NEA Public public-groups.nea.org

Our high school has cameras in the hallways.  These have helped identify thieves and fight instigators.  I think they are a valuable asset to the school.  I know I am being recorded any time I am in the halls, and it doesn't bother me a bit.

I think if a teacher were going to be recorded in class, that teacher deserves prior notification.  The school ought to have just cause for installing the camera. 

I know that some employers monitor workers' computer use.  I don't have a problem with this practice; sadly, it is necessary to keep workers focused on their jobs instead of wasting time on Twitter or dirty emails.  Think of the cafeteria supervisor: the vast majority of kids pay no attention to him/her because they aren't misbehaving. The very presence of the supervisor prevents most mischief, so not much nonsense really happens on most days.

People who have nothing to hide aren't afraid of being watched.  People who object strongly to surveillance in places like school, malls, and workplaces are the ones who are up to something and deserve to be watched.

Surveillance in private places is another story.  That's where Big Brother comes in: Winston Smith is watched at home, in bed, and even in the bathroom. 

From Anonymous in Wisconsin:

Great story! Unfortunately, it's not paranoia.

 I was called into an "investigative meeting" earlier this year with a school administrator regarding an email that was comprised at home, after school hours, through a personal yahoo account. Somehow, the administration had gotten a copy of the email and assumed it was from me. It is assumed that in our distict, certain staff on the superintendent's enemies list are having every one of their emails read. I assume that what is on my computer screen is also live on the screen in our technology department.

But wait, there's more!

I read with great interest the May, 2009 article entitled, "Spy Games" since I am the Yvonne Linnabary mentioned in the article who originally brought the whole thing to the attention of our union leadership. Without the tenacity of the Everett Education Association in making sure Kay Powers' employment rights were protected, this story would not have the satisfactory ending that it does. As I see it, there are two key Constitutional issues here, one the Fourth Amendment right to privacy and the other the First Amendment Right to free speech. I'll address each of these in turn.
In actual fact, many people, including substitute teachers, the math teacher with whom she shared a room; and students noticed the object in the ceiling of Kay Power's classroom. Since I taught across the hall from Kay and we shared many of the same students, I actually heard that students joked about it, never believing that the strange thing that cropped up in May of 2007 could be surveillance equipment. A week after Kay had been escorted off campus I was asked to assist her substitute teacher with the grading program needed to finish off the year for her since I am a building technology mentor. It was in the completion of those duties that I noticed the object in the ceiling of her room and showed it to Steve Garmanian the next day. We did not know what it was, only that we had not seen any similar device anywhere else on the campus. On the proceeding Monday, it had disappeared and so being suspicious of the coincidence, we brought it to the attention of the union leadership in case there was some correlation between the object and Kay's being put on administrative leave. Up until that time, although others were aware of it, no one else had said a word. Upon finding out that it was indeed a camera, my first concern was for the students. As employees in a public school, we expect motion sensors, cameras, and other devices to be in public places for the safety of the school. An individual classroom is another matter. While spying on Kay Powers, the district was also spying on students without alerting parents to the existence of the device. Does that not also invade and invalidate the students' right to privacy? Obviously the suit against Kay was dropped because of the PR nightmare explaining such surveillance to parents would cause.
Along with the issue of the surveillance camera, the issue which got this whole house of cards in motion was the matter of free speech which had become an issue in our district. Beginning with a neighboring high school newspaper, the Everett High School, Kodak, being made subject to prior review and that newspaper being basically stripped from the school; the district then made certain that Kay and her students had no means of producing a newspaper on campus in February of 2007 by removing all publication software from the computers in her room. Upon hearing of this from one of my students who also worked on the Free Stehekin, my husband and I offered our home computers for student use. We had a small multi-media business at that time and had all the software they needed bought and paid for with our own personal funds meaning no school district equipment would be used and the students could honestly create an off campus newspaper. We live in a Cascade High School neighborhood, just minutes from campus and we wanted to give the students a chance to keep the newspaper alive. Therefore, we opened our home and computers to their use and the invitation was not only accepted but used. In fact, the next issue of the Free Stehekin was produced almost exclusively out of our home. We offered this to the students involved not because we wanted to run afoul of the Everett Public Schools, but because both my husband and I value the importance of student voice in this era of "Leave No Child Untested" and no elective standing. We wanted them to have a venue which could not be called into question. The fact that we did this was addressed to the district's investigator; to the Everett Herald and the district administration but no one seemed interested in the fact that the Kay and the students were following the rules imposed upon them by using our home to produce the Free Stehekin.
So, I guess, what I have to ask is why two constitutional amendments were being ignored in order to entrap a teacher who was trying to give students a voice? One is obviously the right of students to free speech and a public forum for their concerns and reportage. The other issue is the fourth amendment right to privacy. If a camera is in a teacher's room, without his/her knowledge, is that not a violation of the students' right to privacy as well? As a former parent of Everett Public School students, this is an invasion that I feel most parents would abhor. I know I do!

The notion of STUDENT privacy is not really addressed in the article--all it says is "Installation of any camera in a classroom, according to the settlement, would not be allowed 'without the prior written approval of the union president.'"  This has nothing to do with students' rights.

I don't consider my classroom to be a private space.  I do not own the room, nor do the students who attend classes in it.  Nothing of a truly personal nature goes on there, as it does in people's homes, a private couselor's or attorney's office, or a restroom.  In my district, even the lockers are not considered personal space and can be searched by officials without the notice or consent of the student.  Jackets and bags, however, do qualify as personal property and cannot be searched without the student being present. 

If my administration were going to install a camera in my classroom, I would appreciate the professional courtesy of notification, but I don't see it as a violation of my privacy rights.  My workplace belongs to the taxpayers.

As stated in a previous letter to the forum, I am the Yvonne Linnabary who actually brought to the attention of both my school principal and my union leadership the existence of the camera in Kay Power's classroom. Please note, that I was an equal opportunity whistle blower! As I stated, I had no idea what the camera was or why it was there, and had it not disappeared as suddenly as I reported it, I might have been like the students and just joked about it. The problem is, however, that it was not until the district's lawyers realized that the union's lawyers were aware of the existence of the camera that the case against Ms Powers was dropped. As suddenly as the case was dropped against her, the tapes from the camera also disappeared so there is no way of knowing whether the tapes contained both audio and video. It does indeed affect student's rights if the camera tapes also contained audio. Without the tapes which were asked for during discovery, we can only speculate what was contained on them. To get a full look at this whole issue from start to finish I would suggest doing a http://www.heraldnet.com search of the reportage from our local newspaper, The Everett Herald. I do know that parents were aghast when the "thing in the room" indeed proved to be a camera. Has it changed how I teach? No, except that now when I walk into my classroom at 7 am I just shout out, "Hello, I am here! Let the games begin!"

Yvonne, please explain how cameras in the classroom affect students' rights.  Which rights do you mean?  In what way are these rights being violated?  Why is a classroom a more private space than a hallway, or a parking lot, or a bus?  I have two children in school, and I don't think that a camera in one of their classrooms would alarm me.  If the camera catches them misbehaving, bummer for them: they chose to misbehave.

I am on admin leave now for a pictures the district has of me smoking a cigarette in my car on private property with my 23 year old daughter.  I know they have photos because my best friend of many years works in the district office and tells me what's going on. She warned me of the investigation about a month before it happened. I told the union lawyer they had pictures and he said they did not and of course THEY said they did not so I am BEING INVESTIGATED FOR SMOKING POT WITH STUDENTS. I know for a fact that we are being watched.

Obviously I don't smoke pot with students, but smoking a ciggie, while not the greatest thing in the world, is no reason for me to be photographed. They must have thought it was a student I was with, not my daughter. Regardless, I have been dragged through the mud by a district that is as crooked and backwards as the KKK.

 I am not a lawyer and therefore this is my interpretation after having it explained to me by two attorneys representing the Everett Education Association. There is strong evidence to believe that the camera also recorded audio. If the camera did indeed catch Ms Power's working on the school newspaper and was the reason she was put on administrative leave and it was only video, then why did the District back down and settle the case as soon as it was disclosed what teachers were subpeonaed to testify in court about the existence of the camera? Why did the tapes disappear? At best it is a PR nightmare because parents were not notified. Here are some examples of parents' rights in this regard:  As a yearbook advisor, I can not use a student's image in the yearbook without parental permission even in a group shot or use their names. My student teacher had to do permission slips last year in order to be video taped teaching my students. When I submit photographs of recognizable people into shows and competitions, I have to have to have witnessed signatures of the people in the photos.

We have cameras in our hallways as well as motion detectors, we all know they are there and we expect them to be for a safe school. Everyone understands that.

However, at worst, because the tapes disappeared during the Discovery process, the union lawyers became extremely suspicious that audio as well as video was recorded.Their expert witness was a former CIA security expert and he saw my drawings and not only recognized the device but said that it could easily include audio. Of course, with no tapes, there is no proof of that, yet that scenario does seem likely.We will never know for sure if audio was also used, but audio taping without a court order is definitely against the law. If cameras are used in a classroom; where by the way a coaching friend of mine used to change her clothes before going out with the track team; at the very least there should be notification. Just because I am doing nothing wrong doesn't mean I should to be spied on. You may be the rare parent that feels kids' getting caught misbehaving is a logical consequence, but believe me, most parents feel differently if a camera is being used without their notification. At this time the District has agreed that cameras will not be used in a classroom without prior notification. They are trying to mend fences and I am so happy to see that. I live in this district and my own children are products of this system, I just wanted to let people know it was way more complicated than two pages can portray. So look up Kay Powers in the Everett Herald and you will find page after page of this huge story.

Yvonne, thank you for the explanation.  Wow, I didn't know that yearbooks were that closely regulated!  Our school's yearbook doesn't get any kind of permission to publish photos.  Sounds as if your district officials knew they were in the wrong if the tapes have mysteriously disappeared.

I can see why a student teacher would have to have permission to tape a class because the students would be seen by others, wherever the tape is "published."  One of my college classes was videotaped, and I had to sign to give permission for the instructor to show the tape to future classes. 

On a related issue, does anyone know what the laws are regarding photos of kids at sporting events?  We have a local photo buff who takes pictures of athletes and sells them to area newspapers.  He calls himself "the unofficial sports photographer" for our school.  My understanding is that it is legal for him to photograph the athletes while they are competing.  What if he takes a picture of fans, or of athletes before or after a contest?  Does he need my permission to photograph my child off the field/court?  This guy is a bit creepy, and I've seen him taking pictures of kids away from the playing arena.  Obviously he hasn't sold them to newspapers, but I wonder what he is doing with those photos. 

Ouch! That is an excellent question. I do believe if students are easily identifiable it needs to be questioned. A few years ago, I had this great idea to do a montage of student photos in the shape of our school mascot, a grizzly bear, on the front cover of our school curriculum guide. I only spent a few hours creating it and it looked splendid but then I had to spend many more hours identifying and researching each kid in the photo montage. I think huge group pictures are fine, but easily identifiable athletes shoud be cleared with the district you are in to double check for permissions. It probably varies from state to state. I know in our current internet age with information so easily available to internet predators, rules are vigorously enforced here.

Here is what I learned about photographic privacy in Minnesota at

  http://rcfp.org/photoguide/ninekeys.html

"Generally, what can be seen from public view can be photographed without legal repercussions. Photographs taken in private places require consent."

 I take this to include sporting events.  A baseball game is public, so the athletes and coaches and umpires can be photographed without giving consent.  I have no problem with that; it's the pictures of fans and of kids off the field that I wonder about.

"Public officials and public figures, and people who become involved in events of public interest, have less right to privacy than do private persons."

Again, a sporting event is an event of public interest. 

I believe that (in Minnesota) athletes give consent to be photographed simply by agreeing to play on the team. 

When I was in college (maaaany years ago), my picture appeared on the tv news; I was at an event on the campus that drew the attention of the media.  No one asked my permission to put my image on television.  There was nothing bad about the video, but I was clearly recognizable.  Would that be allowed today?  The news media cannot possibly contact every person on the video for permission to publish.

I taught at a middle school and had been there 7 years. I was grouped with a "team" that was anything but. There were some personality conflicts, but the biggest problem was lack of communication. It also didn't help that the principal had developed a habit of pitting teachers against one another. I had some very difficlut students one year. In fact most every one of them went to the community center after school. They got together and decided to get me fired.

The next year I was put into a transition 5th grade class with a full-time Special Education teacher and a full-time assistant. The SPED teacher made my life hell that year. She was the principal's "plant" to watch me and report back to him. The problem here, she twisted and embellished information to make me look bad and herself look good.

The next year, I had the transition 5th grade with only a full-time assistant. That SPED teacher however came in to teach math. That year was even worse because of the things she went and told the principal.

My nerves were shot, so I requested a transfer. I now teach at a wonderful school where, for the most part, teachers do actually work in teams. I'm so thankful to be teaching where I am now.  

As one of the people involved in the May article, I have to say I have seen a huge climate change at our school and in our district as a whole for the better. This is the result of the fact that our very strong teacher's union has been proactive in making sure all teachers are protected whether they are a popular teacher, one who toes the line or someone who is a bit of a rebel like my friend Kay. Your story is not unusual, since this story was published, I have heard from teacher friends and relatives from all over the nation via Facebook that there is a lot of stuff like this going on. Districts are trying to cut corners, "So let's do a little witch hunting while we are at it!" The economy right now is giving some districts the notion that this is a good time to clean house. I would encourage every teacher, para-educator, custodian, etc to make sure your union is on top of this type of harassment. Our contract is now up for negotiation, and this is one of the items on the table so I see this as a very subtle battle in which we need to continue to stay vigilant in order to protect our rights and our students' rights. To all those politicos who are constantly union bashing and saying the fault of whatever industry lies with the unions, I would say that unions do not hire teachers, firemen, policemen, social workers, auto workers or whatever: that is not the job of the union. For instance, the school board in my district O.K.s all the teachers who are hired so its their job, not the union's. The job of the union is to protect the employment rights of their members once they are hired. They have no control over who is hired just in making sure thay each teacher receives due process once they are hired.

Janet, your story seems to be an argument in FAVOR of cameras in the classroom.  They would provide concrete evidence of what is going on so that the administration would not automatically believe the yarns of a dishonest coworker. 

The same goes for students who make false claims about teachers.  I have a colleague who teaches phy ed.  One day some junior high boys were being rascals; after repeated admonishments, she finally had had enough and sent them to the office, saying "I've had enough of your garbage."  The boys told the principal that the teacher had called them garbage.  He leapt on that and went after the teacher.  A camera would have clarified the kids' misbehavior, and with audio it would have clarified the teacher's exact words.

The one case I know of a hidden camera in the district I used to work in was when the principal was suspicious of missing items from the building.  There was a missing camcorder, missing classroom supplies from various teachers' rooms, and missing money from several teachers' rooms.  So the principal set up a hidden camera in the office vault/safe area and videotaped the custodian taking money from a cash box in the vault.  To my knowledge there was no audio (WHAT would you say out loud as you take money from a cash box?) AND the custodian was fired.  He lost his retirement and the building was happier with someone who actually did work in the building.  Only regret was that none of the missing supplies or camcorder were recovered.  Getting to the dismissal point was about a six year process.