AI “Predictive Analytics” Ushers in an Alarming New Age of K-12 Surveillance and Discipline

What if I told you that the idea of “pre-crime” was coming to your child's classroom, or may already be there? The idea of predictive policing has long been regarded with alarm and skepticism, but the idea that you can predict someone's aberrant behavior—even a child's—is concerningly en vogue among creators of AI-powered education-focused technology.

The rise of technologies and practices that use artificial intelligence to identify “problem students” and identify “solutions” for correcting “problem behaviors” should raise red flags with students and guardians alike. It has certainly raised concerns among our team, which has seen firsthand the rights violations that occur when educators (and the tools those educators use to discipline students) are not kept in check.

Call the LLF National Law Firm Education Law Team today at 888-535-3686 or contact us online if you or your student becomes the victim of misused AI technology, particularly those technologies used in a disciplinary context.

How Schools Are Adopting AI Data and Tools to “Predict” and Rectify Students' Behavioral Issues

There are countless proposals for how artificial intelligence may play a role in the future (like, the imminent future) of education. Several of those applications pertain to students' behavior, and some proposals include:

  • Using AI to evaluate the behavioral patterns of students with special needs: One source notes that Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) is a common method of evaluating the behavior of students with special needs. That same source explains that platforms like Bridge AI capture “learning, psychological, and environmental data” that a therapist typically would, then uses that data to recommend Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) for students.
  • AI-assisted chatbots for teachers to resolve behavioral issues: In one of the more concerning use cases, some teachers may use AI-powered chatbots to determine how they should address student behavior. Remember that AI might be “predicting” students' future behaviors to recommend a course of action to the teacher.
  • Using predictive analytics to address bullying: Some proponents of artificial intelligence have proposed using predictive analytics to “identify at-risk students” in order to lessen instances of bullying. This is the sort of “pre-crime” reminiscent proposal that, on its face, indicates students could be targeted as future threats due to their past behaviors and characteristics.

These are just three of the endless use cases for using AI in educational settings. Some of these use cases remain largely theoretical, while others have already been deployed and embraced by educators and administrators with arms that are a bit too wide open.

The Obvious Risks of Schools Relying Too Heavily on Predictive Artificial Intelligence (in Disciplinary Matters and Otherwise)

The rapid adoption of AI technology in school settings is only accelerating, with the Trump administration mandating public-private partnerships between schools and companies in the AI sector. Critics, skeptics, and mere rational adults have voiced well-reasoned concerns about how AI technology will be used for (or against) vulnerable young people. Still, they have proven no match for those seeking AI's immediate implementation.

Let's discuss those potential risks lawmakers and AI's most avid proponents appear unconcerned about. They include:

  • Lack of the intangible human connection within AI technologies: When an AI-powered platform evaluates a student with special needs, can it accurately interpret the intricacies of nuanced human interactions? Does it have the backstory or extensive history of that student that a therapist might have? While AI might be more cost-effective or efficient, it may not be better for the student.
  • The question of whether the AI's insights, or human wisdom, should take precedence: We have seen use cases where an educator might turn to an AI chatbot for ideas about how to address a student's behavioral issue. If the educator's instinct conflicts with the chatbot's advice, which should take precedence? These are the kind of zero-sum scenarios in which the nuances of human thinking and behavior might take a backseat to AI “insights.”
  • A lack of understanding among educators about the mechanisms behind artificial intelligence: If educators do not understand how their AI-powered resources operate, including how they formulate advice or data, this begs the question of whether the educator should trust that data or insights. In many cases, those educators will simply have to have faith that the AI is producing trustworthy information, and that will be uncharted territory that will likely prove a minefield for students' rights and interests.
  • Excessive trust in AI's insights and recommendations, particularly in a predictive capacity: Those educators who maintain a healthy skepticism for their new AI-powered tools may be most fit to ensure students' safety and well-being. On the contrary, those who blindly accept AI's suggestions, conclusions, or data could place students in a perilous position—and perhaps even harm students in the name of “trusting AI.”
  • The hair-raising idea of “pre-crime,” which sits only a thin line away from “predictive analytics,” Use cases that involve predictive analytics, which by definition call for predictions based on a current set of inputs, are arguably the most concerning. If educators start to make consequential decisions, including disciplinary decisions, based on AI-provided predictive analytics, students' rights will be in immediate jeopardy.

There is also the fundamental issue of warning students and parents about how artificial intelligence is being used in their (or their students') schools. We are fairly certain that sufficient notice has not been provided in countless cases, based solely on our history defending students from all-too-common rights violations and overreaches.

Facing an AI-Related Issue Involving Your or Your Student's School? Call The LLF National Law Firm Today.

Our firm has been forged for this uncertain, daunting era of artificial intelligence in the classroom. We have protected students, defended their rights, and held educators and administrators accountable for many years, and we know that AI's deployment will create a whole host of new issues.

If your student is disciplined based on AI-generated “predictive analytics,” has their privacy violated by an AI-powered platform (and those who deploy it), or faces any other problem related to artificial intelligence, our Education Law Team is the one for you.

Call the LLF National Law Firm today at 888-535-3686 or contact us online. Students' rights, privacy, and well-being cannot take a backseat, so don't wait to contact us.

Contact Us Today!

If you, or your student, are facing any kind of disciplinary action, or other negative academic sanction, and are having feelings of uncertainty and anxiety for what the future may hold, contact the LLF National Law Firm today, and let us help secure your academic career.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations - the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website. In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Allegheny, Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Lancaster, Lehigh, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Schuylkill, and York County. In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County, In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties. Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law. The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.

Menu