K-12
Shared security monitoring for school districts.
Security built for every school district
School districts need to protect student and staff information with the people and resources available. Shared SIEM monitoring can give several districts a consistent service while keeping their records and responsibilities separate.
Fit
| District need | Security support | Not covered |
|---|---|---|
| Shared service | Each district in its own tenant. → | Hosting on district servers. |
| Dated record for state reports | Signed logs and a dated case timeline. → | Filing the report. |
| Filter evidence | Content filter logs, signed and chained. → | The filter itself. |
| Staff credentials | Staff sign-ins, scored per user. → | Profiling of students. |
| Staff machines | Email and USB control on Windows and macOS. → | ChromeOS. |
| Student accounts | Not covered → | Google Workspace collection is not documented. |
Shared service
A BOCES, education service center or state network can provide a shared security service. Separate tenants, access roles and reports let each district retain its own information boundaries.
NY Ed Law 2-d
New York Education Law 2-d and Part 121 shape how schools protect student information. A dated incident record supports investigation and reporting, with evidence of what the district knew and what it did.
CIPA
Filter records can support review of internet-safety controls. Keep the relevant logs and administrative records under the district’s retention policy, alongside the documentation needed for CIPA and E-rate.
Student privacy
Staff handle grades, health notes and family information during ordinary work. DLP email, upload and device policies can protect that content on covered systems without making every legitimate transfer an obstacle.
By rule
Dated record for state reports
A retained incident timeline and protected source records help reviewers follow the evidence and decisions.
Filter evidence
Signed records from a SIEM and verification material support an independent check of the evidence’s integrity.
Staff credentials
Identity and activity records in a SIEM give reviewers the history needed to investigate account use.
Staff machines
DLP device policies restrict supported removable media, with approved exceptions and activity retained for review.
Student accounts
Not covered: Google Workspace and Chromebook activity.
Questions
Is each district kept apart?
Separate tenants and roles can keep district data, policies and reports distinct. The service agreement defines any shared administration or cross-district access.
Can student data leave staff computers?
DLP content policies can inspect covered transfers and restrict protected information. Approved sharing and exceptions should remain clear to staff and visible to reviewers.
Can we control classroom video?
Application and web policies can restrict supported video services and categories. The district’s content-filtering service remains responsible for its broader filtering requirements.
What stays with the district?
The district owns student-data policy, reporting and the services outside the agreed monitoring scope. Confirm coverage for Chromebooks, Google Workspace and filtering systems during planning.
Guide
What is NY Ed Law 2-d?
New York’s student data privacy law, set out in 8 NYCRR Part 121, requires NIST CSF-aligned security and breach notice within set days.
How can small districts afford security monitoring?
By sharing a service through a BOCES, ESC or state network, with each district kept separate.
What does CIPA require for logs?
CIPA addresses internet-safety policies and filtering. Retain the records that demonstrate the relevant controls and satisfy the associated E-rate recordkeeping requirements.
How ARRTECH takes care of school district security
Connects security activity into a signed record, giving incident decisions and board reporting evidence that can be independently verified.
Protects intellectual property and customer trust, with content-aware controls that let organizations adopt AI on their own terms.
Expands response capacity through automation, with defined human authority and a record of who approved what.
Finds changes in behavior that predefined rules miss, connecting the signs of an attack so teams can understand what warrants action.
Investigates alerts, tests explanations and prepares the evidence, giving analysts more capacity while people retain authority over the response.
