Login
More schools are using technology to monitor students’ online activity, in an attempt to prevent school violence, bullying and suicide. But according to a new peer-reviewed study, some providers of online surveillance services are monitoring kids 24/7, potentially without parents’ or students’ knowledge or consent.
Researchers from the University of California, San Diego, analyzed 14 companies that sell online surveillance services to U.S. schools and school districts and found that 12 conducted constant monitoring, inside and outside of school.
The online surveillance services varied by company but included monitoring students’ social media posts, website visitation data, and any email or documents written on a school account.
The companies scanned each kind of media for words and phrases deemed by the school or technology provider to be problematic and then shared the concerning activity with the school or technology provider.
Most of the companies (71%) said they used artificial intelligence (AI) to flag suspicious student activity. Less than half (43%) said they had a secondary human review team.
Reliance on AI could be a problem, since “algorithmic transparency is lacking” among the companies. The authors explained:
“Established research suggests that large language models demonstrate notable biases against non-White groups, so reliance on AI for monitoring without algorithmic transparency presents risks of discrimination or adverse outcomes for historically marginalized students.
“Companies without human review teams … may be at a higher risk of generating false positive alerts that lead to unwarranted disciplinary procedures for students.”
Nearly a third of the companies failed to clarify how they generated the alerts, the authors added.
Two of the companies said their staff provided crisis responses, including contacting law enforcement at their discretion.
Meanwhile, the authors said there is a “dearth” of research on the efficacy of online surveillance tools.
They also said research on other forms of school-based surveillance — such as metal detectors, security guards and cameras — has been ineffective in preventing violence and negatively impacts mental health.
A 2023 report by the American Civil Liberties Union similarly found a “lack of clear evidence” that school-based surveillance products kept students safe.
The authors said their report, published July 11 in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, provides the “first detailed assessment of the school-based online surveillance industry.”
U.S. government money goes toward surveilling schoolkids
The authors conducted a keyword search on the GovSpend site to identify companies that had contracts with public schools from February to June 2024.
They also searched an index of educational technology or EdTech products and services, and reviewed news articles that mentioned school-based online surveillance.
They cross-referenced their search results with information from interviews with school staff members.
The authors narrowed their list from more than 100 to 14 by selecting companies that met certain criteria, including:
- Claiming to monitor students’ social media, private electronic communications, or online browsing activity.
- Claiming to generate and save alerts tied to individual students’ identities.
- Making informational materials available in English.
- Specifically designing or marketing their services to schools.
- Operating at the time of the search.
The 14 companies in the study were Ativion, Bark, Blocksi, Deledao, Gaggle, GoGuardian, Lightspeed Systems, Linewize by Qoria, ManagedMethods, Navigate360, Netsweeper, Safer Schools Together, Securly and Sergeant Laboratories.
The authors then analyzed the information companies provided to schools when school administrators research which company to hire.
The study showed that the companies vary in the type of student device they monitor and how they conduct the monitoring.
The majority of the companies’ websites failed to provide detailed information about pricing for services. However, nearly half (43%) of the websites offered information on how to apply for governmental grants to pay for online surveillance.
Federal education grants are commonly used to pay for school-based online surveillance services, the authors explained. “But at present, the lack of research or reliable metrics makes it difficult to determine whether this technology is an appropriate use of federal funds,” they said.
The authors noted a “lack of transparency” about how surveillance services work. “Without transparency and accountability, this industry is susceptible to unproductive competition and even deceptive practices.”
This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.
The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.
Parents may not know their kids are being surveilled
The authors noted that online surveillance poses cybersecurity risks since it involves sharing students’ data with outside companies.
School-based online surveillance also threatens students’ privacy, they said.
According to the report, “Excessive surveillance may lead to a loss of students’ intimate privacy, which can impede their learning, social development, and mental health.”
The companies need to pay more attention to communicating well with parents and providing opt-out options, the authors said.
According to the report:
“It is unclear to what extent students, parents, and guardians understand or even are aware of schools’ use of surveillance technology.
“Our team had challenges accessing detailed, clear information about these companies, suggesting it is currently difficult for students and parents to find information to make informed decisions.”
Government policymakers also may need to increase their oversight of the online surveillance industry, they said.
For instance, a federal law could be passed that requires transparency from online surveillance companies and outlaws AI bias. The law could also give parents opt-in rights for student monitoring beyond school hours.
The Defender reached out to the study’s corresponding author for comment but did not receive a response by the deadline.
Related articles in The Defender
