Month: September 2026

Should Voters Have to Prove Their Identity and Citizenship? Twelve States Decide

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

When voters in a dozen states open their ballots this fall, they will find questions not just about candidates but about the rules of voting itself. Six states will decide whether to require voters to show identification. Six will decide whether to write into their constitutions that only U.S. citizens may vote in any election. Arizona will decide both at once. Ballotpedia counts 2026 as the year with the most voter identification measures ever to appear on statewide ballots in a single election.1

The measures arrive as a federal version of the same debate has stalled. The SAVE America Act, President Donald Trump’s top legislative priority, would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and photo identification to cast a ballot. Versions of the bill have passed the House of Representatives, but there has never been enough agreement between the House and Senate to send it to the president’s desk, in part because some Republican senators oppose it.2 So proponents of stricter voting laws are taking their arguments to the states, where ballot measures let voters decide directly.

Voter ID polls as one of the most popular election policies in the country. A Pew Research Center survey in August 2025 found that 83% of U.S. adults favor requiring government-issued photo ID to vote, up from 76% in 2018. Support is nearly universal among Republicans, at 95%, and has grown among Democrats, from 63% in 2018 to 71%.3 The same survey found that 80% favor at least two weeks of early in-person voting, but that is not included in the SAVE America Act and is not on state ballots this year.4

What Is Being Proposed?

The measures fall into two groups.

  • Voter Identification: California’s Proposition 39 would require voters to present government-issued ID when voting in person and to write the last four digits of a government ID number on the envelope when voting by mail. It would also require officials to verify citizenship using government data where possible, report annually on the share of registrations verified, and issue a free state voter ID card on request. Today, a California voter’s identity is established by signature.5 Nevada’s Question 7, which mirrors California’s and passed with 73% of the vote in 2024, is on the ballot for the second approval Nevada requires for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments.6 Colorado’s Amendment 84 would require mail ballots to include the voter’s signature and the last four digits of a Social Security, driver’s license, or state ID number; because it adds language to the constitution, it needs 55% to pass.7 North Carolina and Ohio would place existing statutory ID requirements into their state constitutions, so that a future legislature could not repeal them by ordinary law.8
  • Citizen-Only Voting: Federal law has barred noncitizens from voting in presidential and congressional elections since 1996, and every state constitution makes citizenship a qualification for state elections, though not always explicitly.9 What the November measures address is the local level. A handful of jurisdictions in California, Maryland, and Vermont, along with the District of Columbia, allow noncitizens to vote in municipal or school board elections; more than a dozen Maryland municipalities do so, the most of any state.10 Amendments in Arkansas, Kansas, South Dakota, and West Virginia, and a statutory initiative in Alaska, would prohibit noncitizen voting in any election within the state. Arizona bundles a citizenship requirement with a constitutional voter ID mandate and a ban on foreign contributions to state campaigns, even though Arizona’s constitution already limits voting to citizens.11 Eighteen states already have such prohibitions in their constitutions; eight of them were added in 2024.12

Arguments in Favor of the Measures

Supporters frame the requirements as basic safeguards most voters already expect. California Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) called the state’s measure “a bipartisan, common-sense reform to restore public trust and confidence in our elections,” and said that nearly half of the 1.4 million signatures gathered to qualify it came from Democrats and independents.13 Julie Luckey, chairperson of Californians for Voter ID, has argued that California is an outlier among the 36 states with ID laws: “Voter ID is simply a common-sense policy.”14

In Nevada, the committee that wrote the official argument for Question 7 drew an analogy to everyday life, noting that people already show ID to apply for a job, board a plane, or check into a hotel. It cited a poll finding that 74% of Nevadans favor an ID requirement, including 62% of Democrats, as evidence that the policy reflects broad consensus rather than one party’s agenda.15 In North Carolina, State Rep. Mike Schietzelt (R-Wake) described the state’s amendment as a balancing act: “You’re trying to balance security with access.”16

The citizenship amendments rest on a different argument: that silence in a state constitution is a vulnerability. Kansas State Rep. Pat Proctor (R) argued that there are currently “no decisions and no statutes preventing a municipality from allowing non-citizens to vote” in local elections.17 West Virginia State Sen. Patricia Rucker (R-Jefferson), a naturalized citizen and lead sponsor of Amendment 1, put the case for constitutional language directly: “That’s law. Law can change, as we know.”18 Jack Tomczak, vice president of outreach for Americans for Citizen Voting, the group promoting the amendments nationally, described the goal plainly: If a state wants noncitizen voting at any level, it should have to “put it to the people and amend the constitution to do it.”19

Arguments Against the Measures

Opponents argue that the measures address a problem the evidence does not support, and that they impose real costs on real voters to do so. California election officials have said that audits show the mail-ballot system is secure; Matt Lesenyie, a political scientist at California State University, Long Beach, called Proposition 39 a solution in search of a problem, noting the absence of any high-profile fraud convictions.20 Abdi Soltani, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, said the initiative is about “erecting barriers that will keep eligible Californians from exercising their fundamental right to vote as citizens.”21 In North Carolina, State Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford) called the amendment an unnecessary hurdle and objected to writing it into the constitution, where “it’s difficult to undo it once it’s in.”22

The cost argument has two parts. California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates Proposition 39 would raise state and local costs by tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars a year—less than a quarter of one percent of the state general fund. Any savings, the analysis notes, would come from fewer registered voters, including “eligible voters lacking government-issued identification,” and “likely would not exceed the costs of the measure.”23 The other cost would fall on individuals. Nevada’s official argument against Question 7 cites a University of Maryland survey finding that nearly 21% of voting-age Americans lack a driver’s license with their current name and address, and points to rural and tribal voters who would have to travel long distances to a DMV. Supporters respond that the same survey found only 1% lack any acceptable photo ID.24

Opponents of the citizenship amendments generally do not defend noncitizen voting; they question what the amendments are for. Since noncitizens already cannot vote in these states, critics say the measures are symbolic at best and a pretext at worst. Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families warned that the legislature could use the amendment as grounds to pass proof-of-citizenship requirements in 2027, “establishing requirements that many qualified voters could not meet.”25 Julie Archer of West Virginia Citizen Action Group said that Amendment 1 “scapegoats our immigrant neighbors to sow mistrust in our election results.”26 Critics also note that the localities that allow noncitizen residents to vote on school boards chose to through their own democratic processes, and that statewide amendments override that choice.

Broader Questions

Both sides invoke public confidence, and both may be right about different voters. Supporters argue that a visible ID check reassures people who doubt the system; opponents argue that the confidence of a voter who is turned away is also part of the picture. The polling suggests most Americans want both security and access. This year’s ballots ask about only one of those.

Discussion Questions

  1. What have you heard from friends, family members, and others in your life—including people and groups you engage with online—about voter ID or noncitizen voting?
  2. Supporters compare showing ID to vote with showing ID to board a plane or check into a hotel. Opponents say voting is a right, not a service. Where do you fall on the aptness of this comparison?
  3. Which do you think is more harmful to a democracy: some people voting who shouldn’t be allowed to vote, or people who should be eligible being blocked?
  4. California’s nonpartisan analysis estimates Proposition 39 would cost up to a few hundred million dollars a year. How should voters weigh a cost like that against a benefit, such as public confidence, that is hard to measure?
  5. North Carolina, Ohio, and West Virginia would move existing laws from statute into the state constitution. Why might supporters want that, and why might opponents object even if they accept the law as it stands?
  6. If you were voting in one of these states, how would you vote on a voter ID measure? A citizenship measure? What factors would guide your decisions?

 

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

Close Up is proud to be the nation’s leading nonprofit civic education organization, working with schools and districts across the country since 1971. If you would like to partner with us or learn more about our experiential learning programs, professional development, or curriculum design and consulting, contact us today! 

 

Sources

Image Credit: Ann in the uk | Shutterstock
[1] Ballotpedia News, “Colorado mail ballot voter ID initiative becomes seventh voter ID measure certified for 2026—the most in a single year,” August 28, 2026: https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/08/28/colorado-mail-ballot-voter-id-initiative-becomes-seventh-voter-id-measure-certified-for-2026-the-most-in-a-single-year/
[2] NPR, “Republicans’ sweeping election overhaul fails in the Senate,” June 4, 2026: https://www.npr.org/2026/06/04/nx-s1-5751145/save-act-senate-vote-trump; The Hill, “4 GOP senators vote against adding SAVE America Act to budget package,” April 24, 2026: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5844521-save-america-act-budget-package/
[3] Pew Research Center, “Majority of Americans Continue to Back Expanded Early Voting, Voting by Mail, Voter ID,” August 22, 2025: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/08/22/majority-of-americans-continue-to-back-expanded-early-voting-voting-by-mail-voter-id/
[4] Pew Research Center, August 22, 2025.
[5] California Legislative Analyst’s Office, “Proposition 39,” analysis for the November 3, 2026 ballot: https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=39&year=2026
[6] The Nevada Independent, “Tracking 2026 Nevada ballot measures: What’s up for a vote and what fell short,” July 31, 2026: https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/tracking-2026-nevada-ballot-measures-whats-up-for-a-vote-and-what-fell-short
[7] Colorado Secretary of State, “Amendments and Propositions on the 2026 Ballot”: https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/ballot/contacts/2026.html
[8] WUNC, “Explainer: The constitutional amendments on the 2026 ballot,” September 22, 2026: https://www.wunc.org/politics/2026-09-22/explainer-nc-constitutional-amendments-2026-ballot-property-tax-voter-id; Ohio Capital Journal, “What is Issue 3 on the Ohio ballot?” July 29, 2026: https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2026/07/29/what-is-issue-3-on-the-ohio-ballot/
[9] Ballotpedia News, “Six citizenship voting measures on the ballot in 2026 continue historical trend,” July 8, 2026: https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/07/08/six-citizenship-voting-measures-on-the-ballot-in-2026-continue-historical-trend/
[10] Ballotpedia, “Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States”: https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States
[xi] Arizona Secretary of State, 2026 Ballot Measures, Proposition 144 (Election Requirements): https://azsos.gov/elections/ballot-measures; Ballotpedia News, July 8, 2026.
[12] Pluribus News / State Affairs, “Voter ID, noncitizen voting questions on ballots across the country,” September 14, 2026 (republished by Arizona Capitol Times): https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2026/09/14/voter-id-noncitizen-voting-questions-on-ballots-across-the-country-2/
[13] CBS Los Angeles, “Prop 39 opponents rally against California’s proposed voter ID law,” September 9, 2026: https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/california-prop-39-voter-id-law/
[14] LA Focus, “On Your November Ballot: Proposition 39 Puts California at the Center of the National Voter ID Debate,” August 3, 2026: https://www.lafocusnews.com/voting-rights/on-your-november-ballot-proposition-39-puts-california-at-the-center-of-the-national-voter-id-debate-bcd0484b
[15] Clark County, Nevada, 2024 Sample Ballot, State Question No. 7, arguments for and against passage and rebuttals: https://www.clarkcountynv.gov/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:c5114efd-1f2e-45b9-bfd6-74de7dd7bb32/original/as/nv7-24g.pdf
[16] WUNC, “Explainer: The constitutional amendments on the 2026 ballot,” September 22, 2026.
[17] Ballotpedia, “Kansas Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment (2026)”: https://ballotpedia.org/Kansas_Citizenship_Voting_Requirement_Amendment_(2026)
[18] West Virginia Watch, “WV voters will decide on proposed citizen-only voting constitutional amendment in November,” September 15, 2026: https://westvirginiawatch.com/2026/09/15/wv-voters-will-decide-on-proposed-citizen-only-voting-constitutional-amendment-in-november/
[19] Pluribus News / State Affairs, September 14, 2026.
[20] CBS Los Angeles, September 9, 2026.
[21] ACLU of Northern California, “Voting Rights Groups Launch Campaign to Defeat Voter ID Ballot Initiative,” March 2026: https://www.aclunorcal.org/press-releases/voting-rights-groups-launch-campaign-to-defeat-voter-id-ballot-initiative-that-would-restrict-access-to-the-ballot-for-millions-of-californians/
[22] WUNC, September 22, 2026.
[23] California Legislative Analyst’s Office, “Proposition 39.”
[24] Clark County, Nevada, 2024 Sample Ballot, State Question No. 7.
[25] Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, “New laws could make it harder for legally eligible Arkansans to vote”: https://www.aradvocates.org/new-laws-could-make-it-harder-for-legally-eligible-arkansans-to-vote/
[26] West Virginia Watch, September 15, 2026.

 

Ava Kate, Student, AR

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

Throughout my time on this program, I made so many lasting friendships and heard so many different opinions on pressing matters that WE will be voting on in the upcoming elections. We learned so many lessons. From learning the valuable history of our country as it reaches 250 years of independence, to learning how to engage in thoughtful conversations even when it’s hard.

Andrew, Parent, NE

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

Close Up was a great experience for our student, and he had an extremely good time. He came back with more confidence and wider understanding of our world. If there is one thing I could say to any parents… The amount of worry that you will have about your child embarking on such a trip so far from home is minimized by the experience. They are safe and having a blast.

Hoover Institution | Hoover’s National Civics Fellows Program Expands in Second Year

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

Hoover Institution (Stanford, CA)— A civics fellowship program launched last year at Hoover’s Center for Revitalizing American Institutions (RAI) is growing in size and scope in its second year.

The National Civics Fellowship is now a two-year-long program, and its four initial participants are being joined by three new ones.

READ FULL ARTICLE >

 

 

 

 

Big Tech Goes to School: Who Decides How AI Enters the Classroom?

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

“The next major AI battleground is the classroom,” Axios reported this year, as Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, and Anthropic race to make their tools the ones teachers and students reach for. “Whoever wins schools now could shape how Gen Alpha learns, studies and interacts with AI for years to come.”1

The money confirms that framing. A market analysis prepared for the Christian Science Monitor found that education’s AI sector—virtually nonexistent before ChatGPT’s 2022 release—grew to $730 million in 2026 and is projected to reach $18.5 billion by 2036, with a lengthening list of startups such as MagicSchool, SchoolAI, and Buddy competing alongside the giants.2

Whether AI actually improves teaching and learning is a separate question (see our previous post). This post asks a different one: As billions of dollars flow from technology companies into teacher training, curriculum, legislation, and free classroom products, who is shaping how AI enters a child’s education—and how should students and educators evaluate the interests involved? The facts below are matters of public record. What they add up to is the debate.

Where the Money Is Going

The largest single initiative is the National Academy for AI Instruction, a $23 million partnership between the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), its New York City affiliate the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), and three AI companies. Microsoft is contributing $12.5 million over five years. OpenAI is contributing $10 million—$8 million in cash and $2 million in-kind, meaning engineering support, computing access, and credits to use its own products. Anthropic committed $500,000 in the project’s first year. Based at UFT headquarters in Manhattan, the academy aims to train 400,000 educators—roughly one in ten U.S. teachers—by 2030.3

The federal government has organized a parallel channel. The White House’s AI education pledge, announced in mid-2025 under President Donald Trump’s executive order on AI in education, has drawn commitments from more than 60 companies—including Adobe, Amazon, Google, Intel, Microsoft, NVIDIA, OpenAI, and MagicSchool—to supply funding, curriculum, technology, and professional development to K-12 schools.4 At a White House event in September 2025, Google said it would direct $150 million toward AI education and offer its Gemini for Education tools to every high school in America, Amazon pledged to train four million people in AI skills and support AI curricula for 10,000 educators by 2028, and Anthropic committed to a free teacher-training curriculum and cybersecurity education funding.5

Companies are also going directly to teachers. In February 2026, Google announced a three-year partnership with ISTE+ASCD, a leading education nonprofit, to offer AI literacy training—built around Google’s own Gemini and NotebookLM tools—to all six million U.S. K-12 teachers and college faculty.6 OpenAI launched ChatGPT for Teachers in November 2025, free for verified educators; Anthropic followed in July 2026 with Claude for Teachers, also free.7 The free periods are temporary: According to the Christian Science Monitor, Anthropic’s complimentary access expires in June 2027 and OpenAI’s in June 2028.8

What Is Being Proposed in Congress?

The industry’s preferences have shown up in proposed legislation. The Literacy in Future Technologies Artificial Intelligence (LIFT AI) Act would create a competitive, merit-reviewed grant program at the National Science Foundation to fund AI literacy curricula, teacher professional development, and evaluation methods for K-12 education. Reps. Tom Kean Jr. (R-N.J.) and Gabe Amo (D-R.I.) introduced the House version in September 2025, and Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a co-chair of the Senate AI Caucus, introduced a Senate companion in April 2026, framing the bill as implementing President Trump’s national AI policy framework.9 Its endorsers include the AFT, Google, OpenAI, Microsoft, HP Inc., and two major technology trade associations.10

Even with this significant investment in shaping public policy, however, the AI industry does not win every legislative battle—and endorsement is not enactment. An earlier version of the LIFT AI Act, backed in 2024 by Google, IBM, and the technology industry’s leading trade association, cleared a House committee and then died without receiving a floor vote.11 The current House version advanced out of committee in June on a 34-1 vote; whether it fares better than its predecessor, and whether the Senate acts at all, remains open. Companies may back AI-literacy funding because it would expand their future market, because they believe students genuinely need these skills, or for both reasons at once—the bill’s fate will not settle that question either way.

Arguments That the Partnerships Serve Students and Teachers

The unions make an argument grounded in leverage. AFT President Randi Weingarten has said skepticism guided her negotiations, but that schools lack what the industry has: resources. “There is no one else who is helping us with this. That’s why we felt we needed to work with the largest corporations in the world,” she told the Associated Press. “We went to them—they didn’t come to us.” Both the AFT and the National Education Association have stressed that educators—not the companies—design the training content, and the AFT describes its approach as “agnostic,” meaning any company’s tools can be used in a session.12 Weingarten has argued that the academy is where educators will learn to use AI “wisely, safely and ethically,” with teachers drafting the guardrails themselves.13 On this view, partnering is how teachers get a seat at the table rather than having tools imposed on them—the alternative being that AI arrives in classrooms anyway, shaped entirely by vendors.

Educators leading the training efforts describe unmet demand. “We have just heard so much feedback from teachers that are just saying, ‘We are not prepared,’” said Richard Culatta, CEO of ISTE+ASCD, of the Google partnership, adding that teachers lack the background “for the realities of teaching in an AI world.”14 Supporters of the LIFT AI Act make a parallel case for public investment: Sen. Schiff argued the bill ensures “that students and educators have the resources they need” to compete in a changing economy, and the AFT endorsed it as support for “hands-on learning, commonsense guardrails and educator training.”15

Arguments That the Funding Patterns Warrant Scrutiny

Critics see a market-capture strategy wearing the clothes of philanthropy. Benjamin Riley, founder of the education nonprofit Deans for Impact and the think tank Cognitive Resonance, said observers should “100% worry” that the partnerships represent a play for market share. “It’s very obvious from a product standpoint that they see education as one of, if not the primary, place to go with their product,” he said, questioning whether AI training is what union members actually want from their union.16 Chris Agnew, director of Stanford University’s Generative AI for Education Hub, made the same point about the free teacher products with expiration dates: “They want to capture the market. We’ve seen this many times before.”17 Chalkbeat noted a further exchange embedded in the academy arrangement: The companies gain a “wealth of information” about how to adapt their products to classrooms.18

Others focus on what the arrangements leave unexamined. Elizabeth Laird of the Center for Democracy & Technology told Time she hopes the AFT training confronts AI’s documented risks, which she said include diminished trust between students and educators, inaccurate information, and disincentives for critical thinking.19 Some rank-and-file educators have voiced sharper doubts. Veteran teacher and education writer Nancy Bailey argued that companies with a long record of undervaluing teachers are hard to trust as partners, writing that a union should be a teachers’ advocate, not a product’s.20 Even Weingarten’s own positions reflect the tension. She has called for banning student-facing AI in elementary grades while simultaneously promoting teacher training in the technology.21 Criticism comes from the political right as well. The watchdog group Defending Education argues the union-company partnerships give unions a channel to embed their ideological priorities in classroom AI tools.22

Recent events have sharpened the oversight question—and in September, the nation’s two largest school districts acted. The groundwork was laid over the summer: In June 2026, the Los Angeles schools superintendent resigned after an FBI raid connected to an investigation of a district AI chatbot contract, and New York City’s schools chancellor paused AI software purchases amid demands for a moratorium.23 On September 2, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels announced what they called the nation’s broadest student-facing AI policy: a one-year moratorium on generative AI for students in 2-K through eighth grade—nearly 600,000 students—with companion chatbots prohibited in every grade and all classroom technology subjected to a new review that will bar tools deemed not “mission-critical to learning.” “The tech industry wants us to believe that A.I.-powered early education is not only inevitable, but necessary,” Mamdani said. “We do not see it that way.”24

The policy is a pause with carve-outs rather than a blanket ban. Up to 50,000 high school students will use five vetted AI tools in teacher-supervised pilots, all high schoolers will take twice-yearly AI literacy modules, teachers will keep AI for planning, and exceptions will protect assistive technology for students with disabilities.25 Days later, Los Angeles Unified suspended student access to generative AI on district devices across all grades while a new committee develops guardrails—a moratorium imposed by administrators rather than a board vote, to the surprise of some board members. Advocates claimed the moment—Lila Byock, founder of Schools Beyond Screens, said the moratoriums show “the people have the power to reclaim U.S. public schools from corporate influence”26—yet the industry was in the room too. Tech:NYC, the city’s technology trade association, praised the policy, urged expanding student access in the future, and holds a seat on the coalition that will recommend what comes next.27

To provide oversight of what schools purchase—and what AI companies can collect from students in return—states are beginning to act. Vermont is advancing a requirement that education technology vendors register with the state and certify their privacy practices annually; Maryland’s Artificial Intelligence Ready Schools Act would establish state evaluation and certification of AI tools and align district procurement with state guidance; and Idaho’s newly enacted framework directs procurement safeguards for AI tools.28 Wyoming’s education department provides districts with evaluation tools and a “threat assessment” warning that, absent federal standards, responsibility for checking every tool “for safety, for privacy, for whether it even works” falls on local officials.29

Broader Questions

None of this requires assuming bad faith. Companies can believe their tools help students and want to sell them; unions can want both training resources and influence over how AI develops; lawmakers can support AI literacy because constituents will need it. Interests can align—and the alignment itself is the thing worth seeing clearly. The same announcement can honestly be described as an investment in teachers and as an acquisition of future customers. What disclosure makes possible is the question every civics classroom can ask: When the entities funding the training, endorsing the legislation, and giving away the products are the same entities that will profit from adoption, what would independent judgment look like, and who is positioned to exercise it?

Discussion Questions

  1. Have you encountered AI tools at school that were provided free by a technology company? Did you know at the time who paid for them, and would knowing have changed how you thought about them?
  2. AFT President Randi Weingarten says the union approached the companies—not the other way around—because no one else would fund teacher training. Does who initiated the partnership matter to how you evaluate it? Why or why not?
  3. Critics note that free teacher products from OpenAI and Anthropic have expiration dates. Is a temporary free product a public service, a marketing strategy, or both? Does the answer change what schools should do?
  4. The tech companies gain data about classrooms and future customers from these partnerships, while schools gain funding and training they say no one else offers. When is an exchange like this a fair trade, and when is it a problem?
  5. New York City’s AI moratorium was announced by its mayor and schools chancellor as formal policy; Los Angeles’ was imposed by district administrators, surprising some school board members. Who should decide whether and how AI enters classrooms—the federal government, states, school boards, district administrators, or educators?
  6. If you were a school board member offered free AI tools and industry-funded teacher training, what questions would you ask before accepting? What conditions, if any, would you attach?

Related Posts

 

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

Close Up is proud to be the nation’s leading nonprofit civic education organization, working with schools and districts across the country since 1971. If you would like to partner with us or learn more about our experiential learning programs, professional development, or curriculum design and consulting, contact us today! 

 

Sources

Image Credit: Ann in the uk | Shutterstock
[1] Axios, “Anthropic, Google and Microsoft fight to win teachers,” January 21, 2026: https://www.axios.com/2026/01/21/google-anthropic-microsoft-education
[2] Aaron Glantz, “Education’s AI ‘gold rush’ comes with risks for students,” The Christian Science Monitor, August 7, 2026 (citing market analysis by Future Market Insights): https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2026/0807/ai-risks-schools-students
[3] Time, “Microsoft, OpenAI, Anthropic Fund $23M Teacher AI Push,” July 2025: https://time.com/7301335/ai-education-microsoft-openai-anthropic/; American Federation of Teachers, “AFT to Launch National Academy for AI Instruction,” July 8, 2025: https://www.aft.org/press-release/aft-launch-national-academy-ai-instruction-microsoft-openai-anthropic-and-united; CNN Business, “Microsoft, OpenAI and Anthropic are investing millions to train teachers how to use AI,” July 8, 2025: https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/08/tech/ai-teacher-training-academy-microsoft-openai-anthropic; OpenAI, “Working with 400,000 teachers to shape the future of AI in schools”: https://openai.com/global-affairs/aft/
[4] Axios, “White House announces AI education pledge,” June 30, 2025: https://www.axios.com/pro/tech-policy/2025/06/30/white-house-announces-ai-education-pledge
[5] EdTech Innovation Hub, “White House gathers tech giants to support AI education and workforce training,” September 5, 2025: https://www.edtechinnovationhub.com/news/white-house-gathers-big-tech-giants-to-back-ai-education-with-funding-training-and-tools; The American Presidency Project, “White House Press Release – Major Organizations Commit to Supporting AI Education”: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/white-house-press-release-major-organizations-commit-supporting-ai-education
[6] ISTE+ASCD, “ISTE+ASCD and Google Partner to Provide AI Literacy Training to Six Million U.S. Educators,” February 23, 2026: https://iste.org/news/iste-ascd-and-google-partner-to-provide-ai-literacy-training-to-six-million-u-s-educators; The 74, “Exclusive: New Google Partnership a ‘Sizable Investment’ in AI for Teachers,” February 23, 2026: https://www.the74million.org/article/exclusive-new-google-partnership-a-sizable-investment-in-ai-for-teachers/
[7] EdWeek, “ChatGPT for Teachers: A Boon, a Bust, or Just ‘Meh’?” November 2025: https://www.edweek.org/technology/chatgpt-for-teachers-a-boon-a-bust-or-just-meh/2025/11; EdWeek, “Anthropic Launches Claude for Teachers. Why Some Critics Are Concerned,” July 2026: https://www.edweek.org/technology/anthropic-launches-claude-for-teachers-why-some-critics-are-concerned/2026/07
[8] Aaron Glantz, “Education’s AI ‘gold rush’ comes with risks for students,” The Christian Science Monitor, August 7, 2026 (citing market analysis by Future Market Insights): https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2026/0807/ai-risks-schools-students
[9] S. 4414, 119th Congress, LIFT AI Act (introduced April 28, 2026): https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/4414; H.R. 5584, LIFT AI Act: https://republicans-science.house.gov/2026/6/h-r-5584-lift-ai-act; House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, “H.R. 9211, the LIFT AI Act” (118th Congress, passed by full committee, September 11, 2024): https://republicans-science.house.gov/2024/7/h-r-9211-lift-ai
[10] Office of Sen. Adam Schiff, “Sens. Schiff, Rounds Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Bolster Artificial Intelligence Literacy for Students,” April 2026: https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-sens-schiff-rounds-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-to-bolster-artificial-intelligence-literacy-for-students/; 404 Media, “OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft Back Bill to Fund ‘AI Literacy’ in Schools,” May 2026: https://www.404media.co/literacy-in-future-technologies-artificial-intelligence-act-adam-schiff-mike-rounds/
[11] S. 4414, 119th Congress, LIFT AI Act (introduced April 28, 2026): https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/4414; H.R. 5584, LIFT AI Act: https://republicans-science.house.gov/2026/6/h-r-5584-lift-ai-act; House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, “H.R. 9211, the LIFT AI Act” (118th Congress, passed by full committee, September 11, 2024): https://republicans-science.house.gov/2024/7/h-r-9211-lift-ai
[12] Associated Press, “Big Tech is paying millions to train teachers on AI, in a push to bring chatbots into classrooms,” October 2025: https://www.marketbeat.com/articles/big-tech-is-paying-millions-to-train-teachers-on-ai-in-a-push-to-bring-chatbots-into-classrooms-2025-10-16
[13] Time, “Microsoft, OpenAI, Anthropic Fund $23M Teacher AI Push,” July 2025: https://time.com/7301335/ai-education-microsoft-openai-anthropic/; American Federation of Teachers, “AFT to Launch National Academy for AI Instruction,” July 8, 2025: https://www.aft.org/press-release/aft-launch-national-academy-ai-instruction-microsoft-openai-anthropic-and-united; CNN Business, “Microsoft, OpenAI and Anthropic are investing millions to train teachers how to use AI,” July 8, 2025: https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/08/tech/ai-teacher-training-academy-microsoft-openai-anthropic; OpenAI, “Working with 400,000 teachers to shape the future of AI in schools”: https://openai.com/global-affairs/aft/
[14] ISTE+ASCD, “ISTE+ASCD and Google Partner to Provide AI Literacy Training to Six Million U.S. Educators,” February 23, 2026: https://iste.org/news/iste-ascd-and-google-partner-to-provide-ai-literacy-training-to-six-million-u-s-educators; The 74, “Exclusive: New Google Partnership a ‘Sizable Investment’ in AI for Teachers,” February 23, 2026: https://www.the74million.org/article/exclusive-new-google-partnership-a-sizable-investment-in-ai-for-teachers/
[15] Office of Sen. Adam Schiff, “Sens. Schiff, Rounds Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Bolster Artificial Intelligence Literacy for Students,” April 2026: https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-sens-schiff-rounds-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-to-bolster-artificial-intelligence-literacy-for-students/; 404 Media, “OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft Back Bill to Fund ‘AI Literacy’ in Schools,” May 2026: https://www.404media.co/literacy-in-future-technologies-artificial-intelligence-act-adam-schiff-mike-rounds/
[16] The 74, “Will New AI Academy Help Teachers or Just Improve Tech’s Bottom Line?” August 4, 2025: https://www.the74million.org/article/will-new-ai-academy-help-teachers-or-just-improve-techs-bottom-line/
[17] Aaron Glantz, “Education’s AI ‘gold rush’ comes with risks for students,” The Christian Science Monitor, August 7, 2026 (citing market analysis by Future Market Insights): https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2026/0807/ai-risks-schools-students
[18] Chalkbeat, “Expanded AI training for teachers, funded by OpenAI and Microsoft,” July 8, 2025: https://www.chalkbeat.org/2025/07/08/openai-microsoft-teachers-union-ai-training-partnership/
[19] Time, “Microsoft, OpenAI, Anthropic Fund $23M Teacher AI Push,” July 2025: https://time.com/7301335/ai-education-microsoft-openai-anthropic/; American Federation of Teachers, “AFT to Launch National Academy for AI Instruction,” July 8, 2025: https://www.aft.org/press-release/aft-launch-national-academy-ai-instruction-microsoft-openai-anthropic-and-united; CNN Business, “Microsoft, OpenAI and Anthropic are investing millions to train teachers how to use AI,” July 8, 2025: https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/08/tech/ai-teacher-training-academy-microsoft-openai-anthropic; OpenAI, “Working with 400,000 teachers to shape the future of AI in schools”: https://openai.com/global-affairs/aft/
[20] Nancy Bailey, “The TROUBLING Teacher Union Connection to Open AI, Microsoft, and Anthropic,” July 15, 2025: https://nancyebailey.com/2025/07/15/the-troubling-teacher-union-connection-to-open-ai-microsoft-and-anthropic/
[21] Chalkbeat, “Anthropic launches Claude for Teachers in AI race to influence America’s classrooms,” July 14, 2026: https://www.chalkbeat.org/2026/07/14/anthropic-launches-claude-for-teachers-as-ai-companies-battle-for-classrooms/
[22] Fox News, “Teachers unions accused of embedding DEI into AI education guidance for classrooms” (reporting on Defending Education analysis), July 2026: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/report-uncovers-education-groups-dei-push-shape-artificial-intelligence-used-classrooms
[23] Aaron Glantz, “Education’s AI ‘gold rush’ comes with risks for students,” The Christian Science Monitor, August 7, 2026 (citing market analysis by Future Market Insights): https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2026/0807/ai-risks-schools-students
[24] Office of the Mayor of New York City, “Mayor Mamdani and Chancellor Samuels Put Students First with Nation’s Broadest Generative AI Moratorium in Schools,” September 2, 2026: https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/09/mayor-mamdani-and-chancellor-samuels-put-students-first-with-nat; CNN Business, “Nation’s largest school district bans AI in the classroom through 8th grade,” September 2, 2026: https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/02/tech/new-york-city-classroom-ai-ban
[25] Ibid.
[26] K-12 Dive, “LAUSD restricts all students from using AI tools,” September 2026: https://www.k12dive.com/news/lausd-restricts-all-students-from-using-ai-tools/829612/; Education Week / Los Angeles Times, “LAUSD Adopts Moratorium on Student AI Use, Another Move to Limit Classroom Tech,” September 2026: https://www.edweek.org/leadership/lausd-adopts-moratorium-on-student-ai-use-another-big-move-to-limit-tech-use/2026/09
[27] Office of the Mayor of New York City, “Mayor Mamdani and Chancellor Samuels Put Students First with Nation’s Broadest Generative AI Moratorium in Schools,” September 2, 2026: https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/09/mayor-mamdani-and-chancellor-samuels-put-students-first-with-nat; CNN Business, “Nation’s largest school district bans AI in the classroom through 8th grade,” September 2, 2026: https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/02/tech/new-york-city-classroom-ai-ban
[28] FutureEd, “Legislative Tracker: 2026 State AI in Education Bills,” updated July 13, 2026: https://www.future-ed.org/legislative-tracker-2026-state-ai-in-education-bills/; MultiState, “AI in Education Legislation: 2026 State Policy Trends,” April 9, 2026: https://www.multistate.us/insider/2026/4/9/how-states-are-regulating-ai-in-education-this-legislative-session
[29] Aaron Glantz, “Education’s AI ‘gold rush’ comes with risks for students,” The Christian Science Monitor, August 7, 2026 (citing market analysis by Future Market Insights): https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2026/0807/ai-risks-schools-students