Schools Under Surveillance: Cultures of Control in Public Education

7. Reading, Writing, and Readiness

Chapter 7 Reading, Writing, and Readiness Richard A. Matthew In 1999, the Department of Justice issued a report entitled The Appropriate and Effective Use of SecurityTechnologies in U.S. Schools. The author of the report, Mary Green, identifies a large number of threats that “can be reduced with appropriate surveillance technology such as cameras, sensors, [and] microdots” (Green 1999, 21). Even schools that have not yet experienced violence, thefts, and other problems should consider increased surveillance—and other measures. “Many school buildings in the United States,” the author notes, “have been constructed to achieve an inviting and open-to-the-community feeling, with multiple buildings, big windows, multiple entrances and exits, and many opportunities for privacy. Needless to say, these layouts are not conducive to many current requirements to address security needs” (15). Green further warns:“If a school is perceived as unsafe . . . then ‘undesirables’ will come in, and the school will actually become unsafe” (21). It is time, the report makes clear, for America’s schools to accept the need for surveillance technology, security-optimizing architecture, and higher levels of staff scrutiny. In the past decade, incidents such as those occurring at Columbine (1999), Beslan (2004), and Virginia Tech (2007) have reminded America of the vulnerability of schools and triggered much debate over the pros and cons of different approaches to increasing school security. In the post-Columbine world, the era of fire drills, bomb shelters and innocence is distant and unrecoverable. But is more intrusive surveillance and garrison architecture the solution to contemporary threats to schools? Is this approach effective? Does it lend itself to misuse? Is it culturally acceptable? In the days after 9/11, many Americans indicated a willingness to accept a reduction in personal privacy and freedom in exchange for higher levels of surveillance-based security, but within a year this willingness began to erode as questions arose about effectiveness, abuse, and cultural fit. More recent polls 123 R i c h a r d A . M at t h e w 124 suggest that while many Americans may be struggling to define an acceptable balance between freedom and privacy on one hand and surveillance and security on the other, few feel the former should be freely traded for the latter (Matthew et al. 2008). Although Americans value privacy and freedom as much as they value security and are uncomfortable sacrificing one for the other, high-tech surveillance may be gaining acceptance among those charged with school safety.A 2006 USAToday article, for example, reports that “the U.S. Justice Department recently chose Raptor [a surveillance system used by over 2000 schools in over 200 districts] as a pilot program for schools nationwide” (2). Not all school safety guides stress surveillance. In 2007, the U.S. Department of Education released the document Practical Information on Crisis Planning: A Guide for Schools and Communities. In the section on prevention, where one might expect a discussion of surveillance, the emphasis is on leadership, controlling access, and planning, and it is left to schools themselves to determine whether surveillance technology is desirable. The authors of this guide note that “the research on what works in school-based crisis planning is in its infancy,” and stress the importance of tailoring plans to the context at hand (U.S. Department of Education 2007a, 1–4).While support for surveillance is muted in the guide, there is no questioning of the need for more comprehensive top-down safety measures in American schools, and no discussion at all of their relationship to the mission of schools. Against that background, this chapter explores two questions: 1. On what empirical and normative bases should we accept the assertion that schools require more elaborate security systems, including intrusive surveillance technology, architectural changes and background checks? My hypothesis is that the same interactive forces that are transforming the broader security landscape at national and global levels—rapid technology innovation and diffusion, the empowerment of individuals and groups, global environmental change, and the expansion and deepening of capitalism—are affecting threats and vulnerabilities at the school level, but that a careful analysis of these changes is not driving the steps that are actually being taken in response to new challenges. 2. Given the need for a new generation of security measures, how can they be identified and how can and should they be integrated into the mission of education? My hypothesis here is that many measures being taken encourage passivity, consumption, and dependence...