DHS Gets Big Surveillance Donation
July 2, 2009 | 9:30 amHow’s this for in-depth reporting! Cut and pasted straight out of the Board of Ed’s July 14th agenda…
Requested Action
Move approval of the donation from Iron Sky of new cameras and surveillance systems and services at the DHS main campus, the DHS stadium and the DHS gymnasium and auditorium.
Background
City Schools of Decatur is moving forward after accepting a gracious offer of a surveillance system from Iron Sky. The project team has met and began their work to place over 50 cameras in Decatur High School, the stadium, and planned for the gymnasium and auditorium. Camera locations and types have been carefully chosen. The DHS system is being constructed and fully tested in Houston, Texas before shipment and installation in Decatur. A firm start will be sent following that successful test. Training on the new equipment will be scheduled for late July or early August.
This offer amounts to approximjately $159,000. We have received more details from our legal team regarding this unique situation. We request that the board accept this donation from Iron Sky. A contract is not needed.
I wonder if this is a result of the recent “lockdown”. Quite a donation!
No such thing as a free lunch. What’s in it for Iron Sky?
Just a random act of kindness?
Blah.
Kindness may be the PR spin but of course there’s a business reason for it. My guess would be that they need a case study for marketing purposes. One that shows a “full-out” install. Depending on how many sales that could facilitate, it could pay for itself pretty effectively.
I am of two schools of thought on this one, but I’m leaning more toward the one that asks, “how intrusive do we allow Big Brother to be before we finally say enough?”
I realize we are in the modern world, where cameras are everywhere, but 50 cameras for a single high school? Isn’t that a bit excessive? And how will these cameras be used? Are there specific usage guidelines that will be followed?
I do understand the argument about safety and security, but I worry about the potentially complete loss of privacy by the students.
I just don’t know, and I’m having trouble elaborating my concerns.
Eric, you are spot on. Just the name — ‘Iron Sky’ — gives me the creeps.
If they want to donate something, why not computers or books?
Could us non-free range parents access a constant webstream from the cameras so we can follow our children’s every moment during the day?
Why would you need cameras if you don’t let your kids out of your sight?
Those darn public schools won’t let us stalk our children all day long.
What is strange, to me, is that surveillance cameras don’t seem to be much of deterrent–they’re only useful for catching people after a crime; people monitoring the cameras have to be paid also.
Check out those great reality cop shows, Police Chases, Dumbest Criminals, etc for a prime example of the lack deterrence.
This should help keep drugs and crime out of our high school…Good Idea.
Scott is spot on. The vendor installs all of this equipment pro bono, and in exchange, we allow him to give 2-3 tours a year of the facility to show to his potential clients.
This is a no brainer to me. We must keep an eye on our children. If we are not watching then who is????
No, I just find this creepy. 50 cameras is extreme overkill. I am not naive enough to think that there aren’t drugs, etc. at DHS, but I think that this is going waaaaaay overboard. CSD administrators will do anything to have the latest gimmick and the newest fad. I know that it may pass Constitutional muster, but I think that it will have a dramatic effect of student morale to have them seeing cameras and knowing that they are being watched wherever they go at all times. The vast majority of our kids are not criminals and should not be treated like inmates so that CSD can serve as free advertising for “Iron Sky.”
Did the SLT have a say in this? This is the exactly the type of thing that should be decided by the SLT, not the central office. My guess is that they punted it and said that it was a “system-wide issue” if they even brought it to the SLT at all.
Agreed, this is definitely overkill and will not serve as a deterrent–other than sending the weirdness somewhere else. I’m guessing the cameras are being used in place of actual humans–which would cost more but would be more effective.
High school students should not be treated as inmates–if they are, then they tend to behave as such.
Not sure what my personal opinion is on Iron Sky–don’t understand the background and issues yet–but agree completely that the DHS School Leadership Team (SLT) should have decided this school-specific issue. “System-wide issue” is way over-used by CSD and undercuts the local school governance by SLTs that was intended by system charter legislation. SLTs are not even advisory bodies at this point because important issues have not been brought to them for decisions. If at all, decisions are brought to system-wide committees that are not asking SLTs as entities to give input and are not reporting back to SLTs, although they do have some SLT members on them–as individuals, not as representatives of their SLT as a decision-making body. “System charter” at this point is an oxymoron. I’m not surprised that the feds wouldn’t give CSD the $600,000 charter development money it expected because the funding is meant for charter schools, not charter systems. System charters and charter schools both have “charter” in their name but are completely different entities. CSD should decide whether it truly embraces “local school governance” or whether it prefers strong, central control. Having the trappings of local school governance without sufficient content or authority is wasting the time of the teachers, parents, principals, and community members who serve on SLTs, confusing to the school community, and inconsistent with the intent of the system charter legislation.
Hmmmm… As much as I want to have the school system do whatever it takes to keep drugs and bullying out of our schools, I have to go with Snowflake and DHS parent on this. I think that this is a local issue to be decided by the high school. It is not a system issue. Whether DHS has dozens of cameras and is used as free advertising for some company with a somewhat disturbing name is not properly in the jurisdiction of central staff/school board because the decision does not affect the whole system – it ONLY effects DHs. Things like start times and school year length are appropriate system wide decisions.. but not the decision of whether to use surveillance a at a single school.
This plan is a bit disturbing to me. I understand the sentiment of wanting to stop bullying/drug use, etc. However, I think that the decision of whether things are bad enough at DHS that they warrant such an extensive intrusion into privacy needs to be make closer to home. Will there be cameras in the bathrooms? Who will be surveying children using the bathroom? Female personnel for females and males for males? Do the people surveying need to have a background check so make sure that they aren’t creeps?
All of this stuff should properly be dropped down to the DHS SLT. In fact the way I read CSD’s charter, it is required to be passed to the SLTs.
I believe it’s against the law to install cameras in bathrooms.
Yes, that does violate federal law. My teacher friend tells me that in Dekalb schools, thet are placed in the hallway, watching the door. I am on my way to the Square to celebrate our independance!
Can we please not blow this out of proportion when it comes to “Big Brother” watching? I’ve taught at many high schools over the years in DeKalb, Gwinnett and Atlanta, and Decatur is WOEFULLY behind in terms of the amount of security cameras it currently has – even with the 50 we’ll be getting. I’m a DHS parent and I welcome this new addition. DHS already has security cameras and a system, but it is extremely antiquated and definitely in need of upgrading. And when you think about all the entrances at DHS that need to be covered, 50 cameras is not much (remember we’ve got two new huge buildings coming on line with the new gym and auditorum this Fall). These security systems are more about keeping the “bad” folks out than monitoring our kids during the school day. These systems really do help to identify culprits who try to vandalize schools after hours. I’ve seen it catch many a thief where I work.
Who exactly is blowing this out of proportion? If a camera is following your every move–your EVERY move–how do you feel throughout your day? If someone puts up 15 foot fences around a building you are forced to go to everyday–how would you feel every day? Encroachment has its effect on people–particularly adolescents that already feel self-conscious. What happens when they begin acting the way they are treated?
It sounds to me like much of the animosity is coming from where the cameras would be located and whether they would be actively monitored. And we currently don’t know either…perhaps someone at DHS could fill us in? That would deal with some of the concern and at least prevent people from thinking that the cameras would be located in bathrooms. What if these are just entrance and outdoor perimeter cameras? Then would it be as big a deal?
Aren’t there already cameras all over our cities?
Oh, and cameras may record your every move, but no one is “watching you”. We just aren’t as interesting as the people in crime dramas.
Good point, DM. Here’s how it’s worked in all the high schools I’ve worked. Most of the cameras are pointed to the entrances/exits and on all sides of the buildings and parking lots (and no, you legally can’t put them in the bathrooms) and down long, busy hallways.
There is no “Big Brother” watching all the cameras at all times throughout the day – no school system has the resources to pay someone to do that and DHS is no exception. The footage from the cameras are recorded and stored for about 30 days. IF there was an incident that was reported or something was stolen or the building was vandalized or broken into, then the appropriate camera footage from that particular day would be reviewed to assist with the investigation.
I was the beneficiary of this on two occasions as someone broke into my science lab and destroyed it. They caught the culprits (an opposing gang from another school) thanks to the outside surveillance cameras. Another time, my car was broken into, and they caught the guy who did it (it wasn’t a student).
With these new DHS buildings coming online that we’ve spent a few million on (plus our new stadium), I think it would be irresponsible of our system NOT to protect its newest investment AT NO COST TO THE TAXPAYER!!