Schools Hire Big Brother Companies to Monitor Students 24/7

1. 
   

   Schools Monitor Students 24/7: New Research Reveals Extensive Digital Surveillance as Legal Challenges Mount

   Bottom Line: A groundbreaking UC San Diego study reveals that 86% of school surveillance companies monitor students around the clock, with mounting evidence of false alarms, constitutional violations, and disproportionate impacts on marginalized students sparking lawsuits and calls for reform.

   School surveillance technology designed to protect students is increasingly triggering false alarms, leading to arrests and raising serious constitutional concerns, according to new research and mounting legal challenges across the United States.

   The Surveillance Surge: Post-Columbine Response to School Violence

   The widespread adoption of school surveillance technology represents one of the most significant changes to American education since the Columbine High School massacre on April 20, 1999, which killed 13 students and one teacher and fundamentally transformed how schools approach safety.

   Massive Market Penetration: The scope of surveillance technology adoption in American schools is staggering. More than 90 percent of all schools in the U.S. have electronic notification systems for emergencies and nearly as many use video surveillance systems in some capacity. "Almost every school in the U.S. now controls access into a building via an access control system," according to Omdia Senior Research Analyst for Physical Security Bryan Montany.

   A majority of 14- to 18-year-olds — 87% — are aware of surveillance technologies in their schools, according to an ACLU survey. Students reported that their schools use video cameras (62%), monitoring software on school-issued devices (49%) and social media monitoring (27%). It is estimated that millions of children—nearly half of K-12 students across the nation—are subject to digital surveillance systems.

   The Columbine Effect: Following the Columbine shooting, schools across the United States instituted new security measures such as transparent backpacks, metal detectors, school uniforms, and security guards. Schools adopted a zero-tolerance approach to possession of weapons and threatening behavior. The tragedy normalized surveillance in schools as a necessary evil, with what was once considered intrusive becoming accepted as essential for student safety.

   Escalating Pattern: Since 1999, 440 people have been killed and 1,243 injured in shooting events at K-12 schools. There were 332 shooting incidents at K-12 schools in 2024 alone. The 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which killed 20 children and 6 staff members, triggered another wave of security spending that extended surveillance to elementary schools and younger age groups.

   Market Response: The school and campus security market has grown from $2.51 billion in 2023 to $3.00 billion in 2024, and is projected to reach $12.58 billion by 2032. When it comes to companies that provide security equipment, growth rates can vary from 5% to 15% depending on how many shootings took place in a given year.

   UC San Diego Study Reveals Extensive Monitoring

   A recent study from researchers at University of California San Diego is the first detailed assessment of companies offering school-based online surveillance services. The study, published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research in July 2025, found that surveillance companies are extensively monitoring students' digital behavior far beyond what parents and educators may realize.

   The research team, led by Dr. Cinnamon S. Bloss, identified 14 companies actively marketing online surveillance services to schools. Their findings paint a picture of comprehensive digital oversight:

   • 86% of companies monitor students 24 hours per day and 7 days per week, not just during school hours
   • 71% use AI for automated flagging of "concerning activity;" only 43% use human review teams
   • 93% monitor school-issued devices; 36% also claim to monitor student-owned phones and computers
   • 29% generate student "risk scores" based on online behavior, which can be viewed at the student, classroom or school level

   Companies gain access to student digital activity through browser plug-ins, API integrations and device software. However, the study found that companies rarely disclose pricing or performance data, and public-facing information is often vague or incomplete.

   False Alarms and Serious Consequences

   The extensive monitoring is leading to concerning real-world consequences. Thousands of school districts across the country use software like Gaggle and Lightspeed Alert to track students' online activities, looking for signs they might hurt themselves or others. However, the technology's limitations have resulted in serious false alarms.

   High Error Rates: Gaggle alerted more than 1,200 incidents to the Lawrence, Kansas, school district in a recent 10-month period. But almost two-thirds of those alerts were deemed by school officials to be nonissues — including over 200 false alarms from student homework. Students in one photography class were called to the principal's office over concerns Gaggle had detected nudity, but the photos were revealed to be false alarms.

   Serious Consequences: A 13-year-old Tennessee girl was arrested after making an inappropriate joke that triggered surveillance software. The teenage girl made an offensive joke while chatting online with classmates about being called "Mexican" by friends. When asked what she was planning for Thursday, she wrote: "on Thursday we kill all the Mexico's." Before the morning was over, she was under arrest, interrogated, strip-searched and spent the night in a jail cell. A court ordered eight weeks of house arrest, a psychological evaluation and 20 days at an alternative school.

   Involuntary Commitments: In Florida's Polk County Schools, a district of more than 100,000 students, the school safety program received nearly 500 Gaggle alerts over four years, leading to 72 involuntary hospitalization cases under the Baker Act, a state law that allows authorities to require mental health evaluations against someone's will.

   Impact on Marginalized Students

   Research consistently shows that surveillance technology disproportionately affects vulnerable student populations. Students with learning differences or disabilities are more likely than their peers to suppress their thoughts online because they know they are being monitored. Surveillance systems have the potential of outing transgender students who may not be open about their identity and are often at the greatest risk of suicide.

   Students who are members of the LGBTQ community, students of color, students with disabilities, low-income students, and students who are undocumented or have undocumented family members are especially vulnerable to the harmful effects of surveillance technology.

   Lack of Evidence for Effectiveness

   Despite the widespread adoption of these surveillance systems, research shows they fail to prevent the tragedies they claim to address:

   No Prevention of Shootings: An audit of K-12 school mass shootings over the past two decades found that surveillance cameras were present in 8 of the 10 deadliest schools that experienced these shootings, yet did not prevent those incidents.

   Limited Monitoring Effectiveness: A U.S. Secret Service investigation found that social media monitoring had little role in thwarting planned school shootings. The study, which analyzed 67 plots against schools, reported that a majority were flagged by peers, school employees or family members—not by surveillance technology.

   No Crime Reduction: In a nationally representative sample of 850 school districts conducted by University of Louisville researchers in 2021, there was no evidence of a difference in outcomes related to school crime between schools with security cameras and schools without.

   Legal Challenges Emerge

   The surveillance practices are now facing constitutional challenges in federal court. Student journalists suing Lawrence Public Schools in Kansas say the district used Gaggle to scan their files, flag their speech and take down their creative work. The students claim four editions of their school newspaper were unable to publish because of Gaggle.

   Student Natasha Torkzaban, who graduated in 2024, said she was flagged for editing a friend's college essay because it had the words "mental health." The suit claims surveillance violated students' First Amendment rights to free speech, their Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, and their Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of due process.

   Dystopian Echoes: From Fiction to Reality

   The expansion of school surveillance systems evokes troubling parallels to dystopian fiction that has long warned about the dangers of pervasive monitoring.

   Orwellian Surveillance State: The constant monitoring of students' digital communications bears striking resemblance to George Orwell's "1984," where the Party surveilled citizens through telescreens and thoughtcrime detection. Just as Orwell's Thought Police monitored for signs of disloyalty, school surveillance systems flag students for "concerning" thoughts and communications.

   Pre-Crime Prediction: The AI algorithms used to predict student threats echo the "PreCrime" system in Philip K. Dick's "Minority Report." Like the fictional PreCogs who predicted crimes before they occurred, school surveillance systems claim to identify future threats based on digital behavior patterns. However, both systems struggle with the fundamental problem of false positives—punishing people for crimes they haven't committed.

   Social Credit Parallels: Perhaps most concerning are the similarities to China's Social Credit System. In China, the social credit score may prevent students from attending certain universities or schools if their parents have a poor social credit rating. However, U.S. school surveillance systems may actually be more invasive in practice. Unlike China's system, which is lowly digitalized and fragmented, American school surveillance operates with sophisticated AI monitoring every keystroke of students 24/7.

   The UC San Diego study found that 29% of companies generate student "risk scores" based on online behavior, directly paralleling social credit scoring and potentially creating a permanent digital record that could follow students throughout their academic and professional careers.

   Constitutional Challenges: Fourth and Fifth Amendment Issues

   The pervasive surveillance of students raises serious constitutional questions that courts are only beginning to address.

   Fourth Amendment Erosion: While the Supreme Court established in New Jersey v. T.L.O. that students retain Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches, these rights are significantly diminished in school settings. School staff need only "reasonable suspicion" rather than probable cause. However, current digital surveillance extends far beyond the physical searches contemplated in that 1985 case.

   Fifth Amendment Due Process: When students are subjected to disciplinary action, suspension, or arrest based on algorithmic flags, serious due process concerns arise. Students flagged by surveillance systems often face consequences without adequate procedural protections. The lack of transparency in algorithmic decision-making makes it nearly impossible for students to challenge erroneous determinations, and surveillance systems operate on a presumption of potential guilt rather than innocence.

   Student Recourse and Parent Rights

   Limited Recourse for False Alarms

   Students and families affected by surveillance false alarms face significant challenges in seeking recourse, with limited legal protections and unclear pathways for redress.

   Legal Gaps: Currently no federal private right of action under FERPA exists for families to seek redress. Under FERPA, parents can inspect surveillance footage when it becomes part of a disciplinary case, but schools typically require in-person viewing with redactions. The burden often falls on families to prove their innocence rather than requiring schools to justify their actions.

   Constitutional Litigation: The most significant recourse currently available is federal constitutional litigation, as demonstrated by the Kansas student journalists' case claiming surveillance violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

   Parent Opt-Out Challenges

   School Resistance: Even when families are aware of surveillance, schools may refuse to let them opt out. Tim Reiland, who unsuccessfully lobbied his kids' school district in Owasso, Oklahoma, to let his children opt out of Gaggle, said: "Imagine growing up in a world where everything you've ever said on a computer is monitored by the government."

   Hidden Disclosure: Parents say their child's school either did not disclose it used surveillance software or buried the disclosure in long technology use forms.

   Educational Discrimination: When opt-out policies do exist, they often create educational disparities. One parent described refusing to let their child complete homework online, and their child receiving lower grades as a result.

   Ineffective Opt-Outs: Even successful opt-outs may not provide complete protection. Some parents found that their students' participation in classroom technology continued even after they thought they had effectively opted out.

   ---

   SIDEBAR: Inside the School Surveillance Industry

   Market Size and Economics

   The school surveillance industry has grown into a multi-billion dollar market. The school and campus security market is projected to grow from $3.00 billion in 2024 to $12.58 billion by 2032, exhibiting a robust CAGR of 19.60%. In 2021, K-12 schools and colleges spent an estimated $3.1 billion on security products and services, up from $2.7 billion in 2017.

   Major Companies and Leadership

   GoGuardian (Liminex Inc.)

   • Leadership: CEO Rich Preece, Co-founder and Chief Innovation Officer Tyler Shaddix
   • Valuation: Valued at over $1 billion after raising $200 million from Tiger Global Management in 2021
   • Scale: Services used in 10,150+ schools for at least five million students

   Gaggle

   • Leadership: CEO Jeff Patterson
   • Market Position: Used by around 1,500 districts

   Lightspeed Systems

   • Leadership: Amy Bennett serves as chief of staff

   Qualification and Selection Process

   Lack of Standardized Certification: There are no independent, unbiased evaluations establishing that surveillance products work. Schools typically select vendors through direct sales pitches, conference presentations, grant funding requirements, and peer recommendations.

   Warning Signs: Security expert Ken Trump cautions that "after a high-profile incident, we have an onslaught of overnight experts, charlatans, gadgets, and gurus that pop up."

   Accuracy and Verification Issues

   Hidden Performance Data: Information about false alert rates is closely held by technology companies and unavailable publicly unless schools track the data themselves.

   High False Alarm Rates: Available data reveals concerning accuracy issues, with two-thirds of alerts in Lawrence, Kansas being false positives.

   No Independent Testing: The EdTech surveillance industry's efficacy claims are based almost entirely on opinion-based evaluations and unsubstantiated, unverifiable statements.

   Industry Vulnerabilities

   Volatile Demand: Growth rates vary 5-15% depending on how many shootings occur per year.

   Inconsistent Funding: "It's a roller coaster. There's no long-term consistency," according to security expert Ken Trump. Most spending is based on one-time grants aimed at visible displays of security.

   ---

   The Future of School Surveillance

   The debate over school surveillance is likely to intensify as technology becomes more sophisticated. Students deserve schools where decisions about threats are made by school administrators, counselors, and educators—human beings who can account for students' particular needs—not by an algorithm.

   The ongoing legal challenges and mounting research evidence suggest that the current approach to school surveillance may face significant changes as courts, lawmakers, and education officials grapple with balancing student safety and constitutional rights in the digital age.

   Despite massive investments in surveillance technology, the evidence suggests these systems have failed to prevent the tragedies they were designed to stop, while creating a generation of students subject to unprecedented monitoring that may violate their fundamental rights.

   ---

   Sources

   1. O'Daffer, A., & Bloss, C.S. (2025). "School-Based Online Surveillance of Youth: Systematic Search and Content Analysis of Surveillance Company Websites." Journal of Medical Internet Research, July 8, 2025. https://today.ucsd.edu/story/study-finds-that-school-based-online-surveillance-companies-monitor-students-24-7
   2. Citron, D.K. (2024). "Freeing Students From Online Surveillance." The Regulatory Review, October 15, 2024. https://www.theregreview.org/2024/10/15/huang-freeing-students-from-online-surveillance/
   3. Associated Press. (2025). "Students have been called to the office for AI surveillance false alarms." Broomfield Enterprise, August 7, 2025. https://www.broomfieldenterprise.com/2025/08/07/us-education-digital-surveillance/
   4. Johnson, M.P. (2025). "Students Sue Kansas School District, Alleging Digital Surveillance." Government Technology, August 2025. https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/student-sue-kansas-school-district-alleging-digital-surveillance
   5. Center for Democracy and Technology. (2023). "Schools' online surveillance raises parental concerns over student learning, well-being." K-12 Dive, August 4, 2023. https://www.k12dive.com/news/online-surveillance-parents-raise-concerns-student-learning/689998/
   6. American Civil Liberties Union. (2023). "New ACLU Report Shines Light on Shadowy EdTech Surveillance Industry and the Dangerous Consequences of Surveillance in Schools." October 3, 2023. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/new-aclu-report-shines-light-on-shadowy-edtech-surveillance-industry-and-the-dangerous-consequences-of-surveillance-in-schools
   7. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2024). "School Monitoring Software Sacrifices Student Privacy for Unproven Promises of Safety." September 6, 2024. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/09/school-monitoring-software-sacrifices-student-privacy-unproven-promises-safety
   8. Knight First Amendment Institute. "School Surveillance Systems Threaten Student Privacy, New Knight Institute Lawsuit Alleges." https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/school-surveillance-systems-threaten-student-privacy-new-knight-institute-lawsuit-alleges
   9. Campus Safety Magazine. (2024). "2025 Predictions for Video Surveillance in Education and Healthcare." December 23, 2024. https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/insights/2025-predictions-for-video-surveillance-in-education-and-healthcare/163593/
   10. Market Research Future. (2024). "School and Campus Security Market Size, Trends - 2032." https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/school-campus-security-market-2957
   11. Security.org. (2025). "A Timeline of School Shootings Since Columbine." April 4, 2025. https://www.security.org/blog/a-timeline-of-school-shootings-since-columbine/
   12. Washington Post. (2024). "There have been 428 school shootings since Columbine." June 29, 2024. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/interactive/school-shootings-database/
   13. Study Finds That School-Based Online Surveillance Companies Monitor Students 24/7