Big Brother in the classroom?
In this time of high emotion concerning our civil liberties and Big Brother intruding into our lives, we have a congressional candidate for Colorado's 7th Congressional district who has views that many would also consider to be big brother. Enter Herb Rubenstein, one of three Democratic candidates for Congress in Colorado's 7th Congressional District. Herb entered the race in June of 2005 and moved here from Washington DC in order to run for the seat. Before this, Herb was CEO of a consulting firm called "Growth Strategies, Inc." I am not writing this blog in order to gun for Mr. Rubenstein, but I felt that one of his more questionable positions need some scrutiny, as well as some of the logic that goes into them.
One of the things that he wants to do is put internet cameras in classrooms in school. The main expressed reason is for parental involvement. I will certainly not debate that parents should be engaged in the education of their children. Parents have the right to know what their children are doing at school. While that is true, there are pitfalls to having internet cameras in classrooms. Mr. Rubenstein writes in his article about cameras in classrooms:
"The “observation” of the teachers and students via internet based cameras will be unobtrusive. Neither teachers nor students should be doing anything in the classroom and in extracurricular activities that they do not want observed by parents and administrators in any event."
This sounds fine, until you delve into what could be considered things you don't want parents or administrators to see. Now, there are a number of things that are obviously stupid to do, especially in the classroom, however, especially in this day in age, one does not have to do something wrong in order to catch someone's ire. In this case, parents and administrators. You just would have to do something that a spectator doesn't like. Something that could be taken out of context. How could things be taken out of context? Well one thing to consider is the practicality of parents watching their entire kid's class every day. Maybe as it is happening, or maybe after the fact. The thing is, it isn't very practical. Most parents work 40 hours a week. They are not going to have the time to view everything their kid does in school. Even if they do, they would easily get bored. So, if they were to sift through the video feed after the fact and pick up on an exchange between their kid and a teacher, that didn't look good, they might draw their own conclusions and come into conflict with the teacher because they didn't like what the teacher had to say. Not because what the teacher said was wrong, but simply because they didn't like it. Administrators have the same problem too. Not enough time and too many classes to watch. But if either parents or administrators decided to get involved because they didn't like something that the teacher did, even if it wasn't really wrong could undermine the teacher's authority with their students. The fact is, teaching is a very hard job, in part because of the politics that teachers have to deal with from parents and administrators. This is a way that having cameras in classrooms could generate conflict. Furthermore, if there was a heated exchange between two students, the conflict could get escalated if the parents decide that they need to get involved. Some parents would do so too.
Another issue is the issue of the child's growth. Mr. Rubenstein's plan calls for cameras in classrooms for parental observation up through the 12th grade. Meaning that they could watch their child until they are 18 years old. While there are internet cameras in college classrooms, the purpose of this is purely educational. It is extremely uncommon for parents or administrators in college to interfere with a professor's class. But back to the matter at hand. Parental observation through one's Senior Year in high school. One of the purposes of school IMO is to help children to individuate from their parents. For starters, children act differently in schools than they do at home with their parents. It isn't suprising for many of us adults act differently with friends than we do with our families or at work. It could make a child self-conscious if a parent starts questioning how we act with our friends. It's part of growing up. Also, it is more likely that parents who already have a propensity to get too involved would just horn in even more, especially when it comes to teacher related conflicts or peer related conflicts that don't require parental involvement. One could argue that cameras will force bullies to act better. The thing about most bullies is that they either have parents that don't care and won't get engaged anyways, or they have parents that believe that they can do no wrong. The truth is, it might curb bullying, but it doesn't solve the problem of bullying. Ultimately, having cameras in classrooms will not teach kids a sense of ethics. Instead of learning not to do something because it is wrong, children will learn not to do something because they fear getting caught. But they will only fear it where they can get caught. Developing a sense of ethics is very important in growth and maturity and I fear that it is missing from the equation here.
Furthermore, security questions are not absurd, but they are a very major concern. Mr. Rubenstein says in his article on the subject:
"The argument that internet based classroom cameras could lead to security problems is absurd. In fact, they may have a huge positive impact on classroom discipline, on the ability to immediately spot and intruder or the beginning of any act of violence. By creating parents and administrators as observers, parents and administrators may be able to spot a situation that is likely to become violent, alert security guards and prevent violence from occurring."
Well, one thing to consider with regards to security issues is that this footage will be on the internet. There are probably enough pedophiles in any given metro area who happen to be computer hackers as well. After a few days of observing camera footage from various cameras, they could pick out their easiest target(s) and abduct them when they get off schoo grounds. And even if they make it onto school grounds and decide to nab the child there, the cameras could prevent or solve a problem of child abduction, they still caused the problem. Honestly, I find Mr. Rubenstein's remark here to be ill thought out. You cannot dismiss possible security concerns like this as absurd. Yes, the scenarios I mentioned are hypothetical, but so are his. When examining the potential benefits of internet cameras in classrooms, one must consider the pitfalls.
The larger question is: Are security cameras in classrooms big brother? Let's see what Mr. Rubenstein thinks:
"This is pure nonsense. The Super Bowl is shown to billions of people around the world, live. No one has ever accused the National Football League of using big brother tactics to show the world a football game."
My problem with this remark is that one cannot compare a football game, especially the Super Bowl to viewing a classroom. Football is a form of entertainment. The players and the NFL get paid to have teams play and to have these games broadcast. The more viewers they have, the more money they make. The students and teachers are not going to get paid to be the subjects of surveillance. Will teachers get a pay raise for it? I doubt it very much. A question I have regarding the idea of cameras in classrooms that this article doesn't answer is how long a recorded day of school will be somewhere on the internet before it is deleted for all eternity? If it is there for a long time, the prospect becomes very scary. Think if a child or teacher having a really bad day and that day is caught "on tape" so to speak on the internet. People can look through that day and use the info against the child or teacher months or even years later. Many people say not to let the negative instances in your life define you. That is very hard to do when other people can go look over your bad day. Your parents, your freinds, your peers, your bosses. People will judge you on it and in my opinion, that is the very essence of big brother. Now, while this particular question is not addressed in the article and this situation is once again hypothetical, I cannot prove that it is big brother, but Herb Rubenstein has not proven that it isn't.
To view Herb Rubenstein's article on cameras in classrooms, click here:
http://growth-strategies.com/subpages/articles/027.html
All this being said, I would wholeheartedly agree that parents should be very involved with their child's education. Not in a way that would damage the students or the teachers. An idea that I have is to record a day of school every so often. Say once a month at most. It can be a thing that teachers and students become active and willing participants in. A video letter to the parents saying "Hey Parents, this is what your children are doing in school right now" that can be put on a DVD-R and mailed to the parents of the students. It will keep the children protected from internet predators, minimize misunderstandings and conflict, allow the students to grow on their own a little, yet still keep parents involved in the education of their children. It is also a less obtrusive idea than having every day of school recorded.
One of the things that he wants to do is put internet cameras in classrooms in school. The main expressed reason is for parental involvement. I will certainly not debate that parents should be engaged in the education of their children. Parents have the right to know what their children are doing at school. While that is true, there are pitfalls to having internet cameras in classrooms. Mr. Rubenstein writes in his article about cameras in classrooms:
"The “observation” of the teachers and students via internet based cameras will be unobtrusive. Neither teachers nor students should be doing anything in the classroom and in extracurricular activities that they do not want observed by parents and administrators in any event."
This sounds fine, until you delve into what could be considered things you don't want parents or administrators to see. Now, there are a number of things that are obviously stupid to do, especially in the classroom, however, especially in this day in age, one does not have to do something wrong in order to catch someone's ire. In this case, parents and administrators. You just would have to do something that a spectator doesn't like. Something that could be taken out of context. How could things be taken out of context? Well one thing to consider is the practicality of parents watching their entire kid's class every day. Maybe as it is happening, or maybe after the fact. The thing is, it isn't very practical. Most parents work 40 hours a week. They are not going to have the time to view everything their kid does in school. Even if they do, they would easily get bored. So, if they were to sift through the video feed after the fact and pick up on an exchange between their kid and a teacher, that didn't look good, they might draw their own conclusions and come into conflict with the teacher because they didn't like what the teacher had to say. Not because what the teacher said was wrong, but simply because they didn't like it. Administrators have the same problem too. Not enough time and too many classes to watch. But if either parents or administrators decided to get involved because they didn't like something that the teacher did, even if it wasn't really wrong could undermine the teacher's authority with their students. The fact is, teaching is a very hard job, in part because of the politics that teachers have to deal with from parents and administrators. This is a way that having cameras in classrooms could generate conflict. Furthermore, if there was a heated exchange between two students, the conflict could get escalated if the parents decide that they need to get involved. Some parents would do so too.
Another issue is the issue of the child's growth. Mr. Rubenstein's plan calls for cameras in classrooms for parental observation up through the 12th grade. Meaning that they could watch their child until they are 18 years old. While there are internet cameras in college classrooms, the purpose of this is purely educational. It is extremely uncommon for parents or administrators in college to interfere with a professor's class. But back to the matter at hand. Parental observation through one's Senior Year in high school. One of the purposes of school IMO is to help children to individuate from their parents. For starters, children act differently in schools than they do at home with their parents. It isn't suprising for many of us adults act differently with friends than we do with our families or at work. It could make a child self-conscious if a parent starts questioning how we act with our friends. It's part of growing up. Also, it is more likely that parents who already have a propensity to get too involved would just horn in even more, especially when it comes to teacher related conflicts or peer related conflicts that don't require parental involvement. One could argue that cameras will force bullies to act better. The thing about most bullies is that they either have parents that don't care and won't get engaged anyways, or they have parents that believe that they can do no wrong. The truth is, it might curb bullying, but it doesn't solve the problem of bullying. Ultimately, having cameras in classrooms will not teach kids a sense of ethics. Instead of learning not to do something because it is wrong, children will learn not to do something because they fear getting caught. But they will only fear it where they can get caught. Developing a sense of ethics is very important in growth and maturity and I fear that it is missing from the equation here.
Furthermore, security questions are not absurd, but they are a very major concern. Mr. Rubenstein says in his article on the subject:
"The argument that internet based classroom cameras could lead to security problems is absurd. In fact, they may have a huge positive impact on classroom discipline, on the ability to immediately spot and intruder or the beginning of any act of violence. By creating parents and administrators as observers, parents and administrators may be able to spot a situation that is likely to become violent, alert security guards and prevent violence from occurring."
Well, one thing to consider with regards to security issues is that this footage will be on the internet. There are probably enough pedophiles in any given metro area who happen to be computer hackers as well. After a few days of observing camera footage from various cameras, they could pick out their easiest target(s) and abduct them when they get off schoo grounds. And even if they make it onto school grounds and decide to nab the child there, the cameras could prevent or solve a problem of child abduction, they still caused the problem. Honestly, I find Mr. Rubenstein's remark here to be ill thought out. You cannot dismiss possible security concerns like this as absurd. Yes, the scenarios I mentioned are hypothetical, but so are his. When examining the potential benefits of internet cameras in classrooms, one must consider the pitfalls.
The larger question is: Are security cameras in classrooms big brother? Let's see what Mr. Rubenstein thinks:
"This is pure nonsense. The Super Bowl is shown to billions of people around the world, live. No one has ever accused the National Football League of using big brother tactics to show the world a football game."
My problem with this remark is that one cannot compare a football game, especially the Super Bowl to viewing a classroom. Football is a form of entertainment. The players and the NFL get paid to have teams play and to have these games broadcast. The more viewers they have, the more money they make. The students and teachers are not going to get paid to be the subjects of surveillance. Will teachers get a pay raise for it? I doubt it very much. A question I have regarding the idea of cameras in classrooms that this article doesn't answer is how long a recorded day of school will be somewhere on the internet before it is deleted for all eternity? If it is there for a long time, the prospect becomes very scary. Think if a child or teacher having a really bad day and that day is caught "on tape" so to speak on the internet. People can look through that day and use the info against the child or teacher months or even years later. Many people say not to let the negative instances in your life define you. That is very hard to do when other people can go look over your bad day. Your parents, your freinds, your peers, your bosses. People will judge you on it and in my opinion, that is the very essence of big brother. Now, while this particular question is not addressed in the article and this situation is once again hypothetical, I cannot prove that it is big brother, but Herb Rubenstein has not proven that it isn't.
To view Herb Rubenstein's article on cameras in classrooms, click here:
http://growth-strategies.com/subpages/articles/027.html
All this being said, I would wholeheartedly agree that parents should be very involved with their child's education. Not in a way that would damage the students or the teachers. An idea that I have is to record a day of school every so often. Say once a month at most. It can be a thing that teachers and students become active and willing participants in. A video letter to the parents saying "Hey Parents, this is what your children are doing in school right now" that can be put on a DVD-R and mailed to the parents of the students. It will keep the children protected from internet predators, minimize misunderstandings and conflict, allow the students to grow on their own a little, yet still keep parents involved in the education of their children. It is also a less obtrusive idea than having every day of school recorded.
posted by CO Democrat at 7:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home