This guide is written for Texas superintendents, ISD legal counsel, curriculum directors, and charter leaders. It covers what TEC §11.169 actually requires, how TEA guidance interacts with the statute, how FERPA continues to apply, what changes for open-enrollment charters, and the questions counsel tends to ask before a board vote.

What changed in Texas law

Before 2024, Texas districts that wanted an AI policy built one from scratch; districts that did not were operating under generic acceptable-use language. TEC §11.169 moved the question from "should we have a policy?" to "what should it contain, and when is it adopted?"

The statute requires adoption at the board level. It does not dictate substance beyond the requirement that the policy cover student use of AI and AI-generated material. That leaves districts substantial latitude, which is both the opportunity and the complication.

TEC §11.169 in practice

The operational test for a TEC §11.169-compliant policy is whether it gives a teacher, student, or parent a clear answer to "what is the rule?" for a given situation. A policy that is compliant in principle but unusable in practice fails this test.

In practice, that means the Student Use section needs a grade-band gradient (K-5 differs from 6-12), the Disclosure section needs a specific standard (always / when substantial / teacher discretion), and the Enforcement section needs a named framework that already exists in the district's student code of conduct. Compliance is about substance, not just adoption.

How TEA guidance interacts

TEA has published guidance on generative AI for Texas schools. The guidance is advisory rather than prescriptive — TEA does not mandate specific policy language — but it is the most useful state-level reference for aligning district policy with TEA's expectations on classroom integration, privacy, and academic integrity.

Districts that cite TEA guidance in their policy narrative (Purpose, Privacy, and Transparency sections are the usual placements) give their adopted policy a visible anchor in state expectations. That helps with both board adoption and the occasional parent escalation.

Stacking with FERPA

TEC §11.169 does not displace FERPA. Student records remain subject to FERPA whether they pass through an AI tool or not. Texas policies need to name the FERPA floor explicitly in the Privacy section — teachers cannot enter student names, IEPs, or behavior records into tools that have not been approved for that data sensitivity level.

The practical effect: a Texas policy satisfies two statutory frames (TEC §11.169 on AI use; FERPA on records), and should cite both. Citing only the Texas code leaves the FERPA angle unsupported; citing only FERPA misses the AI-specific requirement the state added in 2024.

Charter schools under Texas law

Open-enrollment charter schools in Texas are subject to TEC §11.169 the same way ISDs are. The adoption mechanism shifts — charter school boards adopt in place of an ISD trustee board — but the policy substance and the FERPA stacking apply identically.

Private schools in Texas are outside the scope of TEC §11.169, though many adopt AI policy voluntarily for institutional reasons (accreditation, parent expectations, insurance). The framework in this guide applies either way.

Board adoption in Texas

Texas boards adopt a policy after a vote in open session. Districts typically pair the adoption with a first reading at one meeting and a vote at the next, which gives the community a window for feedback. Adoption resolutions reference the section number (§11.169) and the date of the policy draft under vote.

Counsel typically reviews the draft before first reading. Districts using a generated starting draft should give counsel at least two weeks to review; the draft is not a replacement for counsel's judgment, it is an accelerator for it.

What counsel usually asks

Four questions come up repeatedly in counsel review of Texas AI policy drafts.

• Does the policy cite TEC §11.169 and FERPA by section? Citations strengthen the policy when challenged.
• Does the Enforcement section route through the existing student code of conduct? A standalone AI-specific discipline framework conflicts with district precedent.
• Is the parent-consent posture (opt-in / opt-out / notice-only) explicit? Ambiguous consent language is the most common source of parent escalations.
• Is the Prohibited Uses list category-based rather than tool-based? Tool-specific language ages badly; category language survives the next tool launch.

Compliance checklist

What Texas districts specifically need to document, retain, or report under TEC §11.169 and related state expectations.

1. Adopt the policy at the board level. TEC §11.169 requires board adoption — not a superintendent directive.
2. Document the adoption date and resolution number in board minutes.
3. Cite TEC §11.169 and FERPA explicitly in the policy text. Counsel will look for the citations.
4. Keep an approved-tools vendor list with vendor agreements on file. Each agreement must address FERPA “school official” status and data-retention terms.
5. Record any parent AI opt-outs per the district’s parental consent posture. Retain per FERPA records rules.
6. For COPPA-covered tools used with students under 13, retain the school’s consent-on-behalf-of-parents documentation.
7. Log academic integrity incidents involving AI in the same system used for other integrity violations. Do not create a parallel log.
8. Schedule annual review of the policy. Publish amendments through the same board adoption procedure.
9. Post the current policy, acceptable-use policy, and student code of conduct together on the district site.
10. Confirm charter schools under district authorization follow the same adoption process required under TEC §11.169.