Electric Shock Gloves in Schools Raise Questions About New Safety Technologies

Electric shock gloves used by school resource officers in Nebraska have drawn significant attention in recent weeks, prompting concerns from parents, students, and school board members, and leading Omaha Public Schools (OPS) to ask police officers to stop carrying the devices in its schools.

The controversy comes as the devices are receiving attention beyond K-12 schools. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is also planning a significant purchase of the technology for federal agents.

While the debate has largely focused on whether the devices should be used in schools, the situation also raises questions about how new law enforcement tools are introduced into school environments and what districts should know before they are used.

Guy Grace, longtime school safety practitioner and board member for the National Council of School Safety Directors (NCSSD), believes the Nebraska case offers a larger lesson for school safety leaders. Rather than taking a position on whether the gloves should or shouldn't be used in schools, Grace says the Nebraska case highlights several questions districts and their law enforcement partners should be asking when a new technology, tactic, or use-of-force tool is introduced:

• Who needs to know about it?
• When can it be used?
• What happens after it's used?
• Have the district and its law enforcement partners talked through those questions before an incident occurs?

Grace sums up his thinking this way: “Innovation should not outrun governance.”

What Are Electric Shock Gloves?

G.L.O.V.E. stands for Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter. The manufacturer, Compliant Technologies, describes it as a Conductive Distraction and De-escalation--or CD3 device--used by law enforcement, corrections, and other public safety professionals.

The glove uses electrodes to deliver electrical pulses through direct contact with bare skin. Unlike a traditional conducted-energy weapon, it does not fire probes. Law enforcement agencies that have adopted the technology describe it as another option during close-range encounters that could potentially reduce the need for other types of physical force.

Bellevue Police, for example, has said its experience with the device shows it is less likely to cause injury than alternatives such as chemical spray, baton strikes, or other conducted-energy tools, The Guardian reports.

Grace says understanding why law enforcement agencies have adopted the technology is important context when examining its use in schools.

What Happened in Omaha Public Schools?

Omaha Police used the G.L.O.V.E. twice during the 2025-26 school year. The first incident involved a student from another high school who police said was trespassing at Omaha South High School. According to public reports, the student fought with a school security guard and then attempted to flee. During the detention, an SRO applied the device to the student's wrist for approximately two seconds. Medical assistance was reportedly offered and declined.

The second incident occurred at OPS' Integrated Learning Program. According to the police report, a student's lighter was confiscated on the playground. The student later reportedly threatened a paraprofessional, threw a chair that struck a security guard, and punched the guard in the head when the guard attempted to restrain the student.

An SRO gave verbal commands for the student to stop before using the G.L.O.V.E. on the student's forearm for approximately one second. Police said the device was used a second time for approximately two to three seconds after the behavior continued. A school nurse reportedly found no injury to the student.

Grace says it's important not to leave out either part of that context: the device was used on a student in a specialized educational setting, and police reported assaultive behavior leading up to its use.

He cautions against trying to determine from news reports whether either officer's use of force was appropriate.

“The public record does not provide enough information to retry either force decision from a desk,” Grace wrote in his analysis.

Instead, he says school safety leaders can look at the systems surrounding those decisions, including policy, notification, training, reporting, and review.

What Did Omaha Public Schools Leaders Know?

Questions also emerged about what OPS leaders knew about the devices and when they knew it.

OPS Superintendent Matthew Ray said he learned about the G.L.O.V.E. shortly before the issue became public, WAFB reports. However, the district's security leadership had previously been notified that the devices were being introduced. Ray later said the situation exposed communication gaps among the district, police, and SRO program.

OPS ultimately asked its law-enforcement partners to stop allowing SROs to carry the devices on district property. Omaha Police agreed to the request, although the devices remain in use by another law enforcement agency serving two OPS schools.

Grace doesn't point to the communication issue as a reason to blame the district's security director or superintendent. Instead, he says it shows why districts need to determine ahead of time who needs to know when a significant new tool or tactic is introduced.

“When a high-impact capability enters schools, the organization should already know who must be informed, who has authority to request changes, and how that conversation is documented,” Grace wrote.

School District and Law Enforcement Responsibilities

The Nebraska case also raises a complicated question: What belongs to the police department, and what belongs to the school district? Grace says it's important not to blur those responsibilities.

A school district doesn't write a police department's use-of-force policy, just as a police department doesn't run the district's student discipline system. However, an SRO works in both environments.

That's why Grace says school leaders should understand how a new use-of-force tool could be used in their schools. That includes the general circumstances in which it can be used, expectations around de-escalation, considerations for students with disabilities and other special populations, reporting requirements, medical follow-up, parent or guardian notification, and what happens after an incident.

That doesn't mean a superintendent should decide whether an officer can use force during a particular incident. As Grace puts it, “executive and safety leadership should not first discover a new force option after it has already been used on a student.”

How Districts Can Review New Safety Tools and Tactics

For Grace, the lesson isn't limited to the G.L.O.V.E. Similar questions can come up when schools or their public safety partners introduce artificial intelligence, facial recognition, drones, weapons detection, new restraint practices, or other emerging technologies and tactics.

To help school security directors think through those changes, Grace developed an Emerging Safety Technology & Tactics Review Framework focused on nine areas:

1. Purpose and problem: What specific problem is being solved? What incident pattern, risk or operational gap justifies the change?
2. Authority and governance: Who owns the decision? What belongs to the district, police agency or both? Who must approve, accept or be notified?
3. People and populations: Who may be affected? Grace recommends considering age, disability, behavioral health, trauma, language, mobility, sensory needs and development.
4. Evidence and risk: What supports the safety and effectiveness of the tool or tactic? Is the evidence independent? Does it include minors or comparable populations? What remains unknown?
5. Policy and thresholds: What conduct allows the tool to be used? What is prohibited? Is routine discipline excluded? What de-escalation is expected when possible?
6. Training and competency: Does training address the school environment, rather than just general law enforcement or operation of the product? Who handles recertification and supervision?
7. Operations and integration: How could the change affect medical response, emergency operations plans, special education, threat assessment, records, body cameras or parent notification?
8. Communication and trust: Who needs to know before the tool or tactic is introduced? What should families and staff understand?
9. Accountability and learning: What is documented after each use? Who reviews it? Are complaints, outcomes and corrective actions tracked?

Not every change requires that same level of review, Grace notes. Replacing a radio, for example, is very different from introducing facial recognition or a new use-of-force tool. His framework calls for more review as the potential impact on students increases, particularly when a change involves force, surveillance, biometrics, automated decisions, or sensitive student populations.

Grace breaks those changes into three general levels:

1. Routine changes with little direct impact on students, such as replacing a radio, may simply need to be documented and communicated to affected partners.
2. Material changes that alter practices or student interactions may call for a joint district-agency review, along with legal, risk or privacy input when appropriate.
3. High-impact changes involving force, surveillance, biometrics, automated decisions or sensitive student populations call for a more extensive review, including executive awareness, a review of available evidence, clear thresholds for use, and a plan for evaluating what happens after implementation.

5 Questions School Safety Leaders Should Be Able to Answer

Grace also offers what he calls a “Monday-morning test.” Before a superintendent, school board member, parent, or reporter starts asking questions about a new tool or tactic, he says a school security director should already be able to answer five:

• What exactly is the tool, and why is it in the schools?
• Under what circumstances can an SRO use it on a student?
• Who in district leadership knew about it, and when?
• What happens after it is used, medically, administratively and with the student's family?
• How do police policy and the school environment work together rather than simply occupy the same building?

The Nebraska case also highlights another issue for districts served by more than one law-enforcement agency. Omaha Police stopped allowing its SROs to carry the G.L.O.V.E. in OPS schools, while Bellevue Police continued allowing the devices at two district schools.

Grace says that raises another question: If students can encounter different equipment or use-of-force options depending on which agency serves their school, has the district considered those differences and how they will be communicated?

Learning from the Nebraska Case

Grace describes product literature as “a starting point, not the finish line.” He recommends first understanding how a manufacturer describes its technology, then looking at that information alongside agency policies, field experience, independent research, applicable laws, and considerations specific to the school and its student population.

For Grace, the Nebraska case shows that even strong partnerships can run into problems when the process for communicating and reviewing significant changes isn't clear.

“Good partners can make good-faith decisions and still discover that their communication structure was not ready for a new capability,” Grace wrote.

That brings the discussion back to the idea at the center of his analysis: innovation should not outrun governance.

“The goal is not to stop innovation. The goal is to make sure the people responsible for the whole school environment understand high-impact changes before students experience them.”