Student Discipline.
Each school district is required by law to adopt student conduct and discipline policies that describe students' rights and responsibilities and the authorities of educators to discipline students.
Disciplinary actions include classroom exclusions, emergency removals, suspensions, and expulsions. Each school district must collect data on student disciplinary actions. School districts must use the data, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, income status, and specified program categories, to monitor the impact of discipline policies and to identify and address disparities.
Each charter school and state-tribal education compact school is required by the terms of the charter or compact to comply with student discipline laws applicable to school districts. The administrative rules of the State School for the Blind and the school at the Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Youth require student discipline to be administered in a manner consistent with student discipline laws applicable to school districts.
School-Based Threat Assessments.
Each school district must establish a formal process for a multidisciplinary team to evaluate threatening or potentially threatening student behavior and the circumstances surrounding that behavior to determine whether the threat is credible and likely to be carried out.
The threat assessment process must: (1) be prompted by the student's behavior rather than the student's demographics or personal characteristics; (2) plan for behavior management or intervention, when warranted; and (3) prohibit suspension or expulsion solely based on the threat assessment.
School Service Providers.
School service providers (SSPs) must follow certain requirements related to the collection, use, and disclosure of student personal information. An SSP is an entity that operates online services marketed primarily for elementary or secondary school use, is used at the direction of school employees, and collects, maintains, or uses student personal information.
An SSP may not use student personal information to create a student profile except for purposes authorized by the educator or school, or with the parent, guardian, or student's consent.
If not influenced by third-party payment or other consideration, an SSP may use student personal information to provide recommendations for school, educational, or employment purposes or to respond to a student's request for information or feedback.
Student Data Privacy.
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is a federal law that protects the privacy of personally identifiable information (PII) in student education records and generally prohibits disclosure without written consent from a parent, guardian, or eligible student.
The FERPA allows limited nonconsensual disclosures, including to a contractor or SSP performing school functions, to comply with a court order or subpoena, in a health or safety emergency, or to the victim of specified alleged crimes.
Artificial Intelligence.
In 2024 a task force was established to make recommendations to the Legislature regarding guidelines and potential legislation for the use of artificial intelligence (AI). The legislation defined "artificial intelligence" to mean the use of machine learning and related technologies that use data to train statistical models for the purpose of enabling computer systems to perform tasks normally associated with human intelligence or perception, such as computer vision, speech or natural language processing, and content generation.
Guidance on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Schools.
In 2024 the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction published the third version of its Human-Centered AI Guidance for K-12 Public Schools. The guidance provides definitions, outlines guiding principles and values, offers considerations for creating human-centered AI learning environments and policies, identifies best practices for embedding AI into curriculum design and student engagement strategies, and discusses ethical considerations related to AI use in education.
Facial Recognition Services.
A state or local government agency may not use a facial recognition service to engage in ongoing surveillance, conduct real-time or near-real-time identification, or initiate persistent tracking unless a warrant authorizes the use, exigent circumstances exist, or a court order authorizes the use to locate or identify a missing or deceased person.
Biometric Data.
In 2023 the Washington My Health My Data Act was enacted to increase protections for Washingtonian's health data. The legislation defined "biometric data" to mean data that is generated from the measurement or technological processing of an individual's physiological, biological, or behavioral characteristics and that identifies a consumer, whether individually or in combination with other data.
Requirements for Schools.
Student Discipline. A school district, a public school, the State School for the Blind (SSB), or the Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Youth (CDHY) may not use an automated decision system as the sole or determinative basis for any discipline-related decisions affecting students. "Automated decision system" means any computational process, including one derived from an artificial intelligence (AI) system, machine learning, statistics, or other data processing techniques, that makes or materially influences decisions or recommendations concerning a student. "Artificial intelligence" is defined consistent with the definition adopted in the legislation establishing the Artificial Intelligence Task Force.
No student may be emergency removed, suspended, expelled, referred to law enforcement, or assigned to an alternative setting based solely on:
Predictive Profiling. A school district, a public school, the SSB, or the CDHY may not use an automated decision system as the sole or determinative basis to generate a "risk score" or similar predictive classification for an individual student that purports to measure the student's likelihood of misconduct, gang affiliation, criminal behavior, targeted violence, or future disciplinary problems. A school district, a public school, the SSB, or the CDHY may not add a student to, remove a student from, or modify a student's status on any internal lists or watchlists of students designated as likely perpetrators of violence or serious misconduct wholly based on an automated decision system. A school district, a public school, the SSB, or the CDHY may not enter into a contract that requires or authorizes a vendor or school service provider (SSP) to engage in the prohibited predictive profiling activities just described.
Biometric Data. A school district, a public school, the SSB, or the CDHY may not use biometric data to generate or infer emotional states, mental health conditions, sexual orientation, gender expression, gender identity, or other sensitive psychological or personal characteristics of a student. "Biometric data" has the same meaning as provided in the Washington My Health My Data Act.
The prohibition on using biometric data does not apply to: (1) the voluntary use of biometrics by an adult employee solely for secure access to facilities or devices; (2) uses required by federal law, provided that such uses are narrowly limited to what federal law requires and are not used for discipline-related decisions affecting students; or (3) the use of biometric data to measure student engagement metrics for the sole purpose of informing educator professional development. "Student engagement metrics" means observable student participation indicators, such as time-on-task or participation frequency, but does not include facial expression analysis, affect recognition, or psychological profiling.
A school employee or contractor may access student biometric data only to the extent reasonably necessary to perform duties expressly authorized by law. Student biometric data may be retained only for the period reasonably necessary to fulfill the specific purpose for which the data was collected or authorized, after this time the data must be securely destroyed, subject to applicable records retention requirements.
A school district, a public school, the SSB, or the CDHY may not enter into any contract that requires or authorizes a vendor or SSP to engage in the activities prohibited under this section. Any contract with a vendor or SSP must require compliance with the biometric data provisions of the bill.
Disclosure of Student Personal Information. A school district, a public school, the SSB, and the CDHY may disclose student personal information obtained or generated through an AI system, automated decision system, or school surveillance technology to law enforcement, consistent with other federal and state law, only:
Facial Recognition. Without exception, a school district, a public school, the SSB, and the CDHY may not use a facial recognition service to engage in ongoing surveillance, conduct real-time or near-real-time identification, or start persistent tracking of students.
Certification of Compliance.
Each SSP, vendor, or other third party subject to the provisions described above must annually submit to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) a written certification of compliance in a form prescribed by the OSPI. The certification must attest that the third party's products, services, and data practices comply with the prohibitions and requirements of the bill.
State Guidance.
During its regular review cycle, the OSPI, in consultation with students, families, educators, and communities disproportionately impacted by discipline and surveillance, must update its guidance on human-centered AI in kindergarten through grade 12 education to address the use of AI systems, automated decision systems, and school surveillance technologies in connection with discipline-related decisions affecting students and school safety, and to reflect the prohibitions and requirements of this bill.
Model Policy and Procedure.
By February 1, 2027, the Washington State School Directors' Association (WSSDA) must develop, and periodically update, a model policy and procedure that school districts, charter schools, and state-tribal education compact schools may adopt or adapt to reflect the prohibitions and implement the requirements of this bill.
The model policy and procedure must align with the OSPI's guidance and must address: (1) human oversight of AI systems and automated decision systems; (2) strategies to avoid discriminatory or disproportionately harmful impacts on students with protected class status; and (3) appropriate questions and criteria for evaluating vendors and tools that rely on AI or automated decision systems in school settings.
The WSSDA must maintain the model policy and procedure on its website at no cost to school districts.
Implementation Report with Recommendations.
By October 1, 2027, the Educational Opportunity Gap Oversight and Accountability Committee, the State School Safety Center, and the regional school safety centers must collaborate to submit a report to the Legislature that includes findings and recommendations regarding the implementation of this bill and the use of AI, automated decision systems, and school surveillance technology, including facial recognition services, in school districts and public schools. The report must include the adequacy and effectiveness of human review requirements; strategies to identify, monitor, and mitigate discriminatory or disproportionate impacts on students; minimum standards for third-party contracting, evaluation, and data governance; and recommended statutory, regulatory, and policy modifications to improve implementation, oversight, and accountability.
As compared to the substitute bill, the amended bill:
(In support) As the state considers the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, it must also address data privacy, transparency, and appropriate guardrails. This bill responds to the increasing use of AI and automated systems in student discipline and school safety contexts.
Across the country, schools have begun deploying automated weapons detection and other surveillance technologies. In some reported instances, law enforcement was notified and students were subjected to consequences before school administrators determined that the technology had generated a false positive. It is not currently known whether similar systems are being used in Washington.
This bill is intended to ensure that, as innovation occurs, student rights and safety remain protected and that automated systems do not replace human judgment in matters affecting student discipline and safety.
Students who are already disproportionately impacted in school disciplinary systems should not face additional harm from automated technologies. All students deserve to be safe, but safety measures must not exacerbate inequities or undermine constitutional protections.
The bill establishes guardrails by requiring meaningful human involvement at both the front and back end of automated decision-making processes. It limits harmful uses of AI in surveillance and prohibits the use of facial recognition services in schools.
Some have argued that prohibiting facial recognition places schools at risk by limiting emergency response capabilities. However, existing law authorizes law enforcement to use facial recognition services under exigent circumstances without delay. This bill ensures that school-based activities involving vulnerable youth are governed by statute rather than vendor contracts.
Facial recognition technology continues to proliferate in schools. Even if accuracy concerns are addressed through human review, significant privacy, free-expression, and free-association concerns remain. Civil rights organizations have noted that persistent biometric tracking implicates First and Fourth Amendment protections. A 2018 United States Supreme Court decision addressing warrantless access to location-tracking data underscores the constitutional concerns raised by prolonged digital monitoring. Surveillance can also create a chilling effect on students' free speech rights. Where legitimate safety needs arise, tools such as warrants or court orders remain available, particularly for law enforcement.
The bill also addresses concerns regarding AI writing detectors. These systems may flag student work as containing a specified percentage of "AI-generated" content, and teachers may rely on such outputs to impose discipline for academic dishonesty. However, research has shown that highly formal or academic writing, including writing created before modern AI tools existed, can be falsely flagged as AI-generated.
Overall, the bill helps the state anticipate and address challenges identified nationwide while still allowing innovation within clear legal boundaries. This bill positions Washington to proactively establish guardrails before problematic practices become entrenched.
(Opposed) None.
(Other) Some vendors that provide security or life-safety technology do not oppose the bill. However, they have raised concerns about potential unintended consequences of broadly limiting the use of facial recognition services in schools.
In some circumstances, schools should be permitted to use facial recognition services to support immediate protective actions, such as assisting in the removal of an individual during an active emergency or other exigent circumstances, helping locate a missing child, or alerting administration when a person who is barred from campus enters school property. Washington law already contains strong guardrails governing facial recognition, and additional categorical restrictions could increase the risk of real-world harm by limiting tools schools may use in time-sensitive safety situations. Colorado's recent law is an example of allowing limited school-related exceptions.
(In support) Senator T'wina Nobles, prime sponsor; Derick Harris, Black Education Strategy Roundtable; Jarad Legard, Esq., Black Education Strategy Roundtable; and Elias Ng.