Written by The A-Blast Staff
The FCPS Principals Association and the FCPS Department of Facilities and Transportation Services recently proposed a controversial addition to the county wide school security policy. These organizations proposed that the school board implement an increased installation of security cameras inside all FCPS high schools.
In light of the recent food fight “phenomenon” that swept across FCPS schools last year, such a proposal is understandable. Surprisingly however, the food fights of last year did not serve as the sole impetus of this proposal. AHS Principal Vincent Randazzo said that he was disappointed with the fact that the focus of such cameras seemed to rest solely on food fights.
However, if such a proposal is not based on last year’s phenomenon, then why do principals feel a need to increase the amount of security?
Surely, the policies that are currently in place that have been able to identify drug deals, violations of the honor code, and other forms of misconduct which aided in the recommendation for expulsion of 636 FCPS students in the 2009-2010 school year were enough. If this is the case, then there is no legitimate justification of such an implementation.
Simply, this proposal should not be implemented. Placing more cameras in high schools will foster a “Big Brother” environment. If cameras were to increase safety and security, then this idea would certainly be beneficial. In fact, a plan similar to this has been implemented in the past to no avail.
According to the Annandale Patch, the school board began a pilot surveillance program two years ago, in which cameras were installed in school lunch lines in order to deter theft. The school board discontinued the program after finding that the installment of the cameras did not deter the number of incidents of theft reported. In fact, AHS was a participant in this program.
Such results in a pilot test illustrate why these cameras will have a larger part in facilitating a police environment instead of serving as a measure to deter potential crimes committed by students.
These cameras are estimated to cost $120,000 per school. In a poor economy, should FCPS be spending $3.24 million to implement a program that sends students the wrong message?
Specific to AHS, it is important to understand that there are already a number of cameras in place in the exterior of the building. The 22 cameras serve as a way to monitor the happenings outside of the building. They are not necessarily a way to exclusively punish students, unlike the potential effects of the utilization of interior cameras.
Such cameras should not be uninstalled, since they act as a deterrent for crime committed by both students and adults in the vicinity of AHS.
“You should be able trust students with the number of cameras in place, and with the faculty watching them,” senior Danielle Turner said.
Certainly, increasing the number of cameras while keeping a consistent number of faculty monitoring students will not have the same effect as that of the exterior cameras, since there are no monitors outside of the building.
According to a week-long online poll, 81 percent of The A-Blast readers think that FCPS should not add more security cameras to schools. It seems clear that instead of putting money into intimidating students, those millions of dollars that would be spent on the cameras might be better used to teach students to not commit crimes in the first place.
“Our first priority is the safety and security of our students and staff,” Randazzo said. This point is certainly agreeable, and is the reason why this money might be better spent in preventative programs instead of punitive programs.
