AI Regulation Tracker / Action
Illinois Bars AI From Evaluating Public-School Teachers Under New Law
Illinois Public Act 104-0565, the bill known as SB2909, was signed on July 10, 2026 and takes effect January 1, 2027. It bars evaluators from using an artificial intelligence tool to score a teacher's evaluation and bars teachers from using AI to meet their performance requirements. This is a binding statute, not guidance.
Illinois just answered a question a lot of school districts have been circling: can you point an AI tool at a teacher and let it help decide how good that teacher is. The answer, starting January 1, 2027, is no. Public Act 104-0565, the bill that moved through the General Assembly as SB2909, amends the part of the School Code that governs how certified employees are evaluated, and it draws the line at the exact spot where evaluation stops being clerical and starts being a judgment about a person's work.
What the law actually restricts
The core rule is narrow and specific. An evaluator cannot use an artificial intelligence tool to assign a "numerical score or other qualitative rating for any component of a teacher's evaluation." That prohibition also reaches any evaluation task that requires professional judgment. In other words, the scoring and the judgment calls have to be made by a person, not delegated to a model that spits out a rating.
The law does not ban AI from the building. An AI tool is still allowed to support the evaluator with administrative tasks, the scheduling, the paperwork, the logistical scaffolding around an evaluation. What it cannot do is reach into the substance. And when an AI tool is used anywhere in the process, its name and purpose have to be disclosed to the teacher being evaluated. That disclosure requirement is the part district policy writers should not skip, because it turns a quiet back-office choice into something the district has to be able to name and defend.
There is a second prohibition that cuts the other way. Teachers themselves cannot use AI to meet their performance requirements or to generate their portion of an evaluation. The statute treats the evaluation as something both sides have to produce with their own professional work, not with a tool standing in for it.
The sponsor framed it in plain terms. State Senator Christopher Belt said, "I believe that our teachers should be judged based on actual observations and professional judgement, not by AI software." That is the whole design of the law in one sentence: observation and human judgment on both sides, with AI kept to the administrative edges and disclosed when it shows up.
Signed, but not yet in force
I want to be exact about timing, because it changes what you do this month versus next year. The bill was signed on July 10, 2026. It does not take effect until January 1, 2027. So nothing is being enforced today. What exists today is a fixed, known deadline. Between now and January, Illinois districts have a window to get their evaluation instruments, their evaluator training, and any evaluation software procurement into compliance before the rule is live. Signed July 10, 2026; effective January 1, 2027; not yet in force. The ban reaches AI-assigned evaluation scores and ratings, not administrative support.
Do not read this as a comprehensive AI-in-schools law either. It is targeted. It governs teacher evaluations under the certified-employee evaluation article of the School Code. It does not touch AI in the classroom, AI in grading of students, or AI in the district's other operations. Illinois moved a separate set of AI measures in the same period, but this act is the one aimed squarely at how teachers get evaluated.
What district counsel and HR should do before January
If you advise or run evaluation programs in an Illinois district, this is a compliance date to put on the calendar now, not a think-piece to file away. A few concrete moves follow directly from the text.
First, inventory your evaluation tools. Any platform that generates a score, a rating, or a recommendation about a teacher's performance is now a problem if an evaluator leans on its output for the graded, judgment parts of the evaluation. You need to know which of your systems do that and where a human is or is not actually making the call.
Second, separate the administrative from the substantive in writing. The law allows AI for administrative support and forbids it for scoring and professional judgment. Your policy and your evaluator training should draw that line clearly, so an evaluator knows what a tool is allowed to touch and what it is not.
Third, build the disclosure step in now. If any AI tool is used in the evaluation workflow, the teacher has to be told its name and its purpose. That is a process you can design once and document, and it is far easier to stand up before the deadline than to reconstruct after a grievance.
Fourth, close the loop with teachers on their side of the prohibition. Teachers cannot use AI to meet performance requirements or produce their part of an evaluation. That belongs in your staff guidance and, where relevant, in the conversation with your union, so expectations are set before January rather than litigated after.
The wider signal for education and employment AI
Even if you are nowhere near Illinois, this law is worth tracking as a pattern. It is a state legislature drawing a bright line at AI-driven evaluation of employees in a specific, high-stakes context, keeping the scoring and the judgment with humans while permitting AI for administrative support, and attaching a disclosure duty when AI is in the loop. That structure, human judgment for the consequential decision plus transparency about any AI involvement, is showing up across employment and public-sector AI rules. If you are a school-district counsel or HR leader in another state, the useful question is whether your own evaluation and performance-management systems could satisfy that structure if your legislature adopted something similar. Illinois has now given you a concrete template to test against.
Questions professionals are asking
Is this a binding law or just guidance?
It is a binding statute. SB2909 was enacted as Public Act 104-0565, amending the Evaluation of Certified Employees Article of the Illinois School Code. It creates enforceable restrictions on how Illinois public-school teacher evaluations may be conducted.
When does it take effect?
It was signed on July 10, 2026 and takes effect January 1, 2027. Nothing is enforced before that date, so the practical deadline for compliance is January 1, 2027.
Does it ban all AI use in Illinois schools?
No. It is targeted at teacher evaluations. An evaluator cannot use AI to assign a numerical score or qualitative rating for any component of an evaluation, or for any task requiring professional judgment. AI can still support the evaluator with administrative tasks, and the law does not govern AI in the classroom or other district operations.
Can teachers use AI in the evaluation process?
Not to meet their performance requirements or to generate their portion of the evaluation. The law bars teachers from using AI for those purposes, matching the restriction it places on evaluators.
What is the disclosure requirement?
If an AI tool is used in the evaluation process, its name and purpose must be disclosed to the teacher being evaluated. Districts should build that disclosure step into their evaluation workflow before the January 1, 2027 effective date.
RELATED BRIEFINGS
Browse the full AI Regulation News tracker
Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how this statute applies to your district or situation with qualified counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.