Brief: Tech for School Discipline? Parents and Teachers of Students with Disabilities Express Concerns
A concerning trend in K-12 tech practices is the growing use of technology and data for disciplinary purposes. In the past few years, novel applications of school technology have resulted in student suspensions, interactions with law enforcement, and attempts to predict future criminal behavior. CDT’s own research found that of the 81 percent of teachers reporting that their school uses student activity monitoring software, nearly half indicate that it is used at least in part to identify student violations of disciplinary policy. Part of what makes this troubling is that K-12 disciplinary practices have long been shown to disparately impact students from historically marginalized backgrounds, including students with disabilities.
Students with disabilities are disciplined by school authorities at higher rates than non-disabled students. Disciplinary uses of school technology and data risk magnifying these inequitable outcomes by increasing potential touchpoints with disciplinary authorities, especially when these digital systems are not designed with students with disabilities in mind. CDT’s research analyzes attitudes of parents and teachers of students with disabilities regarding disciplinary uses of technology and data, in order to better understand how such applications impact these students. Specifically, the research found:
Teachers and parents of students with disabilities are especially concerned about disciplinary uses of student data.
However, teachers and parents of students with disabilities are more likely to report that the benefits outweigh the risks of student activity monitoring software.
Nevertheless, teachers and parents of students with disabilities show particular concern about disciplinary uses of monitoring software.
CDT Comment Welcomes NIST Effort to Develop Zero Draft
Drawing on CDT’s previous comments on this NIST effort and our prior research on documentation, our submission welcomes NIST’s effort to develop the zero draft, which provides a much-needed step toward more standardized, high-quality guidance on how developers of AI system components should document key properties and potential sources of AI risk. This guidance will be a valuable resource for organizations to improve interoperability, build more performant AI products, and more effectively identify and mitigate AI risks.
Coalition Urges Senate Not to Let Companies Waive Financial Regulations for AI
CDT joined AI Now Institute, American Civil Liberties Union, and several organizations dedicated to tech policy, consumer protection, and civil rights in a letter to Senate leadership and the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee opposing the “AI Innovation Labs” language in Sec. 10509 of the CLARITY Act.
As concern about risks and harms related to AI systems continue to grow, a growing chorus of policymakers, industry leaders, and advocates have called for independent AI assessments. This explainer provides an overview of recent proposals for third-party assessment in the United States, including state and federal legislation, executive actions, and industry proposals.
Having third parties assess AI systems might seem like common sense, but crafting effective policies toward this goal can be devilishly tricky. A poorly-constructed ecosystem for third-party assessment could easily fail to consider the most consequential mechanisms of risk, neglect the AI harms that most impact people, or do more to protect AI companies than people.
