 |
The Surveillance Curriculum: Risk Management and Social Control in the Neoliberal School
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
dying a violent death in school, “students are safer at school than they are in their own communities, in cars, and even in their own homes” (ACLU 2001). But one would be hard pressed to believe this fact given the increased media attention to school violence and the continuing investment of millions of dollars in school surveillance equipment. What might be even more surprising is that independent evaluations of video surveillance systems have found them to be entirely ineffectual at preventing violent crimes (Armitage 2002; Rice-Oxley 2004; Ditton, et al 1999), yet they continued to be funded at a record rate.
To say that surveillance systems are ineffectual at preventing violent
crimes, however, does not imply that they are without effects. The most profound results from surveillance in schools may be the integration of law enforcement functions into the everyday practices of individuals at schools and the subsequent rise of a culture of control that supplants other social or educational missions of public education. Currently, over 75% of all new schools are being equipped with video surveillance systems (Dillon 2003), and school districts are lobbying for funds from federal and state governments and from the private sector for surveillance in older schools. The most common school surveillance devices are digital or analog cameras for video recording, but others include metal detectors, ID cards, Internet tracking, biometrics, transparent lockers and book bags, electronic gates, and two-way radios.
Thus far, except for words of caution from civil liberties groups,
there has been almost no inquiry into the kinds of relationships being produced from this new amalgam of high-tech industry, law enforcement, and public education. By examining several recent high-profile cases, this article begins to probe these emergent relations and their wider implications. The argument advanced here is that surveillance systems operate as extensions of the neoliberal state, carving out new markets for high-tech companies and integrating police functions into the social worlds of public education. The mass media advance this process by presenting students as either victims or criminals who can be protected or controlled, respectively, by surveillance systems. As a result, criminalization and victimization become the primary experiences for students in public education. The Hummingbird’s Song: Biometrics in Public Schools In late 2003, the sheriff’s department of Maricopa County, Arizona installed a face-recognition surveillance system at the Royal Palm Middle School in Phoenix. As with other biometric systems, such as those based on fingerprinting or retinal scans, the primary objective is not to track the movements or activities of people, but instead to identify them (van der Ploeg 1999). Specifically, the data from face-scans at the middle school are transmitted straight to the sheriff’s department for immediate, automated comparison with national databases of sex offenders, child abductors, and missing children. Should a positive match be found, the sheriff will dispatch
2
|
| |
| |
|
|
dying a violent death in school, “students are safer at school than they are in
their own communities, in cars, and even in their own homes” (ACLU 2001).
But one would be hard pressed to believe this fact given the increased media
attention to school violence and the continuing investment of millions of
dollars in school surveillance equipment. What might be even more
surprising is that independent evaluations of video surveillance systems have
found them to be entirely ineffectual at preventing violent crimes (Armitage
2002; Rice-Oxley 2004; Ditton, et al 1999), yet they continued to be funded at
a record rate.
To say that surveillance systems are ineffectual at preventing violent
crimes, however, does not imply that they are without effects. The most
profound results from surveillance in schools may be the integration of law
enforcement functions into the everyday practices of individuals at schools
and the subsequent rise of a culture of control that supplants other social or
educational missions of public education. Currently, over 75% of all new
schools are being equipped with video surveillance systems (Dillon 2003), and
school districts are lobbying for funds from federal and state governments
and from the private sector for surveillance in older schools. The most
common school surveillance devices are digital or analog cameras for video
recording, but others include metal detectors, ID cards, Internet tracking,
biometrics, transparent lockers and book bags, electronic gates, and two-way
radios.
Thus far, except for words of caution from civil liberties groups,
there has been almost no inquiry into the kinds of relationships being
produced from this new amalgam of high-tech industry, law enforcement, and
public education. By examining several recent high-profile cases, this article
begins to probe these emergent relations and their wider implications. The
argument advanced here is that surveillance systems operate as extensions of
the neoliberal state, carving out new markets for high-tech companies and
integrating police functions into the social worlds of public education. The
mass media advance this process by presenting students as either victims or
criminals who can be protected or controlled, respectively, by surveillance
systems. As a result, criminalization and victimization become the primary
experiences for students in public education.
The Hummingbird’s Song: Biometrics in Public Schools
In late 2003, the sheriff’s department of Maricopa County, Arizona installed a
face-recognition surveillance system at the Royal Palm Middle School in
Phoenix. As with other biometric systems, such as those based on
fingerprinting or retinal scans, the primary objective is not to track the
movements or activities of people, but instead to identify them (van der Ploeg
1999). Specifically, the data from face-scans at the middle school are
transmitted straight to the sheriff’s department for immediate, automated
comparison with national databases of sex offenders, child abductors, and
missing children. Should a positive match be found, the sheriff will dispatch
2
|
|
 Convention | | Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events! | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
