SEA Leadership Self-Assessment

Our chief has not publicly addressed AI. Districts read the silence as a sign that AI work carries political risk.

Our chief has mentioned AI in some speeches or communications, but the message is occasional and hedged. Districts cannot tell whether AI is a priority we will stand behind.

Our chief publicly and consistently names AI as a priority in convenings, communications, and engagement with the board and legislature. District leaders can cite our chief's message when making the case for local investment.

Level 3 PLUS: Our chief updates the message as the technology and the field evolve, and the message is written into our strategy and communications so it continues through leadership transitions.

Our chief's public message on AI, if any, addresses access, adoption, or risk but not instruction. Districts get no state language for what AI means for teaching and learning.

Our chief has begun saying that AI carries instructional stakes, but the message stays general. It does not yet help district leaders distinguish student AI use that builds thinking from use that replaces it.

Our chief publicly and consistently makes the case that AI's value in classrooms depends on how students engage with it, not on access alone: some uses build student thinking and others replace it. Our chief signals support for student AI use that builds thinking, is clear that keeping students from AI altogether is not a neutral choice, and leaves curricula, tools, and instructional models to districts.

Level 3 PLUS: Our chief updates the message as evidence accumulates, and district leaders use the same distinction in their own planning and communications.

Our chief has not engaged policymakers, authorizers, or the legislature on the conditions that shape whether districts can adapt to AI, such as assessment, accountability, and regulation.

Our chief recognizes that policy shapes what districts can do, but engagement is reactive. We have not yet decided which conditions matter most.

Our chief engages policymakers, authorizers, and the legislature on specific assessment, accountability, and regulatory questions, bringing evidence and raising issues before decisions are made. Our chief also sets expectations for AI developers on evidence, data practices, and design suited to students.

Level 3 PLUS: This engagement continues across legislative sessions, and we can point to specific policy or regulatory changes our advocacy helped bring about.

No one at our agency leads or coordinates AI work.

Someone has been asked to explore AI, but the assignment is informal or a small share of their time, with no decision-making authority or clear expectations.

We have formally assigned a senior leader to lead AI work, with dedicated time, authority to convene across divisions, and direct access to our chief. We reduced their other responsibilities to make room, and they work directly with district leaders.

Level 3 PLUS: This leader spends most of their time on AI work, has decision-making authority and dedicated staff capacity (an office or a standing cross-divisional team), and we have identified funding to sustain the role.

We have no AI governance structure. AI decisions, when made, happen within individual divisions without coordination.

We have begun discussing governance and some divisions coordinate informally, but decision rights are unclear and functions like procurement, legal, and data privacy are not consistently involved.

We have a cross-functional AI governance structure with clear decision rights across instruction, assessment, technology, data privacy, procurement, legal, talent, communications, and district support. It meets regularly, and AI decisions go through it.

Level 3 PLUS: We review and adjust the structure as new questions emerge, and districts receive consistent AI guidance across our divisions.

Our staff have little firsthand experience with AI tools and are not regular users.

A few staff experiment with AI, but use is uneven, we have no enterprise platform or internal norms, and those who use AI mostly use it to finish tasks faster.

We have an approved enterprise platform, structured training, and norms for internal use. Most staff use AI regularly and critically: they check outputs, understand the privacy implications of what they share, and use AI to extend their judgment rather than only to save time. Staff can speak with district leaders about AI from their own use.

Level 3 PLUS: We update internal norms on a set schedule, our training is differentiated by role and includes building with AI (e.g., custom tools or workflows), and we track participation and growth to guide our next investments.

We have no systematic way to know where districts stand on AI adoption, leadership, staff experience, or student experience.

We have begun gathering district AI data through informal pulse checks or one-off surveys, but nothing consistent, benchmarked, or low-burden is in place.

Districts across the state take part in structured, low-burden data collection on AI adoption, leadership conditions, staff and student experience, and students' applied AI literacy, through national infrastructure such as the AI Innovation Index or a state mechanism. We use this data to separate adoption from impact, target investment, surface bright spots, and push for progress where student experience lags leadership and staff conditions.

Level 3 PLUS: We have multiple cycles of statewide data, track progress over time, and revise our strategy each cycle based on it. We use student results to encourage districts to expand thoughtful student-facing AI use.

We have no AI strategy or funding plan. AI activity is absorbed into existing budgets without sequencing, owners, or resources.

We have begun strategy conversations and may have drafted priorities, but nothing yet sequences the work, names owners, defines our role, or identifies sustainable funding.

We have a multi-year AI strategy and funding plan that sequences priorities, names owners, identifies resource needs and funding sources, and defines what we will lead, support, fund, or leave to districts.

Level 3 PLUS: We revise the strategy as data comes in, funding comes from multiple sources, our board or legislature supports the plan, and we can show how each investment connects to district, staff, and student outcomes.

We offer no structured AI capacity-building for senior district leaders.

We have hosted introductory sessions or one-off workshops, but nothing sustained, and our offerings reach few districts.

We invest in structured capacity-building for senior district leaders, such as leadership institutes, peer cohorts, or expert coaching, open to districts of all sizes. Districts remain responsible for developing their own educators.

Level 3 PLUS: Our offerings continue across years and are differentiated by district size and leader role, and we track participation and what leaders apply in their systems to guide our next investments.

We play no clearinghouse role. Districts evaluate frameworks, tools, and vendor claims on their own.

We share resources informally, but we have no vetting process or quality criteria, so districts cannot tell a recommendation from a forwarded link.

We vet and share frameworks for instructional AI use and AI literacy against published criteria aligned with current federal guidance. The criteria ask whether a framework distinguishes AI use that upholds rigor from use that collapses it, distinguishes understanding AI from applied AI literacy, and bases impact claims on evidence beyond usage data. Inclusion signals that a framework meets the criteria, not that the state has chosen a single model.

Level 3 PLUS: We refresh our curation on a set schedule, publish the evidence behind what we highlight, and remove approaches when evidence shows they are not improving learning.

District leaders have no way to see one another's AI strategy and practice.

Leaders share informally at conferences or through networks, but we have not created a structured way for them to share artifacts, approaches, or results.

We have created structured ways for senior district leaders to share AI strategy and practice across systems: exchanging artifacts, comparing approaches, and surfacing what is working.

Level 3 PLUS: Leaders regularly compare their practice with peers, and we can point to decisions districts changed because of what they saw.

We offer no state-level forum for districts to define what students need to thrive as AI reshapes work and life. Portrait of a Graduate work, where it exists, does not address AI.

We see the need for shared language about future-ready competencies and have begun exploratory conversations, but no convenings, exemplars, or resources exist yet.

We provide convenings, exemplars, and resources that help districts define future-ready competencies and update their Portrait of a Graduate, using shared language that distinguishes understanding AI from applied AI literacy. We also give districts current resources on how AI is changing careers, for use in college and career advising.

Level 3 PLUS: Districts map each AI-relevant competency to a credible measure, we refresh career-advising resources regularly, and the work informs our own assessment and accountability planning.

We have not addressed student AI literacy. Districts that teach it do so without state encouragement or recognition.

We are discussing how to encourage and recognize district AI literacy instruction, but have not yet acted.

We publicly encourage districts to build student AI literacy, including both understanding AI and applied AI literacy, and we recognize district efforts in our guidance and communications. Districts decide what to teach and how.

Level 3 PLUS: We identify and address state policies that make district AI literacy instruction harder, and we track students' applied AI literacy statewide through credible measures such as performance tasks.

We have issued no AI-specific privacy, security, or acceptable use guidance, and uncertainty about the law is slowing compliant adoption.

Our guidance is in development or exists only in memos and FAQs, so districts have no clear state standards to rely on.

We have issued clear AI-specific privacy, security, and acceptable use standards, as policy or formal guidance, aligned with state and federal law and current federal guidance, including transparency for families. The standards describe what compliant student-facing use looks like, and districts rely on them when adopting AI.

Level 3 PLUS: We update the standards on a set schedule as technology, federal guidance, and law change, and they judge uses by instructional value rather than treating all screen time alike, so they protect students without acting as a de facto ban.

Districts negotiate AI platform access and contracts on their own, with no support from us or a state-designated intermediary.

We or a state-designated intermediary have begun exploring statewide contracts or procurement resources, but none are available yet.

Directly or through a state-designated intermediary, we negotiate statewide agreements that give districts, especially small ones, affordable access to AI platforms vetted against published criteria. For student-facing tools, the criteria cover privacy, safety, developmental appropriateness, and instructional fit, plus the five questions in current federal guidance: what learning problem the tool solves, when, for whom, for how long, and with what evidence. We also provide model contract language and vendor review templates. Inclusion in an agreement means a platform meets the criteria, not that we chose it for districts.

Level 3 PLUS: At renewal, we review whether each platform still meets the criteria, including evidence that it improves student learning, and we do not renew agreements for platforms with persistent shortcomings.

We do not convene district leaders around AI.

We have hosted introductory sessions or occasional convenings, but attendance is inconsistent and sessions are not tied to leaders' priorities.

We convene senior district leaders in structured cohorts or networks on AI implementation that meet regularly and connect to their strategic priorities.

Level 3 PLUS: Relationships continue between convenings, and we have evidence that the networks are shaping how districts allocate resources, select tools, and approach instruction.

Our AI support is the same for every district, and we have no view of how districts differ in context, capacity, or readiness.

We recognize that districts start from different places, but our support does not yet vary by readiness or need.

We tailor AI support to district context, capacity, and readiness: more structured support for districts that need it, more flexibility for districts with strong local capacity.

Level 3 PLUS: We use statewide data to match support to need, adjust as districts progress, and can show that both struggling and leading districts benefit.

No regional structures support district AI implementation, so access to expertise depends on district size and budget.

We have begun talking with regional agencies, intermediaries, coaching networks, or universities about AI support, but no funding or formal partnership exists.

We fund or partner with regional agencies, coaching networks, intermediaries, or universities so district leaders can access AI implementation and evaluation expertise regardless of district size.

Level 3 PLUS: We monitor the reach and quality of regional support, small and rural districts get expertise comparable to large ones, and regional partners help districts judge whether their work is improving learning.

We do not identify or share district bright spots.

We share examples occasionally and informally, with no systematic way to identify bright spots and no evidence behind them.

We regularly identify and share district bright spots, exemplars, and lessons learned across the state.

Level 3 PLUS: We identify bright spots using data rather than reputation, and we can trace practices that spread because we shared them.

We treat current assessment and accountability systems as fixed, with no research and development (R&D) capacity, no pilots, and no attention to how AI widens the gap between what students need and what our systems reward.

We recognize that assessment and accountability must evolve and have begun internal conversations, but we have no dedicated R&D function, funding, or room for district pilots.

We are building R&D capacity for next-generation assessment: a funded state function, participation in multi-state collaboratives, support for connecting future-ready competencies (including applied AI literacy) to credible measures, and room for district pilots through waivers, while maintaining rigor, transparency, and fairness.

Level 3 PLUS: Our R&D agenda is funded across multiple years, pilots have produced evidence that informs statewide decisions, and we are managing the transition so accountability narrows rather than widens equity gaps on future-ready competencies.

We communicate about AI only in reaction to events, and we have no process for hearing and addressing public concerns.

We recognize the need to build trust proactively and are planning our communications, but we still announce decisions rather than engaging people before them.

We communicate proactively with families, educators, communities, and policymakers about AI use, data protections, human oversight, risks, and benefits, and we distinguish the instructional value of technology use from screen time. We have a clear process for handling concerns, and we engage stakeholders before decisions, report back on what changed, and return to them as implementation unfolds.

Level 3 PLUS: We share credible statewide data in our public communications, offer communications in the state's major home languages, and prepare responses to foreseeable concerns and incidents (e.g., data privacy, academic integrity, screen time) before they arise.