Florida’s School AI Rules: District Policies, an AI Companion Ban, and Parental Consent

Ledger — State: Florida · Body: Florida State Board of Education (Department of Education) · Hearing: September 16, 2026, Polk State College, Winter Haven · Register notice: September 18, 2026, Florida Administrative Register Vol. 52 No. 182 · Instrument type: board rule in rulemaking, not a bill · Status as of September 20, 2026: not adopted; no effective date.

• District policy duty — July 1, 2027. Every district school board and charter school governing board must amend its internet safety policy to address AI instructional tools by July 1, 2027. So what: the artifact to look for is the district’s own amended internet safety policy, not a state-issued one.
• Companionship prohibition (the “AI companion ban”). District and charter policies may not deploy AI designed, marketed or configured to simulate friendship, companionship or an emotional relationship with a student, to meet a student’s social or emotional needs, or to keep a student interacting through relationship-building or anthropomorphic design features. So what: the test is design and marketing, and the rule’s own word is companionship — “AI companion” is news shorthand.
• Parental consent — opt-in. Districts must notify parents when an AI instructional tool is approved and, where a student will use the tool directly, provide the option for parents to opt their child in, with information on a substantively comparable non-AI alternative. So what: access is opt-in, and a family that declines must still be offered a substantively comparable non-AI instructional tool.

The board’s September 16, 2026 hearing covered two separate instruments in the Florida Administrative Code: an amendment to rule 6A-1.0957, “Internet Safety Policy” that applies to district school boards and charter school governing boards, and a new rule 6A-14.0719, “Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) Policies in Florida College System Institutions” that applies to the 28 Florida College System institutions.

Florida newsrooms reported the hearing as a decision. A News Service of Florida copy as published by WFSU News: “The Florida Board of Education on Wednesday passed rules for the use of artificial intelligence in K-12 public schools and state colleges.” Central Florida Public Media: “The Board of Education voted Wednesday to require public school districts and charter schools to establish rules for AI use and include them in their internet safety policies.” Fox 35 reported the board “The Florida Board of Education unanimously approved rules Wednesday requiring school districts and state colleges to adopt policies governing the use of artificial intelligence in classrooms.”

The rule records are narrower than that coverage, and the difference matters if you have to act on it. As of September 20, 2026 both instruments are still in rulemaking — the K-12 rule’s entry in the Florida Administrative Code still shows the 2023 version with its 2023 effective date, and the college rule is listed as not adopted. So read the deadlines below as deadlines in the noticed rule text that districts have to plan around, not as provisions anyone can already be cited under, and treat any effective or enforcement date you see elsewhere as unconfirmed.

The three requirements

1. Every district and charter board must adopt an AI policy by July 1, 2027

The duty sits in paragraph (3)(e) of the proposed K-12 rule text, published in the August 26, 2026 issue of the Florida Administrative Register and reprinted with amendments in the September 18, 2026 Notice of Change:

“(e) Each district school board and charter school governing board must, by July 1, 2027, adopt and implement an amendment to their internet safety policy that specifically addresses safety policy regarding the use of artificial intelligence instructional tools.”

“Artificial intelligence instructional tool” is a defined term in the same rule, and the definition is broad enough to catch most classroom AI products:

“means a software application or service that uses generative artificial intelligence, including machine learning, which is made available to a student by an educational entity for educational purposes, including instruction, tutoring, practice, feedback, or completing educator-directed assignments.”

Reporting puts the same date on it: “School districts must finalize the policies by July 1, 2027 for the 2027-2028 school year.” That July 1, 2027 date is the rule text’s own, not an inference from the news coverage.

2. District and charter policies may not deploy AI built to simulate friendship or companionship

Paragraph (3)(f) is a limit on the policies districts may adopt. The wording is about design, marketing and configuration, not about a product category:

“(f) School districts and charter school governing boards may not adopt policies that deploy any form of artificial intelligence that is designed, marketed, or configured to:”
1. Meet a student’s social or emotional needs, including Social Emotional Learning;
2. Simulate friendship, companionship, or an emotional relationship with a student; or
3. Employ relationship-building or anthropomorphic design features for the purpose of encouraging a student to continue interacting with the system or tool.

The September 18, 2026 Notice of Change records no change to this paragraph, so it stands as proposed. News coverage compresses the three prongs into the phrase “AI companions”: WCTV reported that “School districts will be banned from using “AI companions” in the classroom”, and Florida’s Voice described the rule as “banning AI tools intended to simulate human companionship, address social or emotional needs, or utilize anthropomorphic features to build machine relationships with students”. The phrase is the outlets’ shorthand. The rule text’s own word is companionship, and the operative language is “designed, marketed, or configured to.”

3. Student access is opt-in, with a comparable non-AI alternative on offer

Paragraph (3)(e)1. folds notice and consent into the policy a district must adopt: districts have to notify parents when an AI instructional tool is approved for instructional use, in plain, non-technical language. Subparagraph (3)(e)1.e. is the opt-in itself:

“If the student will be directly using the tool, provide the option for parents to opt their child into using the tool along with information on an alternative, non-artificial intelligence instructional tool that is substantively comparable in instructional quality and access for their child to use if they do not opt them in.”

News4JAX summarises it as: “Parents must be allowed to consent to their child’s use of AI or decline it.” Tampa Bay 28: “parents will have to opt in before public and charter school students interact directly with AI instructional tools.” And in the Governor’s own words at a September 18 appearance: “If it's something that you think would be beneficial, then you as a parent have the ability to opt into that,”

The “not a substitute” framing, in the officials’ own words

The framing that ran through the coverage — AI as a supplement to the teacher, not a replacement — is also the rule’s own language. Paragraph (3)(e)3. of the proposed text:

“Ensure that the use of AI instructional tools is limited to supplementing, and not replacing, the professional judgment of teachers and the primary right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.”

The officials said versions of the same thing on the record. Governor Ron DeSantis, quoted by WCTV: “We are not going to be displacing a classroom teacher with machines and acting like you can just sit in a classroom and put goggles on their head for eight hours and that somehow that’s going to be a good education,” At a September 18 appearance covered by WEAR-TV, the same point in shorter form: “We are not going to be displacing a classroom teacher with machines,” and “Technology is a tool that can enhance and that can supplement.” and “But it is a supplementary role.”

Education Commissioner Henry Mack, quoted by WFSU News: “AI is an enhancement. It’s a supplement. It doesn’t supplant. It’s complimentary,” Mack said. On what the rule is meant to prevent, “We do not want AI doing that on behalf of the learner,” He put the boundary this way: “We're not putting our head in the sand,” Mack said, “nor are we allowing for unfettered access.” On the opt-out route, WCTV quotes him saying “In this rule, if they do not opt in, it’s incumbent upon the faculty member and the superintendent in the school district to provide something ‘substantively similar’”.

What this changes for vendors selling AI into a district

This is a procurement constraint, not a forecast. Three things follow directly from the rule text as proposed:

• Districts cannot adopt policies that deploy companion-style AI. Under (3)(f) a district policy may not permit AI that is designed, marketed or configured to meet a student’s social or emotional needs, to simulate friendship or companionship, or to use relationship-building or anthropomorphic features to keep a student engaged. A product whose positioning leans on an emotional relationship with the student does not fit a compliant district policy, whatever it is sold as.
• Vendor-facing AI has to fit a district policy that must exist by July 1, 2027. The buyer has a rule-set deadline to write an AI amendment to its internet safety policy and a list of elements the policy must contain. An AI instructional tool sold into that district is being bought into a documented policy framework, not into an individual teacher’s judgement.
• Student-facing use has to run through a parental opt-in flow with a non-AI alternative. Parents get notice before a tool is approved and, where the student uses it directly, the option to opt in — with a substantively comparable non-AI alternative available if they do not.

The same rule text adds constraints that a vendor’s product and contract terms have to answer for, again as proposed:

• Student data. “Require that AI instructional tools approved for student use do not sell, monetize, profile, or commercially exploit student data to train commercial AI models.” “School districts and charter school governing boards must prioritize vendors that maintain student data storage and processing within the United States.”
• Autonomous and agentic features. Such a tool is permitted in voluntary prekindergarten through grade 12 only if it runs “under the direct supervision of an adult, maintains a complete log of activities, and include a mechanism that allows school personnel to immediately suspend or disable the tool’s autonomous functionality without vendor assistance” That is a design and operations requirement — supervision, logging, and a switch the school can throw without calling the vendor.
• Human review of decisions. A requirement added in the September 18 Notice of Change: “Ensure that AI is never used as a decision maker absent human review for any use case” — with grading, evaluations, promotions, discipline, threat assessment and counseling or Exceptional Student Education referrals named as examples.
• Incident disclosure. Districts must report to the Department “any unexpected autonomous behavior or any IT safety or security incident caused by the approved tool, including unauthorized data access”

Practical reading for a buyer: ask which of the three (3)(f) prongs a product’s design or marketing could be read as meeting, what the tool does when a parent declines, whose staff can disable the autonomous mode, where student data is stored and processed, and whether the vendor will sign up to the logging and disclosure duties the policy has to carry. Those are the questions the rule text makes answerable.

Does it cover Florida’s public colleges?

Yes for the 28 Florida College System institutions, and through a separate rule. Rule 6A-14.0719 applies to those colleges, not to the state university system: both instruments are State Board of Education rules in chapters 6A-1 and 6A-14 of the Florida Administrative Code, and the college rule’s stated scope is the Florida College System. Its purpose paragraph reads:

“The purpose of this rule is to require Florida College System (FCS) institutions to adopt policies that provide for the use and limitations of use of artificial intelligence (A.I.) tools in order to ensure quality of education for students, efficiency of operations, and a safe learning environment for the whole college community.”

WFSU News reported that “For the state’s 28 institutions in the Florida College System, colleges will now be required to adopt policies on AI”; News4JAX reported that “The rules also require Florida’s 28 state colleges to establish policies governing AI use.” On graded work, the proposed text requires colleges to prohibit students from using AI “Such policies must prohibit students from using artificial intelligence to work on a graded assignment or assessment for a course or program unless explicitly permitted to do so by the instructor of that course or program;”

As with the K-12 rule, the college rule is not adopted yet, so no effective date is publishable from the record as of September 20, 2026.

A new trigger category: state rulemaking, not legislation

This entry exists on its own URL because the instrument is a different kind of thing. The AI-regulation cluster on this site has tracked US AI legislation — bills, their text and their status — and EU AI Act Article 50, an enacted regulation. Florida’s school AI rules are neither a bill nor a statute: they are a state board’s rulemaking, the layer where K-12 AI governance is actually being written in this state, and it sets obligations a district has to meet on a date. A bill watch does not surface that, which is why it is worth naming as a category of its own.

It also belongs to the same week as California’s executive order of September 18, 2026, which accelerates independent AI verification and orders recommendations on a frontier-model kill switch — plus the two audit laws signed in California on September 9, 2026. One is executive action, one is board rulemaking; both are state instruments that act before any federal statute lands. Read together, they are one story about where AI oversight is arriving first. They are not duplicates: California’s order is about who verifies AI systems, Florida’s rules are about what a school district may buy and require parental consent to use.

What is still pending

Two things are open, and neither is guessable from the coverage:

• Adoption and effective dates. Rule 6A-1.0957 shows a Notice of Change published September 18, 2026 and no adoption entry in the Florida Administrative Code; rule 6A-14.0719 is listed as not adopted. Until the rules are adopted and take effect, there is no effective date and no enforcement date to publish.
• The district policies themselves. The K-12 rule sets July 1, 2027 as the date district and charter boards must have adopted and implemented the AI amendment to their internet safety policies. What a given district’s policy says, and which tools appear on its approved list, is a district-level decision that this page cannot predict.

FAQ: Florida’s school AI rules

Sources

• [1] Florida Administrative Register, Vol. 52 No. 166 (August 26, 2026) — Notice of Proposed Rule 6A-1.0957, rule text at pp. 3724–3725: flrules.org — Notice of Proposed Rule 6A-1.0957
• [2] Florida Administrative Register, Vol. 52 No. 182 (September 18, 2026) — Notice of Change for rule 6A-1.0957 (Section III), pp. 4057–4058: flrules.org — Notice of Change 6A-1.0957 (September 18, 2026)
• [3] Florida Rules (FLRules) — rule page for 6A-1.0957, “Internet Safety Policy”, showing the 2026 rulemaking history and the adopted version with its 2023 effective date: flrules.org — rule 6A-1.0957
• [4] Florida Rules (FLRules) — rule page for 6A-14.0719, “Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) Policies in Florida College System Institutions”, listed as not adopted: flrules.org — rule 6A-14.0719
• [5] Florida Administrative Register, Vol. 52 No. 165 (August 25, 2026) — Notice of Proposed Rule 6A-14.0719, rule text at pp. 3696–3697: flrules.org — FAR Vol. 52 No. 165 (PDF)
• [6] WFSU News — “Florida public schools and colleges are getting additional AI policies” (September 17, 2026; News Service of Florida copy): news.wfsu.org — additional AI policies
• [7] Central Florida Public Media — “Florida approves statewide AI rules for K-12 schools and colleges” (September 17, 2026): cfpublic.org — statewide AI rules
• [8] WCTV (Gray) — “Florida schools must create AI policies, banned from using ‘AI companions’” (September 18, 2026): wctv.tv — school AI policies
• [9] News4JAX (WJXT) — “State board approves AI Guidelines for K-12 schools, colleges; parents give mixed reactions” (September 17, 2026): news4jax.com — AI guidelines approved
• [10] Fox 35 Orlando — “Florida approves AI classroom rules requiring parental consent, new student safeguards” (September 16, 2026): fox35orlando.com — AI classroom rules
• [11] WEAR-TV / Sinclair (canonical fox49.tv) — “DeSantis, Florida education chief draw line on AI in schools: 'Not a substitute' for teach” (September 18, 2026; the headline is truncated in the publisher’s own markup): fox49.tv — DeSantis and education chief on AI
• [12] Tampa Bay 28 (ABC Action News) — “Florida adopts classroom AI rules requiring parental permission” (September 17, 2026): tampabay28.com — parental permission rules
• [13] Florida’s Voice — “Florida adopts binding rules regulating AI in classrooms, bans chatbot companions” (September 17, 2026): flvoicenews.com — binding rules on AI in classrooms
• [14] WINK News — “SWFL schools prep for Florida's new parental consent AI policy” (September 18, 2026): winknews.com — parental consent AI policy
• [15] Jacksonville Today — “Florida public schools and colleges get additional AI policies” (September 17, 2026): jaxtoday.org — AI rules for schools and colleges
• [16] Governor of California — executive order on independent AI oversight and a frontier-model kill switch (September 18, 2026), cross-referenced above: gov.ca.gov — AI oversight executive order

Accuracy note: verified 2026-09-20 against the evidence pack for this story (kanban t_84673828), which pinned the two primary instruments and 14 publisher pages. Every quoted span on this page is taken character-for-character from the fetched artifact it is attributed to. Two points of precision: the board acted at its September 16, 2026 hearing and the amended K-12 text was published as a Notice of Change on September 18, 2026, so this page does not date the board’s action to September 18; and the phrase “not a substitute” appears in coverage headlines rather than as a spoken quote in the transcripts used here, which is why the section above quotes the rule’s own supplementing language and the officials’ recorded words instead. Neither rule was adopted or in effect as of September 20, 2026; no effective or enforcement date is stated. Informational only — not legal advice, and not a statement of any district’s policy.