School-Based Online Surveillance of Youth: Systematic Search and Content Analysis of Surveillance Company Websites.

Background: School-based online surveillance of students has been widely adopted by middle and high school administrators over the past decade. Little is known about the technology companies that provide these services or the benefits and harms of the technology for students. Understanding what information online surveillance companies monitor and collect about students, how they do it, and if and how they facilitate appropriate intervention fills a crucial gap for parents, youth, researchers, and policy makers. Objective: The two goals of this study were to (1) comprehensively identify school-based online surveillance companies currently in operation, and (2) collate and analyze company-described surveillance services, monitoring processes, and features provided. Methods: We systematically searched GovSpend and EdSurge's Education Technology (EdTech) Index to identify school-based online surveillance companies offering social media monitoring, student communications monitoring, or online monitoring. We extracted publicly available information from company websites and conducted a systematic content analysis of the websites identified. Two coders independently evaluated all company websites and discussed the findings to reach 100% consensus regarding website data labeling. Results: Our systematic search identified 14 school-based online surveillance companies. Content analysis revealed that most of these companies facilitate school administrators' access to students' digital behavior, well beyond monitoring during school hours and on school-provided devices. Specifically, almost all companies reported conducting monitoring of students at school, but 86% (12/14) of companies reported also conducting monitoring 24/7 outside of school and 7% (1/14) reported conducting monitoring outside of school at school administrator-specified locations. Most online surveillance companies reported using artificial intelligence to conduct automated flagging of student activity (10/14, 71%), and less than half of the companies (6/14, 43%) reported having a secondary human review team. Further, 14% (2/14) of companies reported providing crisis responses via company staff, including contacting law enforcement at their discretion. Conclusions: This study is the first detailed assessment of the school-based online surveillance industry and reveals that student monitoring technology can be characterized as heavy-handed. Findings suggest that students who only have school-provided devices are more heavily surveilled and that historically marginalized students may be at a higher risk of being flagged due to algorithmic bias. The dearth of research on efficacy and the notable lack of transparency about how surveillance services work indicate that increased oversight by policy makers of this industry may be warranted. Dissemination of our findings can improve parent, educator, student, and researcher awareness of school-based online monitoring services.