Emerging Technologies in School Safety: Privacy, Compliance, and Governance Considerations

Over the past decade, many K-12 schools have invested in security technologies that were once considered emerging but are now commonplace, including access control systems, video surveillance, visitor management systems, panic alert technologies, weapons detection systems, and critical incident mapping. These technologies are one component of a layered approach to school safety that also includes positive school climate, behavioral threat assessment and management, strong relationships, and emergency planning.

Now, a new generation of school safety technology is beginning to emerge. While many of these technologies offer promising capabilities, their implementation also raises important questions about privacy, legal compliance, governance, data management, and community acceptance.

School safety leaders should evaluate not only what a technology can do, but whether it can be deployed responsibly, legally, and effectively.

Facial Recognition Technology in K-12 Schools

Facial recognition technology continues to expand across both government and private-sector applications. Federal agencies, transportation systems, financial institutions, retailers, and consumer device manufacturers are increasingly using biometric identification systems. Adoption within K-12 schools, however, has remained limited.

Among the primary concerns are:

• Student privacy and potential civil rights implications
• Accuracy and misidentification risks
• Data retention practices
• Community acceptance
• Legal and regulatory uncertainty
• Budget and funding uncertainty

Unlike many European jurisdictions that have established comprehensive privacy frameworks governing biometric information, the United States continues to navigate a patchwork of state-level privacy laws. Against this backdrop, many school districts remain cautious about deploying facial recognition systems.

Likely Future Applications of Facial Recognition

Rather than widespread student identification, facial recognition is more likely to be used for narrowly defined security purposes, such as:

• Visitor management
• Identification of individuals prohibited from campus
• Individuals subject to protective or no-contact orders
• Custody-restricted parents
• Known violent offenders
• Expelled individuals prohibited from campus

In these applications, facial recognition functions as an alerting mechanism rather than a continuous student monitoring system.

Governance Considerations for Facial Recognition

Before implementation, school leaders should establish:

• Clearly defined policies governing use
• Data retention and destruction schedules
• Independent accuracy testing requirements
• Training requirements for staff responsible for using the technology
• Procedures for communicating how the technology will be used and what types of data will be collected
• Oversight and auditing procedures
• Parent and community notification practices
• Vendor contractual requirements addressing data ownership and storage

Ultimately, schools considering facial recognition must determine whether it can be deployed in a manner consistent with privacy expectations, legal requirements, and community values.

AI-Powered Behavioral Analytics in K-12 Schools

One technology likely to gain traction in school environments is AI-enabled behavioral analytics.

Unlike facial recognition systems that identify individuals, behavioral analytics platforms analyze patterns of movement and activity captured by existing video surveillance systems. These systems may identify:

• Aggressive behaviors
• Unusual crowd formations
• Loitering
• Running in unusual locations
• Unauthorized access attempts
• Other deviations from established behavioral patterns

These capabilities can shift video surveillance from a primarily investigative tool to one capable of proactively identifying potential risks.

Privacy and Governance Considerations for AI-Powered Behavioral Analytics

School districts should carefully evaluate:

• Whether student behavior data is being retained
• How alerts are generated
• Potential algorithmic bias
• False positive rates
• Human review requirements
• FERPA implications if data becomes part of educational records

Any behavioral analytics platform should support human decision-making rather than automate disciplinary outcomes. While these systems may present fewer privacy concerns than facial recognition technologies, districts should establish clear governance frameworks before deployment.

Autonomous Surveillance Drones in K-12 Schools

Although media attention has focused on weaponized or intervention-based drones marketed to schools, widespread adoption of those systems remains unlikely. Significant concerns include:

• Liability exposure
• Use-of-force standards
• Insurance coverage
• Regulatory compliance
• Public acceptance

If a student or bystander were injured through drone intervention, substantial legal and insurance questions could arise.

Likely Future Use Cases for Autonomous Surveillance Drones

Autonomous surveillance drones may be more likely to become part of school security operations. Potential applications include:

• Campus perimeter patrols
• Parking lot monitoring
• Athletic event security
• Outdoor property surveillance
• Locating intruders
• Real-time incident awareness

These systems may supplement existing camera systems and security personnel rather than replace them.

Governance Considerations for Autonomous Surveillance Drones

School districts should establish:

• FAA compliance procedures
• Flight authorization protocols
• Data retention policies
• Operational boundaries
• Community notification practices
• Restrictions on surveillance of neighboring properties

Like other security technologies, surveillance drones are likely to function as another layer within a comprehensive security system rather than as a replacement for traditional security measures.

Emerging Technologies in Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management for K-12 Schools

The 2025 National Threat Assessment Center report, The State of Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management in K–12 Public Schools, identified several challenges in current school BTAM practices, including variability in assessment models, training, intervention planning, and continuous improvement efforts.

Technology platforms are beginning to address some of these challenges through digital case management and decision-support systems. However, a critical principle remains unchanged: Technology should support professional judgment, not replace it.

Digital Threat Assessment Platforms

Digital case management systems can help schools standardize BTAM operations. Capabilities may include:

• CSTAG assessment workflows
• NTAC assessment workflows
• Salem-Keizer model integration
• Social media keyword monitoring or scraping
• Intervention tracking
• Team collaboration
• Audit trail management
• District-wide case monitoring
• Documentation support

School leaders evaluating these systems should consider FERPA compliance and privacy, record retention requirements, access controls, role-based permissions, audit logging capabilities, and vendor cybersecurity protections.

When appropriately implemented, digital platforms can improve consistency, documentation, and accountability across BTAM programs.

Digital Leakage Detection

Another developing area involves identifying concerning online behavior before an incident occurs. These systems seek to identify publicly available indicators such as:

• Threatening statements
• Grievance narratives
• Violent ideation
• Suicidal communications
• Fixation behaviors
• Concerning social media activity

NTAC findings suggest that reviews of publicly available online activity remain underutilized despite the prevalence of digital communication among students.

District policies should clearly address what online information may be reviewed, who may conduct reviews, documentation standards, civil liberties protections, response thresholds, and parent notification practices.

Publicly available information may provide valuable context during investigations, but policies should clearly define acceptable use and boundaries.

AI-Enhanced Anonymous Reporting Systems

The next generation of anonymous reporting platforms extends beyond simple tip collection. Advanced systems may:

• Categorize reports automatically
• Identify repeat subjects
• Correlate multiple reports
• Prioritize urgent concerns
• Route information to designated personnel

These capabilities can allow BTAM teams to identify emerging patterns that might otherwise be missed.

Districts should consider data-sharing practices, retention periods, false reporting procedures, appeal and review processes, and human oversight requirements. AI-assisted triage may improve efficiency, but investigative decisions should remain with trained personnel.

Behavioral Analytics and Pattern Recognition

Emerging platforms increasingly combine information from multiple systems to identify students who may require additional support. Indicators may include:

• Attendance changes
• Disciplinary patterns
• Escalating aggression
• Bullying involvement
• Academic decline
• Crisis intervention referrals

The goal should be early intervention rather than threat prediction.

School leaders considering these systems should carefully evaluate data quality, algorithm transparency, bias testing, human review requirements, student privacy protections, and educational record implications.

Ultimately, the objective should be to identify opportunities for support, not label students as future risks.

5 Questions to Ask Before Adopting Emerging School Safety Technology

When evaluating emerging technologies, school leaders should ask five fundamental questions:

1. Does the technology solve a clearly defined safety problem?
2. Is it legally compliant with applicable federal and state requirements?
3. Does it protect student privacy and civil liberties?
4. Can the district establish and sustain meaningful governance and oversight?
5. Will the technology improve decision-making without replacing human judgment?

The most successful technologies in school safety will not necessarily be those with the most sophisticated capabilities. They will be the technologies that improve prevention, enhance operational effectiveness, respect privacy, and maintain the trust of the school communities they serve.

This article is contributed by Joe Hendry, principal consultant at COSECURE, a national security consulting firm and an ancillary business of Cozen O’Connor.

Note: The views expressed by guest contributors are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, School Security Leadership.