The Florida Department of Education has proposed amendments to Rule 6A-1.0957, the state’s Internet Safety Policy rule, that would add specific requirements for artificial intelligence. If finalized substantially as proposed, the amendments would require district school boards and charter school governing boards to address parental choice, AI application approval, student-data protections, interaction records, and usage reporting.
The proposal identifies January 1, 2027 as the implementation date for the AI provisions. Because the amendment is still going through Florida’s rulemaking process, districts should treat that as a proposed compliance deadline and continue monitoring the final rule.
What Is Florida Rule 6A-1.0957?
Rule 6A-1.0957 governs Internet Safety Policies for Florida school districts and charter school governing boards.
The existing rule, effective August 22, 2023, already requires policies addressing issues such as internet filtering, electronic communications, unauthorized access, student-data protections, and certain social-media access. Policies are reviewed and approved annually.
Florida’s proposed amendment would expand that framework to specifically govern artificial intelligence instructional tools.
When Do the Requirements Take Effect?
Florida published a Notice of Proposed Rule for the AI amendment on August 26, 2026. The public-comment period extends through September 16, 2026.
Under the current proposal, districts and charter governing boards would need to implement the AI provisions by January 1, 2027.
Because adoption has not yet occurred, the final language and implementation timeline could still change.
What Would the Proposed AI Requirements Do?
The proposal would create a much more formal governance structure around student use of AI.
Among other requirements, districts would need to provide parents information about approved AI instructional tools, including the application or platform involved, applicable grade levels and subjects, and the nature of the student’s interaction with the tool.
For tools involving direct student use, parents would be offered the ability to opt their child in and would receive information about an alternative non-AI instructional option if they decline.
The proposal would also give parents the ability to limit their child’s time using approved AI instructional tools.
Districts would maintain a publicly accessible list of approved AI instructional tools and would need processes for preserving student AI interaction records consistent with parental access rights.
The proposal additionally addresses teacher and administrator training, student-data protections, restrictions on particular AI design practices, and reporting of AI usage to the state.
What Happens If Districts Don’t Comply?
The proposed amendment establishes requirements for district and charter-school Internet Safety Policies but does not identify a standalone monetary fine in the publicly available proposal materials reviewed for this resource.
Districts should nevertheless treat these requirements as part of their state compliance obligations if the amendment becomes final. Final enforcement implications should be confirmed against the adopted rule and Florida Department of Education guidance.
How Does This Apply to Districts and Vendors?
The immediate compliance responsibility sits with district school boards and charter school governing boards.
But implementation will depend heavily on the capabilities and practices of AI and edtech vendors.
Districts will need visibility into what AI tools are being used, processes for approving those tools, information necessary to assess student-data practices, mechanisms for applying district access rules, and data sufficient to answer parent and state reporting requests.
That makes AI governance a technology-operations issue as much as a policy issue.
How Lightspeed Helps
Lightspeed Insight™
Lightspeed Insight helps districts discover which applications—including AI applications—are being used across the district.
District teams can evaluate applications using privacy and security information, manage app-approval workflows, monitor changes to vendor policies, and maintain public-facing lists of approved applications.
Alignment: Supports approved-tool governance, public transparency, vendor review, and usage reporting.
Lightspeed Filter™
Lightspeed Filter helps districts control access to generative AI tools and document student AI activity.
Policy Exceptions, expected in September 2026, will let districts give individual students or groups different access without creating a separate filtering policy. For example, a district could restrict an AI tool for a student whose parent has not opted them in while keeping it available to the rest of the class.
Filter also includes AI Prompt Capture, which records prompts and responses on supported AI platforms. A planned CSV export, expected in Q4, will make those records easier to provide for reporting or authorized parent-access requests.
Alignment: Supports differentiated AI access and AI interaction recordkeeping.
Alignment: Supports differentiated AI access, parental-choice implementation, and AI interaction recordkeeping.
Lightspeed Classroom™
Lightspeed Classroom provides educators visibility into student browser activity during instruction, including student access to AI sites. This supports the instructional-oversight side of a district’s AI governance program and gives teachers another way to apply district AI expectations in practice.
What Should Florida Districts Do Now?
- Inventory AI applications currently being used by students and staff.
- Establish or update a formal AI application review and approval process.
- Determine how parent consent decisions will be collected and translated into student-level access rules.
- Identify a non-AI instructional alternative for direct-use AI applications where necessary.
- Determine where student AI interaction records will reside and how authorized parent requests will be fulfilled.
- Establish reporting processes for AI application usage.
- Review vendor privacy and data-use terms against the proposed restrictions.
- Prepare policy language now, while continuing to monitor Florida’s rulemaking process through final adoption.
Compliance Mapping
| Requirement Summary | Verbatim Proposed Language / Key Language | How Lightspeed Meets or Supports |
|---|---|---|
| Parent consent for direct student use | “the option for parents to opt their child into using the tool” | Supports Lightspeed Filter™ can enforce AI access policies. Planned Policy Exceptions, expected September 2026, will make it easier to restrict or allow access for individual students or groups without creating separate policies. |
| Non-AI option | Information on an “alternative, non-artificial intelligence instructional tool” | Supports Filter can restrict access to the AI tool for students who should use the alternative. Districts remain responsible for selecting and providing the non-AI option. |
| Approved AI-tool transparency | Maintain an accessible list of approved AI tools | Supports Lightspeed Insight™ helps districts inventory, review, approve, and publish approved applications. |
| Parent access to interaction records | Preserve records of student interactions consistent with parental access rights | Supports Filter’s AI Prompt Capture records prompts and responses on supported AI platforms. Planned CSV export, expected in Q4, will make those records easier to provide for authorized parent-access or reporting requests. |
| Report AI usage | Report tools used and information such as usage frequency/duration | Supports Insight provides visibility into AI application usage and trends. Final state reporting requirements and format still need to be confirmed. |
| Student-data protections | Prohibits specified commercialization/profiling uses of student data | Supports Insight helps districts review app privacy and security practices and monitor vendor policy changes. Vendors remain responsible for meeting substantive data-use restrictions. |
| Teacher/administrator preparation | Proposed policy includes staff preparation requirements | Supports Indirectly Lightspeed can provide product implementation guidance, while districts remain responsible for required professional development. |
