Require school policies relating to the use of student surveillance, monitoring, and tracking technology by school districts
LB31 would require the Nebraska State Board of Education to develop and distribute a model policy governing the use of student surveillance, monitoring, and tracking technology by school districts. The bill defines the issue broadly to include tools such as digital hall passes, cameras, fingerprint swipes, anti-vaping devices, electronic surveys, and other technologies that collect personal information about students. It also states legislative findings that these tools have expanded rapidly, raising concerns about student privacy, parental rights, transparency, civil liberties, and the use of taxpayer funds.
Under the bill, each school board would have to adopt a written policy consistent with the state model policy. The required policy framework would include an inventory of surveillance tools and vendors, costs, descriptions of data collection and sharing practices, whether parents can opt students out, whether data may be shared with law enforcement or used for discipline, how the tools accommodate students with disabilities, how biometric or personally identifiable information is stored or sold, and what remedies are available for privacy violations. School districts would also have to post the inventory and related information on their websites and make it available in hard copy on request.
LB31 would add new state-level requirements for school districts and the State Board of Education, but it does not appear to create a new standalone enforcement agency or criminal penalty structure. Its main legal effect would be to direct the State Board to create a model policy and to require local school boards to adopt policies meeting minimum standards on procurement, disclosure, privacy protections, and data handling for student surveillance technology. The bill would affect school district purchasing and transparency practices, and it references possible remedies under existing laws such as the Consumer Protection Act and the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act.
The available record suggests the bill was motivated by concern over student privacy and the growth of surveillance technology in schools. The bill’s findings frame the issue as one of civil liberties, parental control, and public accountability, while acknowledging that some tools may have legitimate educational or safety uses. The voting history indicates the proposal did not advance: an amendment associated with Conrad failed 16-27, and the bill was later indefinitely postponed, suggesting limited legislative support.
The main points of contention appear to be the balance between school safety/efficiency and student privacy. Supporters of the bill’s approach would likely emphasize transparency, parental rights, limits on data collection, and oversight of taxpayer-funded technology purchases. Opponents or skeptics likely viewed the proposal as too restrictive or burdensome for districts that use surveillance tools for safety, discipline, or operational purposes. The bill also raises unresolved questions about opt-out rights, law enforcement access, biometric data, and how to handle tools used with students who have disabilities or individualized education programs.