Summary#
SB 1505 would amend Pennsylvania’s Public School Code of 1949. It is an introduced bill, not law; it was referred to the Senate Education Committee, so whether it will pass is uncertain. Its stated goal, reflected in its title, is to prohibit artificial intelligence from providing school-based mental health and counseling services.
- A school district, charter school, intermediate unit, or other defined “school entity” could not use AI to provide a student a service or experience that amounts to the work of a school-based mental health professional.
- A supplier, including an operator, could not contract with a school entity to provide AI programmed to deliver such a service or experience.
- The bill specifically bars AI systems from diagnosing students, providing therapy or counseling, giving individualized treatment or therapeutic interventions, or recommending an individualized diagnosis or treatment plan.
- AI could not be presented as a school psychologist, counselor, or social worker, or as a substitute for one.
- A school-based mental health professional employed by a school entity could still use AI for administrative support, subject to federal student-privacy requirements. The bill also says it does not override collective bargaining agreements.
What it means for you#
- Students and families: The bill would bar school entities from using AI for the listed mental health services. It does not require schools to provide a human counselor or psychologist, or set rules for access to mental health care.
- Schools and school employees: School entities would have to avoid using AI for covered services and could not make the specified supplier contracts. The bill does not prohibit all AI use in schools; it expressly preserves AI use by employed mental health professionals for administrative support, subject to privacy requirements.
- AI suppliers and operators: They could not enter the specified contracts with school entities.
- Private and parochial schools: The bill’s definition of “school entity” lists public school entities, including charter schools, but not private or parochial schools. The bill does not appear to impose this prohibition on them.
Money#
No publicly available information on estimated costs is included in the supplied material.
- The bill contains no appropriation, fee, fine, or cost estimate.
- It would impose limits on school use of AI and on certain supplier contracts, but does not specify staffing, enforcement costs, or any funding to help schools comply.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not define what counts as the “practice” of a school-based mental health professional, beyond listing specific prohibited services and representations.
- It does not set out who would enforce the restrictions, how violations would be handled, or what penalties would apply.
- It does not explain how schools should distinguish covered mental health services from other student support or information services.
- The Public School Code itself was not supplied, so current law and how these new rules would interact with existing provisions could not be verified.
- If enacted, the bill says it would take effect in 60 days, but it does not specify other implementation steps or guidance.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that diagnosis, therapy, and individualized treatment should not be provided by AI in schools.
- The limits on presenting AI as a school mental health professional could help make clear that an AI system is not a human counselor, psychologist, or social worker.
- The bill preserves a narrower use of AI for administrative support by employed professionals, rather than banning all AI use in school settings.
Case against#
- One concern is that “practice” is not defined, leaving schools and suppliers unsure which services or tools are covered.
- The bill sets restrictions but does not specify enforcement, penalties, or practical guidance for schools.
- The limits could affect school contracts for AI tools if those tools are programmed to provide covered services, but the bill does not explain how mixed-purpose tools should be treated.
- The bill does not require schools to provide an alternative human service when AI use is prohibited.