Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Open the Classrooms
More shocking news from the leftist government educational establishment: Parents must agree not to observe their children’s virtual learning.
Here is my proposal. When schools resume in-person classes, all classes should have cameras on the classrooms (especially the teachers), so the parents may tune in in real time or stream at their leisure.
There is no such thing as “educational privacy” in government schools. That is just an excuse.
Published in Education
How dare you advocate for the monitoring of teachers who are
brainwashingsimply trying to educate children!Gettin’ a little tired of this nonsense. My only comment is not something within the bounds of proper language (or the CoC, for that matter). Thanks for sharing this. Grrr!
“. . . protects student privacy . . .”
Two things: 1) Ain’t no “student privacy” in our home other than knocking before entering and 2) we know it’s not about the students.
Once upon a time we were told to monitor computer usage by minors to avoid abuse. Consider this an extension of that.
There is such a thing as “educational privacy” in government schools. There is an entire Federal Statute on the subject – Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which schools must deal with all the time. Schools can be held liable, in some form or another, when they breach the privacy rules under that act. This most often came up, back when I was involved in public schools, when parents whose child was being punished by the school for some misconduct wanted to know how the school punished any other kids involved. The school couldn’t disclose that information. It covers a lot more than discipline, of course, but that’s a useful example. I’m not sure exactly what they are worried parents would see from a FERPA perspective by simply observing the online sessions, so I’m not saying its a legitimate reason here, but I would want to hear a more detailed explanation before declaring it an excuse.
Oh like people have never said, “hey, kids, I’m going to talk to you about special secret stuff but you can’t tell your parents,” before.
I did a cursory search for ‘disturbing online school videos’ but didn’t come up with the kind of thing I was expecting; ludicrous SJW claims.
Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence though.
Wait…children are being punished for misconduct? When did this start?
Not as such, no.
They can come up with excuses for why they don’t want to discuss things like how much (or why) they punish kids for doing stupid stuff in classes, but you can’t claim “privacy” when something happens in front classroom full of gossipy teenagers.
Makes me think of this.
In fact, I would love to see the GOP push legislation that every classroom be online and accessible to the parents at any time. The teachers should feel eyeballs on the back of their necks at all times.
Come on GOP make it platform plank next week.
The school can’t control what gossipy teenagers say, but can control what information it puts out. I believe Ferpa also deals with student images and the publishing of images. Theoretically, a video online classroom provided by the school could get them into trouble if it causes some protected information to be broadcast. They probably give the warning to parents not to watch to help cover them (For whatever it’s worth) if something is improperly broadcast and then becomes the subject of rumors, embarrassment, Facebook arguments, etc.
I am not familiar with the calf family Educational Rates and Privacy come back. But if it interferes with the rights of parents to observe what goes on in the classrooms with their children, it is probably constitutionally defective. In addition, any legislator that voted for (if it does that) deserves to be booted out of office forthwith.
I remember back during the first Clinton administration when privacy got to be a growing concern. I don’t remember the specific issues we were thinking about at the time, but most of us were thinking about privacy from government’s ability to keep track of us.
It was getting some significant attention, so Donna Shalala, then Secretary of HHS, jumped on the bandwagon and pushed for privacy rules. I figured that with her in charge it would be more to protect the government from our ability to keep an eye on its doings, and that is exactly how it has worked out.
Itvisnt even new,
Videoing classrooms is a Chinese tool for controlling CHILDREN, nit teachers.
https://www.wsj.com/video/under-ais-watchful-eye-china-wants-to-raise-smarter-students/C4294BAB-A76B-4569-8D09-32E9F2B62D19.html
So, unless you think the United States should model themselves after China, no, just no, on videos in classrooms.
Conversations with children and participation in their their schooling is the way to manage whatever egregious teacher behavior is happening.
This video and privacy issue is not about the teacher.
If anything, these inflammatory storylines seem more like planted astroturf to get Americans to put cameras in classrooms, or at very least, foster deep community divides.
I will not disagree that any list of inappropriate topics roll around in schools, presented by some teachers. But if these are not approved curriculum topics, parents have a voice, and can speak for change.
And if these topics are approved, well then, parents were asleep at the wheel, because generally schools are locally controlled with a board, and public elections, public meetings, public votes, etc.
Curriculum only sort of enters into it. Teachers go off book at will, and when they do it tends to be personal.
Video in the classrooms is a tool.
The fact that the Chinese use it for nefarious purposes does not make the tool bad.
Parents should be able to see what is going on in their kids classrooms. Period.
I understand the privacy concerns about one child’s parents being able to monitor the activities of another child. But, so many American school districts have earned parental distrust by hiding curriculum from parents and hiding what schools do with students that the first instinct of many is that this is another effort of the school to hide from a child’s own parents what the school is doing to that child. The power of the teachers’ unions, and how those unions have chosen to wield that power, are also factors contributing to the parental distrust that causes parents to be skeptical about efforts by the school to limit what the parents see.
It really does not matter how China uses videos. I don’t doubt that the cameras there are a tool to control teachers by the government. Do the parents get to watch there? I doubt it. Do the parents have a say there? I doubt it.
I propose that parents have access to watch what their children are taught. Conversations with the teacher are not enough. How is the parent supposed to know what really happens if they cannot see it? If some goofy federal law would prohibit parent observing the classroom in real time, that law needs to be changed.
I just read the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Nothing in it would prohibit parents form observing classrooms. It protects the educational records of students. It gives parents rights to review surveys that attempt to elicit private family information from children. FERPA protects “education records” defined as
Real time observation would not be a record as defined here. Arguably, storage of the video might be, but I don’t think so since it is not “directly related to a student,” that is, a single student as opposed to a classroom. Lawyers could argue that it is and some judge might agree, but it is questionable.
Great discussion and very interesting legal concerns here. And I have another question concerning the “storage of the video” issue. Who, technically, owns the intellectual property of a videoed classroom lesson? The teacher? (Especially if it contains original written material or media created by the teacher.) The school or the district that pays the teacher’s salary? Could it be displayed at a later date without the teacher’s knowledge/permission? And how could any of this be monitored if every parent of every student has the ability to record every class? Just wondering …
Not sure how that would work, but the idea that it would be illegal to record it would be ludicrous (which is not always a bar to legalities). Still, the teacher created the stuff while salaried by the government so it’s hard to imagine there would be many protections.
I am by no means a copyright lawyer, but under the Copyright Act, I believe that is the school district pays for the camera and cloud service, the school district owns the rights to the video. The teacher’s work product is probably also owned by the school district as a “work for hire” by an employee.
I invite anyone with better knowledge of the Copyright Act to correct me, though.
As far as I know you are correct, but I am not a lawyer of any kind. At the university level, things get tricky when you invite guest lecturers to present seminars. Their lectures may not come under the “work for hire” heading. I’ve never known that to be an issue, but such lecturers don’t always assent to be recorded, or at least didn’t when we started to get into this stuff 10 years ago or so. Now they probably expect it. At my old workplace almost all seminars are now recorded, though I’ve heard of some cases where somebody gave a lecture that he didn’t want to have recorded and disseminated.
But a trickier problem, one that may apply to elementary and secondary schools in some cases, is that they instructors often include copyrighted material in their lectures — illustrations and photos that are grabbed out of published works. That’s OK for classroom use under “fair use,” but might be a problem if the sessions are disseminated widely. Of course, not all lectures are recorded with the intention of being disseminated widely. And just allowing parents to have access to classroom sessions probably wouldn’t trigger such problems.
Yeah…cameras in classrooms is a good idea:
As I understand it, “work for hire” applies to employees only. Unless the contract between the lecturer and the seminar sponsor provides otherwise, the expression belongs to the lecturer. I have to assume that the contract routinely provide otherwise or at least describe the use rights for the videos. Again, I am ready, willing and able to accept correction from an intellectual property expert.
I don’t see any problem here, especially where the school is making the real-time video available to parents. It is still “fair use.” It would be different maybe if the videos were made available for sale by for-profit entities.