Can AI-powered weapons detection protect schools — without targeting students?

After a shooting at Wootton High School last month, parents demanded answers: How did a teenager manage to bring a gun onto the Rockville campus? Why wasn’t there something in place to stop him?

Behind the scenes, the district was working on it. Montgomery County schools superintendent Thomas Taylor shared just hours after the shooting that MCPS would soon launch a trial run of an AI-powered weapons detection system.

Now parents have a whole new set of questions: Are there safeguards in place? Would the software target kids of color? Could footage end up in ICE’s hands? And why did the district pick Bethesda-based VOLT AI for the pilot?

“Safety is paramount,” said Terrena Smith, a mother of two. “But when it comes to safety technology, it should really meet a high bar as far as necessity, transparency and equity. And I haven’t seen that.”

Company leaders say their technology works with existing campus security cameras to flag potential dangers, such as if someone sneaks a weapon onto school grounds.

The pilot agreement states that VOLT AI also looks for “suspicious activity.” It “evaluates loitering, erratic movements, or other patterns that deviate from normal behavior.”

Montgomery County is among a growing number of Maryland school districts turning to new technology in hopes of preventing future violence. Systems like VOLT AI are positioned as one alternative to metal detectors, which many worry make schools feel like prisons. But weapons detection technology fueled by artificial intelligence has already drawn criticism for false alarms and equity concerns.

Adding to Montgomery County parents’ unease are rumblings about the district’s track record when purchasing security software. In 2025, a district dad flagged the Office of the Inspector General with concerns about whether a different company inappropriately flexed its connection to a local politician.

The school security industry has grown into a multibillion-dollar market, with companies pitching district leaders on everything from bulletproof whiteboards to drones that hit active shooters with pepper spray.

“There’s an enormous amount of pressure put on boards and administrators after an incident,” said Kenneth Trump, a national school security consultant.

But it’s often unclear, he said, whether these products are effective.

“Superintendents tell us repeatedly that they can’t cut through the vendor noise,” said Trump, who is not related to the president. “They don’t know who to believe, who not to believe, what works and what doesn’t.”

The VOLT AI trial was in the works prior to the Feb. 9 Wootton shooting, which sent a 16-year-old boy to the hospital with serious injuries.

The 30-day trial launched last week at three high schools — Seneca Valley, Bethesda-Chevy Chase and Magruder. The district will later decide whether to purchase the technology for broader use.

District spokeswoman Liliana López said the pilot comes at no cost to MCPS, and if the district chooses to purchase new security technology, it will go through a competitive bidding process.

Just because it’s a pilot doesn’t mean the district should skirt around parents’ concerns, said Joel Schwarz, a parent leader in the Montgomery County Council of PTAs.

“Thirty days, 30 minutes, 30 hours — doesn’t matter,” Schwarz said. “If I’m going to test drive a car and the car doesn’t have brakes, it doesn’t matter if I’m just doing a test drive. It’s still unsafe.”

Schwarz, who works as a privacy and cybersecurity consultant, said he embraces new technology but wants to ensure safeguards are in place when considering tools that monitor children.

Understanding VOLT AI

The technology operates as an extra set of always-alert eyes, monitoring footage from dozens of security cameras to help staff respond more quickly to potential safety threats.

Too often, company leaders say, footage is used as evidence of an incident that already occurred. With VOLT AI, they believe staff can be proactive instead.

In a presentation to parents, MCPS safety chief Marcus Jones said it won’t record audio, use facial recognition, monitor classrooms or be used for routine discipline. He told parents VOLT AI doesn’t make decisions or take actions on its own; people review what it brings to their attention.

López underlined those safeguards: “Only adults in the school building are responsible to actually respond to any situation that is flagged by the technology,” she said.

Parents wanted more details, clarity and assurances. In response to their questions, VOLT AI leaders provided a 10-page document.

Company officials told parents that security video is retained for 30 days. Clips related to incidents are retained for up to a year for investigations, audits and reviews.

During the trial period, the pilot agreements says MCPS gets “early access to new features and capabilities before they are publicly available; and … will have input into new features developed by Volt.”

That language triggered parents’ concerns that their students were part of an experiment.

Company officials disputed this characterization.

“MCPS students are not used as ‘beta testers’ in the sense of experimenting on students,” they wrote.

“Early-access features are opt-in, reviewed with the district, and can be limited to non-student hours or test cameras first. The district controls whether a feature is enabled in live operations.”

It’s more about giving MCPS “the opportunity to evaluate and provide input on them before broader release,” VOLT AI founder Dmitry Sokolowski told The Banner.

Some parents also worried after searching VOLT AI’s website and finding a blog post that highlighted the company’s special designation from the Department of Homeland Security.

In July 2025, the company received a “Developmental Testing and Evaluation Designation,” which provides some liability protections to companies creating products with the potential to prevent terrorism.

With tensions high amid the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, this connection to the federal department set off parents’ alarm bells.

Sokolowski said they do not have an ongoing relationship with DHS.

The company does not “proactively share customer video or data” with immigration officers, police or other third parties, officials said.

“Any disclosure would only occur if the customer directs it (for example, exporting an incident clip to law enforcement) or if required by valid legal process,” they wrote to parents.

Company officials also told parents that alerts are tied to specific behaviors, “not subjective interpretations of students.”

But Smith, who is Black, said she’s fearful of bias when it comes to how students’ movements will be interpreted, both by the technology and the people who review it. She wants to know how those people are trained.

“I’m not confident that there won’t be any racial bias when it comes to VOLT AI or any AI surveillance within the schools,” Smith said.

MCPS mother Jojo Dong has a broader question: Why would schools turn to technology instead of strengthening human relationships?

She thinks student surveillance could contribute to a belief that adults don’t trust them, and as a result, “they don’t trust adults.” This dynamic could make students less likely to report a potential threat, Dong said.

“Can we have just more trained mental health professionals in our buildings?” she said. “I really feel like the answer is a stronger community, not more AI watching our kids.”

‘No strings attached’

This isn’t the first time parents have raised questions about the district’s processes for implementing new technology.

In early 2024, district leaders announced schools would no longer use GoGuardian, a tool that allowed teachers to remotely track students’ Chromebook activity — a far different form of monitoring than what VOLT AI provides.

MCPS cited GoGuardian’s low usage and high cost.

Shortly after news spread about the district dropping GoGuardian, another tech company reached out to pitch a similar product: Lightspeed Systems. That company’s representative, Dara Friedson, offered it to the district “free of charge to MCPS for the next year, no strings attached.”

In that April 2024 email, reviewed by The Banner, Friedson highlighted her connections to Montgomery County — including that her brother-in-law was then-County Council President Andrew Friedson.

This mention sparked concern about “influence peddling.”

Within a matter of months, MCPS piloted Lightspeed and agreed to a three-year term for more than $300,000, according to documents reviewed by The Banner. The first year was free and the district maintained flexibility to cancel the contract, which is still in force, in future years.

After learning of this, Schwarz talked with Superintendent Taylor, who was not the district chief at the time of the Lightspeed outreach.

According to Schwarz, the superintendent acknowledged concerns about the district’s contracting protocols and encouraged him to alert the inspector general’s office.

Schwarz asked for a probe into “questionable contracting activities by MCPS, beginning with influence peddling by LightSpeed in the form of using a familial relationship to the County Council President,” as well as the acceptance of a free year of services and other “questionable actions.”

The inspector general’s office told Schwarz their staff didn’t plan to investigate the matter but would keep the complaint in mind.

Reached by phone, Dara Friedson, who no longer works for the company, referred questions to Lightspeed. The company did not respond to requests for comment.

Andrew Friedson told The Banner he never spoke with MCPS, his sister-in-law or the company she previously worked for about the contract.

“I wasn’t even aware of it until months later,” he said. “I have no involvement in MCPS procurement and have no influence or authority on these types of decisions.”