.
The Civil Rights Coalition is the political action committee (PAC) leading the repeal campaign. Campaign chair Toby Leary said, “Gun rights are civil rights and it’s our belief that, just like other civil rights that have been hard fought in our country’s history, this is one worth fighting for. If you allow the right to keep and bear arms to be eroded, then every other civil right enumerated in our Bill of Rights could just as easily be taken away.”
The Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports upholding H. 4855, said, “Every resident of Massachusetts has the right to live free from the threat and trauma of gun violence. … This comprehensive gun violence prevention law gives us more of these tools, and the Coalition is committed to protecting this lifesaving piece of legislation from repeal.”
The campaign needed to file at least 37,287 signatures to make the ballot and an additional 12,429 signatures to suspend the law until voters decided on the referendum in 2026. The campaign filed 93,229 signatures, of which the secretary of the commonwealth’s office verified 78,707. Of the 23 states that provide for a veto referendum, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, and New Mexico have additional signature requirements to suspend a law before voters decided on the referendum.
Despite gathering enough signatures to suspend the law, H. 4855 went into effect because Healey issued an emergency preamble on Oct. 2—a week before the campaign’s deadline to submit their signatures.
Voters in Massachusetts last decided on a firearms measure in 1976, when they rejected Question 5, 69.21% to 30.79%. That measure would have prohibited the possession, ownership, or sale of handguns (defined as weapons capable of discharging a shot or bullet with a barrel length under 16 inches), with exceptions. Question 5 of 1976 was an indirect initiated state statute that would have amended the state statute. The 2026 veto referendum will ask voters whether to uphold or repeal an enacted law.
Massachusetts voters created the state’s initiative and referendum process through a 1918 constitutional amendment. Currently, the state allows five types of ballot measures: legislatively referred state statute, initiated state statute, legislatively referred constitutional amendment, initiated constitutional amendment, and veto referendums.
From 1919 to 2024, Massachusetts voters decided on 22 veto referendums. Voters upheld 12 bills (55%) and repealed 10 (45%). The most recent veto referendum was on the ballot in 2022, when voters approved Question 4, upholding House Bill 4805 (H. 4805). The legislation allowed people without verified citizenship or immigration status to get a driver’s license or motor vehicle registration with other forms of identification.
Only one referendum has addressed firearms across the 23 states that provide for a veto referendum process: Maryland Question 3 of 1988. Voters approved Question 3, upholding legislation prohibiting the manufacture or sale of handguns not included on the state’s roster of permitted handguns.
President Joe Biden (D) issued one executive order about a New Jersey transit union dispute in November
President Joe Biden (D) issued one executive order in November, bringing his total to 143.
The order’s official title is:
Biden issued 25 executive orders in January 2021, more than any other month of his presidency. He did not issue any executive orders in November 2022, January 2023, January 2024, May 2024, August 2024, and October 2024.
Donald Trump (R) issued an average of 55 executive orders per year. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) issued an average of 307 executive orders per year, the most of all U.S. presidents. William Henry Harrison (Whig) issued no orders during his one month in office. Three presidents issued only one executive order each: James Madison (Democratic-Republican), James Monroe (Democratic-Republican), and John Adams (Federalist).