Classroom Surveillance: An Introduction
There has been a rise in the use of classroom surveillance cameras in recent years, with some schools, colleges, and even daycares implementing 24/7 camera coverage in these facilities. Many are citing reasons such as security and surveillance of day-to-day conduct for the installation of these devices, but regardless of whether you think these reasons are legitimate , it is important for you to know your rights so that you can better protect yourself and your valuable personal data. Whether you are a parent worried about your child underneath the watch of constant surveillance or a teacher concerned about big brother peeking over your shoulder, it is more important than ever that you know your rights when it comes to classroom surveillance.
The Legal Landscape of Surveillance In Schools
The general rule in this area is that schools have a fair bit of latitude when it comes to setting policy for video surveillance. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures do not apply in the same ways in schools as they do outside of school.
First, while the Fourth Amendment requires search warrants for searches and seizures in most situations, the Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to reasonable searches or examination of student by school officials. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985). So as long as the surveillance doesn’t cross over into unreasonable territory, a warrant should not be necessary.
Second, the Fourth Amendment requires that the government show "probable cause" before it obtains a warrant and uses that warrant to conduct a search or a seizure. However, even without a warrant, if the search is reasonable, "the requirement of probable cause is satisfied by the school official’s reasonable suspicion." Id.
In addition to the Fourth Amendment considerations, there are other potential legal issues surrounding the use of video surveillance in schools. For example, in certain states (e.g., California), there are statutory prohibitions against audio recording in schools unless all of the parties to the communication consent to being recorded.法院來電顯示.
One issue that keeps cropping up in the classroom surveillance discussions are the admissibility of the recordings for various legal or disciplinary purposes such as in employment law, criminal law, negligence, or sexual harassment matters. In general terms, the law does not require that a recording be "admissible" to be permissible under the law.
Classroom Cameras and Privacy Concerns
Another key issue associated with the implementation of classroom cameras is whether or not they will violate privacy laws such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA). Generally speaking, FERPA grants multiple rights to parents of students and adults who are students regarding their privacy and control over various educational records for their children.
As far as children go, FERPA ensures that students have the right to consent to the disclosure of personally identifiable information contained in their education records, including recordings, unless they fall into one of several exceptions within the law. The law provides that consent is not required when disclosure is to school officials including teachers, administrative staff, volunteers, or contractors with a legitimate educational interest in the information sought to be disclosed. The law also permits disclosure to other students with a legitimate interest in the information, including those enrolled in the same course in which a video was created. FTC regulations detail additional permissible disclosures, including to the Department of Education and certain education officials.
As for parents, FERPA grants them similar rights to control the disclosure of personally identifiable information for their children under age 18. In addition, it grants adults the ability to inspect and review all records maintained by their schools. Under FERPA, schools must provide notice of their FERPA rights such as the right to consent to the disclosure of personally identifiable information, access to student records, and the right to seek to amend incorrect or misleading information.
Furthermore, FERPA imposes very strict requirements on schools to maintain records regarding the release of any student information, including video footage. Schools are required to keep track of each request for access to and each disclosure of personally identifiable information contained in an education record. The record includes the identity of the party making the request, and the purpose of that party in making the request. These school record restrictions require that school districts take special care to ensure compliance when creating school camera policies and procedures.
How Are State Laws Different?
Variations in state laws regarding the legality of classroom cameras (or the presence of recording devices) are in large part attributable to the balance each state has struck between competing interests. At a high level, states such as New York and Nevada permit cameras in classrooms because they value the interests of inquisitive parents and students, while states such as Oregon place the privacy interests of teachers over those of similarly situated parents and students. Below is a sampling of state laws:
New York: N.Y. Educ. L. § 3023 allows for video recordings in schools, but not audio recordings. The law restricts video recordings when the focus is on "students or staff members."
Nevada: N.R.S. § 392.130 and N.R.S. § 392.170 permit schools to install a video system "to monitor student behavior" in the context of safety, but protect the privacy of students and staff.
Oregon: ORS 339.250 prohibits the use of recording devices without the consent of the person communicating and has been construed to prohibit the use of recording devices by students at school. See Department of Education v. Portland School Dist., 734 P.2d 383, 385 (Or. App. 1987).
Texas: Tex. Educ. Stat. § 26.009 protects teachers from being recorded in the classroom without notice, but permits parents to audio or video record classroom activities if they do so openly. Tex. Educ. Stat. § 26.009(b)(2).
The list of controller regulations set forth above is not exhaustive. It also does not include specific guidelines, such as the requirement that schools inform parents of their ability to audio- and video-record classroom activities openly if they are qualified under specific Texas statutes or the prohibition of audio-recordings in certain states.
International Laws Surrounding Classroom Cameras
Compared to many countries, the United States is fairly "free wheeling" when it comes to the regulation of surveillance cameras in public spaces. For instance, countries such as Canada, China and the European Union have taken a much more proactive and restrictive approach to issues related to the regulation of surveillance cameras in classrooms.
Canada: As is the case in the U.S., the Canadian approach to school surveillance is not all that clear cut. As reported by the CBC News, surveillance camera policies are largely governed at the provincial level. In Ontario, the CDRO was reported as stating: "We would caution parents that there is an expectation of privacy in classroom settings, and video cameras may infringe on that space for parents, teachers and students."
China: In China, authorities have made a concerted effort to ease parents’ concerns about their children spending long hours in school by employing video surveillance in the schools. While students attend school in traditional brick and mortar classrooms, parents are able to view their children’s activities via online video feeds broadcast from surveillance cameras in the classrooms.
EU: The Data Protection Directive and the European Commission Policy Proposal on Regulation of the European Parliament and Council regarding the Maachinery of the Union include various privacy protections that have been interpreted by some countries as prohibiting the use of surveillance cameras in classrooms. For instance, in Germany, the placement of surveillance cameras in classrooms is prohibited because it is considered to be an unnecessary infringement of personal privacy.
The Ups and Downs of Cameras
As with anything, the use of cameras in the classroom has pros and cons.
The Arguments for Cameras Proponents contend that cameras may act as a deterrent — not only against potential harm to students but also against crazed parents or other outsiders displaying violence. Bill Cunsulo, the business development director for IXOM, an organization expanding the use of video education technology in schools, told Portfolio the most important factor in equipping classrooms with video technology is "safety and security." While not disputing that statement, another educational video technology executive, Paul Shoults, a co-founder of HighFive, believes that safety and security technology offers only limited protection of children. Police cannot be everywhere, and even with the best technology in place, it is up to adults (parents and teachers) to protect children. When applied appropriately, cameras can improve student learning, school productivity and accountability, and student and staff safety. In addition , schools with comprehensive video surveillance systems can save money by being less vulnerable to lawsuits.
The Arguments against Cameras Opponents caution that the use of cameras in the classroom can have a chilling effect on teachers and students. The primary concern of many teachers is that their classroom inappropriately becomes a public forum, which may inhibit classroom discussion by both teachers and students. Detractors also maintain that cameras are a poor substitute for what is required to make a school safe. Parents also have concerns about the impact of cameras on student learning. As one parent reportedly told his local newspaper: "The classroom is . . . a place where ideas can be freely exchanged, and where a child can explore his or her own thoughts without the hindrance of being watched by the administration, sometimes on a big TV screen, like ‘Big Brother,’ . . . I suspect that teachers would be hesitant to express themselves freely, and that students would think twice about their comments or ideas for fear of being labeled." Assertive teaching, he argued, was "thoroughly compromised by being recorded."
Surveillance Best Practices for Schools
When it comes to implementing surveillance and video equipment in the classroom, WestEd recommends that schools only consider these strategies after reviewing the guidance discussed above. When considering the use of surveillance and video equipment in this context, WestEd stresses that schools establish and implement policies and procedures for maintenance and use. They also recommend that schools choose a system that includes software allowing full-text search, storage of video and text, and that the system has the ability to review images and incident reports. When selecting an appropriate vendor, WestEd recommends that schools consider a vendor with expertise in both the types of surveillance and video equipment and the applicable state laws and local policies. The need for ongoing communication with stakeholders including teachers, students, and parents is also important. Clear policies that are communicated to all stakeholders is critical. Finally, schools must continuously monitor, review, and update their policies, strategies, and surveillance technology systems.
Recent Cases and Legal Precedents
One of the most important court cases regarding cameras in classrooms was the 2008 Arizona Court of Appeals case, Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 v. National Liability & Fire Insurance Company. In this case, a teacher was accused of making sexual advances towards her students and was subsequently terminated. In the confusion that ensued, the school board seized the teacher’s property in her classroom—including personal belongings and surveillance footage from the cameras in the classrooms in which she worked. Because the school district seized the footage without a search warrant, the teacher sued the school board for unlawful search and invasion of privacy, which the court upheld. When considering the results of this case, it’s important to note that the court classified the actions of the school board as "a nonconsensual search," which means that not all schools with surveillance cameras are automatically liable in a similar situation. Because the teacher’s classroom was a "public place," and because a reasonable person would expect some level of monitoring in that setting, the court could not rule that the camera footage was violated under the Fourth Amendment. In short, a teacher’s reasonable expectation for privacy when using a camera-prob equipped classroom isn’t very high, but this case established the specific liability that a school district must take on if it invades someone’s reasonable expectation of privacy by seizing and searching camera footage without a warrant. The legality of classroom surveillance and the way it’s used can vary so widely from state to state that schools are encouraged to operate within the guidelines of the risk that they’re taking. In Washington, for instance, the ruling in Spokane School District No. 81 v. Garziano described the use of surveillance in schools as "operating within bounds." As long as the surveillance is used specifically for the purpose of ensuring safety and security, it’s a legal, reasonable preventative measure as long as policies, procedures and protocols are properly established, vetted and understood by all staff and students.
Conclusion: Finding a Balance Between Safety And Privacy
As the debate surrounding safety and security in educational institutions continues, the legality of cameras in the classroom has become an increasingly pressing concern. Generally, school boards have broad authority when it comes to internal policies, including the ability to install cameras for monitoring purposes. However, concerns over student privacy and the potential for misuse of recorded video have led to increased scrutiny and a call for a more balanced approach.
When addressed within the framework of the Fourth Amendment, privacy rights are not absolute. Courts have held that "special needs" – such as the need for school safety – provide a valid government reason for limited surveillance without a warrant. That said, the specific implementation of in-class cameras must be carefully crafted to address privacy while still achieving the stated security goals. Overly pervasive surveillance can target individual students or staff members, leading to possible violations of their rights.
One factor that may serve as a solution to the problem is the online classroom. With the rise of remote learning in recent years, both due to the pandemic and a generally increased acceptance of online education, there are fewer opportunities for individuals to engage in inappropriate physical or verbal activity in the classroom. Video recording and monitoring technology can be a useful tool to not only deter negative behavior, but also to investigate and resolve any misconduct that does occur.
Courts have generally favored the idea that security cameras are a valuable part of school safety plans . Many jurisdictions have adopted such technology in various forms, like meal delivery trucks, to protect students from potential abuse and to deter criminal activity by predatory adults, for example.
One area where legal precedent is rapidly developing is within the context of sexual violence. The right for a victim of sexual violence or harassment to have access to evidence in the form of security footage is rapidly being recognized by courts. While this should always be secondary to a victim’s right to privacy, the implementation of classroom video surveillance must consider additional factors relating to the potential for abuse of the technology.
In addition to ensuring that safeguards are in place against misuse, lawmakers must also ensure that cameras are not used to unfairly target certain groups of students or staff. Teachers’ unions have raised concerns about discrimination in teacher monitoring, and other advocacy groups have been vocal about opposition to school-based surveillance technology. Providing transparency to both those subject to monitoring and the public at large is one means of addressing these claims.
Furthermore, lawmakers have a responsibility to ensure that the implementation of in-class surveillance comes in response to verifiable instances of misconduct, not simply as a result of a perceived need to address future problems. There are few statistics quantifying the efficacy of classroom cameras, and even fewer assessing their impact on student experiences and academic performance. Legislators would be wise to consider, and perhaps undertake, efforts to compile and analyze such data before expanding the use of cameras in academic settings.