House committee advances bill restricting school use of AI, facial recognition and biometric surveillance

The House Education Committee on executive action day reported substitute Senate Bill 5,956 out of committee with a 'do pass as amended' recommendation following debate over definitions, vendor certification and a narrow weapons-detection carve-out that failed.

Committee staff summarized the bill as a prohibition on using automated decision systems, facial-recognition services and certain biometric surveillance to make disciplinary or other specified decisions in school districts and public schools. The bill directs the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to update guidance on use of artificial intelligence in schools and requires the Washington School Directors Association to develop a model policy aligned with OSPI guidance.

Vice Chair Shavers, the bill’s sponsor in committee, urged adoption of a tightening amendment, WAR305, saying the measure ensures ‘‘students deserve, due process and human judgment, not some black box discipline.’’ The committee adopted WAR305, which narrows some prohibitions (for example, prohibiting adding, removing or modifying a student’s status on certain lists solely based on an automated decision system), adds a definition of an independent human investigation, places limits on access and retention of biometric data, and requires vendors to annually certify compliance with the bill’s requirements.

Representative Keaton sought clarification about use of the term 'consumer' in the biometric-data definition and whether that term was intentional; staff explained that the phrasing derives from the Washington My Health, My Data Act’s definition, in which 'consumer' refers to the individual whose biometric data is collected. Keaton also moved an amendment (WARG306) to allow AI and automated object-detection systems to be used for weapons detection under certain narrow circumstances (for example, an articulable threat, a missing student or a court-ordered exclusion). Keaton cited two out-of-state incidents to justify the carve-out, but the committee rejected that amendment.

Opponents, including Representative Couture, criticized parts of the striking amendment for potentially imposing vendor-certification burdens, vague standards such as 'reasonably necessary' and undefined terms like 'materially influences' and 'level of concern' that could invite litigation or procurement uncertainty. The chair and staff responded that the amendment relies on definitions adopted by the state's AI task force and the Washington My Health, My Data Act and that convening OSPI and school-safety centers would help implementation.

On the roll call, the clerk recorded member votes, and the committee reported the bill out with a tally of 10 ayes, 8 nays and 1 excused. The committee placed the bill on the docket for final passage in committee and sent it on with a do-pass-as-amended recommendation.

Next steps: the bill is reported from the House Education Committee as amended; further floor action or additional committee review are procedural next steps.