Is Social Media Monitoring Enough to Stop a Threat?

The Illusion of Safety: Why Social Media Monitoring in K–12 Schools Cannot Stand Alone

When warning signs are ignored

It’s Monday. That one “fringe” student your son or daughter has been noticing didn’t show up to school today. The prior Saturday, some classmates noticed the same student had been posting several cryptic quotes about loneliness and shaky, hand-drawn comics of weapons and people in a rough sketch of a school hallway. The image was captioned with vague statements about justice. A few reposts and shares later, and by Sunday, the original posting was deleted.

On Tuesday, news spreads that the same student is still missing, but this time, he left a note with a more detailed list of names, and a plan to harm himself and them. Then, he shows up at school with a weapon.

The core problem: the Bystander Effect in the digital age

Some people are in denial about it all, and others say they wanted to report it, but didn’t know the proper channels to do so. It is a modern example of the Bystander Effect: no one reported it, because they all figured someone else would. The warning signs were there. They were visible. They were shared – but not with an authority figure who could make a difference. Without a clear reporting protocol – and without timely intervention – the opportunity to help was missed entirely. 

So, where do we go from here? 

Why social media monitoring enters the conversation

Monitoring K–12 social media accounts may sound simple but the line between threat monitoring and privacy infringement – or even racial profiling – can quickly blur. (JMIR Publications) We are here in an attempt to spark a deeper conversation about the pros and cons of social media monitoring, and what it really means for our students. To understand whether social media monitoring belongs in school safety plans, we must first define it, examine its limits, weigh ethical concerns, and then consider what truly prevents threats from becoming tragedies. Our ultimate goal is for school leadership to walk away with steps to effectively, lawfully, and proactively intervene to prevent threats from materializing on K–12 campuses, and to illustrate why social media monitoring is not the best method by which to achieve this. (k12dive.com)

What is social media monitoring for K-12 schools?

Social media monitoring, although still experimental, uses keyword tracking and geolocation to flag potentially harmful language or threats of violence on social media platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Flickr, Pinterest, Reddit, blogs, forums, and others. Once a threat is flagged, many of these monitoring systems send reports in real time to designated school officials, who can then examine the threat and determine the best course of action according to an established school threat assessment plan. (nc2s.org) On a surface level, this may seem like a good solution. However, in legal terms, administrative hands may be tied. We will unpack the complexities and potential road blocks that social media monitoring presents. 

Why schools are considering social media monitoring

School threats are an ongoing issue in today’s digital age and schools are being continuously pressured to “do more” to prevent them. In an examination of successful school attacks reviewed by the U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC), they found that in nearly three quarters of successful school attacks, the culprit had previously discussed their intent to harm with others. (NTAC Report, p. 25) Although it isn’t ideal to reach this stage of student social deterioration, early warning signs offer a real opportunity for intervention because studies show that online behavior reflects real world risk. Simply stated, students are encouraged to trust the old adage, “If you see something, say something.”

“As a school safety director, when it came to monitoring social media, I would rather put my energy into creating a positive school climate that encouraged students to share things they saw online — an organic community of social media monitoring,” said J. Dennis Russo, an administrator at the National Council of School Safety Directors.

“It takes effort teaching students to know the signs and how to report what they see online, but I have found that is a better long-term solution than telling students and families the district is deploying a social media monitoring tool,” he said. “That can create the opposite effect — less trust between schools and students and their families — and could lead to overreliance on a detection tool and fewer people reporting concerns.”

Limits, liability, and ethical considerations of social media monitoring

The key to success for most things in life is balance. In this case, we need to find the balance between a school’s responsibility to protect and preserve a safe learning environment, and a student’s right to privacy. 

Although many students and families know that what they post could be widely shared, many families may not know that these monitoring systems can flag what they deem as harmful, and share it with school authority figures who have power over their educational status. While FERPA protects student PII within schools, there are currently no clear legal ramifications for schools who hire third-party monitoring services that disclose the data they find. “Records developed through a third-party social media monitoring program may not fall under FERPA and therefore not legally protected from disclosure. There has been no singular decision from the Department of Education or United States judicial system as to how data pulled from social media monitoring fits into an educational record.” (nc2s.org)(JMIR Publications) However, “Because monitoring programs can create and store sensitive student information, districts should develop strong contracts, clear data-retention limits and controls aligned with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act,” said Dr. Will Knehr, director of IT and cybersecurity for i-PRO Americas Inc. “They should also assume that poor governance will create legal and trust risks.”

Users of social media monitoring also need to know these tools operate on a pre-determined algorithm which is susceptible to human bias. This could mean trouble for minority students and students in lower-income households: “The overrepresentation of Black youth in this database could lead an algorithm to produce biased findings, such as considering Black youth a greater threat than members of other racial groups.” For example, ”Algorithms are only as good as the data they are trained on; feeding algorithm-biased data leads to biased outcomes [8–10], which, in this case, could mean disproportionately targeting Black youth and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.” (JMIR Publications)

The same algorithms are also limited in translation and contextual evaluation capabilities. In other words, cultural differences often lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations that are flagged by the monitoring tools, which could trigger false positive threat detection, or even miss a credible threat altogether.

Is social media monitoring effective? 

The short answer is, the jury is still out. There is currently no firm evidence that suggests social media surveillance is able to address the public health crises that many social media surveillance services aim to solve, such as mental health issues, cyberbullying, and what our goal is here: to find and prevent threats of violence before they reach the threshold of our schools. (JMIR Publications)(k12dive.com)

“What seems to be a common middle ground is that school districts are comfortable monitoring software and platforms they provide to students — such as Google Workspace, Office or Canvas — because those tools are, in a sense, an extension of the classroom,” Russo said.

A More Effective Approach: Layered Threat Reporting Systems

Report → Assess → Train → Respond → Support

After thorough research, we have found that a comprehensive threat reporting program is more effective than social media monitoring. That plan can incorporate any combination of the following: 

Report

Anonymous threat reporting system. An effective threat reporting system must establish a culture of trust, where students are comfortable enough to speak out. This means that any student or teacher associated with a particular school should expect to feel supported without fear of retaliation when they report concerns or seek help themselves. “Once such an environment is established, it is crucial for school officials to actively listen to students and handle any information they receive fairly and responsibly.” (schoolsafety.gov)

This threat reporting program should also offer different avenues that students and teachers can use to report concerns anonymously, such as through phone tip lines, email, text or mobile applications, or online forms. “A tip line should be coupled with a systematic approach to processing the information received, responding appropriately, and documenting the response.” (nij.ojp.gov) Direct communication with trusted adults and the ability to report anonymously will establish an environment of trust and more effectively thwart a potential incident. “A reliable reporting system can facilitate early intervention and support for students in need, as well as help prevent potential incidents of targeted violence.” (schoolsafety.gov)  

Assessment

Assess Behavioral Threat & Assessment Management (BTAM), and Security Operations Centers (SOC). It is recommended that schools form teams for behavioral threat & assessment management (BTAM), which is “a form of violence risk assessment that assesses individuals who have threatened harm.”(nij.ojp.gov) In a school context, a multidisciplinary team works together to promote safety and prevent violence that may impact the school community. The process involves gathering information to assess the nature and seriousness of the threat and implementing interventions to reduce the risk that the threat will be carried out. “It was imperative that the district’s threat assessment team was well-prepared and supported to triage and respond to threats. Frequent training (discussed more below) and check-ins were key, as were frequent checks on the technology being used. The district’s crisis protocols were regularly reviewed and adjusted.” (nc2s.org)

PASS also recommends forming a Security Operations Center (SOC), which can consist of both security and IT professionals who have expertise in both physical security and cybersecurity, responsible for preventing, detecting, analyzing and responding to a wide range of security incidents. SOCs can also monitor servers, databases, websites, devices, and other systems to reveal potential threats in real time. “By integrating physical and cyber threat intelligence, SOC teams can respond more holistically to incidents that span both domains.” (PASS Guidelines, 20)

Budget-conscious monitoring alternatives. It’s important to note that some budgetary limitations may arise in certain school districts. In these cases, school security experts recommend using a Security Operations Cell (also SOC) instead of a traditional SOC. This assigns alarm and event triage, escalation, and review to a few key members who are already on staff. Cost also can be reigned in by shifting from 24/7 monitoring to centralized monitoring during high-risk hours, only. Another budget-conscious monitoring tactic would be to pool resources among schools in a common district. While SOC cost can vary greatly, there are some services that are reputable and cost-effective.

Training

Staff Training and Student Guidance. Train staff to identify concerning language, and report various anonymous reporting systems. Additionally, clarify that reporting systems are not intended as a means to tattle, but instead, encourage students to speak up if they notice anything suspicious or potentially harmful from posts in their social media feeds or school-designated monitoring platforms. This is a good way to form the organic community of social media monitoring we previously mentioned. Staff and students should be as detailed as possible in their reports. Sometimes, the threat is hiding in plain sight, but students will most likely have more exposure to a potential threat than administration will. So, encouragement of students to trust school authorities enough to report a threat – either anonymously or openly – could become an invaluable tactic for schools to thwart an incident. 

Response

Clear Response Protocols. This reporting system should also incorporate clear steps to identify, evaluate, and handle these report submissions across the chosen channels. Once a comfortable environment is established, it is crucial for school officials to actively listen to the students who come forward, and process any information they receive with equality, fairness, thoroughness, and most of all, follow-through. (schoolsafety.gov) So, to recap, schools need to establish who will handle the threats once they’ve been reported, who will assess the threat, who will act, and who will follow up with both the reported and the reporter.

Support

Supportive Programs. In the wake of a reported threat, it is imperative that school leaders support the person who identified the potential threat – and especially if it was a student. “An assessment of targeted school violence by the U.S. Secret Service found that while there is no profile for perpetrators, 80% of student attackers were bullied by their classmates, indicating the importance of processes and procedures to intervene when such behaviors are reported.” (Pass Guidelines, 5) Threats should also signal schools to offer any mental health support, counseling, and other social and family support services for the person who posted the threat, if and when a credible threat is detected. (schoolsafety.gov) 

So…Should schools hire third-party social media monitors?

That depends upon your district’s leadership commitment and overall safety posture. Complete transparency and community buy in is needed.

We’d like to re-emphasize that social media monitoring should never be used as the sole tool in threat detection, and perhaps even more importantly, neither should third-party monitoring. While monitoring of any kind theoretically provides ample information about a student’s plans and thought processes, and a seemingly clear path for school administrators to make informed decisions when a threat is detected, the solutions are not always black and white when privacy issues are involved.

A positive report of monitoring can be seen in the case of a 2019 study by the University of Chicago Crime Lab that showed “positive outcomes in Chicago public schools that conducted social media surveillance in conjunction with targeted interventions. Outcomes included lower risk of exposure to out-of-school shooting incidents, fewer misconduct incidents, fewer out-of-school suspensions, and higher rates of school attendance.” (JMIR Publications) However, others argue this particular method of monitoring provides a window into student online activity that was never intended for an audience beyond their own social circles, let alone their principal or school administrators. This could cause a range of issues, including leadership biases towards a particular student based on what they post, which impedes their desire to express themselves freely, and could further exacerbate the mental health crises many youth already face, including anxiety and depression. (k12dive.com)(JMIR Publications)(Brennancenter.org) 

The same report also notes that these monitoring programs are not impervious to algorithmic biases that unfortunately target certain races or people of underprivileged socioeconomic backgrounds who are already largely marginalized. (k12dive.com)(JMIR Publications)(Brennancenter.org)  Still another report claims, “There is not currently a firm evidence base that suggests social media surveillance is able to address the public health issues that many social media surveillance services claim to be targeting, such as cyberbullying, students’ mental health, and violence in schools.” (nc2s.org) 

In theory, “A district could work toward transparency by having all parents sign an ‘informed consent’ with detailed explanations of the school’s intent with third-party monitoring.” ​​Russo said. “Schools could communicate it at the highest level, but there will always be shortcomings. At best, the district catches headlines from a parent who ‘didn’t know,’ and at worst, communications and agreements are challenged — or lawsuits start rolling.”

So, is social media monitoring the way of the future? The answer isn’t simple. Many schools already are hiring third-party services to do it  – “Furthermore, these public health interventions are being carried out on a massive scale with little public awareness and regard for the consequences of their implementation.” (JMIR Publications) But, just like Mom’s question of whether we’d jump off a bridge just because all our friends are doing it, doesn’t mean it’s the right choice. The question for schools is not whether social media monitoring is the answer, but whether it is thoughtfully implemented, transparent, legal, and partnered with a broader, evidence-based approach to safety.

Takeaways

Our current research shows that social media monitoring is ineffective on its own. (JMIR Publications)(k12dive.com) There is strong consensus across trusted school safety resources that threat prevention depends on a layered strategy – one rooted in a culture of trust, supported by technology, trained on anonymous reporting, professional BTAM assessment, human discernment, action, and diligent follow-through. When these elements collaborate, schools are far better positioned to identify concerns early and intervene before harm occurs.

Source List (for reference & policy citations)

• Brennancenter.org — Social Media Monitoring in K-12 Schools: Civil and Human Rights Concerns
  
• JMIR Publications — Social Media Surveillance in Schools: Rethinking Public Health Interventions in the Digital Age
  
• K12dive.com — School social media surveillance raises privacy infringement questions
  
• Nc2s.org — National Center for School Safety – Considerations for Social Media Monitoring & Response
  
• PASS Safety & Security Guidelines — pps. 5 & 20
  
• SchoolSafety.gov – School Safety and Reporting Resources for the K-12 Community

About PASS

The Partner Alliance for Safer Schools (PASS) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) bringing together expertise from the education, public safety, and industry communities to develop and support a coordinated approach to making effective and appropriate decisions with respect to safety and security investments. You can download the complete PASS Guidelines here, or check out our PASS Safety and Security Checklist for quick tips on how to get started.  These resources—as well as white papers on various topics including barricade devices, lockdown drills, and more—are available at no cost.