By Dr David Roy
For the past 30 years, across Europe and within Australia, Close Circuit Television (CCTV) has become an omnipresent aspect of our lives. Ostensibly it is there for safety, and for the prevention of activities that society deems unacceptable. However, there are growing concerns over the ‘surveillance’ of populations and the way that such technology can be abused by authorities. That said, there is little doubt that it has changed our lives – but one of the few areas that have not been deeply addressed is the place of CCTV in our schools.
Schools, staff and parents have concerns over any potential widening of usage of CCTV in schools. Leaders, therefore, need to be aware of its potential, and the challenges it presents. In wider society, there is less concern. Whether we wish to admit it or not, our public life is constantly filmed. CCTV is used to monitor road congestion, not to mention speed cameras. When we step out into the streets and roads, we are being filmed. When we walk into any shops or commercial areas, we are being filmed. If we go to the hospital, we are being filmed. Many houses have security cameras protecting them. In our daily life, people are filming footage around us and containing us with their mobile phones. Police carry ‘body cameras’. Even when we use an ATM, we are being filmed.
Rarely do we question this or indeed have any concerns about the footage and how it may be used unless we look at other countries such as China or Saudi Arabia where such footage is added to the metadata of their overall monitoring of the population. Indeed, without such footage, many crimes, or missing persons would not be dealt with as effectively. The recent case of an Australian woman being shot by police in the USA has argued for more CCTV/body camera usage.
The USA has shown the impact that CCTV can have. Children making false allegations against staff have been caught doing so through footage. Staff assaulting non-verbal children with a disability have been caught, where CCTV is the only evidence that could have revealed such repugnant behaviour. The aggression of some parents towards staff in public areas has been reduced, as has the number of instances of students bringing weapons into school, as CCTV has identified the weapons and the individual carrying them.
In the recent Oakden nursing home inquiry in South Australia, which investigated allegations of aged care abuse, CCTV was trailed to protect both residents from elder abuse (but also staff from false allegations), which led to at least five care homes installing CCTV in rooms, with residents’ consent. Indeed, the current Aged Care Royal Commission is exploring such options, given it was covert CCTV that highlighted the levels of abuse in care homes. It is somewhat ironic that we appear to use CCTV to protect clothing and food in our shops from theft, or to use it as evidence of road danger through ‘dashcams’ than we do to protect our most vulnerable. There are privacy concerns, including the question of how footage of residents being filmed in the privacy of their own rooms will be dealt with, but these are not unsurmountable; so why is there such resistance to CCTV in schools, and are the concerns real?
CCTV is already present in schools. In the UK, a 2014 report found that 90% of schools have CCTV installed. Most of these cameras are placed in playgrounds, entry ways and around the perimeters. This allows for the protection of school property, and to ensure the safety of staff and prevent playground bullying. Within Australia, Doonside Technology High School in Sydney has noted a 70% drop in bullying since 57 cameras were installed. Other schools have noted a significant drop in vandalism and damage, as well as a reduction in bullying. CCTV cameras have an impact. More disturbing though is when reports of hidden cameras being discovered, such as in a classroom in Maitland in 2017, to ostensibly curb vandalism, though staff and pupils were unaware of its presence.
In addition to formal CCTV, students have access to mobile phones and can easily film events of a classroom. It was such filming that alarmed parents to significant abuse and bullying of their children with special needs in a NSW public school, and having such evidence led to those staff being removed.
Education Union leaders have spoken out against the expansion of cameras in schools. One used the analogy that people still speed despite the presence of speed cameras. Using such an argument misses the point, in that such logic negates the need for any laws, for people still break the law despite there being laws. There is a truth that if people are aware of a CCTV camera, and they still wish to undertake activities, they would prefer not to be filmed, so they would move to an area that is not being filmed. This will happen in any society, but having CCTV may just limit the inappropriate actions of some, as the statistics for Australia and the UK have shown.
CCTV has many advantages for schools. Yes, it can protect property, and yes it can identify bullying in the playground, and ensure that people entering schools are more conscious of their actions and their behaviour. The larger issue is the question of whether CCTV should be allowed into the classroom as well as the common areas of a school.
From a safety viewpoint, it is potentially a win-win for all involved. When there is an issue of one student abusing another student, the abuse of a student by a teacher, or indeed the abuse of a teacher by a student, CCTV could provide the evidence required to move beyond a legal ‘he-said-she-said’ conflict. In particular, as was highlighted in the NSW Inquiry into Disability and Education for Children with a Disability, CCTV cameras could well be an important tool for schools to ensure that children are safe. Research shows that children with a disability are three times more likely to be abused, and non-verbal children are ten times more likely.
CCTV could also be used to enhance learning experiences. No teacher can be fully aware of what is happening in a classroom at any time. CCTV could assist the teacher in identifying lack of engagement, bullying, or even students not being included as fully as possible. As a behavioural management tool, it would allow staff to identify areas and behaviours that need support and be used to engage parents in supporting this process.
As a professional development tool, to allow the now mandated observation required, CCTV may allow for a more accurate reflective learning tool. Once CCTV is in place, individuals soon lose their self-consciousness of cameras being present, meaning a filmed class learning experience has the potential to more accurately reflect teaching, rather than an ‘observer’ being present which creates a false classroom dynamic.
There are of course major issues with all of this. Could the footage be misused? There is a concern that Principals would be monitoring the staff and using the footage as evidence of ‘supposed’ bad practice to remove teachers, whether justified or not, or indeed to restore some teacher freedom in how they individualise learning experiences. Others have concerns over the filming of minors, and that footage getting into the wrong hands. There are also concerns over filming potentially breaching protection orders, or footage being leaked to social media (as has happened in other public space CCTV footage).
What surprises is the lack of trust in education professionals in maintaining privacy. The most intimate details of children, from their medical histories to their family circumstances, including financial background, legal orders, and abusive situations are kept private. Why should CCTV footage be any different? Concerns over misuse by authorities to remove teachers, would, like all industrial dispute cases, be able to be challenged in court. What CCTV could do is protect students and staff alike. In 2018 alone, in NSW public schools there were 657 Child protection complaints against staff relating to children with special needs or disability. CCTV could change this. Increasingly, there are multiple reports of abuse of staff by parents and students. CCTV could support school staff and protect them.
We do not question CCTV in protecting $5.00 t-shirts that can be bought in stores, and we do not question if the footage is kept safe. Children and adults are worth more. Schools are not private places, they are public. What do schools have to hide behind closed doors? We know that school staff are professional and responsible with privacy, more so than 18-year-old store workers. Classrooms are already being filmed everyday through mobile technology. It might be time for schools to take control, protect staff and children, and use technology to enhance teaching practice.
Ultimately, though, is of interest that the sudden decision to introduce CCTV cameras for early childhood centres has been generally accepted with little protest. The same cannot be said when it was initially proposed for schools and units for children with a disability. There was an outcry from teaching unions and politicians that this would be an infringement on adult professionalism. It appears to me that as is so often the case, safety and protection doesn’t trump employees when it is children with a disability, but when it is ‘normal’ children, suddenly everything changes. It was no different with online education. It wasn’t feasible for children with a disability, but when suddenly ‘normal’ children needed it, it happened overnight. One might suspect the system is completely prejudiced against those with disability, but that would just be coincidence. Surely the systems and unions are not too busy virtue signalling to look at their own embedded ableism.
Dr David Roy is a lecturer and researcher in Education and Creative Arts at the University of Newcastle. He uses his research to inform inclusion and equity practices for children across Australia, with a particular focus on children with a disability and engagement with the Arts.