How Idaho can build on its proposed K-12 AI standards

Note: This is a joint op-ed with Kevin Frazier of the Abundance Institute. 

The surest way to get left behind in the AI age is to fail to plan for the future. Exponential advances in this powerful technology will quickly expose the states that failed to see the transformative and long-lasting potential of AI. That's why the work of the K-12 AI Standards Writing Committee in Idaho is a step in the right direction. Yet, it's still short of the leap that's required to help today's students become tomorrow's AI leaders.

Last session, the Idaho State Legislature wisely approved Senate Bill 1227. The bill, signed into law in March 2026, directs the committee to establish a draft framework for K-12 AI instruction standards. The committee's draft recommendations will now undergo public review and State Board oversight before legislators decide whether to adopt them during the next session. If approved, local districts could begin classroom implementation as early as the 2027–28 school year. As the last state in the Mountain West to develop a state-recognized AI framework, reaching consensus is an ideal outcome.

Committee members—current and former educators, administrators, technology leaders, and parents—took on a difficult and deliberative assignment. Integrating AI into a classroom is like landing a jet on an aircraft carrier—it has to happen, it's going to be abrupt, and it's going to be a different experience each time. A review of the draft indicates that the committee understood the need for an expedited, yet thoughtful and nuanced approach to AI adoption. They assembled an expansive framework covering how AI systems work, the privacy implications of AI development and use, the fundamentals of AI literacy, the potential impacts of AI on society, and many other topics. What's more, they tailored the skills underlying those broader goals to each grade band: K–2, 3–5, 6–8, and beyond.

While a commendable effort, given how quickly AI is changing and advancing, the legislature will need to study this issue further or perhaps adopt these standards for only a finite period. First, the framework reads as though today's AI will look like tomorrow's AI. Each passing day proves that not to be true. Next-generation AI research labs are already developing models that operate much differently than Claude, Gemini, and other frontier models. The AI systems of the near future are likely to have different shortcomings as well as different capabilities. The committee's framework, however, closely reflects today's processes for developing and deploying AI. While that may be appropriate for the next few months—or even the next few years—the legislature should continue examining how to make the framework more adaptive.

Second, the committee's framework rests on the idea that human involvement in AI processes is always necessary and beneficial. Several sections reference the importance of human review. While human oversight is important in areas of critical final decision-making, in many domains AI is already more accurate and precise than its human counterparts. Assuming AI continues to improve in these areas, students need to practice identifying when a "human in the loop" may actually become a cog in the system that hinders the general welfare.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the framework includes too few recommendations for helping students apply AI to solve real-world problems—building new processes, developing apps of their own, and devising novel ways to test the effectiveness of their creations. Our success as a nation in the AI age depends not only on understanding AI but on leveraging it to disrupt institutions and practices that have outlived their utility. That's a skill that should be cultivated from an early age.

These are easily addressable concerns. While the last state in the Mountain West to develop a framework for AI, Idaho is still a model for others to follow, and the legislature and task force are to be commended for approaching this effort thoughtfully. In addition to this framework, the state is investing in educator training (though such support could be strengthened) and working hard to recruit and retain innovative businesses.

But "good" is not enough when the stakes are this high. Countries around the world—from Estonia to China—are upending their education systems to help students thrive in this new technological era. States should not embrace an overly cautious posture—that could lead to a crash landing in the form of graduates who lack the confidence and knowledge necessary to harness AI and anticipate its flaws.

Idaho students aren't just competing with students in neighboring states for future careers. They are competing with the future innovators and leaders of the world.

Kevin Frazier is the Director of the AI Innovation and Law Program at the University of Texas School of Law and a Senior Fellow at the Abundance Institute. Meg Goudy is Director of the Bill & Milly Kay Baldwin Center for Education at the Mountain States Policy Center, an independent research organization based in Idaho, Montana, Washington and Wyoming. Online at mountainstatespolicy.org.