Wisconsin Rep. Franklin Discusses AI School Guidance and Chatbot Bill

This week on Spectrum News Wisconsin's "In Focus," the conversation turned to artificial intelligence in education, with State Rep. Ben Franklin (R-De Pere) addressing both existing guidance and proposed legislation.

The segment covered three main areas: current policies from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI), data on how students and teachers actually use AI in classrooms, and new laws that could restrict certain AI interactions for minors.

Franklin's bill specifically targets AI chatbots capable of simulating human-like relationships with children. The legislation would fine operators $25,000 per violation if their chatbots encourage self-harm, suicidal ideation, illegal activities, or discourage help-seeking behavior.

According to the DPI's official guidance document, the 22-page framework covers seven focus areas including ethics, data security, professional development, and curriculum evaluation. State Superintendent Dr. Jill Underly stated the document aims to empower educators while modeling safe implementation.

The guidance acknowledges that most people associate AI with tools like ChatGPT, but the technology actually encompasses browser features, social media algorithms, and recommendation systems already embedded in daily digital interactions.

Franklin's legislative approach reflects a broader challenge: creating laws for rapidly evolving technology without rendering them obsolete before passage. He noted that legislation must account for AI's pace of change while still providing meaningful guardrails.

From a parent's perspective, Franklin emphasized that even devices with robust security systems—firmware, software, antivirus protection—still leave children vulnerable every time they log online. His children have multiple electronic devices available, each presenting potential exposure points.

The bill's guardrails would apply to any Wisconsin child under 18 or if the AI chatbot perceives the user to be a child. This perception-based trigger creates an interesting enforcement question (how does a chatbot reliably determine age?).

Co-author State Sen. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken) described the legislation as protecting children from unhealthy online content that has led to suicide or other harmful behaviors. The proposal is modeled after bipartisan measures in other states and remains in early stages.

The DPI guidance document, created by the Division for Academic Excellence – Teaching and Learning Team, will continue to be updated to address growth in school-based AI use. This iterative approach acknowledges that static policy documents struggle to keep pace with technological development.

For educators, the practical reality involves navigating AI tools that can generate text, visuals, and recommendations while ensuring students understand the technology's limitations and risks. The document suggests intended outcomes for K-12 curricula and professional development.

Communication between schools, families, and administrations emerges as a critical component. Parents need to understand what AI tools their children encounter, while teachers require training to integrate these technologies responsibly.

The legislation faces the standard legislative path: passage in both the state Assembly and Senate once formally introduced. Early-stage proposals often undergo significant revision during committee review and floor debate.

Security and technological infrastructure considerations in the DPI guidance reflect the physical reality of school IT systems. Districts must balance access with protection, often working with limited budgets and aging hardware.

Students are excited about AI, according to Underly, but enthusiasm doesn't automatically translate to responsible use. The gap between student interest and educator preparedness creates implementation friction in classrooms.

Whether the $25,000 fine per violation provides meaningful deterrence for chatbot operators remains uncertain. Enforcement mechanisms and jurisdictional questions will likely emerge during the legislative process.

The broader question isn't just about chatbots—it's about preparing students for a future where AI plays a large role in society. The DPI's position emphasizes teaching thoughtful use rather than blanket prohibition.

Legislators face the difficult task of balancing protection with innovation. Overly restrictive laws could limit beneficial AI applications in education, while insufficient guardrails leave children vulnerable to harmful interactions.

Whether users actually pay attention to these guidelines remains the real question.

Artūras Malašauskas is an AI Systems Integrator with 20+ years of production-grade web engineering experience. He has designed, shipped, and scaled enterprise Python/PHP systems for logistics, SaaS, and public-sector clients. For the past year, he has focused exclusively on AI integrations: deploying open-source LLMs, building generative media pipelines (image, audio, video), and engineering multi-agent workflows for real production environments. His standard: reproducibility, security, cost-efficient inference—no vaporware. He documents and evaluates emerging AI tooling, separating verified capabilities from marketing noise. Technical editor at: muza-ai.eu, ai-verslas.lt, ai-naujinos.lt Connect on LinkedIn