Legislature debates use of technology to monitor students

By Fred Knapp , Senior Reporter/Producer Nebraska Public Media

21 de Febrero de 2025 a las 17:00 ·

Nebraska Capitol (Photo by Fred Knapp, Nebraska Public Media News) — Nebraska Capitol. (Photo by Fred Knapp, Nebraska Public Media News)

Listen To This Story

Schools would be required to disclose how they surveil, track and monitor students, and whether they sell their data, under a bill debated in the Legislature Friday. And a public hearing considered whether health care providers should have enhanced protections against having to provide care that violates their conscience.

Sen. Danielle Conrad is chief introducer of the school bill, LB31. It would require the state Department of Education to develop model standards, which schools would then have to meet, regarding their use of technology like digital hall passes, anti-vaping devices, fingerprint swipes, cameras, and electronic surveys. Conrad says the use of such technology is becoming much more common, and needs to be monitored.

“This bill aligns with the policy goals to empower parents and to protect kids against Big Tech,” Conrad said.

To promote that, Conrad, a liberal Democrat in the officially nonpartisan Legislature, said she’s been working with Dr. Sue Greenwald. Greenwald is a leader of the conservative Nebraska Education Coalition, formerly known as Protect Nebraska Children, which led opposition to the Department of Education’s proposed health standards that would have discussed gender identity among other controversial topics.

Conrad said they share common concerns about the use of technology in schools.

“It's well understood that any time you have Big Tech and Big Government holding hands, civil rights and civil liberties are at risk,” she said.

In a written statement, Greenwald said “The fact that my group has this bill as our number one priority and it was introduced by Senator Conrad, who has never agreed with us on anything, should tell you that surveillance and data mining of school children is a universal concern for parents, and not a political one.”

Sen. Kathleen Kauth, a conservative Republican, said she has not yet decided whether to support Conrad’s bill. But Kauth said she shares the concern about students’ data potentially being sold.

“There's a lot going on in our schools that was never there when you and I were in school,” Kauth told her fellow senators. “Kids, their motions are being tracked. Their keystrokes are being tracked. Their emotions are being tracked. Everything is being tracked. And what we know is that that data is worth money.”

The proposal encountered pushback from a wide array of school groups, including administrators, teachers, school boards and police. Sen. Brad von Gillern, also a Republican, said the bill could compromise schools’ ability to keep students safe, for example, by requiring disclosure of where security cameras are located, and would impose unnecessary costs.

“What does this bill do to increase safety for kids teachers and staff in schools?” von Gillern said. "The answer is, nothing. How does it help teachers teach? How does it help administrators, help provide support for staff? It doesn't. How does the bill save money for school districts and allow them to increase salaries of those most important influencers of our children? It doesn't. It will cost them money and time."

Kauth said she’s working on an amendment to address the security issues raised by von Gillern. And von Gillern said he agrees with some, but not all, of Conrad’s concerns.

“We are on the same page. I absolutely do not believe that schools or technology companies should gather data for profit. (But) I absolutely do believe that gathering data for the protection of our kids and staff is a worthwhile venture,” he said.

Von Gillern said federal law already protects students’ privacy. But Conrad argued there’s a loophole that lets schools leave those protections up to tech companies when they sign a contract for their services.

Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh, a Democrat, supported the bill. Cavanaugh said parents need to be aware of what’s being done with their student’s data.

“When you download an app on your phone and you accept the policies, that's on you," she said. "But when our kids are in their schools and there's data and technology being implemented, I don't think that it is too cumbersome to tell parents if that data is being sold."

Lawmakers adjourned for the day without reaching a vote on the bill.

Also Friday, the Health and Human Services Committee held a public hearing on a proposal to strengthen health care providers’ rights to opt out of participating in procedures to which they have religious, ethical or moral objections.

Dr. Carolyn Manhart, an internal medicine specialist in Omaha, said some medical students are dissuaded from pursuing openings in certain fields, especially obstetrics and gynecology, if they are against abortion.

“There are many residencies, but many of them are - they're pro-abortion. Almost all OBGYN residency are pro-abortion. And so they feel like they maybe they shouldn't go into the fields that they were called to go into, because they will be discriminated against and they will be ridiculed,” she said.

Opposing the bill for the Nebraska Hospital Association, Dr. John Trapp said federal law already requires reasonable accommodations for strongly held beliefs. Trapp said adding the bill could hurt services for patients. He gave the example of someone who wants a refill of their prescription for oral contraception.

“That objection could occur at seven o'clock at night, and we may have already set the day schedule up, or you may be the person on call and taking that phone call from the patient who says, ‘I need a refill of my medications’ for whatever reason. And that person could say, ‘Well, I object. I can't do that. I'll have to get somebody else to take that call.’ So there's nothing this bill that says that they have to let us know days or weeks ahead of what those objections may be, so it can impact our workflow,” he said.

The committee took no immediate action on the proposal.