There is a synchronicity of surveillance and “wokeness” that could produce great upheaval in the homes of many American families who send their children to public schools.
According to data published in 2015, over 75 percent of K-12 school districts in America were using video-surveillance monitoring systems to keep an eye on students on campus. The number of districts deploying such devices expanded exponentially after Sandy Hook.
Typically, school districts cite school shootings as justification for keeping kids under constant watch, but there is no evidence that surveillance cameras reduce violence on campus.
While the majority of surveillance cameras are deployed in hallways or common areas such as cafeterias or libraries or parking lots, there are a growing number of districts installing video-surveillance cameras in the classroom. Consider this from a report on school surveillance and safety:
Few districts have added cameras in classrooms versus school hallways, but the number is growing. Texas, for example, passed a law in 2015 mandating that all schools video- and audio-record classroom interactions between special education students and their teachers if requested to do so. The primary purpose of the law is to protect special education students from abuse in the classroom, but advocates claim it should also be praised as a tool for both teachers and students who face false accusations of inappropriate conduct: They will be able to point to the camera recording as evidence.
The report, authored by the National Association of State Boards of Education, went on to insist that “Administrators often hope that visible security measures, such as video surveillance, will make students feel more secure and perhaps also deter bad behavior.”
And here is where these “safety measures” could become tools of oppression, particularly against those families whose principles run counter to the prevailing perversion passing as “education” in classrooms today, speaking specifically of graphic discussions of sex acts and the “lessons” offered by transgender speakers.
Imagine that one of these classrooms equipped with “video and audio” recording devices is running while a teacher presents a lesson to a fourth grade class on how homosexuals engage in sexual activity. Now, imagine further that one of the students raises his hand and innocently (and perhaps in his mind, courageously) declares that his parents say that homosexuality is sinful. The teacher, then, in order to not lose her job and to appear “woke” and not trans- or homo- phobic, reports this to the school administration, who, per federal guidelines, reports the “bully” to the school district administration, who then reports it to Child Protective Services, who, in a quest to be awarded a federal grant, makes a visit to the child’s home to see why the child is “bullying” his classmates.
If you think this is far-fetched, consider the fact that through a confusing web of federal programs — most notably Title IV-E, Title IV-B, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, Title XIX, and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) — state child welfare departments are paid as much as $80,000 in federal grant money for every child removed from an “unfit” environment and transferred into the foster care program.
Given that school districts around the country must conform to federal guidelines regarding LGBTQ acceptance and other such regulations mandating “inclusivity” in K-12 classrooms, it is no great leap of logic to foresee the dovetailing of surveillance and “sensitivity” and the cooperation of state child protective services seeking federal funds, with school districts likewise looking to qualify for federal incentives in the form of grants.
Now, back to our scenario in the classroom where little Jimmy informs his classmates, his teacher, and the surveillance cameras he probably didn’t notice (and about which his parents probably weren’t informed) that his parents taught him that it was a sin to be gay.
Given the insatiable appetite for federal funds and the “gender fluid” genuflecting acted out by teachers in every classroom across the country, there is little doubt that surveillance cameras in classrooms will become the clearinghouse for CPS directors, a sort of target-rich environment for state bureaucrats seeking to make a name for themselves and a pile of cash for their agency.
One last scenario — and these scenarios are offered to provide families a heads-up lest these surveillance cameras are installed in your children’s classrooms and you think there’s no harm in them — imagine a “teacher” is “teaching” a “lesson” on the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment and she parrots the lies printed in many textbooks that the framers of the Constitution intended that amendment to protect the right of the military and police to be armed in order to protect citizens. (Don’t believe textbooks really repeat such rubbish? Read this article.) Now imagine that little Jimmy raises his hand and informs the class that his dad “has lots of guns.” I don’t need to flesh out the rest of this story; it will be identical to the story of the child repeating the lessons his family taught him about sexuality and marriage.
These are the real abuses that can and will be perpetrated in classrooms equipped with audio and video surveillance equipment. Parents must take into consideration the powerful coalition of technology, federal education incentives, and child protective service abuses. They must beware of the zealous enforcement of “woke” regulations and standards being adopted by K-12 school districts in an effort to qualify for federal funds tied to implementation of federal “inclusivity” programs.
Furthermore, current U.S. law allows for visual and audio monitoring in any area where there is “no reasonable need for privacy.” And finally, schools are permitted to record students for purposes of “safety” and “education,” and do not need parental consent to do so.
