Say “No” to Student Monitoring Software

School-issued devices have rapidly made their way into millions of American students’ lives following the virtual schooling brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet embedded into these devices is surveillance software that not only enables teachers to view and control their students’ screens, but also thoroughly scans each student’s laptop content and sends alerts to educators and law enforcement [1].

With mental health issues on the rise and safety concerns aggravated by the mass school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, the initial goal of this software was to identify youth at risk of harming themselves or others [2, 3]. Software companies like GoGuardian, Securly, Bark, and Gaggle were quick to rise to the challenge. In fact, 89% of teachers reported that student monitoring tools are used in their schools, according to a national survey by the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) [2].

Despite its widespread dissemination and good intentions, student monitoring software fails to achieve its advertised goals due to various shortcomings – it invades student privacy, encourages punitive rather than protective measures, discriminates against disadvantaged groups, lacks proper mechanisms for intervention and erodes teacher-student relationships.

First and foremost, students have a right to privacy. Although students are generally informed about the software, the surveys suggest that not all students are fully aware of the extent of it [4]. Many of these programs allow teachers direct access to their students’ laptops outside of school hours, giving teachers the power to override keyboards and close problematic tabs. Students cannot feel safe and respected in an environment of such extreme control and surveillance.

In fact, activity outside of school-issued devices may also be detected. One associate principal [1] said that Gaggle would send him email alerts of pornographic photos exchanged by students even though they were not done via students’ Chromebooks. After investigation, it turns out that the student was charging their phone through their Chromebook, which meant private conversations were also unwittingly scanned by the surveillance software. One of the primary tenets of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)’s code of ethics is to protect the privacy of others, yet this pervasive technology intrudes students’ private lives.

Secondly, punishment for breaking school rules seems to have become the norm. 78% of teachers who use monitoring tools said the software has been used to flag students for discipline and 59% said kids end up getting punished [2]. On the other hand, just 45% of teachers said the software is used to identify violent threats and 47% said it is used to identify students at risk of harming themselves. These findings are a direct contradiction of the tool’s stated goal.

Even more concerning is how monitoring software can exacerbate “the school-to-prison pipeline by increasing law enforcement interactions with students”, according to a report by Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey in April [2]. In the CDT survey, 44% of teachers reported that at least one student at their school had been contacted by law enforcement as a result of flagged behaviors.

“Schools have institutionalized and routinized law enforcement’s access to students’ information,” says Elizabeth Laird, the director of equity in civic technology at the CDT [1].

Inevitably, this perpetuates discrimination between different student groups. Those from lower-income backgrounds are less likely to own private devices, so they will have less privacy when it comes to doing the embarrassing things all teenagers do [4]. Furthermore, if students’ online language related to drug use, pornography, or violent thoughts are alerted to law enforcement, the kids already subjected to more frequent interactions with police are likely to suffer. Disproportionate disciplinary action along racial lines is emerging too: in a youth survey, researchers found 48% of Black students and 55% of Hispanic students reported that they or someone they knew got into trouble for something flagged by a monitoring tool, whereas just 41% of white students reported similar experiences [2, 5].

This discrimination can have even higher stakes: according to a report by The Boston Globe, the sharing of Boston Public School student records with a police department intelligence group exposed undocumented students, putting them at greater risk of deportation [1]. The engineering ethical code to “treat all persons fairly and with respect, and to not engage in discrimination based on characteristics such as race, religion, gender, disability, age, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression” is clearly violated in these scenarios.

Recent policies targeting LGBTQ youth and people seeking abortions raise more concerns about how this data might be weaponized [1, 5]. Nearly a third of LGBTQ students said they or someone they know experienced non-consensual disclosure (outing) of their sexual orientation or gender identity as a result of activity monitoring [2]. Some companies, such as Gaggle, claim to identify references to words like “gay” and “lesbian,” to protect LGBTQ youth, who face a greater risk of suicide. But, survey results suggest that this heightened surveillance comes with significant harm [2]. In a letter to the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, advocates said the disparities shown in the survey run counter to federal laws prohibiting race-, sex- and disability-based discrimination.

“Student activity monitoring is subjecting protected classes of students to increased discipline and interactions with law enforcement, invading their privacy, and creating hostile environments for students to express their true thoughts and authentic identities,” the letter mentions [2].

As states implement anti-abortion laws following the repeal of Roe v. Wade, civil rights groups have cautioned that data from monitoring tools could help the police identify and criminalize youth seeking reproductive health care. A student using a search engine to find out-of-state abortion clinics, or chatting online with a friend about an unplanned pregnancy, could be reported to local law enforcement [1].

There is also the tricky promise of “intervention”. The goal of surveillance, according to these software companies, is to allow for “early intervention” [4]. This “intervention” can manifest as involving police, who are known to enter into private homes and engage in force with households without warrants. Many officers have not received training for household crises, even though many lives have been saved by police in these situations, according to Gaggle in its letter to the senators [2].

In January, Baltimore required officials to train on trauma-informed care through the Healing City Act. But as Baltimore Teachers Union Vice President Zach Taylor tweeted, City Schools are exempt from the Healing City Act: “It could still sign-on, engage in the trainings, agree to follow the protocols, etc… but they’ve been silent on the matter and appear uninterested.” Crucially, information about the child’s attempts to access external help might also be forwarded to their possible abuser: their parents [6]. The Rape Abuse Incest National Network (Rainn) reported that during the pandemic more than half of their callers seeking assistance were minors, who were more likely to be trapped in their homes with abusive family members [4]. As engineers consider the responsibility to “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public”, these potential repercussions should be dealt with the utmost care.

Ultimately, the misuse of monitoring software may erode teacher-student trust [7]. When teachers use technology to monitor and punish behavior, students can come to believe that school is merely an environment of compliance, limitation, judgment, fear and ultimate surveillance rather than a space to develop the love of learning. On the other hand, positive teacher-student relationships can increase student learning and decrease student behavioral issues. There is also evidence that when teachers develop an atmosphere of trust in their classrooms, students will talk to them if they need help with mental health or safety issues. Classroom management needs to focus on developing positive behaviors conducive to learning rather than the control of misbehavior.

The IEEE code of ethics emphasizes the safety, welfare, fairness and privacy of technology users. Yet student monitoring software clearly goes against these principles.

“Are we, in the name of keeping students safe, actually endangering them?” asked Laird [2].

“The answer to our lack of privacy isn’t more tracking,” argued the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit focused on digital privacy and free speech, in a report [2].

Indeed, if teens are in need of help, the best way to protect them is to ensure they have trusted adults in their lives they can turn to. A snooping AI is no replacement for that. Teens deserve privacy for the same reasons we all do: to not feel paranoid, to not be disciplined for their minor transgressions, and most importantly, to not have their rights trampled on.

References

1. Ceres, Pia. “Kids Are Back in Classrooms and Laptops Are Still Spying on Them.” Wired, 3 Aug. 2022, https://www.wired.com/story/student-monitoring-software-privacy-in-schools/. Accessed 10 April 2023.

2. Keierleber, Mark. “Survey Reveals Extent that Cops Surveil Students Online — in School and at Home.” The 74 Million, 3 Aug. 2022, https://www.the74million.org/article/survey-reveals-extent-that-cops-surveil-students-online-in-school-and-at-home. Accessed 10 April 2023.

3. Anand, Priya and Bergen, Mark. “Big Teacher Is Watching: How AI Spyware Took Over Schools.” Bloomberg, 28 Oct. 2021, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-10-28/how-goguardian-ai-spyware-took-over-schools-student-devices-during-covid. Accessed 10 April 2023.

4. Crispin, Jessa. “US schools gave kids laptops during the pandemic. Then they spied on them.” The Guardian, 11 Oct. 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/11/us-students-digital-surveillance-schools. Accessed 10 April 2023.

5. Feathers, Todd. “Schools Spy on Kids to Prevent Shootings, But There’s No Evidence It Works.” Vice, 4 Dec. 2019, https://www.vice.com/en/article/8xwze4/schools-are-using-spyware-to-prevent-shootingsbut-theres-no-evidence-it-works. Accessed 10 April 2023.

6. Noor, Jaisal. “Cops in Baltimore Schools are Monitoring Students’ Laptops”. The Real News Network, 4 Oct. 2021, Cops in Baltimore Schools are monitoring students’ laptops (therealnews.com). Accessed 17 April 2023.

7. Buchanan, Shelley. “The Abuses and Misuses of GoGuardian in Schools.” Medium, 21 Jan. 2021, https://medium.com/teachers-on-fire/the-abuses-and-misuses-of-goguardian-in-schools-857373ab5979. Accessed 10 April 2023.

8. Fedders, Barbara. The Constant and Expanding Classroom: Surveillance in K-12 Public Schools, 97 N.C. L. Rev. 1673. 1 Sept. 2019, https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol97/iss6/4. Accessed 10 April 2023.