Tag: Safety

  • Blending Culture and Safety at Fort Lewis

    Blending Culture and Safety at Fort Lewis

    After the death of a student at Fort Lewis College, Kendra Gallegos knew the institution’s response had to do more than make space for grief—it also had to honor the cultural traditions of the college’s largely Native student body.

    Fort Lewis, a public four-year college in Durango, Colo., invited an Indigenous healer to lead a traditional blessing of the residence hall where the student had lived.

    That kind of healing ceremony reflects how campus leaders like Gallegos, the interim vice president of diversity affairs, approach student wellness programs: by grounding efforts in cultural practices that resonate with students.

    “We’re always asking students what they need and recognizing that there are many different tribes, each with its own traditions and ways of responding when someone passes away,” Gallegos said.

    With about 40 percent of its students identifying as Native, Fort Lewis offers a wide range of support services—from counseling rooted in Indigenous cultural identity to vending machines that provide anonymous access to Narcan, fentanyl test strips and emergency contraception—giving students multiple ways to seek help and protect themselves.

    “We’re looking at a lot of different approaches and building partnerships across the state,” Gallegos said. “We want to look beyond our campus and ask, ‘How can we best serve our students’ needs and help them get access to care?’”

    On the ground: Fort Lewis students have access to free, unlimited mental health and counseling services through the campus counseling center, including individual and group therapy, crisis support, and drop-in consultations.

    But Gallegos said counseling alone is not “one-size-fits-all.” Students can also tap into Indigenous ways of knowing and healing, including through connections to traditional healers.

    “We have a diverse group of students coming from all walks of life,” Gallegos said. “We get them connected with counselors who may be Indigenous, who may be from their tribe.”

    Gallegos said traditional counseling is not always the most appropriate way to meet students’ needs.

    “Maybe they need to go home and have a ceremony with their families, with their communities,” she said. “Or maybe they need a medicine man, or it’s herbal, like sage that we’re burning here in the campus community.”

    Beyond clinical and cultural support, Fort Lewis’s peer support office offers confidential, peer-led assistance and help navigating campus resources. 

    “We’re trying to be more specialized, knowing that [peer supporters] aren’t counselors and don’t have advanced degrees,” Gallegos said. “They’re not doing counseling—they’re saying, ‘I have some knowledge in this area or lived experience, and I’m willing to talk with you.’”

    Students rely on peer support for guidance on substance use, Indigenous identity, sexuality and gender, and student-athlete challenges, among other topics, she added.

    In 2024, the college also launched a harm-reduction vending machine that provides free, anonymous access to health and wellness supplies such as Narcan, fentanyl test strips, emergency contraception, menstrual products and condoms.

    So far, the vending machine has dispensed more than 2,600 items—including more than 100 boxes of Narcan and nearly 700 fentanyl test strips, Gallegos said—underscoring student engagement as well as need.

    Gallegos said the goal of the vending machine is to keep students in school by removing barriers to getting help.

    “We don’t actually get to know who they are or what their stories are,” she said. “But we know it’s making a difference.”

    Most recently, Fort Lewis began piloting a substance-free housing option for students in recovery or those who choose to live sober. The plan is to create an eight-resident living community designed to provide a supportive environment for students focused on sobriety.

    The college has hired two recent Fort Lewis graduates to help lead the initiative.

    “They’ll be part-time and really grow the community and the purpose in the sober living community and nurture those who are there,” Gallegos said.

    Signs of progress: For Gallegos, supporting students starts with making clear that conversations about substance use and mental health are welcome at Fort Lewis.

    “We don’t want there to be a wrong door for support,” she said. “We’ve seen that students are ready to talk to us about these things—they’re less willing to brush them under the rug until the last minute.”

    That openness doesn’t mean abandoning boundaries, Gallegos added.

    “We still follow our conduct code and policies,” she said. “But we’ve learned there can be a warmer handoff and an opportunity for growth and education.”

    Ultimately, Gallegos said, she’s proud to have helped build what she calls a “community of care” on campus.

    “Please don’t shut the door on a student who’s struggling,” she said. “Help them get the resources they need.”

    Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.

    Source link

  • Modernizing education communications for safety and simplicity

    Modernizing education communications for safety and simplicity

    Key points:

    Schools, colleges, and universities face growing challenges in keeping their communities informed, connected, and engaged. From classroom collaboration to campus-wide alerts, reliable communication is critical to creating positive learning environments and student experiences.

    Currently, many educational institutions are weighed down by outdated and disjointed communication systems that hinder learning, experience, and even safety. Educators need technology that is both flexible and responsive, and these systems are falling short.  

    The campus communication disconnect

    Many schools find themselves in a fragmented communication trap, juggling a complex tech stack with outdated systems. On its own, each tool might work well, but when different applications are used for texts, emails, virtual classrooms, and emergency alerts, each with separate logins and interface, communication can become disjointed.

    School district IT teams are notoriously spread thin, and having fragmented communication tools that requires their own training, trouble shooting, and management is burdensome. This also adds unnecessary complexity for the wider faculty that can easily lead to missed messages or alerts. When taking safety into account, hampered communications in times like severe weather or lockdown can have serious repercussions.

    Outside of safety and complexity, patchworked communication systems can weigh schools down financially. Many platforms come with their own hidden fees or inconsistent licensing costs across departments. Those seeking to upgrade might face a block if budgets don’t have room for the initial investment, even though it could lead to long-term savings. This has left many schools in the position of maintaining a web of outdated tools like on-site servers or phone lines where potential benefits are overshadowed by price and complications.

    Key benefits of unified communications

    Faculty, students, families, and communities must be connected for impactful learning. Effective connection requires simplified and streamlined information sharing, which can be achieved through unifying communications. Modern, unified communication systems bring together channels like alerts, email, phone, messaging, and virtual learning into one platform, making it easier for schools to stay informed and engaged.

    Driven by a need for reliability, security, and budget predictability, 62.5% of educational institutions are now moving to UCaaS platforms, according to a 2025 Metrigy study. In practice, these platforms can enable teachers to reach the school nurse, contact a parent, or join a virtual classroom–all without switching platforms. For administrators, these tools can provide ecosystem management through one simple dashboard, reaching from individual campuses to entire school districts.

    Today’s learning environment requires flexibility. Whether class is fully remote or in person, modernized communication ensures both staff and students maintain consistent access to learning. Modern tools are also simplified–they can exist on the cloud in one platform, decreasing the need for separate servers, phone systems, or emergency alert tools.

    Modernized communication isn’t just convenient, but functions to bolster safety and responsiveness. For example, if a safety threat is reported, in real time, a unified system can automatically alert first responders, prompt crisis notifications, and confirm message distribution. Outside of emergencies, in a more day-to-day function, administrators can benefit from smoother operations like automated attendance alerts and streamlined family communications. 

    Uplevel with AI

    AI has emerged as a valuable partner for school administrators who perpetually need to do more with less. Within unified communications systems, AI can identify overlooked patterns and inefficiencies, such as if parent engagement rates climbed when sending a text as opposed to a phone call.

    Faculty can use AI to automate more administrative tasks like summarizing meeting notes, routing calls, or translating messages for multilingual families. These tools can help staff focus more on hands-on teaching and human interactions. Collated over time, these learnings can aid in decision making around staffing, communication approach, and resource allocation.

    Where to start

    Modernizing communication requires alignment between faculty, IT departments, and leadership. Before selecting a solution, school leaders should work to identify pain points and align goals across departments to ensure any updates serve both operational and academic priorities.

    When evaluating a consolidated communication solution, it’s important to consider tools that fit the specific needs of your institution, offering both flexibility and scalability. These solutions should work to unify legacy systems where needed, instead of completely gutting them. For example, an effective solution for your school might have the ability to work with bell or hardware phone systems while modernizing the rest of your communication tools into a single platform to minimize disruption and protect previous investments.

    A complete overnight rework of current communication systems is intimidating, and frankly, unrealistic. Instead, start by evaluating where a few systems can be consolidated and then gradually expand. This could look like first integrating messaging and emergency alerts before looking to incorporate analytics and collaboration tools.

    A more connected future

    The current education landscape is intrinsically dynamic, hybrid, and interconnected. Learning now takes place across both physical and digital spaces, requiring students and educators to collaborate seamlessly across locations and time zones.

    As advanced technology like AI continues to integrate into schools and universities, those that modernize their communications now will ensure they are ready to meet current and future educational needs for more effective, seamless, and safe learning environments.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • OPINION: Colleges must start treating immigration-based targeting as a serious threat to student safety and belonging  

    OPINION: Colleges must start treating immigration-based targeting as a serious threat to student safety and belonging  

    by Madison Forde, The Hechinger Report
    January 12, 2026

    Last month, a Boston University junior proudly posted online that he had spent months calling Immigration and Customs Enforcement to report Latino workers at a neighborhood car wash.

    Nine people were detained, including siblings and a 67-year-old man who has lived in the U.S. for decades. The student celebrated the arrests and told ICE to “pump up the numbers.”

    As the daughter of Caribbean immigrants and a researcher who studies immigrant-origin youth, I was shaken but not surprised. This incident, which did have some backlash, revealed a growing problem on college campuses: Many young people are learning to police one another rather than learn alongside one another.

    That means the new border patrol could be your classmate. Our schools are not prepared for this.

    That is why colleges must start treating immigration-based targeting as a serious threat to student safety and belonging and take immediate steps to prevent it — as they do with racism, antisemitism and homophobia.

    Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

    The incident at Boston University is bigger than one student with extreme views. We are living in a moment shaped by online outrage, anonymous tip lines and a culture that encourages reporting anyone who seems “suspicious.”

    In this environment, some young people have started to believe that calling ICE is a form of civic duty.

    That thinking doesn’t stay online. It walks right into classrooms, dorms and group projects. When it does, the impact is not abstract. It is deeply personal for the immigrant-origin youth sitting in those same rooms.

    Many of these students grew up with fear woven into their daily lives. Their neighbors disappeared overnight, they heard stories of parents being detained at work and they began translating legal mail before they were old enough to drive. They know exactly what an ICE call can set into motion. They carry that fear with them to school.

    These are not hypothetical harms. They show up in everyday decisions: where to sit, what to say, whom to trust. I’ve met students who avoid speaking Spanish on campus, refuse to share their address during class activities and sit near the exits because they’re not sure who views their family as “a threat.” It is not possible to learn well in an environment where you do not feel safe.

    There is a strong body of developmental research highlighting belonging and social inclusion as central to healthy development. In her work on migration and acculturation, Carola Suárez-Orozco shows that legal-status-based distinctions among youth intensify exclusion and undermine both social integration and developmental well-being.

    When belonging erodes, colleges begin to function like small border zones, where everyone is quietly assessing who might turn them in. It is nearly impossible for any campus community to thrive under that kind of pressure.

    Quite frankly, nor can America’s democracy.

    If we raise a generation of students who feel compelled to police the nation’s borders from their dorms, the immigrant-origin youth sitting beside them in classrooms will carry the psychological burden of those borders every single day. Yet colleges are almost entirely unprepared for this reality.

    Most universities have clear policies for racial slurs, antisemitic threats, homophobic harassment and other identity-based harms. But very few have policies that address immigration-based targeting, even though the consequences can be just as severe and, in some cases, life-altering.

    Boston University’s president acknowledged the distress caused by that student’s actions. Yet, the university did not classify the behavior as discriminatory, despite the fact that his calls targeted a specific ethnic and immigration-status group. That silence sends a clear message: Harm against immigrant communities is unimportant, incidental or simply “political.” But this harm is neither political nor the price of free expression or civic engagement; it is targeted intimidation, with real and measurable consequences for students’ safety, mental health and academic engagement.

    In my view, colleges need to take three straightforward steps:

    1. Define immigration-based harassment as misconduct. Calling ICE on classmates, doxxing immigrant peers or circulating immigration-related rumors should be classified under the same conduct codes that protect students from other forms of targeted harm. Schools know how to do this; they simply have not applied those same protections to immigrant communities.

    2. Train faculty and staff on how to respond. Professors should have a clear understanding of what to do when immigration rhetoric is weaponized in the classroom, or when students express fear about being reported. Although many professors want to help, they may lack basic guidance.

    3. Teach immigration literacy as part of civic education. Most students do not understand what ICE detention entails, how long legal cases can drag on or what it means to live with daily fear like their immigrant peers. Teaching these realities isn’t “political indoctrination,” it is preparation for a life in a multicultural democracy.

    These three steps are not radical. They are merely the same kinds of protections colleges already provide to students targeted for other aspects of their identity.

    Related: STUDENT VOICES: ‘Dreamers’ like us need our own resource centers on college campuses

    The Boston University case is a warning, not an isolated moment. If campuses fail to respond, more young people will internalize the idea that policing their peers is simply part of student life. Immigrant-origin youth, who have done nothing wrong, will carry the emotional burden alone.

    As students, educators and researchers, we have to decide what kind of learning communities we want to build and sustain. Schools can be places where students understand one another, or they can become places of intense surveillance. That choice will shape not just campus climates, but also the society current students will eventually lead.

    Madison Forde is a doctoral student in the Clinical/Counseling Psychology program at New York University.

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

    This story about immigration-based targeting at colleges was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-colleges-must-start-treating-immigration-based-targeting-as-a-serious-threat-to-student-safety-and-belonging/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=114272&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-colleges-must-start-treating-immigration-based-targeting-as-a-serious-threat-to-student-safety-and-belonging/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • What K-20 leaders should know about building resilient campuses

    What K-20 leaders should know about building resilient campuses

    Key Points:

    When a school building fails, everything it supports comes to a halt. Learning stops. Families scramble. Community stability is shaken. And while fire drills and lockdown procedures prepare students and staff for specific emergencies, the buildings themselves often fall short in facing the unexpected.

    Between extreme weather events, aging infrastructure, and rising operational demands, facility leaders face mounting pressure to think beyond routine upkeep. Resilience should guide every decision to help schools stay safe, meet compliance demands, and remain prepared for whatever lies ahead.

    According to a recent infrastructure report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers, the nation’s 98,000 PK-12 schools received a D+ for physical condition–a clear signal that more proactive design and maintenance strategies are urgently needed.

    Designing for resilience means planning for continuity. It’s about integrating smarter materials, better systems, and proactive partnerships so that learning environments can bounce back quickly–or never go down at all.

    Start with smarter material choices

    The durability of a school begins at ground level. Building materials that resist moisture, mold, impact, and corrosion play a critical role in long-term school resilience and functionality. For example, in flood-prone regions, concrete blocks and fiber-reinforced panels outperform drywall in both durability and recovery time. Surfaces that are easy to clean, dry quickly, and don’t retain contaminants can make the difference between reopening in days versus weeks.

    Limit downtime by planning ahead

    Downtime is costly, but it’s not always unavoidable. What is avoidable is the scramble that follows when there’s no plan in place. Developing a disaster-response protocol that includes vendors, contact trees, and restoration procedures can significantly reduce response time. Schools that partner with recovery experts before an event occurs often find themselves first in line when restoration resources are stretched thin.

    FEMA’s National Resilience Guidance stresses the need to integrate preparedness and long-term recovery planning at the facility level, particularly for schools that often serve as vital community hubs during emergencies.

    Maintenance as the first line of defense

    Preventative maintenance might not generate headlines, but it can prevent them. Regular inspections of roofing, HVAC, plumbing, and electrical systems help uncover vulnerabilities before they lead to shutdowns. Smart maintenance schedules can extend the lifespan of critical systems and reduce the risk of emergency failures, which are almost always more expensive.

    Build flexibility into the design

    Truly resilient spaces are defined by their ability to adapt, not just their physical strength. Multi-use rooms that can shift from classroom to shelter, or gymnasiums that double as community command centers, offer critical flexibility during emergencies. Facilities should also consider redundancies in HVAC and power systems to ensure critical areas like server rooms or nurse stations remain functional during outages.

    Include restoration experts early

    Design and construction teams are essential, but so are the people who will step in after a disaster. Involving restoration professionals during the planning or renovation phase helps ensure the layout and materials selected won’t hinder recovery later. Features like water-resistant flooring, interior drainage, and strategically placed shut-off valves can dramatically cut cleanup and repair times.

    Think beyond the building

    Resilient schools need more than solid walls. They need protected data, reliable communication systems, and clear procedures for remote learning if the physical space becomes temporarily inaccessible. Facility decisions should consider how technology, security, and backup systems intersect with the physical environment to maintain educational continuity.

    Schools are more than schools during a crisis

    In many communities, schools become the default support hub during a crisis. They house evacuees, store supplies, and provide a place for neighbors to connect. Resilient infrastructure supports student safety while also reinforcing a school’s role as a vital part of the community. Designs should support this extended role, with access-controlled entries, backup power, and health and sanitation considerations built in from the start.

    A resilient mindset starts with leadership

    Resilience begins with leadership and is reflected in the decisions that shape a school’s physical and operational readiness. Facility managers, superintendents, and administrative teams must advocate for resilient investments early in the planning process. This includes aligning capital improvement budgets, bond proposals, and RFP language with long-term resilience goals.

    There’s no such thing as a truly disaster-proof building. But there are schools that recover faster, withstand more, and serve their communities more effectively during crises. The difference is often found in early choices: what’s designed, built, and maintained before disaster strikes.

    When resilience guides every decision, school facilities are better prepared to safeguard students and maintain continuity through disruption.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • 3 threats putting student safety at risk

    3 threats putting student safety at risk

    Key points:

    In today’s schools, whether K-12 or higher education, AI is powering smarter classrooms. There’s more personalized learning and faster administrative tasks. And students themselves are engaging with AI more than ever before, as 70 percent say they’ve used an AI tool to alter or create completely new images. But while educators and students are embracing the promise of AI, cybercriminals are exploiting it.

    In 2025, the U.S. Department of Education reported that nearly 150,000 suspect identities were flagged in recent federal student-aid forms, contributing to $90 million in financial aid losses tied to ineligible applicants. From deepfakes in admissions to synthetic students infiltrating online portals and threatening high-value research information, AI-powered identity fraud is rising fast, and our educational institutions are alarmingly underprepared.

    As identity fraud tactics become more scalable and convincing, districts are now racing to deploy modern tools to catch fake students before they slip through the cracks. Three fraud trends keep IT and security leaders in education up at night–and AI is supercharging their impact.

    1. Fraud rings targeting education

    Here’s the hard truth: Fraudsters operate in networks, but most schools fight fraud alone.

    Coordinated rings can deploy hundreds of synthetic identities across schools or districts. These groups recycle biometric data, reuse fake documents, and share attack methods on dark web forums.

    To stand a fair chance in the fight, educational institutions must work with identity verification experts that enable a holistic view of the threat landscape through cross-transactional risk assessments. These assessments spot risk patterns across devices, IP addresses, and user behavior, helping institutions uncover fraud clusters that would be invisible in isolation.

    2. Deepfakes and injected selfies in remote enrollment

    Facial recognition was once a trusted line of defense for remote learning and test proctoring. But fraudsters can now use emulators and virtual cameras to bypass those checks, inserting AI-generated faces into the stream to impersonate students. In education, where student data is a goldmine and systems are increasingly remote, the risk is even more pronounced.

    In virtual work environments, for example, enterprises are already seeing an uptick in the use of deepfakes during job interviews. By 2028, Gartner predicts 1 in 4 job candidates worldwide will be fake. The same applies to the education sector. We’re now seeing fake students, complete with forged government IDs and a convincing selfie, slide past systems and into financial aid pipelines.

    So, what’s the fix? Biometric identity intelligence, trusted by a growing number of students, can verify micro-movements, lighting, and facial depth, and confirm whether a real human is behind the screen. Multimodal checks (combining visual, motion, and even audio data) are critical for stopping AI-powered identity fraud.

    3. Synthetic students in your systems

    Unlike stolen identities, synthetic identities are crafted from real–and fake–fragments, such as a legit SSN combined with a fake name. These “students” can pass enrollment checks, get campus credentials, and even apply for financial aid.

    Traditional document checks aren’t enough to catch them. Today’s identity verification tools must use AI to detect missing elements, like holograms or watermarks, and flag patterns including identical document backgrounds, which is a key sign of industrial-scale fraud.

     AI-powered identity intelligence for education

    As digital learning becomes the norm and AI accelerates, identity fraud will only get more sophisticated. However, AI also offers educators a solution.

    By layering biometrics, behavioral analytics, and cross-platform data, schools can verify student identities at scale and in real time, keeping pace with advancing threats, and even staying one step ahead.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : Understanding U.S. Campus Safety and Mental Health: Guidance for International Students

    Higher Education Inquirer : Understanding U.S. Campus Safety and Mental Health: Guidance for International Students

    The tragic shooting at Brown University in December 2025, which claimed two lives and left nine students wounded, is a stark reminder that even elite U.S. campuses are not immune to violence. For international students, understanding this incident requires placing it in the broader context of the United States’ history of social dangers, treatment of mental illness, and policies affecting foreigners.

    The United States has historically had higher rates of violent crime, including gun-related incidents, than many other developed nations. While campus shootings remain statistically rare, they reflect deeper societal issues: widespread gun access, social inequality, and a culture that often prioritizes armed self-protection over preventative public safety measures. Universities, traditionally viewed as open spaces for learning and discussion, are increasingly sites of surveillance and armed response, reshaping the student experience.

    Foreign students and immigrants may face additional vulnerabilities. Throughout U.S. history, immigrants have often been subject to discrimination, harassment, or violence based on nationality, race, or religion. Universities are not insulated from these pressures, and international students can be particularly susceptible to microaggressions, exclusion, or even targeted hostility. These risks were heightened under the Trump administration, when rhetoric and policies frequently cast foreigners as suspicious or undesirable. Visa restrictions, heightened scrutiny of foreign scholars, and public statements fostering distrust created an environment in which international students might feel unsafe or isolated.

    Mental illness plays a critical role in understanding campus violence, but its treatment in the United States is inconsistent. While many universities provide counseling centers, therapy services, and crisis hotlines, the broader mental health system in the U.S. remains fragmented and under-resourced. Access often depends on insurance coverage, ability to pay, and proximity to care, leaving some individuals untreated or inadequately supported. Cultural stigmas and underdiagnosis can exacerbate the problem, particularly among minority and immigrant populations. International students, unfamiliar with local mental health norms or hesitant to seek care due to cost or cultural barriers, may be less likely to access help until crises arise.

    U.S. universities deploy extensive surveillance systems, emergency protocols, and campus police to respond to threats. These measures aim to mitigate harm once an incident occurs but focus less on prevention of violence or addressing underlying causes, including untreated mental illness. Students are required to participate in drills and safety training, creating a reactive rather than preventative model.

    Compared to other countries, the U.S. approach is distinct. Canadian universities emphasize mental health support and unarmed security. European campuses often maintain open environments with minimal surveillance and preventive intervention strategies. Many Asian universities operate in low-crime contexts with community-based safety measures rather than extensive surveillance. The U.S. approach emphasizes rapid law enforcement response and monitoring, reflecting a society with higher firearm prevalence and less coordinated mental health infrastructure.

    The Brown University tragedy underscores a sobering reality for international students: while the U.S. offers world-class education, it is a nation with elevated risks of violent crime, inconsistent mental health care, and historical and ongoing challenges for foreigners. Awareness, preparedness, community engagement, and proactive mental health support are essential tools for international students navigating higher education in this environment.

    Sources

    The Guardian: Brown University shooting: police release more videos of person of interest as FBI offers reward

    Reuters: Manhunt for Brown University shooter stretches into fourth day

    Washington Post: Hunt for Brown University gunman starts anew as tension rises

    AP News: Brown University shooting victims identified

    People: Brown University shooting victim Kendall Turner

    WUSF: Brown University shooting victims update

    Wikipedia: 2025 Brown University shooting

    Pew Research Center: International Students in the United States

    Brookings Institution: Immigrant Vulnerability and Safety in the U.S.

    National Alliance on Mental Illness: Mental Health in Higher Education

    Journal of American College Health: Mental Health Services Utilization Among College Students

    Source link

  • Preventing harm by connecting the dots in school safety

    Preventing harm by connecting the dots in school safety

    Key points:

    Swatting–false reports of school violence intended to trigger a police response–continues to increase across the country. During the 2022–2023 school year, nearly 64 percent of reported violent incidents in K–12 schools were linked to swatting. That’s over 440 incidents in one year–a more than 500 percent jump from just four years prior.

    Each call pulls officers from genuine emergencies, disrupts classrooms, and leaves students and staff shaken. While emergency protocols are essential, when swatting becomes routine, it’s clear that response plans alone won’t solve the problem.

    Unpacking the early signals

    Swatting rarely emerges out of thin air. It’s often the final act following a series of compounding behaviors, such as:

    • Online harassment
    • Peer conflicts
    • Risky social media challenges
    • Unaddressed behavioral concerns

    These warning signs exist, but are typically scattered across multiple school departments.

    Counselors might log escalating incidents. Teachers may notice changes in student behavior, and school resource officers (SROs) might track repeated visits involving the same individuals. Without a unified way to connect these observations, critical warning signs go unnoticed.

    Operationalizing early intervention

    Districts are reimagining how they capture and coordinate behavioral data. The goal isn’t surveillance or punitive action. It’s about empowering the right people with the right context to align and intervene early.

    When schools shift from viewing incidents in isolation to seeing behavior patterns in context, they are better positioned to act before concerns escalate. This can mean initiating mental health referrals, alerting safety teams, or involving families and law enforcement partners at the appropriate moment with comprehensive information.

    Technology that enables teams

    The process requires tools that support secure, centralized documentation and streamline communication across counselors, administrators, safety staff, and other stakeholders. These systems don’t replace human judgment, but create conditions for clearer decisions and more timely coordination.

    Swatting is just one example of how fragmented behavioral data can contribute to high-risk outcomes. Other incidents, such as escalating bullying, persistent mental health concerns, or anonymous threats often follow recognizable patterns that emerge over time. When schools use a centralized system to document and track these behaviors across departments, they can identify those patterns earlier. This kind of structured coordination supports proactive interventions, helping prevent larger issues before they unfold and reinforcing a culture of safety and awareness.

    Consider Washington State, where swatting affected more than 18,000 students last year, costing schools over $270,000 in lost instructional time. These figures illustrate the operational and human costs when coordination breaks down.

    Reducing risk, not just reacting to it

    Swatting is a symptom of a larger issue. Building safer schools means moving upstream from reactive emergency response to proactive coordination. It requires shared insight across teams, strengthened behavioral threat assessment protocols, and the right supports in place well before crisis calls occur.

    Early intervention isn’t about adding complexity. It’s about reducing risk, improving situational clarity, and equipping school communities to act with confidence–not simply responding when harm is imminent.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Data, privacy, and cybersecurity in schools: A 2025 wake-up call

    Data, privacy, and cybersecurity in schools: A 2025 wake-up call

    Key points:

    In 2025, schools are sitting on more data than ever before. Student records, attendance, health information, behavioral logs, and digital footprints generated by edtech tools have turned K-12 institutions into data-rich environments. As artificial intelligence becomes a central part of the learning experience, these data streams are being processed in increasingly complex ways. But with this complexity comes a critical question: Are schools doing enough to protect that data?

    The answer, in many cases, is no.

    The rise of shadow AI

    According to CoSN’s May 2025 State of EdTech District Leadership report, a significant portion of districts, specifically 43 percent, lack formal policies or guidance for AI use. While 80 percent of districts have generative AI initiatives underway, this policy gap is a major concern. At the same time, Common Sense Media’s Teens, Trust and Technology in the Age of AI highlights that many teens have been misled by fake content and struggle to discern truth from misinformation, underscoring the broad adoption and potential risks of generative AI.

    This lack of visibility and control has led to the rise of what many experts call “shadow AI”: unapproved apps and browser extensions that process student inputs, store them indefinitely, or reuse them to train commercial models. These tools are often free, widely adopted, and nearly invisible to IT teams. Shadow AI expands the district’s digital footprint in ways that often escape policy enforcement, opening the door to data leakage and compliance violations. CoSN’s 2025 report specifically notes that “free tools that are downloaded in an ad hoc manner put district data at risk.”

    Data protection: The first pillar under pressure

    The U.S. Department of Education’s AI Toolkit for Schools urges districts to treat student data with the same care as medical or financial records. However, many AI tools used in classrooms today are not inherently FERPA-compliant and do not always disclose where or how student data is stored. Teachers experimenting with AI-generated lesson plans or feedback may unknowingly input student work into platforms that retain or share that data. In the absence of vendor transparency, there is no way to verify how long data is stored, whether it is shared with third parties, or how it might be reused. FERPA requires that if third-party vendors handle student data on behalf of the institution, they must comply with FERPA. This includes ensuring data is not used for unintended purposes or retained for AI training.

    Some tools, marketed as “free classroom assistants,” require login credentials tied to student emails or learning platforms. This creates additional risks if authentication mechanisms are not protected or monitored. Even widely-used generative tools may include language in their privacy policies allowing them to use uploaded content for system training or performance optimization.

     

    Data processing and the consent gap

    Generative AI models are trained on large datasets, and many free tools continue learning from user prompts. If a student pastes an essay or a teacher includes student identifiers in a prompt, that information could enter a commercial model’s training loop. This creates a scenario where data is being processed without explicit consent, potentially in violation of COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act) and FERPA. While the FTC’s December 2023 update to the COPPA Rule did not codify school consent provisions, existing guidance still allows schools to consent to technology use on behalf of parents in educational contexts. However, the onus remains on schools to understand and manage these consent implications, especially with the rule’s new amendments becoming effective June 21, 2025, which strengthen protections and require separate parental consent for third-party disclosures for targeted advertising.

    Moreover, many educators and students are unaware of what constitutes “personally identifiable information” (PII) in these contexts. A name combined with a school ID number, disability status, or even a writing sample could easily identify a student, especially in small districts. Without proper training, well-intentioned AI use can cross legal lines unknowingly.

    Cybersecurity risks multiply

    AI tools have also increased the attack surface of K-12 networks. According to ThreatDown’s 2024 State of Ransomware in Education report, ransomware attacks on K-12 schools increased by 92 percent between 2022 and 2023, with 98 total attacks in 2023. This trend is projected to continue as cybercriminals use AI to create more targeted phishing campaigns and detect system vulnerabilities faster. AI-assisted attacks can mimic human language and tone, making them harder to detect. Some attackers now use large language models to craft personalized emails that appear to come from school administrators.

    Many schools lack endpoint protection for student devices, and third-party integrations often bypass internal firewalls. Free AI browser extensions may collect keystrokes or enable unauthorized access to browser sessions. The more tools that are introduced without IT oversight, the harder it becomes to isolate and contain incidents when they occur. CoSN’s 2025 report indicates that 60 percent of edtech leaders are “very concerned about AI-enabled cyberattacks,” yet 61 percent still rely on general funds for cybersecurity efforts, not dedicated funding.

    Building a responsible framework

    To mitigate these risks, school leaders need to:

    • Audit tool usage using platforms like Lightspeed Digital Insight to identify AI tools being accessed without approval. Districts should maintain a living inventory of all digital tools. Lightspeed Digital Insight, for example, is vetted by 1EdTech for data privacy.
    • Develop and publish AI use policies that clarify acceptable practices, define data handling expectations, and outline consequences for misuse. Policies should distinguish between tools approved for instructional use and those requiring further evaluation.
    • Train educators and students to understand how AI tools collect and process data, how to interpret AI outputs critically, and how to avoid inputting sensitive information. AI literacy should be embedded in digital citizenship curricula, with resources available from organizations like Common Sense Media and aiEDU.
    • Vet all third-party apps through standards like the 1EdTech TrustEd Apps program. Contracts should specify data deletion timelines and limit secondary data use. The TrustEd Apps program has vetted over 12,000 products, providing a valuable resource for districts.
    • Simulate phishing attacks and test breach response protocols regularly. Cybersecurity training should be required for staff, and recovery plans must be reviewed annually.

    Trust starts with transparency

    In the rush to embrace AI, schools must not lose sight of their responsibility to protect students’ data and privacy. Transparency with parents, clarity for educators, and secure digital infrastructure are not optional. They are the baseline for trust in the age of algorithmic learning.

    AI can support personalized learning, but only if we put safety and privacy first. The time to act is now. Districts that move early to build policies, offer training, and coordinate oversight will be better prepared to lead AI adoption with confidence and care.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Safety must shape policy on single-sex spaces

    Safety must shape policy on single-sex spaces

    As a campaigner focusing on gender-based violence within higher education, I am extremely concerned about the consequences for trans and non-binary people of the recent Supreme Court judgement on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.

    Crucial work is being done by trans activists and their allies to challenge this judgement, including a proposed judicial review. In the meantime, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has been consulting on its guidance, and higher education institutions are discussing the implications of the judgement.

    Given that any further legal case will take some time to come to fruition, it is crucial that decisions being made around trans and non-binary people’s access to spaces within higher education are informed by good quality evidence.

    This evidence – which comes from a wide range of international studies, as outlined below – shows clearly that trans and non-binary people face much higher risks in relation to sexual harassment and assault than cis people, both men and women. This fact is entirely missing in the consultation version of the guidance.

    My response to the consultation has outlined these issues. But this point needs to be taken into account by all HEIs currently considering how to implement the Supreme Court judgement. This piece aims to give evidence and wording to help staff to do so.

    Research context

    Trans and non-binary people are much more likely than cis people, including cis women, to be subjected to sexual harassment and violence. This is a well-established fact, evidenced by national studies of 180,000 students in the US; 8000 students in Ireland; and 43,000 students in Australia, as well as studies focusing on staff-student sexual misconduct (p.277) or on specific disciplines; and studies across campuses and that compare different sexual and gender minority groups.

    For example a survey of over 43000 students in Australia published in 2022 found that trans students were more than twice as likely as cis women to have been subjected to sexual violence in the past year, and also significantly more likely to be subjected to sexual harassment, as detailed in the figure below.

    In addition, non-binary and trans people may often experience sexual harassment that intersects with harassment on the basis of their gender identity. For example, in a large national survey of sexual harassment and violence in Ireland with responses from 7901 students, 45% of non-binary students described being subjected to sexualised comments related to their gender identity.

    Toilets have been identified as a particularly risky space for trans and non-binary children at school.

    A recent US study analysed a survey of 3673 transgender and nonbinary US adolescents in grades 7 to 12. They found that – while trans and non-binary students were already more likely to experience sexual assault than cis students – this risk was increased by a large amount where they are not allowed to use toilets that match their self-identified gender (this included policies where trans and non-binary students had to use alternative facilities such as staff bathrooms).

    Transgender boys and girls, as well as nonbinary students assigned female at birth, whose restroom and locker room use was restricted, were more likely to have experienced sexual assault in the past 12 months compared with those without restrictions and the largest increased risk (149%) was among transgender girls.

    This study – with an unusually large sample of trans and non-binary students from across the US – shows the significantly heightened risk that trans and non-binary youth are subjected to sexual assault as a result of bathroom usage policies.

    This is not a negligible amount of risk. The study’s focus on youth is particularly important – in the UK context, more than a third (35 per cent) of trans and non-binary people report having started transitioning by age 18 and two-thirds (67 per cent) by age 25. Therefore, schools and higher education institutions are a key site where trans and non-binary people’s safety needs to be considered.

    These research findings are not currently reflected in the EHRC guidance, as outlined below.

    How the EHRC guidance needs to change

    At points in the current (consultation) version of the EHRC guidance, women’s “safety” is used as a justification for providing single-sex services for cis women only. For example, in point 13.3.4:

    When considering the benefits of offering a separate or single-sex service, the service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) should think about whether women’s safety, privacy and / or dignity would be at risk in the service if it was shared with men.

    Considered in light of the evidence presented above, it is concerning that women’s safety is discussed but there is no mention of the safety of trans and non-binary people. Trans and non-binary people face the greatest risk to their safety and dignity (as sexual harassment is by definition a violation of dignity) if compared to the current practice where trans women use women-only facilities.

    Trans and non-binary people’s safety is significantly more compromised by the use of single sex spaces than cis women’s. But the guidance is entirely silent on the risks that trans and non-binary people face if single-sex spaces are limited to cisgendered women and men respectively.

    Similarly, section 13.5 discusses “relevant considerations when deciding whether the exclusion of trans people from a separate or single-sex service is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” but does not mention trans and non-binary people’s increased risk of sexual harassment and assault.

    Throughout the guidance, where arguments are made about considering cis women’s safety or perceived safety in relation to single-sex services, the same arguments also need to be made – and indeed are heightened – in relation to trans and non-binary people. This means that HEIs, in considering provision of single-sex spaces, must also consider the ways in which trans and non-binary people’s risk of sexual assault and harassment is heightened when they are excluded from spaces that match their gender identity.

    HEIs considering their provision of space could draw on the finding from the US study of trans and non-binary high school students, discussed above. This study found that offering alternative provision trans and non-binary students, for example whereby they would use the staff toilets (which are single toilets) instead of the student toilets, still correlated with increased risk of sexual assault for trans and non-binary students.

    Harassment on the basis of gender reassignment

    The other area that the EHRC guidance needs to consider more carefully is the risk of harassment on the basis of gender reassignment. In 13.5.6 the consultation version of the guidance discusses the circumstances that might be considered when making decisions on trans or non-binary people’s use of single sex spaces. The relevant text reads (trigger warning: transphobia):

    13.5.6 A legitimate aim for excluding a trans person from a separate or single-sex service for their own biological sex might be to prevent alarm or distress for other service users. Whether it is reasonable to think that the presence in that service of the trans person will cause alarm or distress will depend on all the circumstances, including the extent to which the trans person presents as the opposite sex. For this reason, a service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) should only consider doing this on a case-by-case basis. [my emphasis]

    The suggestion that service providers should consider “the extent to which the trans person presents as the opposite sex” as part of their consideration of circumstances on a case-by-case basis is highly problematic.

    This suggestion seems to invite harassment on the basis of gender reassignment, i.e. service providers are invited to pass judgement on whether a trans person “passes” or not; as this judgement is being made on a case-by-case basis, the service providers are required to assess the gender presentation of a particular individual.

    This is likely to have the effect of creating an intimating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment – i.e. harassment on the basis of gender reassignment – for the person being considered. Furthermore, judgements about how a person of any sex should “present” also puts other groups at risk such as butch cis women and femme cis men, and I could not find any mention of intersex people throughout the consultation.

    Implications for higher education institutions

    The high prevalence of sexual violence and harassment faced by trans and non-binary students is particularly relevant in light of the Office for Students’ new regulatory requirements for higher education institutions to address harassment and sexual misconduct.

    Firstly, this regulation includes the requirement to address harassment on the basis of gender reassignment, so the example identified above would contravene the OfS requirements. Second, the regulatory requirements state that each provider will need to understand its student population and the extent to which its students may be likely to experience harassment or sexual misconduct in order to properly address these issues

    As such, higher education institutions in England have obligations under the new regulations to ensure that any steps they take following the Supreme Court judgement take into account the heightened risk of sexual harassment and violence faced by trans and non-binary students (and indeed staff).

    Next steps

    In considering any steps in response to this judgement, HEIs would do well to consider this guide from Gendered Intelligence. Drawing on a legal opinion from the Good Law Project, they make a distinction between single sex spaces or services, i.e. those designated for a group of people (women or men) using the (new) Equality Act 2010 definition of sex; and single gender spaces or services designated for a group of people (women or men) that are trans inclusive. As they note:

    …there is no automatic individual or collective right to ‘single sex’ provision or spaces’ under the Equality Act; this is only justifiable when it is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’.

    HEIs also have obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) which aims to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations. This duty of course applies to all protected characteristics and therefore the evidence presented above of trans and non-binary people’s increased risk of sexual harassment and assault should be considered within PSED implementation. The fundamental point is that “a service for all women does not have to say that it is a single sex provision.”

    It’s important to note that this opinion is likely to be significantly more progressive than those produced by HEIs’ own legal advisers, assuming the latter are primarily concerned with protecting the institution against legal risk. Nevertheless, this means there is a significant amount of space for activism; this judgement reveals how provision of single-sex or single-gender services is a political choice that depends in a large part on the relative power of different voices or groups in arguing their case.

    However, for staff who are attempting to navigate this terrain via policy, a further crucial consideration is put forward by Gendered Intelligence:

    a policy must be implementable and the very act of writing a policy and considering its implementation will establish that taking a trans exclusionary approach around single sex services and spaces will prove to be impossible in practice. Conversely, taking a trans inclusive approach is more practical and workable in reality.

    This is because “there is no evidence or documentation that anyone can provide that proves definitively that they are cisgender. It would not only be pointless to try, but potentially highly intrusive and inappropriate”. It could be that the practicalities end up guiding policy implementation as much as the legal or political arguments.

    Taken as a whole, the Supreme Court judgement, and the EHRC’s interpretation of it, risks making trans and non-binary people even more unsafe by revealing their identities when it may not be safe to do so, and by creating a climate where targeting them for abuse on the basis of their identities is more acceptable. As a result, the figures given above on the prevalence of sexual violence and harassment against trans and non-binary people are likely to grow even larger.

    Source link

  • Savvy Cyber Kids Appoints New Members to Board of Directors

    Savvy Cyber Kids Appoints New Members to Board of Directors

    Atlanta, Georgia,(GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Savvy Cyber Kids, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, appointed new members to the Board of Directors starting July, 1, 2025. 

    Joining the Board of Directors for Savvy Cyber Kids are James Azar, Anne-Marie Brockwell, Jason Cenamor, Nelson Soares, and Dr. Jasyn Voshell. 

    Savvy Cyber Kids enables youth, families and school communities empowerment through technology by providing age-appropriate cyber safety, cyber ethics and digital parenting resources and education starting at three years old.

    ———-

    “As a father, cybersecurity practitioner, and advocate for creating a safer digital environment for all children, I was compelled to join the board of Savvy Cyber Kids,” states James Azar, CISO and Host, CyberHub Podcast. “The organization’s mission, under the leadership of Ben Halpert, deeply resonates with me. Promoting responsible internet use begins at home, and Savvy Cyber Kids equips parents with the guidance and talking points they need to raise digitally aware and cyber-safe children.”

    James Azar is a dedicated cybersecurity practitioner and CISO in industries like FinTech, Banking, Energy and Oil and Gas with over 20 years of experience. He has a passion for aligning security and business goals, believing that innovation and creative thinking are key to solving today’s security challenges. As the host of the CyberHub Podcast, James enjoys sharing insights and fostering conversations around cybersecurity, technology, and business. He’s had the privilege of speaking at industry-leading events like RSA and CyberTech Israel and contributing to well-known publications. When not immersed in security, James enjoys espresso, good food, and a fine whiskey.

    ———-

    “I’m thrilled to join the board of Savvy Cyber Kids, where I can further my commitment to empowering families, educators, and students with the knowledge to navigate the digital world safely and responsibly,” states Anne-Marie Brockwell, Account Executive, Microsoft. “Through my advocacy for proactive digital learning and community engagement, I aim to expand awareness and foster a more inclusive, ethical online future. I look forward to using my network to amplify this vital mission.”

    Anne-Marie Brockwell is a seasoned Account Executive and strategic education leader with a deep commitment to empowering learners and advancing digital citizenship. At Microsoft, she leads partnerships with premier higher education institutions across New England, helping them accelerate AI innovation, modernize infrastructure, transform data strategies, and strengthen cybersecurity postures—all in service of their ultimate stakeholders: the students. With over a decade of experience spanning education technology and enterprise sectors, Anne-Marie brings a global, cross-industry perspective shaped by leadership roles at Rosetta Stone, Sanofi/Genzyme, Imagine Learning, and Deloitte. Her career has consistently focused on consulting selling, strategic partnerships, and operational excellence, underpinned by a passion for equity, access, and innovation in education.

    ———-

    “As technology becomes increasingly more prominent in our everyday lives, so does the need for increased education around cybersecurity,” states Jason Cenamor, Founder, Confide Group and The CISO Society. “Like all important things, cybersecurity education starts at the grassroots, and organizations like Savvy Cyber Kids will ensure cyber safety becomes as natural as looking both ways before you cross the road. Witnessing so many people fall victim to bad actors every day, I could not be more passionate about ensuring the next generation is prepared to navigate the new world equipped with the knowledge and tools to avoid the same fate.”

    Jason is the Founder and CEO of Confide Group – a cybersecurity advisory firm, and the Founder and Chief Community Officer of The CISO Society – a private community where members collaborate and share expertise on security strategy, project roadmaps, technology partners, CISO jobs, talent acquisition, industry news, and more. As a community figurehead and advocate, Jason possesses a passion for relationship building, networking, events, and providing an environment for security leaders to connect and learn from one another.

    ———-

    “As a father, cybersecurity advocate, and entrepreneur passionate about digital education, I’m honored to join the Board of Directors at Savvy Cyber Kids,” states Nelson Soares, Founder & CEO, C-Vision International and CEO, NS Advisory Group Inc. “Today’s children are growing up in a world shaped by rapid technological change—one that demands both awareness and resilience. I’ve spent my career helping organizations navigate innovation responsibly, and I believe there’s no greater mission than empowering our youth to do the same. I look forward to contributing to this critical cause and supporting Savvy Cyber Kids in building a safer digital future for families everywhere.”

    Nelson Soares is a dynamic entrepreneur and executive with deep expertise in leadership, consulting, and go-to-market strategy. As the Founder & CEO of C-Vision International, he has played a pivotal role in producing global thought leadership experiences for C-suite executives. He is also the CEO of NS Advisory Group Inc., where he advises startups and enterprise technology providers on scale, sales, and strategic growth. Nelson’s work bridges innovation and executive influence, particularly in cybersecurity and enterprise software, and his network spans the U.S., EMEA, LATAM, and APAC. He also serves on the board of Pocket Security, a nonprofit. A proud husband and father of two daughters, Nelson brings a personal and professional commitment to helping the next generation thrive in the digital age.

    ———-

    “I’ve had the privilege of knowing and working with Ben Halpert for over 20 years, including some of his earliest projects in cybersecurity education,” states Dr. Jasyn Voshell, Senior Director, Products and Solutions Security, Zebra Technologies. “Joining the Savvy Cyber Kids Board is especially meaningful to me as an uncle to nieces and nephews who are growing up in a world where digital technology is ever-present. Being part of an organization that empowers families to navigate the online world safely and confidently is both a personal passion and professional commitment I hold close to my heart.”

    Dr. Jasyn Voshell is the Senior Director of Products and Solutions Security at Zebra Technologies, where he leads the global Product & Solutions Security Program. He is responsible for the strategy, planning, and execution of Zebra’s enterprise-wide security initiatives across all products and solutions. Jasyn works closely with engineering and business teams to ensure security is embedded throughout the product lifecycle—secure by design, secure in use, and secure through trust. Jasyn was instrumental in establishing the Product Security Organization at Zebra, significantly reducing risk exposure while reinforcing customer trust in Zebra’s solutions. Under his leadership, the organization has delivered measurable improvements in secure software development practices, vulnerability management, and risk governance across the product portfolio. He holds bachelor’s degrees in Mathematics and Physics, a master’s degree in Applied Mathematics and Computer Information Systems, and a doctorate in Civil Law and Cybersecurity. Jasyn also maintains numerous industry-recognized certifications in cybersecurity and audit.

    ———-

    “Our children are frontline warriors pitted against threats delivered by today’s latest technology they can’t even comprehend,” states Ben Halpert, Founder, Savvy Cyber Kids. “Parents and schools unwittingly place the children they are responsible for up against harms they are not equipped to triumph over in their daily battles, both physically and mentally.” 

    Making meaningful, long term, generational change for the world’s most vulnerable population which is young children, takes dedication. “In today’s reality of youth sextortion related suicide, AI suicide encouragement, 24/7 cyberbullying, and the realization of harms against our children delivered through technology, educating young children starting at age three is paramount,” said Ben Halpert.

    “Most people want to believe quick fixes will work; when it comes to shaping human behaviors to build individual resilience, that is not the case. Our dedicated team looks forward to expanding our reach for the benefit of the world’s children,” said Ben Halpert.

    Learn more about the Board of Directors and their passion for Savvy Cyber Kids at https://savvycyberkids.org/about/board-of-directors/

    Savvy Cyber Kids is grateful for the ongoing support of its sponsors: CISO Horizon, C-Vision International, VIPRE Security Group, PWC US, Yass Partners, Jodi Fink Halpert Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Georgia Properties, Vercel,and SecurityScorecard.

    About Savvy Cyber Kids

    Savvy Cyber Kids (SCK), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization whose mission is to enable youth, families, and school communities to be empowered by technology, recognizes that children may be Digital Natives but are also “Digital Naives”, who, without intervention, completely lack understanding of the implications of their digital actions. Founded in 2007 by noted speaker and author Ben Halpert, Savvy Cyber Kids resources are used in 50 states and 54 countries around the world to help parents and teachers educate today’s youth on cyber safety and cyber ethics topics of cyberbullying, digital reputation, technology and screen-time balance, mental health, body and self-image, physical safety, sexting, privacy, gaming, child sexual predators, and more starting at 3 years old.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link