EdLawConnect Blog

Two recent federal lawsuits filed against school districts in Lawrence, Kansas and Marana, Arizona highlight emerging legal challenges surrounding the use of AI surveillance tools in the educational setting. Both cases involve Gaggle, a comprehensive AI student safety platform, and center around similar allegations: students claim that their respective school districts violated their constitutional rights through broad, invasive AI surveillance of their electronic communications and documents. These lawsuits represent a new legal frontier in which traditional student privacy rights collide with school districts’ reliance on generative AI to monitor students’ digital activity.

Despite concerns among educators regarding students’ use of AI, educators themselves are increasingly relying on AI tools. A recent incident at Northeastern University and the resulting fallout serve as a reminder that the absence of clear, comprehensive AI policies or guidance can lead to conflicts between educators and students.  As generative AI becomes increasingly sophisticated and accessible, educational leaders must proactively address these emerging issues before they lead to formal complaints or become part of the news cycle.

In an era where generative AI tools are becoming more and more prevalent in academic settings, school districts throughout the country are grappling with the issue of how to address their use by students.  A recent lawsuit filed in Massachusetts has brought this challenge into sharp focus, underscoring the urgent need for districts to develop and implement comprehensive AI policies. 

A recent case out of the Unites States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that Title IX does not provide an implied right of action for sex discrimination in employment. This holding provides increased protection for educational institutions who are navigating the vast world of Title IX.

As AI technology becomes more prevalent in education, school districts are exploring ways to use these tools to streamline administrative tasks.  Some districts have already implemented pilot programs with AI platforms.  We have recently received a surge in inquiries from district administrators regarding the use of AI for various educational purposes.  One inquiry revolves around whether it would be permissible to use AI to transcribe and translate various types of meetings that are legally protected from general public access or disclosure, such as Individual Education Program (“IEP”) team meeting discussions, student disciplinary hearings, and counseling sessions.  While the benefits of such technological advances may be appealing, there are important privacy and legal considerations that administrators need to know.

Effective January 1, 2025, Assembly Bill (“AB”) 2534 amends Education Code section 44939.5 to require a former employer to release employment records pertaining to “egregious misconduct” of certificated employees when an applicant seeks a new position at a school district, county office of education, charter school, or state special school.  In its analysis of AB 2534, the Senate Committee on Education summarized the definition of “egregious misconduct” as: “immoral conduct that is the basis for an offense related to sex offenses; child abuse and neglect offenses; and controlled substance offenses, as specified.”

Requirements for Applicants

Effective January 1, 2025, AB 2534 amends Education Code section 44939.5 to require an applicant for a certificated position at a school district, county office of education, charter school, or state school to provide their prospective employer with a complete list of every educational institution at which the employee has been employed.

Requirements for Hiring LEAs

Additionally, LEAs must inquire with each listed agency as to whether the applicant was the subject of any credible complaints of, substantiated investigations into, or discipline for, egregious misconduct that required the LEA to report to the CTC.

Requirements for LEAs Receiving AB 2534 Inquiries

Notwithstanding any other law, LEAs are required to provide the inquiring agency with a copy of all relevant records in its possession regarding the reported egregious misconduct when responding to an inquiry.

Read more about the impact of AB 2534 here.

These new requirements during the certificated application and hiring process present new legal issues and an urgent need for LEAs incorporate new steps into the hiring process.  It also places new demands on Human Resources departments, which will both be making and responding to inquiries under AB 2534.

To that end, we have developed a comprehensive AB 2534 Toolkit to assist LEAs in complying with the new requirements during the certificated application and hiring process.  Your purchase of our AB 2534 Toolkit provides you with a template letter for sending to both in-state and out-of-state LEAs, a comprehensive Frequently Asked Questions document regarding the implementation of AB 2534, a 7-minute training AB 2534 training video for human resource staff, and a complimentary 30-minute advising session with one of our firm’s AB 2534 experts.  

Click here for more information about the AB 2534 Toolkit.

In an era where generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) is rapidly transforming every aspect of our lives, the education sector stands at a critical juncture.  The integration of AI into our educational institutions is not a future prospect—it is happening right now, as we have previously examined in this space. From adaptive tutoring to chatbots and everything in between, AI technology is already making its way into our classrooms.  The emergence and widespread availability of generative AI tools presents novel opportunities and challenges for our schools.  We at AALRR are leading the charge in helping educational agencies navigate this complex landscape by proposing the adoption and implementation of comprehensive board policies specifically relating to AI.

A battle is playing out in college classrooms and courts across our country.  On one side are parties with bullhorns cloaked in the protections of the First Amendment testing the limits of one of our nation’s most treasured rights.  On the other side are parties that have constructed shields made from elements of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and a plethora of other laws designed to advance a no less important right—equality of treatment without regard to one of the many characteristics determined to be worthy of legal protection.

AALRR is offering its comprehensive Title IX Virtual Academy to address all your questions and responsibilities regarding the recent changes to the Federal Title IX Regulations, effective August 1, 2024. The Academy consists of interactive trainings, consistent with the recommendations of the Office for Civil Rights, to explain the Title IX Regulations and the procedures for processing a Title IX complaint from the intake stage through a discipline recommendation, if any.

Several school districts across the country have recently been forced to confront negative uses of “deepfakes,”[1] a new and concerning type of generative AI technology.  Deepfakes are hyper-realistic video or audio clips of individuals that can depict individuals as saying or doing things that they never actually said or did.  Although the process is complex, the online interface and software is quite accessible to anyone who wishes to create a deepfake. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/manipulating-reality-intersection-deepfakes-law-2024-02-01.  Someone who wants to create a deepfake only needs to input video or audio clips of an individual and direct an AI program to synthesize artificial video or audio of that individual that by all measures appears real, even if the individual never actually engaged in the depicted activity.  These manipulations have the ability to spread misinformation, undermine individuals’ credibility, and sow distrust on a very large scale.