France's education digital-services order, signed 7 September and published 23 September 2026, conditions classroom pupil use of generative AI in services used by public colleges and lycees on anonymised, secured GAR access, with teacher supervision from 4e and teacher-defined autonomous use from lycee

Signature date and publication date

The order is dated 7 September 2026, the day it was signed. It appeared in the Journal officiel on 23 September 2026, JORF n°0222, as texte n°27. That second date is the one the text itself uses: Annex 4 states its compliance periods as "Délai applicable en mois à partir de la date de publication de l'arrêté", a period in months from the date the order was published. The order sets no entry-into-force date of its own. Article 5 says only that it "sera publié au Journal officiel de la République française", and we do not state a commencement date for it.

The order was signed for the minister by delegation, by the directeur du numerique pour l'education. Its recitals record that it was notified to the European Commission under the technical regulations procedure, notification n° 2026/0270/FR of 28 May 2026.

What Requirement N° 11 actually permits

The AI rules sit in Annex 3, the reference framework on responsible digital practice, in section 5.4. Requirement N° 11 reads, in the original: "Les services/ressources numériques éducatifs peuvent intégrer des outils d'IA générative pour une utilisation en classe par les élèves, uniquement si leur accès est réellement anonymisé et sécurisé à travers le GAR, à partir de la classe de 4e sous supervision d'un enseignant et en autonomie à partir du lycée dans un cadre défini par l'enseignant."

Our translation, not an official one: digital educational services and resources may integrate generative AI tools for use in class by pupils only if their access is genuinely anonymised and secured through the GAR, from the 4e year under a teacher's supervision, and autonomously from lycee within a framework the teacher defines.

Three conditions stack. Access has to run through the GAR, the ministry's resource access manager. It has to be genuinely anonymised and secured; the text says "réellement". And the age gate differs by setting: supervised from 4e, autonomous only from lycee and even then inside a teacher-defined frame. Read literally, the requirement is permissive. It does not require any service to offer generative AI; it limits how one may.

Requirement N° 10, immediately before it, states that digital services for education "doivent prendre en compte les principes fixés dans le « cadre d'usage de l'IA en éducation (34) »", in our translation have to take into account the principles set in the ministry's framework for AI use in education. The (34) is the text's footnote call: the order points to that framework by footnote; it does not reproduce it.

The compliance clock, and a gap in the table

Article 2 is the binding hook. Under it, the systems, services and digital tools used in public colleges and lycees for their educational missions "sont conformes" to the reference frameworks in Annexes 1 to 3, "selon les modalités et dans les délais prévus par l'annexe 4".

Annex 4 lists two AI criteria. Criterion 35 covers the capacity of an application offering AI-based features to take the framework for AI use in education into account. Criterion 36 covers, where generative AI features are offered, the capacity to set up teacher supervision for in-class use from 4e and an autonomous mode from lycee within the teacher's framework. Both carry 10 months for timetable services, ENT and similar presentation services, content services, and administrative services. Both are marked "Sans objet", not applicable, for infrastructure management services and for vie scolaire tools. That label applies to these two rows only; it is not a general exemption.

Interfacing with the GAR is a separate row, criterion 7, with its own periods: 10 months for ENT and similar presentation services and for content services, 22 months for vie scolaire tools, and "Sans objet" for timetable, infrastructure and administrative services. So there is no single GAR deadline across service types.

Criterion 36 does not mention the GAR or anonymisation. Requirement N° 11 does. On our reading, a vendor who treated the Annex 4 row as the whole of the obligation would miss the access condition in the requirement Article 2 makes binding. The order does not itself address how the two are meant to be read together.

The AI definition it chose

Section 5.1 of Annex 3 defines AI as any digital service built on probabilistic algorithms, relying on statistical processing of large datasets on which they are trained, and able to produce results comparable to those of human cognitive activity. It separates predictive AI, which classifies or anticipates, from generative AI, which produces text, image, sound or video.

It then reproduces the definition of an AI system from Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 as a separate paragraph. The two are not the same test. That the annex sets its own functional definition beside the AI Act's is our observation; the text does not explain the choice.

Section 5.3 also describes rules the ministry's framework sets for pupils, including that using generative AI for homework without the teacher's explicit authorisation and without personal work of appropriation "est considéré comme une fraude". The order reports that rule as part of the existing framework. It does not create it.

What the order does not do

The AI requirements and their Annex 4 compliance rows specify no AI-specific sanction. Annex 3 separately describes, in its accessibility section 3.4, financial sanctions that ARCOM may impose for failures of accessibility declaration obligations under existing law; the order does not create those sanctions. It does not regulate teachers' own use of AI, and Article 2 names public colleges and lycees, so we say nothing about private schools or primary schools. Annex 3 is a broader framework covering eco-design, accessibility and the right to disconnect; the AI provisions are two requirements and two table rows within it.

It also sets no calendar date. The 10 month period is expressed only as months from publication, and we have not converted it into a date under French rules on computing time.

What we did not verify

What we opened: the JORF version of the order on Legifrance (JORFTEXT000054883370). A direct request to Legifrance returned HTTP 403, a bot challenge, so we read the page through a scraping service. From a full-text capture saved during this run we read Articles 1 to 5, section 5 of Annex 3, the whole of Annex 4 and the signature block. A later live re-check through the same service on 24 September 2026 (UTC) returned HTTP 200 and the same wording for Article 2, Article 5, the signature date, Annex 4 row 36 and the Annex 3 accessibility sanctions paragraph. That re-check did not return Requirement N° 11 or Annex 4 rows 7 and 35; for those our source is the saved full-text capture.

What we did not open: the authenticated JORF PDF, the ministry's framework for AI use in education that Requirement N° 10 refers to, Articles R. 421-78-3 and R. 421-78-4 of the code de l'education, the 2017 order governing the GAR, and the notification file n° 2026/0270/FR. We searched Annexes 1 and 2 for AI provisions and found only a job title abbreviation; we did not read them in full.

What we refuse to claim: we give no calendar deadline, no AI-specific penalty, and no view on whether the order reaches private or primary schools. We do not attribute the homework-fraud rule to this order. Quotations are reproduced as they appear on Legifrance with ASCII punctuation, and translations are ours.

Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.

Related briefings

• Estonia's circular on AI apps in schools and human oversight
• Council of Europe AI framework convention
• France's CNIL on AI models and personal data
• Europe AI regulation tracker
• AI Regulation News hub