Surveillance in Schools: Safety vs. Personal Privacy

Security Cameras

Project Home

Introduction

In recent years, violent episodes in schools in Arkansas, Colorado, California, Kentucky, Mississippi and other states have led educators and legislators to make "Safe Schools" a priority. Like many issues in education, suggestions on how to make a school "safe" have proceeded simultaneously on many different tracks. Teaching students strategies they can use to combat emotionally explosive situations through initiatives such as character education and peer mediation is one track that is currently used to help make schools safer. Another method that many schools are pursuing is stationing a full-time security officer (or officers) in the building. One of the most controversial methods involves surveillance of students through video cameras.

What are Security Cameras?

School video surveillance systems consist of cameras placed in areas where they can monitor activity as it takes place. These cameras may include features like pan, tilt, and zoom; may be placed in outdoor or indoor locations; and may include infrared recording options (technical discussions from Green, 1999, Video camera table of contents). Most cameras are used with recording systems, either VCR's or digital recorders. Using a digital recorder is the preferred option for easy storage, easy recall, and easy viewing over different monitors (discussion of strengths and weaknesses of different recording mediums from Green, 1999, Video recording table of contents).

One of the most popular video surveillance tools for schools is the SecureView system, manufactured by View Systems Inc., Englewood, CO. The system transmits images from cameras to a digital hard drive storage system. Output can be seen on a monitor that displays four frames of video (each takes up a quarter of the screen), or on desktop computer monitors, which are networked to receive video feeds from the cameras. The system allows users to quickly view a recorded video based on search criteria (Adams, 2001).

Another similar system is Sensormatics, which combines different types of cameras with monitors, video servers, and multiplexers to offer schools the same recording, storage, and playback functionality (SecuritySupplyHouse.com).

Benefits

At this time there are no unbiased studies of the benefits and drawbacks of the use of video surveillance systems in schools. Naturally, proponents of using these systems emphasize the benefits, while opponents discuss the drawbacks. Benefits to using cameras depend on the individual school and the problems it faces. Experts recommend following a procedure that first determines the problem, then decides how surveillance equipment can be used to address the problem (School security...) (Green, 1999, Chapter 1, A systematic approach).

One of the advantages that proponents of video surveillance claim is peace of mind for students and staff (Green, 1999, Why video cameras?). "Security experts and administrators who use the cameras say students and teachers seem to appreciate the increased sense of security" (Hafner, ¶ 9). Naturally this is one of the most important features of a system that schools use in response to recent highly-publicized incidents of violence in the schools. Green argues that although cameras are passive, information about their presence will make its way through the community. Students and staff feel safer knowing that potential perpetrators will be scared off by the presence of cameras before committing an offense.

Another advantage that can be measured is a reduction in property damages such as vandalism and theft (Ballenas...) ("The witness"...). "Far too often the administration can only react to vandalism with time-consuming, seldom successful and often fruitless attempts to identify the perpetrators" (Ballenas..., ¶ 3). "The costs [of theft] are monetary (no money for replacement) and inconvenience (educational opportunity loss for our students)" (Ballenas..., ¶ 4). Video surveillance systems provide a solution for these issues. "Cameras certainly multiply security’s eyes, helping the administration to apprehend and discipline students caught on camera" (Sauvain, 2002, ¶ 3). Cameras also provide security in hidden areas of schools that are physically difficult to monitor (Schneider, 2001).

Finally, schools using video surveillance claim better behavior because of monitoring. ''Sometimes just the idea in kids' minds that there's a camera recording them keeps them from causing trouble or being difficult" (Gross, as quoted in Baxter, 2003, ¶ 14). "Word gets out (about the cameras and searches) and I think it's had an effect that way" (Pfeffer, quoted in Oakes, 2000, ¶ 8). Some schools view cameras as having a dual purpose. "All of Bullitt County's buses are being equipped with cameras to randomly monitor student behavior and driver performance" (Baxter, 2003, picture caption). Since stored video records provide tangible evidence, school officials may find employee performance evaluations easier to do using video surveillance tools than face-to-face. The use of video records as evidence and as a means of identification may also be a reason students may be less inclined to cause trouble (Adams, 2001) (Schneider, 2001). "The solid documentation that a video recording provides can be invaluable in situations involving liability claims" (Green, 1999, Why video cameras?).

Drawbacks

Opponents to using video surveillance systems in schools emphasize several major drawbacks that need to be considered when studying the implementation of this kind of system. Cost is an obvious consideration. The equipment, testing, and installation of a system in a single school could cost $30,000 or more (Green, 1999, Why not video cameras?) (Sauvain, 2002) (Hafner, ¶ 10). Further, the school will have to provide money in future budgets for maintaining and upgrading the equipment (Schneider, 2001).

Equally important is the question of effectiveness. "'Will it let an administrator know who did what? Sure,' said William Behre, an assistant professor at the College of New Jersey's Department of Special Education. 'Will it stop violence in any significant way? I don't think so.' He also noted that Columbine High School used surveillance cameras" (Oakes, 2000, ¶ 7). Behre was a researcher in a University of Michigan study that studied violence in Midwestern schools and how the school administration responded. Opponents to cameras claim that as passive control devices, they won't be as effective in preventing violence as an adult would be.

Another disturbing thought is that adults with access to the surveillance system will use it for profiling purposes. "What assurances can be made that a student will not be unfairly targeted for surveillance because of their race, sexual orientation, gender, appearance, or religious beliefs" (Sanfilippo, 2002, ¶ 10)? Students have the concern they will be individually tracked by school administration (Security cameras...). In The Four Problems With Public Video Surveillance, the American Civil Liberties Union urges "a consensus on limits for the capability of public CCTV systems" and "legally enforceable rules for the operation of such systems" (The four problems, Section 3 subheadings).

Finally, there is the question of how a surveillance system affects student morale. "When schools turn to technology as a 'quick fix,' there is a high risk of reinforcing a climate of fear and distrust, undermining the social ecology of the school, instead of actually having an impact on the identified problem" (Schneider, 2001, ¶ 33). "What's wrong with the school? Have they lost the trust in their own students to a point that they have to spy on their lives" (Security cameras..., Con column, ¶ 2)? "There's no indication that there's a need for this kind of prison-style security. The message it sends to students is 'We don't trust you, and everybody is a suspect'" (Golden, as quoted in ACLU protests..., ¶ 6). "The more restrictions schools impose on students, the more alienated students are likely to feel, and the less involved in the learning process" (ACLU urges..., ¶ 5). "The cameras are teaching that government can and will invade your private space" (Willis, as quoted in Virginia school..., ¶ 11). "Heavy-handed school search policies foster distrust between students and administrators. An encounter pursuant to an expansive school search policy is likely to impress upon a student that he or she is inherently untrustworthy or that people who have authority may wield it without regard to individual liberties" (McIntyre, as quoted in Reutter, ¶ 5).

Legal Questions

Since laws concerning privacy issues, civil rights, and/or video surveillance vary widely, any school contemplating an electronic surveillance program should be sure to check with its school attorney prior to implementing the program. However, there are some general rules that seem applicable to most situations. Cameras cannot be used in areas of the school where staff or students have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" (Green, 1999, Legal aspects...). This would include private offices in addition to the obvious locations of restrooms and locker rooms. Conversely, cameras can be used in places where staff or students lack a reasonable expectation of privacy (Surveillance technology..., 2001). Examples include common areas like hallways, cafeterias, libraries, and parking lots. Recording audio conversations is seen to be a greater Fourth Amendment violation than video recordings at this time. "Whether the Fourth Amendment is implicated depends initially on whether the asserted search or seizure - for example, the electronic surveillance - infringes on a "reasonable expectation of privacy"" (Jenero & Mapes-Riordan, 1992, page 75, ¶ 2, italics are not original).

Since there are few case studies regarding the use of video surveillance in schools, a short examination of some of the existing business court cases may prove helpful. These don't apply exactly to a school situation, since most cases show the results of employee (as opposed to student) monitoring. There is no federal law that governs video surveillance, but several courts have ruled that employees have the right to be free of "surreptitious electronic surveillance" (9th circuit..., 2001, ¶ 1); employees have the "fundamental right to be free from surveillance" (Workplace privacy..., Section B-2 ¶ 3); and employees have a "reasonable expectation of privacy against disclosed, soundless video surveillance while toiling in open and undifferentiated work areas" (Workplace privacy..., Section B-2 ¶ 3). In Technological Surveillance in the Workplace, a paper written for a Colorado law firm, the author points out that just as surveillance of students in schools can result in low morale, so too can surveillance of employees. "Employee monitoring may be counterproductive by resulting in lower morale, increased job stress, and perhaps even lower production" (Johnson, 1995, Conclusion, ¶ 1).

Schools should also consider what kinds of activities cameras in "public" areas observe students engaging in. "The likelihood that the Fourth Amendment's protections will come into play increases in direct proportion to the extent to which the employer's surveillance infringes on an employee's personal conversations or activities inside or outside the workplace. As the surveillance moves away from strictly work-related matters of legitimate interest to the employer, it necessarily moves into areas in which the employee has a heightened expectation of privacy" (Jenero & Mapes-Riordan, 1992, page 79, ¶ 4).

Recommendation

If a school is considering deploying a video surveillance system, officials should consider the following questions:

1. What specific security threats and concerns is the school attempting to address by using a particular type of security equipment?

2. How will this equipment help address these threats and how will the school actually use it on a day-to-day basis?

3. If the school is able to purchase the equipment, how will it be maintained, repaired and upgraded?

4. What might be the possible (or unintended) consequences of these security technologies? (School security...) (Schneider, 2001)

In addition, school officials should employ a cost-benefit analysis to compare investment in a video surveillance system with other alternatives to address the above questions, as well as addressing other school needs based on priorities. If the school decides to implement video surveillance cameras, officials should be sure to create a policy for use before purchasing and installing the equipment to eliminate any future confusion. A Connecticut school board found itself with installed cameras but an inadequate policy (Damon) when one member of the board questioned using the cameras 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It was her understanding the cameras would only be turned on when school administration was not present. Now that the cameras are in constant use, she is concerned about violating student privacy. "'I feel bad we didn't think about it like Margaret has [before we put the cameras in],' said board vice chariman Vincent Saviano. 'It's hard to write a policy on it when we're not clear on what the applications of the cameras are going to be.'" (Damon, ¶ 6).

Since each situation is different, it is recommended that school officials, parents, students, teachers, and community members carefully consider the above questions and the possible consequences. These systems can be useful in achieving limited objectives that are well defined and understood by all stakeholders in all stages of the planning, implementation, and assessment processes. Video surveillance can be used in conjunction with other methods of surveillance, including metal detectors, locker searches, and Internet/e-mail tracking. However, each of these other surveillance methods brings its own set of benefits and drawbacks, and schools trying to incorporate more than one method may find the situation too complicated to be effective. Although there are some strong arguments against the use of video surveillance in schools, a school that has a problem the system is effective in addressing (i.e. need to reduce property damage), a policy that clearly indicates to all stakeholders the purpose of the system, and data illustrating how the implementation of the system is the best use of available resources would do well to incorporate a video surveillance system at their school.

References

9th circuit rules in electronic surveillance case. (2001, June 18). Tech Law Journal Daily E-Mail Alert. Retrieved July 30, 2003 from http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2001/06/18.asp

ACLU protests cameras in colorado schools. (2001, January 25). The Daily Camera. Retrieved July 30, 2003 from http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=6962&c=130

ACLU urges Mass. officials to resist "quick fix" solutions. (1999, September 8). Retrieved July 30, 2003 from http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=8672&c=161

Adams, Carey. (2001, February). A new view [Electronic version]. Access Control & Security Systems. Retrieved July 30, 2003 from http://securitysolutions.com/ar/security_new_view/index.htm

Ballenas secondary school video camera surveillance policy. (n.d.). Retrieved July 30, 2003 from http://bss.sd69.bc.ca/pag_infohandbook_videosurveillancepolicy.php

Baxter, Missy. (2003, March 30). Cameras in buses monitor students' behavior, safety [Electronic version]. The Courier-Journal. Retrieved July 30, 2003 from http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2003/03/30/ke033003s389287.htm

Damon, Tanjua. (n.d.). NHS surveillance policy sparks privacy debate. Newtown Bee. Retrieved July 30, 2003 from http://www.newtownbee.com/News.asp?d=Archive2000&s=News04-10-2003-11-58-55.htm

Green, Mary W. (1999). The Appropriate and Effective Use of Security Technologies in U.S. Schools. Retrieved July 30, 2003 from U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
National Institute of Justice Web site: http://www.ncjrs.org/school/ch2.html

Hafner, Katie. (n.d.). Where the Hall Monitor Is a Webcam. Retrieved July 31, 2003 from http://www.d3data.com/wsContent/default.view?_pagename=monitoringCam

Jenero, Kenneth A, & Mapes-Riordan, Lynne D. (1992). Electronic monitoring of employees and the elusive "right to privacy" [Electronic version]. Employee Relations L.J., 18, 71-102. Retrieved July 30, 2003 from http://www.mbc.com/db30/cgi-bin/pubs/KAJ-Electronic_Monitoring.pdf

Johnson, Brent T. (1995). Technological surveillance in the workplace. Retrieved July 30, 2003 from http://www.fwlaw.com/techsurv.html

Oakes, Chris. (2000, August 21). Schools grow electronic eyes. Wired News. Retrieved July 30, 2003 from http://www.wired.com/news/school/0,1383,38082,00.html

Reutter, Mark. (2001, April 1). Increased security measures in schools send 'wrong message' to youth [Electronic version]. Retrieved July 30, 2003 from http://www.news.uiuc.edu/gentips/01/04security.html

Sanfilippo, Lawrence. (2002, September 3). Student surveillance. TechTV. Retrieved July 30, 2003 from http://www.techtv.com/cybercrime/privacy/story/0,23008,3396614,00.html

Sauvain, Katie. (2002, October 17). Camera surveillance in schools is expensive and ineffective [Electronic version]. The Trapezoid Online. Retrieved July 30, 2003 from http://www.bcsd.org/trapezoid/1002/o.14.camera.surveillance.html

Schneider, Tod. (2001, February). Newer technologies for school security. Retrieved July 30, 2003 from ERIC Digest 145 at http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest145.html

School security equipment and technology. (n.d.). Retrieved July 30, 2003 from http://www.schoolsecurity.org/resources/security-equipment.html

Security cameras placed on school campus. (n.d.). Pirate Scroll. Retrieved July 30, 2003 from http://www.phs.phoenix.or.us/schoolpaper/may30/cameras.html

SecuritySupplyHouse.com. (n.d.). Retrieved July 30, 2003 from http://www.securitysupplyhouse.com//sensormatic.html

Surveillance technology and search issues. (2001, October). Retrieved July 30, 2003 from Wisconsin Department of Justice website: http://www.doj.state.wi.us/ss_manual/search.htm - 2i

The four problems with public video surveillance. (2003, May 22). Retrieved July 30, 2003 from http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=12706&c=39

"The witness" bus video system. (n.d.). Retrieved July 30, 2003 from http://www.schoolbussafety.net/mvpwhyinvest.html

Virginia school to use cameras to keep eye on students. (2000, August 6). The Washington Post. Retrieved July 30, 2003 from http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=7657&c=130

Workplace privacy: an overview of selected issues. (n.d.). Retrieved July 30, 2003 from http://www.mbtlaw.com/pubs/articles/workpriv.html

Project Creator Contact Information:
Kathy Davis, John Kelsey, Dia Langellier, Misty Mapes, and Jeff Rosendahl
Course - EPS 313
CTER program at UIUC
Course Instructor - Nicholas Burbules