Dozens of civil rights and education groups have sent asking it to ban the use of federal funds to purchase school surveillance technologies.
The No Tech Criminalization in Education (NOTICE) Coalition wrote in the March 18 letter that the groups are concerned about 鈥渢he rapid expansion of artificial intelligence and big data technologies in K-12 public schools,鈥� which they argue have the potential to 鈥渧iolate the civil and human rights of students from historically marginalized communities.鈥�
The groups include GLSEN, a nonprofit advocacy organization focusing on LGBTQ+ students in K-12 schools; research and advocacy nonprofit Education Law Center; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; and Teachers Unite, an independent membership organization of New York City public school educators.
69传媒 have increased their reliance on high-tech solutions, such as AI-powered facial- and weapons-recognition technologies, to ensure the physical safety of their students and staff. In addition, many schools have also turned to software that monitors students鈥� online activity as a response to rising gun violence in schools and student mental health challenges that pose a risk to the school community.
鈥淥ne of the things we have seen is that a lot of those COVID-era funds have been used to procure a lot of these technologies,鈥� said Clarence Okoh, one of the leaders of the coalition and a senior policy counsel for the Center for Law and Social Policy, an anti-poverty advocacy nonprofit. 鈥淭he private sector companies that sell these technologies actually market the fact that there are these federal grant programs that are available and encourage schools to leverage them.鈥�
These 鈥減roblematic鈥� technologies have 鈥渄evastating consequences for young people鈥� and don鈥檛 necessarily improve student safety and well-being, the coalition wrote in the letter addressed to Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona; Catherine Lhamon, the assistant secretary for civil rights; and Monique Dixon, the deputy assistant secretary for policy.
Researchers have found that schools that tighten security and surveillance in response to shootings or other acts of violence may worsen long-term discipline disparities and academic progress, particularly for Black students.
Student surveys suggest that surveillance technologies, such as device monitoring, can make students less likely to express themselves openly or less willing to seek support for their mental and behavioral needs, according to a 2022 report from the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit that advocates online civil liberties.
Many school districts lack the technical expertise they need to fully evaluate surveillance technologies before they use them, the letter pointed out. So far, only a few states have issued guidance around the use of AI for a variety of purposes in schools.
There鈥檚 an open question about what is the difference between supervising students and surveilling students?
鈥淓ven in [that] guidance, we鈥檙e not seeing any kind of significant mention of the implications of these technologies in relation to student civil rights protections, especially as it relates to student discipline and the use of the technologies by law-enforcement officials in schools,鈥� Okoh said. He emphasized that鈥檚 why it鈥檚 important for the Education Department to get involved.
The New York state education department last year permanently banned the use of facial-recognition technology in schools鈥攖he first state to do so. Okoh and the NOTICE coalition said the federal Education Department should follow New York鈥檚 lead.
Along with banning the use of federal funds to purchase school surveillance technologies, the coalition also asks that the Education Department study the prevalence of these technologies in public schools; issue and offer technical guidance to help districts evaluate AI-powered technologies; and include the voices of youth and caregivers when developing policies around the use of AI technologies in schools.
Drawing the line between safety and surveillance
Studying the prevalence of AI-powered monitoring systems and offering technical guidance to districts are vital priorities, said Amelia Vance, the president of the Public Interest Privacy Center, which advocates effective, ethical, and equitable privacy safeguards for all children and students.
鈥淲e need to know more. We don鈥檛 know what has been adopted,鈥� Vance said. 鈥淎 lot of times, when it is adopted, the actual efficacy rate is not something that is accurately provided to districts.鈥�
However, when it comes to banning 鈥減olice-surveillance technologies,鈥� Vance said it could be 鈥渄ifficult to define鈥� what falls under that category.
鈥淎 longtime responsibility that I think pretty much everybody in society would say that schools have is to supervise their students,鈥� she said. 鈥淎nd there鈥檚 an open question about what is the difference between supervising students and surveilling students?鈥�
