If an app is tutoring your child at school right now, nobody had to ask you first. Florida wants to change that. A draft rule from the state’s Department of Education would require schools to name every approved AI instructional tool, explain it to parents in plain language, and get an opt-in before a student uses one directly. That sounds like a clean win for parents, and in most ways it is. The catch: a permission form only protects your child if you know what to ask before you sign it.
Florida has drafted a rule requiring schools to get parent sign-off before students use AI instructional tools. Here is what it requires, and the questions worth asking before you sign.
Common questions
What does Florida's proposed AI rule require schools to do?
Should I opt my child out of AI tools at school?
What questions should I ask before signing an AI permission notice?
Is AI bad for children's learning?
Florida wants parents to sign off before classroom AI reaches their kids. The form helps. Knowing what the tool trains your child to practice helps more.
What Florida is proposing
On July 21, the Florida Department of Education opened rulemaking to amend Rule 6A-1.0957, the state’s internet safety policy for schools. Under the draft, every district and charter school board must adopt an AI policy by January 1, 2027. Before an AI instructional tool reaches students, schools would notify parents in "plain, non-technical language" about the name of the application or platform, the grades and subjects where it will be used, and "the nature of the student interaction with the tool, including whether the tool provides automated feedback or instructional responses."
Where a student would use a tool directly, the draft requires "the option for parents to opt their child into using the tool along with information on an alternative, non-artificial intelligence instructional tool for their child to use if they do not opt them in," and lets parents cap how much time their child spends on the tool. Districts would keep a publicly accessible list of approved tools, preserve records of student interactions for parental review under FERPA, and bar tools that subject students to "undisclosed behavior monitoring, social scoring, or psychological profiling" or that "sell, monetize, profile, or commercially exploit student data to train commercial AI models."
The department held a public workshop on August 5, and the State Board of Education has not yet set a date to consider the rule. Districts are watching closely. Hillsborough County said, "We will be listening in on the workshop to hear the proposals," and Manatee County stated, "Student safety is always our top priority."
We will be listening in on the workshop to hear the proposals.
Laura Lurns · Learning Success expert
The question the form will not answer
Coverage of the proposal has split into two camps. Parent advocates hear a long-overdue right to know. The education software industry, led by the Software & Information Industry Association, warns that the definition is broad enough to sweep district-vetted adaptive programs in with chatbots, and that opt-in paperwork could cut struggling readers and students with disabilities off from tools built for them. Both camps treat the permission form as the finish line. The question that decides what your child gets out of the tool sits somewhere else entirely: what does it train your child to practice?
American classrooms have been through this before. For decades, popular reading programs taught children to guess words from pictures and context. Keith Rayner’s eye-tracking research showed that skilled readers process nearly every letter and that guessing from context is what struggling readers do; cognitive scientist Mark Seidenberg called the approach "descriptive of how poor readers read." It took Emily Hanford’s 2019 investigative reporting to start changing laws, and states were still passing corrective reading legislation in 2024 and 2025. A classroom tool does not have to be malicious to build the wrong habit. It only has to go unexamined.
The draft’s design bans point at a second risk. Florida would bar tools built to simulate friendship or to employ relationship-building features that keep a child interacting, and Deci, Koestner and Ryan’s 1999 meta-analysis explains why that matters: across 128 experiments, tangible rewards undermined people’s own motivation for tasks they were already engaged with. Engagement machinery is a business model, not a learning principle. The underlying skills that make a child an independent learner are built through practice, not through a system designed to keep them hooked.
Key takeaways
- Opt-in with an off-ramp: Florida's draft requires parent sign-off plus a non-AI alternative for direct-use tools.
- Design bans with teeth: Tools simulating friendship or running undisclosed behavior monitoring would be barred.
- The form is not the finish line: Consent protects a child only when parents know what the tool trains.
What to ask before you sign
When the notice arrives, it will tell you the tool’s name, the grades and subjects, and how your child will interact with it. That is where your questions begin, not end. Ask what happens when your child gets stuck: does the tool make them work through the problem, or does it hand over the answer and move on? Ask what happens when your child is wrong. The tools worth opting into make a child revise their own thinking; the ones worth refusing quietly complete the task instead. The question we would put on every permission notice: is this support building the skill, or replacing the expectation that it gets built?
Ask about the mechanics too. Streaks, points, and prizes signal software designed to hold attention rather than build ability. Then use the leverage the rule hands you: the public list of approved tools, the interaction records you are entitled to review, and the time limit you get to set.
Opting out is not paranoia, and opting in is not surrender. A child who struggles with reading gains nothing from a tool that reads for them, while a child drafting an essay gains plenty from one that critiques the draft without writing a word of it. The rule’s job is to hand you the decision. Yours is to bring the right questions, because Florida’s notice is likely to become the template other states copy.
Student safety is always our top priority
Laura Lurns · Learning Success expert
Nobody will ever advocate for your child as hard as you will, and Florida’s draft rule, whatever its final shape, hands that advocacy a document to work with. The villain here was never the technology; it is software engineered to hold a child’s attention rather than build their ability, rolled out faster than parents are taught to evaluate it. The strongest position is a parent who knows what a learning tool is supposed to do: make the child do the thinking. That is the principle behind the Learning Success All Access program, which strengthens the underlying skills that let a child use any tool, or none at all, as a confident, independent learner.
See what All Access gives your child
See MTSS for schools
Is your child struggling in school?
Get your free personalized learning roadmap
You describe what you see at home. We turn it into a plan you start this week.
- Answer 5 short questionnaires about what you already notice, 30–45 minutes at your own kitchen table
- Your child sits no test and gets no score: nothing to schedule, nothing for them to dread
- You do the answering, the AI does the writing, and a person reviews it before it reaches you
- Access all 40+ courses instantly: reading, math, focus, processing and more, with new ones added regularly
Why we use AI, plainly: it writes from a knowledge base our team maintains and audits. We work through it line by line and pull anything the evidence stops supporting. The roadmap you get on Tuesday reflects what we corrected on Monday, and a human still reads it before you do.
Your school district must evaluate your child free of charge if you ask in writing, whatever your income and whatever the outcome (US, 34 CFR 300.111 and 300.301(b)). That route takes time and answers a different question than you do. This one starts today, from what you already know.
Your answers stay yours. We do not sell your personal information, and we do not hand identifiable assessment data to outside AI companies to train their models.
A screener is a starting point, not a diagnosis. If your child might need formal accommodations (an IEP or 504 plan), or you suspect a vision, hearing or medical cause, pursue a professional evaluation too. That is the only route to those supports.
References
- Florida Department of Education — Draft amendment to Rule 6A-1.0957, Internet Safety Policy
- Florida Administrative Register — Notice of Rule Development, July 21, 2026
- FOX 13 Tampa Bay — Florida Department of Education to hold online workshop on AI classroom guidelines
- The Center Square — Parental choice provided for artificial intelligence tools in schools
- SIIA — SIIA urges Florida to narrow proposed AI rule for K-12 classrooms
