AI is in our schools. AFT and Microsoft want guardrails with teeth.

Artificial intelligence (AI) isn't waiting for lawmakers to figure out what to do with it. It's already in classrooms, lesson planning, student devices, and the technology school districts purchase; all while meaningful federal and state rules governing its use in education have struggled to keep pace. 

So, rather than waiting for government action, the American Federation of Teachers is trying another approach: putting the rules directly into the contracts. 

Last week, AFT, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), and Microsoft announced a new National AI Safety & Privacy Standard that establishes legally enforceable protections for students, families, and educators using Microsoft's technology in schools. Beginning Nov. 1, the protections will apply to U.S. school districts and independent schools with Microsoft agreements, and districts won't have to wait for their contracts to come up for renewal to benefit from them. Click here to read Texas AFT's press release from earlier this week on this topic.

The distinction between this agreement and another set of voluntary AI principles is important. These aren't simply recommendations asking technology companies to behave responsibly; the protections can be incorporated into Microsoft customer agreements, giving districts contractual recourse if the company violates them. 

Under the standard, Microsoft cannot use student or educator data to train its AI models, sell that information, or use it for advertising. Schools retain control over how their data are used, stored, and deleted, while AI products must include security protections and safeguards against harmful or manipulative interactions with students. The agreement also requires human oversight for consequential decisions rather than allowing an AI system to make them on its own.

Parents and educators are also supposed to get understandable information about what these products are actually doing - something that has too often been missing from conversations about classroom technology. Microsoft must provide clear explanations of what information its products collect, how that information is used, what protections are in place, and when significant changes are made to its products. 

AFT President Randi Weingarten described the agreement as an effort to create privacy protections with "real teeth," arguing that voluntary commitments are not enough where kids are concerned and when governments have thus far failed to establish comprehensive rules for AI in schools. Weingarten also hopes this can be a model for other companies and even a regulatory framework for lawmakers. Microsoft President Brad Smith, meanwhile, said the company intends to extend the standard to every school district in the country. 

From principles to enforceable protections 

In 2024, AFT released its Commonsense Guardrails for Using Advanced Technology in Schools, putting student privacy and safety at the center of decisions about classroom technology and calling for educators to have a meaningful role in determining how new tools are introduced. Earlier this year, Weingarten followed that work with AFT's 10-point plan for learning in the AI era, including calls for a new national standard governing AI safety and privacy in schools. 

That plan goes considerably further than data privacy. It calls for essentially screen-free classrooms from pre-K through second grade, no student-facing AI in elementary schools, educator supervision of student AI use in later grades, and a ban on AI "social companion" chatbots for students younger than 16. It also calls for independent research into how screens and AI affect children, rather than relying on studies funded by the companies selling those products. 

As we wrote just two weeks ago, some of those ideas are beginning to show up outside the classroom, too. Meta's recent multibillion-dollar settlement requires new protections for teenage Facebook and Instagram users, including daily time limits, overnight restrictions, and disabling most push notifications during school hours. We noted then that teachers shouldn't have to compete with deliberately engaging technology while schools and families are left to deal with the consequences.

The Microsoft agreement pushes that same principle further: responsibility cannot fall entirely on teachers, parents, and students. The companies building and selling AI products have responsibilities, too. 

A partnership doesn't mean a blank check 

The agreement also adds important context to AFT's broader work with technology companies. Last year, AFT, UFT, and Microsoft launched the National Academy for AI Instruction, with OpenAI and Anthropic later joining the effort, to give educators training on how AI works, where it may be useful and where its risks lie. 

AFT has been explicit that those partnerships are not endorsements of any particular company or product.  If AI is already reshaping education, educators need to be involved in the decisions governing it rather than having those decisions handed down to them after the fact. Privacy, job security, and the possibility of technology replacing human judgment remain legitimate concerns, and engaging with technology companies doesn't make those concerns disappear. In fact, last week’s agreement demonstrates what having educators at the table can accomplish. 

AI may eventually help teachers develop materials, reduce administrative work, or create new opportunities for students. It can also collect enormous amounts of information, make mistakes with remarkable confidence, and introduce tools into classrooms before anyone fully understands their long-term effects on children. The choice, then, isn't between embracing every new technology or banning technology altogether. It's about deciding who gets to set the terms. 

AFT's position has increasingly been that educators, families, and students should have that power, not technology companies acting alone. With the new Microsoft agreement, at least some of those expectations are moving beyond principles on paper and into contracts that schools can actually enforce.