AB 2452 defines media literacy, digital citizenship, and AI literacy and directs the state curriculum commission to incorporate those concepts when it next revises several subject-area frameworks and when it updates evaluation criteria for state-adopted instructional materials.
The bill is procedural rather than prescriptive: it repeatedly uses “shall consider,” directing the commission and the State Board’s evaluation criteria to include the Model Library Standards (Section 18101) and specified media and AI literacy topics at particular revision and adoption milestones. That wording shapes influence: it signals statewide priorities for publishers, curriculum developers, and districts without creating a binding mandate or funding for implementation.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 2452 adds statutory definitions for AI literacy, media literacy, and digital citizenship and instructs the curriculum commission to consider adding those topics to subject-matter curriculum frameworks. It also directs the commission to consider including media and AI literacy in the criteria used to evaluate instructional materials for state adoption.
Who It Affects
The bill mainly affects the Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission and the State Board of Education (their review and adoption processes), instructional-material publishers and vendors seeking state adoption, K–12 teachers who will use updated frameworks, and districts that choose or are required to adopt state-reviewed materials.
Why It Matters
Even though the bill uses advisory language, adding media and AI literacy to framework and evaluation criteria raises the bar for future state-adopted materials and signals priorities that publishers will follow to remain competitive. The defined topics—especially the granular media-safety items—also shape teacher training needs and local curriculum choices.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2452 begins by giving three key terms statutory definitions. “AI literacy” covers the principles, applications, limitations, and ethics of artificial intelligence. “Digital citizenship” is framed as skills tied to current technology and social media norms. “Media literacy” is defined as the ability to access, evaluate, analyze, and use media and information and is positioned as the foundation for digital citizenship.
The bill then directs the curriculum commission to consider adding the Model Library Standards (created under Section 18101) and media literacy content into the ELA/ELD curriculum framework the next time that framework is revised after January 1, 2024, and to consider media literacy in mathematics, science, and history-social science frameworks when those frameworks are next revised after January 1, 2024. For instructional materials, the commission must consider the Model Library Standards (including media literacy) in ELA/ELD materials adopted after January 1, 2025, and consider media literacy in mathematics, science, and history-social science materials adopted after that same date.Separately, AB 2452 directs the commission to consider incorporating AI literacy into mathematics, science, and history-social science frameworks when they are next revised after January 1, 2025, and to consider AI literacy in the evaluation criteria for those subjects’ instructional materials adopted by the state board after January 1, 2025.
Throughout, the statute enumerates specific media- and digital-citizenship topics—such as time management, social-media harms including addiction, how information is distributed and can manipulate behavior, permanency of online sharing, personal security, cyberbullying and predatory behavior, human trafficking signals online, and how to report suspicious activity—making clear the topical scope the commission should weigh.Crucially, the operative language is “shall consider,” not “shall require.” That makes the bill a directional, consultative instruction to the commission and State Board about priorities for framework content and evaluation rubrics rather than creating mandatory content requirements, funding, or enforcement mechanisms. The effect will depend on how the commission translates “consider” into framework language and how the State Board adapts its evaluation criteria during adoption cycles.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines three terms: “AI literacy,” “digital citizenship,” and “media literacy,” and links media literacy to a set of concrete skills and safety topics (time management, addiction risk, information distribution/manipulation, permanency of sharing, personal security, cyberbullying, predatory behavior, human trafficking, and reporting).
For ELA/ELD, the commission must consider incorporating the Model Library Standards and media literacy at each grade level the next time that framework is revised after January 1, 2024.
For mathematics, science, and history-social science, the commission must consider media literacy when those frameworks are next revised after January 1, 2024, and AI literacy when those frameworks are next revised after January 1, 2025.
When the State Board next adopts ELA/ELD instructional materials after January 1, 2025, the commission must consider including the Model Library Standards in the evaluation criteria; the same adoption-after-Jan-1-2025 trigger applies for including media literacy (math/science/history) and AI literacy (math/science/history) in evaluation criteria.
The bill repeatedly uses discretionary language—“shall consider”—so it directs attention and evaluation priorities but does not create a binding content mandate, funding for implementation, or enforcement penalties.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions of AI literacy, media literacy, and digital citizenship
This subsection supplies the definitional framework the rest of the bill uses. By statute, AI literacy includes not only technical concepts and applications but also limits and ethical considerations; media literacy is explicitly tied to skills that feed into digital citizenship; and digital citizenship is framed around norms for social media and technology. For implementers, these definitions set scope: they obligate the commission to treat the matters as curricular competencies rather than optional extras, and they provide evaluative language publishers and reviewers can cite when shaping or scoring materials.
Enumerated media- and digital-safety topics
Subsection (a)(3) breaks media literacy into a non-exhaustive list of concrete topics—time management; social-media harms, including addiction; distribution and manipulation of information; permanency of online sharing; personal security; cyberbullying, predatory behavior, and human trafficking; and how to report suspicious behavior. That level of granularity matters practically: evaluation rubrics and curriculum scope sheets will likely map materials against these itemized competencies rather than to a vague ‘‘media literacy’’ label, driving publishers to produce discrete lessons or modules covering each area.
ELA/ELD frameworks: Model Library Standards and grade-level media literacy
This subsection tells the commission to consider incorporating the Model Library Standards (Section 18101) and media literacy content at each grade level in the ELA/ELD framework the next time it is revised after January 1, 2024. The practical implication is twofold: the commission must at least evaluate whether to add the standards during its next ELA/ELD revision cycle, and materials aligned to the ELA/ELD framework will be those most likely to include embedded media-literacy lessons across grades if the commission adopts the changes.
Media literacy in other subject frameworks and in instructional-material evaluation
Clause (c)(1) asks the commission to consider media literacy for mathematics, science, and history-social science frameworks at their next post-Jan-1-2024 revisions. Clauses (c)(2) and (c)(3) extend that consideration into the State Board’s adoption process: for ELA/ELD and for mathematics, science, and history-social science materials adopted after January 1, 2025, the commission should consider including media literacy (and Model Library Standards for ELA/ELD) in its evaluation criteria. That ties framework revision timing to adoption-cycle rubrics—publishers who want state-adoption should track both windows.
AI literacy timing and evaluation criteria
This subsection staggers AI literacy later than media literacy: the commission must consider AI literacy for mathematics, science, and history-social science frameworks when those frameworks are next revised after January 1, 2025, and must consider including AI literacy in evaluation criteria for instructional materials in those subjects adopted after January 1, 2025. The separate dates give the commission time to evaluate AI topics’ grade-appropriateness and technical depth before those subjects’ evaluation rubrics are altered.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- K–12 students: Gain structured exposure to media and AI concepts and concrete safety skills (e.g., recognizing manipulation, reporting suspicious online behavior) if frameworks are updated and materials adopted to match—improving digital resilience and practical safety competencies.
- Curriculum publishers and content developers: Clear statutory definitions and enumerated topics create a predictable target for new products; publishers that adapt quickly can be competitive for state-adoption cycles and for districts seeking vetted materials.
- School librarians and library programs: The bill explicitly references Model Library Standards (Section 18101), raising the profile and likely resourcing importance of library-led media-literacy programming within ELA/ELD content and district curriculum plans.
Who Bears the Cost
- Instructional-material publishers (especially smaller firms): Must revise content, add modules, and demonstrate alignment to itemized competencies to remain viable for state adoption—work that carries production and review costs.
- Local school districts and teachers: Will need to train staff and integrate new materials into pacing guides; absent targeted funding, districts absorb professional development time and potential substitution costs for existing curricula.
- State education bodies (curriculum commission and State Board): Will incur administrative burden to review frameworks and update evaluation rubrics, and to operationalize the ‘‘consider’’ standard into concrete scoring criteria, likely requiring staff time and stakeholder engagement processes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between setting a consistent, statewide expectation that students learn media, digital, and AI literacy (which argues for firm, funded mandates) and preserving flexibility and local control by directing the commission merely to “consider” those topics (which risks uneven adoption and places costs on publishers and districts without funding). Choices that favor consistency increase compliance and funding obligations; choices that favor flexibility risk leaving priority content to market-driven adoption cycles.
Two implementation tensions dominate. First, the statute’s repeated “shall consider” language is intentionally flexible, which preserves local control and allows the commission to adapt content to educational judgment—but it also means the bill might produce uneven results across subject areas and districts.
If the commission interprets ‘‘consider’’ narrowly, publishers and districts may get little concrete change; if it interprets it broadly, the result will resemble a de facto mandate without corresponding funding.
Second, the bill specifies granular, sometimes sensitive topics (social-media addiction, predatory behavior, human trafficking, and reporting suspicious behavior). Those topics raise practical questions about age-appropriateness, required teacher training, student privacy, mandatory reporting duties, and potential liability.
Designing developmentally appropriate lessons on manipulative online content or on identifying predatory behavior requires subject-matter expertise and trauma-informed approaches, which the statute does not fund or specify. Additionally, AI literacy is a moving target: technologies and ethical concerns evolve quickly, so static framework language risks becoming outdated unless the commission builds mechanisms for regular updating and guidance to evaluators and publishers.
Finally, the bill ties framework revision windows to adoption cycles in a way that advantages publishers who time product development to those windows. That calendar linkage concentrates the short-term costs on publishers and districts that seek state-adopted materials, while leaving optional local adoptions more flexible—potentially widening equity gaps between districts that adopt state-reviewed, updated materials and those that do not.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.