EdLawConnect Blog

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.

Flying somewhat under the radar (bad pun not intended), the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) approved new rules that went into effect at the end of December 2020 allowing drone operators to fly a broader range of missions without the need to obtain a certificate of authorization (“COA”).  These new regulations will have the force and effect of allowing school and community college districts to expand their existing drone operations.

The Education Code currently provides that students enrolled in grades K through 3 may not be suspended pursuant to Education Code 48900(k).  Furthermore, no student regardless of grade level may be recommended for expulsion based on a violation of that provision.  Senate Bill (SB) 419, introduced by Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) on February 21, 2019, would expand the existing ban on suspensions for violations of 48900(k) to students enrolled in grades 4 through 8.  In addition, the ban would also extend to students enrolled in grades 9 through 12, but this provision is scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2025.  The proposed bill also applies the ban to charter schools.

Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, section 55220 has long provided community college districts with immunity from claims for injuries sustained on field trips and excursions, including travel related to interscholastic athletic events.  While California courts have recognized that the immunity provision allows districts to enhance the educational experience by reducing exposure to injury claims and thereby lessening costs (Sanchez v. San Diego County Office of Education (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1580, 1584), a California Court of Appeal recently clarified the extent of this protection.

Given the plummeting cost of digital storage, many educational agencies scan permanent records into electronic format and destroy the hard copy originals. The Education Code and Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations permit educational agencies to destroy paper records in certain circumstances — after their usefulness ceases, after they have been classified as “disposable,” or after they have been copied into an electronic storage medium. But even when the destruction is permitted by law, it may have negative repercussions if the agency knew or should have known the documents would be relevant to current or potential litigation.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) was enacted in 1991 to lessen the impact of calling practices that invade consumer privacy and threaten public safety.  One such intrusive calling practice is known as a “robocall.”  Robocalls are made either with an automated telephone dialing system (autodialer) or with a prerecorded or artificial voice.  The TCPA and its implementing rules prohibit ...