From facial recognition to bathroom listening devices, American schools are turning into digital fortresses. But is the billion-dollar surveillance boom actually saving lives, or just eroding trust?
- The Rise of the Fortress School: Districts like Beverly Hills are spending millions on military-grade surveillance, including drones, facial recognition, and audio-detecting bathroom monitors, to combat the threat of school shootings.
- A Questionable Track Record: While vendors cite specific success stories, critics point to false positives—such as a student held at gunpoint over a bag of Doritos—and a lack of independent data proving these systems stop mass shootings.
- The Privacy Trade-Off: Civil liberties groups and teacher unions warn that constant monitoring creates an atmosphere of distrust, potentially causing students to hide mental health issues rather than seek help.
Inside a white stucco building in Southern California, the security apparatus rivals that of a top-secret government facility. Cameras scan faces against biometric databases, behavioral AI analyzes movements for signs of violence, and smoke-detector-like devices in bathrooms listen for hushed sounds of distress. Outside, drones sit ready for deployment while license plate readers check every car against criminal databases.
This is not the Pentagon. It is Beverly Hills High School.
In a terrifying era of school violence, Beverly Hills Unified School District Superintendent Alex Cherniss views this striking array of tools as a necessity. “We are in the hub of an urban setting… we are always a target,” Cherniss said, defending the district’s $4.8 million security spend for the 2024-2025 fiscal year. “If that means you have armed security and drones and AI and license plate readers, bring it on.”
The Desperate Search for Safety
Beverly Hills is an extreme example, but it is not an outlier. Across the United States, schools are rushing to adopt AI-powered surveillance to stem the tide of gun violence. The statistics drive this desperation: there have been 49 deaths from gunfire on school property this year alone, following 59 deaths in 2024. Between 2000 and 2022, 131 people were killed at U.S. schools.
For many administrators, investing in high-tech solutions is the only logical response. Christopher Heilig, superintendent at Rancocas Valley Regional High School in New Jersey, utilizes gun detection software from ZeroEyes connected to 50 cameras. He claims the tech cuts the time to apprehend a gunman in half during drills. “You can’t argue with the results because you’re saving lives,” Heilig insisted.
Some students agree. Nicole Gorbacheva, a recent Beverly Hills graduate, witnessed her campus transform from an open space to a protected environment following bomb threats and antisemitic graffiti. To her, the surveillance “doesn’t feel dystopian… It creates a sense that someone is always watching out for students.”
When AI Gets It Wrong
However, the technology is far from infallible, and the consequences of error can be traumatic. Accuracy remains a persistent plague for the industry.
In a harrowing incident in Baltimore County, Maryland, a weapons detection system by Omnilert flagged a 16-year-old student as a potential threat. The AI had mistaken an empty Doritos bag in his pocket for a gun. The student was subsequently held at gunpoint by police. While Omnilert attributed the escalation to a communication breakdown, the student reported no longer feeling safe at school.
Similarly, Evolv, a gun detection giant used in over 800 schools, was reprimanded by the FTC in 2024 for misleading claims about its ability to detect weapons. The system failed to flag a seven-inch knife used in a 2022 stabbing and has frequently confused laptops and water bottles for firearms.
ZeroEyes, despite receiving a Department of Homeland Security designation for reliability, has also triggered false alarms, including one that sent a Texas school into a terrifying lockdown. CEO Mike Lahiff, a former Navy SEAL, acknowledged the errors but emphasized that their human verification teams mitigate risks. “You own your mistake and it’ll help make you better,” he said.
The Cost of Distrust
Beyond technical failures, civil liberties advocates argue that turning schools into surveillance states creates a toxic environment. A 2023 ACLU report authored by Chad Marlow found that eight of the ten largest school shootings since Columbine occurred on campuses that already had surveillance systems.
The report suggests that constant monitoring ruptures the bond between students and staff. In ACLU focus groups, students admitted they would be less likely to report mental health issues or abuse if they felt they were being spied on. “It’s very peculiar to make the claim that this will keep your kids safe,” Marlow noted.
Privacy concerns also extend to faculty. Katherine Warren, president of the Beverly Hills Education Association, filed a grievance regarding cameras placed in instructional spaces like libraries and fitness centers. Furthermore, the district’s use of facial recognition technology at graduation ceremonies—without explicit consent from parents or students—highlights a legal gray area. While the California Consumer Privacy Act protects biometric data in business, public schools are currently exempt.
Vulnerabilities and Alternatives
Even the hardware itself can be a liability. The “Halo” bathroom sensors, designed to detect vaping and keywords like “help,” were hacked by a Portland teenager who turned them into permanent listening devices. While Motorola, the manufacturer, patched the vulnerability, the incident underscored the digital risks of connected schools.
Not every district is buying the sales pitch. Highline Schools in Washington state recently cancelled a $33,000 contract with ZeroEyes. Spokesperson Tove Tupper explained that the district found a more pragmatic use for the funds: purchasing defibrillators and Ford SUVs for their safety team.
As the debate rages, the fundamental question remains unanswered: Does an AI-monitored campus actually stop a shooter, or does it merely provide a high-tech illusion of safety while fundamentally altering the experience of American childhood?