When Aaliyah Iglesias found herself caught vaping at a Texas high school, she faced severe consequences that jeopardized her entire high school experience, including her role as student council president and debate team captain, along with potential criminal charges and risks to her college scholarships. Unbeknownst to many students, schools nationwide have invested millions in surveillance technology to combat the rise of electronic cigarettes, often without informing the students.
Investments in monitoring technology, costing over $1,000 per sensor, have been fueled by federal COVID-19 emergency relief funds intended for pandemic support and academic recovery. Some marketing materials even claim that these sensors, initially designed to check air quality, could aid in virus prevention.
E-cigarettes, with their higher nicotine concentrations and prevalence among minors, have become a concerning issue in middle and high schools. The sensors, sometimes paired with surveillance cameras, are activated by vaping, allowing schools to track students. In instances like Iglesias’s, administrators can use this technology to identify students involved in vaping incidents.
In Tyler, Texas, where Iglesias faced consequences for vaping, the school district has implemented a zero-tolerance policy, resulting in punishments such as enrollment in alternative schools for 30 days. Students caught vaping may also receive misdemeanor citations and fines, while those found with vapes containing THC, the marijuana-related chemical, could face felony charges.
One prominent provider, HALO Smart Sensors, has seen substantial sales to schools, with sensors capable of detecting vape smoke or THC, monitoring noise levels, and alerting school officials. The sensors, promoted for multiple uses, also gained traction during the pandemic as a tool for monitoring indoor air quality using COVID relief funds.
While these technologies aim to address health concerns related to vaping, concerns arise about the potential invasion of privacy and the unintended consequences of aggressive disciplinary measures, raising questions about the long-term impact on students and the broader implications of surveillance in educational settings.