Florida's Proposed K-12 AI Rule (6A-1.0957): District Requirements and the July 1, 2027 Deadline

Current status: Last reviewed September 7, 2026. This resource summarizes a proposed rule that had not been adopted at the time of review, plus cited public sources. It is not legal advice. Confirm the adopted text, effective date, and obligations with Florida counsel and the Florida Department of Education.

Florida is regulating AI in schools by rule, not by statute, and the K-12 piece is still a proposal. On August 26, 2026 the Florida Department of Education published a proposed amendment to Rule 6A-1.0957, its existing Internet Safety Policy rule, that would add an “artificial intelligence instructional tools” section to every district and charter internet safety policy. The State Board of Education hearing is scheduled for September 16, 2026. If adopted as proposed, each district school board and charter school governing board must adopt and implement the amendment by July 1, 2027.

Two details in the proposed text differ from much of the news coverage. First, the rule uses parent opt-in, not opt-out: boards must offer parents the option to opt their child into an approved tool and describe an alternative that does not use AI. Second, there is no January 1, 2027 date anywhere in the proposed text. The only compliance date is July 1, 2027.

This page tracks the proposed text as published. It will be updated after the September 16 vote and again when the adopted rule is filed.

The proposal at a glance

The 2026 Legislature did not pass an AI-in-education statute. CS/SB 482, the Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights, passed the Senate on March 4, 2026 and died in House messages on March 13. SB 1194, Artificial Intelligence in Education, died in committee the same day. The proposed rule therefore rests on existing authority, including section 1006.1494, the 2023 student online personal information protection law.

What the proposed text would require

The proposed section (3)(e) lists what each board’s policy amendment must do. Paraphrased from the published text, a covered board would have to:

1. Notify parents when an AI instructional tool is approved for instructional use, including the tool’s name, the grades and subjects where it is used, the nature of the student interaction, and the objection process under section 1006.28(2)(a).
2. Offer opt-in: give parents the option to opt their child into using the tool, together with information about an alternative instructional tool that does not use AI.
3. Review PreK-5 tools further: require tools used in Voluntary Prekindergarten through grade 5 to undergo additional review for age and developmental appropriateness.
4. Prohibit undisclosed profiling: approved tools may not subject students to undisclosed behavior monitoring, social scoring, or psychological profiling.
5. Train staff: require teacher and administrator training on AI risks, limitations, safety, and compliance.
6. Publish an approved list: maintain a publicly accessible list of approved AI instructional tools.
7. Keep interaction records: maintain records of student interactions with approved tools for a minimum of thirty days to allow parental access.
8. Report to the state: report the AI instructional tools used to the Department of Education, including name, grades, subjects, frequency, and duration, without per-student data.
9. Protect student data: approved tools may not sell, monetize, profile, or commercially exploit student data to train commercial AI models, and boards must prioritize data storage in the United States.
10. Review efficacy, integrity, and neutrality: consider evidence of effectiveness (absence of evidence is not disqualifying), address academic integrity, and require accuracy, viewpoint neutrality, accessibility, and compliance with section 1000.05 and Rule 6A-1.09550.

Proposed section (3)(f) adds a prohibition. Boards may not adopt policies that deploy AI designed, marketed, or configured to meet students’ social or emotional needs, including social emotional learning, to simulate friendship, companionship, or an emotional relationship, or to use anthropomorphic design features.

Requirement checklist with the control point for each

The rule tells boards what a policy must say. Implementation is where each duty gets an owner, a record, and, where applicable, a technical control. The last column names the layer of a district control plane that can carry evidence for each duty. It does not claim a product satisfies the rule.

A district that already runs an AI application register and a tool vetting workflow has most of the records the rule contemplates. The new work is parent opt-in as a live control, the 30-day interaction record, and the state report.

Opt-in changes the default

Florida’s proposed opt-in is stricter than Oklahoma’s opt-out. Under opt-out, a student uses approved tools unless a parent objects. Under opt-in, a student may not use the tool until a parent affirmatively chooses it, and the district must have a non-AI alternative ready for everyone else.

That has three operational consequences:

• Consent must be per tool and per student, tied to the record the district publishes on its approved list, and reachable by the people who run the classroom.
• The default state of every approved tool is off for a student until the consent record says otherwise. A device or application control that cannot read that record will enforce the wrong default.
• The alternative is not optional. The rule requires information about a non-AI alternative alongside the opt-in choice, so lesson design must include it from the start.

The Oklahoma implementation guide walks through a parent-choice workflow in detail. The same seven questions apply in Florida with the default reversed.

Thirty days of interaction records

The proposed text requires records of student interactions with approved tools for at least thirty days so parents can access them. Districts should decide early what “record” means for each approved tool:

• For a backend or district-hosted tool, the application usually holds the transcript. Retention and parental access can be a configuration and a procedure.
• For a direct-use tool a student reaches in a browser, the vendor may hold the transcript, and the district’s record may be limited to what its own controls saw. Districts should confirm with each vendor how a parent can obtain the interaction record within the window.
• Retention for parental access is not the same as analytics. A retention record can exist without copying student conversations into a district data warehouse. The data-boundary framework separates those two purposes.

Who is covered

The duties in proposed 6A-1.0957 run to district school boards and charter school governing boards. The rule’s definition of institution reaches public K-12 schools including charters, the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, and the Florida Virtual School. Voluntary Prekindergarten appears as the lower end of the “VPK through grade 5” review band inside district and charter policies rather than as a separately regulated provider type.

Florida College System institutions are covered by a separate proposed rule, 6A-14.0719, which requires each board of trustees to adopt an AI policy for students, faculty, staff, administrators, and guests, to notify parents of enrolled minors who use an AI instructional tool, and to bar AI on graded work unless the instructor explicitly permits it. The state university system is on a separate Board of Governors track that this page does not cover.

What this page does not establish

This page does not determine:

• whether the State Board will adopt the rule as proposed on September 16, 2026, or with changes;
• the effective date of any adopted rule, which is set when the rule is filed;
• whether a particular product is an “artificial intelligence instructional tool” or a prohibited companion under the adopted text;
• that a vendor contract, an approved list, or a technical product alone satisfies a duty; or
• the legal consequence of a missed deadline.

Those conclusions require the adopted text, the district’s facts, and qualified review.

How Tenet may support a Florida implementation

Tenet by TrueMadeAI is K-12 AI governance software. Tenet Edge applies district and classroom policy on supported direct-use AI surfaces on managed Chrome. Tenet Gateway is a founding-district program for approved backend AI operations.

A district implementation could use Tenet to help:

• keep one register of approved AI surfaces that feeds the public approved-tool list and the state report;
• apply supported on-device data-loss-prevention controls before student text leaves the device;
• block supported unapproved AI chat and writing interfaces, which is where companion-style products usually appear;
• route approved backend tools through defined application, purpose, data, and model boundaries; and
• retain bounded operational evidence without treating raw student conversations as analytics.

TrueMadeAI is preparing an administrator-managed parent-choice setting. It is not described here as a shipped capability, and Florida’s opt-in default raises the bar: the setting must default a student to no access until a consent record says otherwise. A district should not buy or represent a planned control as current functionality. Review the dated capability matrix before relying on a specific product surface.

If your district wants to map the proposed Florida duties to owners, records, and supported controls before the July 2027 deadline, request a scoped Tenet District conversation.

A sequence for the next ten months

Before the vote (September 2026)

• Read the proposed text, not summaries. Note the July 1, 2027 date and the opt-in language.
• Inventory every AI instructional tool in use today, including AI features inside otherwise approved products.
• Identify which tools would fall under the companion or SEL-style prohibition.

After adoption (fall 2026)

• Compare the adopted text with the proposal and update this inventory.
• Draft the internet safety policy amendment with counsel and calendar the board adoption.
• Decide, per tool, how a parent will receive the notice, record the opt-in, and obtain the thirty-day interaction record.

Before July 1, 2027

• Publish the approved-tool list and the training plan.
• Test the opt-in default end to end: a student without a consent record cannot reach the tool, and the alternative is available.
• Prepare the first report to the Department using the register.

The K-12 AI governance guide provides the broader operating model, and the state laws and guidance tracker places Florida alongside the other states with binding or proposed duties.

Sources

• Rule 6A-1.0957, Internet Safety Policy, current text and history
• Notice of Proposed Rule 6A-1.0957, Florida Administrative Register, August 26, 2026
• Proposed Rule 6A-14.0719, AI policies in Florida College System institutions
• Section 1006.1494, Florida Statutes
• CS/SB 482 (2026) bill history
• SB 1194 (2026) bill history
• WLRN, DeSantis administration moving to regulate AI from pre-K to Ph.D., August 28, 2026

Frequently asked questions

Is Florida’s school AI rule already in effect?

No, as of September 7, 2026. The amendment to Rule 6A-1.0957 was published as a proposed rule on August 26, 2026, with a State Board of Education hearing scheduled for September 16, 2026. Districts should track the vote and the filed text before treating any requirement as final.

What is the compliance deadline in Florida’s proposed AI rule?

The proposed text requires each district school board and charter school governing board to adopt and implement the AI amendment to its internet safety policy by July 1, 2027. The January 1, 2027 date that appears in some commentary is not in the proposed rule text.

Does Florida’s proposed rule use parent opt-out or opt-in?

Opt-in. The proposed text requires boards to provide parents the option to opt their child into using an approved AI instructional tool, along with information about an alternative that does not use AI. That is a stricter default than the opt-out model in Oklahoma.

Which schools does the proposed Florida rule cover?

The duties run to district school boards and charter school governing boards. Voluntary Prekindergarten appears as a grade band for extra review inside those policies. A separate proposed rule, 6A-14.0719, covers Florida College System institutions.

Does the proposed rule ban AI companions in Florida schools?

The proposed text says boards may not adopt policies that deploy AI designed, marketed, or configured to meet students’ social or emotional needs, simulate friendship or an emotional relationship, or use anthropomorphic design features. Districts should read the adopted text before applying that boundary to a specific product.

Was Florida’s school AI rule created by a 2026 statute?

No. Two 2026 bills, CS/SB 482 and SB 1194, died without passage. The proposed rule cites existing rulemaking authority, including the 2023 student online personal information protection statute, section 1006.1494.