Pinned snapshot. This article is rendered from the catalog state captured at (closest snapshot at-or-before your requested date of ). The live version may differ — drop the
?asOf= parameter to see the current catalog state.Automated grading, proctoring, student-data analytics.
Definition & scope
The cross-jurisdiction picture below shows how each of 45 tracked instruments treats this topic. The patterns vary substantially — and 40 regimes are silent, leaving gaps that future policy work could address.
Coverage across jurisdictions
Historical primacy & cross-jurisdiction tension
First addressed by UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence on (governs). Subsequent regimes have either codified, diverged from, or remained silent on this baseline.
Compare jurisdictions: EU vs US · EU vs UK · EU vs CN
Enforcement & impact
Silent regimes — gap signal
Instruments that do not address AI in Education — candidates for future policy work.
- Executive Order 14179 — Removing Barriers to American Leadership in AIUS
- UK Pro-Innovation Approach to AI Regulation (White Paper)UK
- Interim Measures for Generative AI Service ManagementCN
- G7 Hiroshima AI Process Code of ConductG7
- OECD AI Principles (Recommendation)OECD
- Council of Europe Framework Convention on AIcouncil_of_europe
- NIST AI Risk Management FrameworkUS
- Bletchley Declaration on AI Safetyglobal
- Seoul Declaration on Safe, Innovative and Inclusive AIglobal
- NIST AI RMF Generative AI ProfileUS
- California SB-1047: Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier AI Models ActUS
- India Digital Personal Data Protection Act + AI Advisory (MEITY)IN
- Brazil AI Bill (PL 2338/2023)BR
- ASEAN Guide on AI Governance and EthicsASEAN
- African Union Continental AI StrategyAfrican_Union
- Anthropic Responsible Scaling Policy (RSP) v2US
- OpenAI Preparedness FrameworkUS
- Google DeepMind Frontier Safety FrameworkUS
- Meta Frontier AI FrameworkUS
- UK-US AI Safety Institute Memorandum of Understandingglobal
- White House Voluntary AI CommitmentsUS
- Singapore Model AI Governance Framework for Generative AISG
- Japan METI AI Guidelines for BusinessJP
- General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)EU
- EU General-Purpose AI Code of PracticeEU
- OMB Memorandum M-24-10 (Advancing Governance, Innovation, and Risk Management for Agency Use of AI)US
- GSA Generative AI and Specialized Computing Infrastructure Acquisition Resource GuideUS
- DoD Responsible AI Strategy and Implementation PathwayUS
- FedRAMP AI Cloud Procurement GuidanceUS
- DFARS Subpart 252.204 (Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting)US
- California SB-53: Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (TFAIA)US
- California SB 243: Companion ChatbotsUS
- California SB 942: AI Transparency ActUS
- Revised Product Liability Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/2853)EU
- Directive (EU) 2024/2831 on improving working conditions in platform workEU
- Provisions on the Administration of Deep Synthesis of Internet Information ServicesCN
- New York RAISE Act: Responsible AI Safety and Education ActUS
- TAKE IT DOWN Act (Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act)US
- Japan AI Promotion Act (Act on the Promotion of Research, Development and Utilization of AI-Related Technologies)JP
- UN Global Digital CompactUN
See also
Further reading
10 academic & grey-literature sources bearing on this topic — catalogued metadata with a primary link; one-line findings are ✦ AI-generated summaries, labeled as such (charter §7.9). Browse the full literature index.
- The impact of generative AI on academic integrity of authentic assessments within a higher education context Peer-reviewed✦ AIDemonstrates empirically that authentic assessment alone does not safeguard academic integrity against generative AI, implying institutions need policy-level redesign rather than reliance on assessment format.
- ChatGPT Early Adoption in Higher Education: Variation in Student Usage, Instructional Support, and Educational Equity Peer-reviewed✦ AISurvey at a diverse U.S. public research university finds ChatGPT adoption and instructor support vary by student demographics and field, raising educational-equity concerns for AI-in-education policy.
- A Competency Framework for AI Literacy: Variations by Different Learner Groups and an Implied Learning Pathway Peer-reviewed✦ AISystematic review (29 studies) builds an AI-literacy competency framework varying by learner group, offering a reference for designing AI curricula and education-policy learning pathways.
- A scoping review on how generative artificial intelligence transforms assessment in higher education Peer-reviewed✦ AIReviews 32 empirical studies and concludes assessment should be transformed to cultivate self-regulated, responsible learning and integrity rather than relying on AI-text detection alone.
- Student perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence technologies in higher education Peer-reviewed✦ AISurvey informing the University of Liverpool integrity code finds 54.1% support tools like Grammarly but 70.4% oppose using ChatGPT to write whole essays, guiding nuanced AI-use policy.
- Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text Peer-reviewed✦ AISystematic testing showed "available detection tools are neither accurate nor reliable" and biased toward classing AI text as human-written — fragile ground for misconduct sanctions.
- GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers Peer-reviewed✦ AIFinds "GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers", frequently misclassifying their writing as AI-generated — a fairness flaw in detector-backed integrity policies.
- A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning Peer-reviewed✦ AISurveys of 457 students and 180 staff ground an "AI Ecological Education Policy Framework" spanning pedagogical, governance and operational dimensions.
- Guidance for generative AI in education and research Research institute✦ AIFirst global guidance urging governments to regulate GenAI in education, mandating "the protection of data privacy" and age limits for independent GenAI conversations.
- ENAI Recommendations on the ethical use of Artificial Intelligence in Education Peer-reviewed✦ AIEuropean Network for Academic Integrity policy recommendations: institutions should set transparent rules on permitted AI use, require disclosure, and not penalize tools for tasks they were authorized for.
References
The primary instrument sources behind the article's classifications.
- EU-AIA-2024: Annex III §3 (high-risk: educational access)
- US-EO-14110: §8(d) + ED guidance
- UN-RES-2024: Calls on digital-divide bridging
- UNESCO-AI-ETHICS-2021: Policy Area 'Education and Research', para 101 — provide adequate AI literacy education to the public
- IT-AILAW-2025: No operative schooling regime in force. Art. 24(2)(g) directs (as a delegation criterion) strengthening STEM/artistic competencies in school curricula; Art. 24(2)(i) requires AI-literacy training in universities/AFAM/ITS; Art. 15(4) promotes AI training for magistrates; Art. 22 supports youth.
Cite this article 8 formats · BibTeX, RIS, APA, Chicago, … · 1-click copy
Verify the year + paste-and-refine. Primary source linked in BibTeX/RIS note.
Persistent identifier: https://policywindow.org/wiki/education — committed-stable URL with content-versioning via ?asOf= (rollout pending per methodology §7). DOIs via Zenodo are on the roadmap.
Article tools — track changes, suggest an edit
View history — every captured revision of this article · What links here
Source: Edit on GitHub (search for `education`)
5 instruments tracked.