Kyron's Law

[citigirl]

I really agree, BUT I live in California. Our schools are very open. They are often built with unconnected buildings and open walkways. Students, even elementary students, walk outside of the classroom to a restroom down the walkway.

I've always thought having cameras at the entrances would be a discourage unwanted behaviors, but these cameras could not prevent someone from entering over a fence, etc. Cameras would make our schools safer, but not intruder proof.

However, unless someone was hired to watch the cameras constantly, these cameras would be merely a reference to check on intrusions, etc. Considering the fact that we still don't have a budget for this year and the state is in the red, I don't think having an employee to just watch video feed would be viable. MOO

We have cameras in my school, and it's not necessary to monitor them all the time. The tape is running constantly, so we can go back and look at footage in a certain area at a certain time. That might be enough to detract many people from committing a crime in sight of a camera. And a perp would never know when someone is watching live.

 

[bessie]

I'm opposed to the widespread use of surveillance systems, particularly in the public sector, except where there is an advanced need for heightened security. At this time, schools don't fall into that realm. While the reasoning is sound -- in the interest of protecting children, no measures are too extreme -- I can't support this effort. I see it as an issue that should be decided at a local level, where individual communities choose whether or not to allow electronic surveillance in their schools. A federal law mandating the practice only furthers government's encroachment on our privacy, which already seems to be inching its way closer to our homes.

I also wonder what would be the practical effect of all these cameras. Would it ease the responsibilities of school employees? Cause them to be less vigilant? Encourage complacency? Would parents begin to take for granted their child's safety while in school? Most definitely. So many parents already deny the risk factors that threaten children because they're either too selfish or lazy to take the necessary steps to protect them. This law would give them one more reason to shuck their responsibility. Likewise for many weary teachers.

A better use of federal funds would be mandatory security training for school employees and parents to be completed at least once every two years. Ideally, it would include instruction on the dangers, best practices to safeguard against them, and non-threatening methods to teach children to protect themselves. The added bonus would be armor that children carry with them beyond the schoolgrounds. I realize that many schools do implement some form of safety instruction for kids, but what are the standards? How often are parents included? A half-day intensive seminar with supplemental classroom materials offered at a few different times in the first few weeks of each school year would place the responsibility back where it belongs, in the hands of the adults who are entrusted with the welfare of our children.

 

[Melanie]

I couldn't read it -- the site asked for my e-mail addy and birthdate. It doesn't say it's a secure site, or that my e-mail address wouldn't be sold. Is there another place I can read it?

Mel

 

[Melanie]

I really agree, BUT I live in California. Our schools are very open. They are often built with unconnected buildings and open walkways. Students, even elementary students, walk outside of the classroom to a restroom down the walkway.

I've always thought having cameras at the entrances would be a discourage unwanted behaviors, but these cameras could not prevent someone from entering over a fence, etc. Cameras would make our schools safer, but not intruder proof.

However, unless someone was hired to watch the cameras constantly, these cameras would be merely a reference to check on intrusions, etc. Considering the fact that we still don't have a budget for this year and the state is in the red, I don't think having an employee to just watch video feed would be viable. MOO

You're right -California would be a no-go. We (the parents) just had to raise $500.00 for an 8th grade class to have ceramic class supplies. They send home notices they can't afford tissues for flu season. To think we'd ever get a camera system is really wishful thinking

Mel

 

[Tink56]

We have cameras in my school, and it's not necessary to monitor them all the time. The tape is running constantly, so we can go back and look at footage in a certain area at a certain time. That might be enough to detract many people from committing a crime in sight of a camera. And a perp would never know when someone is watching live.

The monitoring comment was in response to another poster who said someone could be watching and prevent issues. That's not going to happen in California.

I agree that this could be a deterrent. I'm sure all schools are moving in that direction, especially as the cost of cameras, etc. becomes more reasonable. In a secondary school it would still be very expensive and not 100% effective.

I teach on the secondary level. When I'm working in my room on Sunday evenings, about the time kids remember they have homework, I can watch dozens of kids vaulting the fences, using over-turned trash receptacles as ladders or a boost from a friend, and they merrily traipse to their lockers. Later, they simply leave through the gates, which can be opened from the inside, and admit others also needing something from their lockers.

If someone wants to get in, there will be a way. (BTW, I counted the gates, etc.--at least 10 primary gates exist; and, of course, the public and the students have access to tennis courts, handball courts, the stadium, the practice fields, Performing Arts Center at almost all times. These areas have fences of varying reliability.)

The cameras would help deter crime, but not completely abolish it. And, to reiterate and confirm, schools and teachers are begging for necessary supplies. I've already spent over $400 this year. My spouse keeps reminding to either get receipts or we may need to become a 403C charity ourselves.

 

[ThoughtFox]

I was thinking about this today and came to a conclusion, at least for my own state.

In Tennessee, especially in rural counties that don't have much money, if they make surveillance mandatory the first thing they'll do is try to find the cheapest system possible and the least amount of cameras possible. The tapes will end up as grainy as some of the Wal Mart surveillance you see sometimes on Crime Stoppers.

There is no way in most states that there will ever be surveillance in every classroom, hallway, and doorway. Whatever room or door they choose, a crime will happen somewhere else.

I knew a Middle School boy who was jumped in a bathroom stall and his money taken (thank goodness that was all that happened to him). But there won't ever be any cameras in school restrooms - not like in Casinos.

At least we have cameras on most school buses now, but only in the front. There is just no way that we can cover every evil thing anyone chooses to do to children - not unless mini-cams are installed in their foreheads. :twocents:

 

[Ada Wong]

Upon reading the question asked by the first post in this topic, my only reaction was to shudder in horror. No, my goodness no, surveillance systems should not become mandatory for any schools! So many American children are already contemptuous of school because of its feeling like a prison, and adding constant surveillance is certainly not going to help matters on that front. Many American schools already force students to come through metal detectors on their way in, because of a fear someone might be carrying a knife or a gun; these same students encounter police officers within their schools, because it's possible that someone is going to become overly violent or market illegal drugs; and they are then forced into a system that assumes a solitary solution will work for every individual, because it's considered too difficult to create a system that's conducive to everyone’s needs.

It’s best to remember that instances of extreme violence, drug dealing, and other severe illegalities are incredibly rare among schoolchildren. It is equally important to remember that outsiders causing violence, drug dealing, and other severe illegalities within schools is even rarer! Even in light of a case like Kyron Horman’s, a case which I can tell has affected a great many of us on an emotional level, it is absolutely crucial that we remember that sacrificing our children’s freedoms for the idea of security is a foolish ideal.

Yes, surveillance cameras may have at least briefly stopped Kyron Horman’s disappearance, and they may have prevented or lessened the impact of other tragedies that have taken place at schools, but an extreme tightening of security will only serve to make children more and more uncomfortable in what is intended to be a joyous learning environment. This type of discomfort leads to anxiety, it leads to fear, and it leads to a non-enjoyment or even outright contempt of the educational process in its entirety. I, for one, would rather contend with an extremely low risk placed upon any child’s safety than be faced with the near certainty that she or he will see education as a nerve-racking and distinctly unenjoyable experience.

Schools should be places where children can learn to their heart’s content. And we must remember that their heart’s content is a great deal, for children are generally extremely curious creatures who carry a voracious appetite for knowledge. They should absolutely never feel like something has in any manner quashed their personal liberty or served to limit the potential of their intellect. It may have come to him more than two-hundred years ago, but Benjamin Franklin got it absolutely right when he wrote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

If anything qualifies as the most essential of liberties, it is humankind’s indefeasible right to education and the learning process. Surveillance systems would only provide a temporary illusion of safety for our children and the children of others. It is an unfortunate fact that those who would commit predatory acts are always seeking the most convenient avenues of perpetrating them. They will occasionally, despite the best of our efforts, succeed in their attempts. It is our duty as human beings to see to it that newer and non-intrusive ways can be found to limit their successes, but it is never our responsibility to diminish a child’s freedoms for the sole purpose of possibly defending them from oft imagined monsters. Children are not only children, they too are human beings, and they deserve the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that all of us share.

 

[sorrell skye]

IMO, it might be helpful to examine the efficacy of video surveillance (as a possible deterrent to crime) in communities where CCTV has been implemented (as well as its alleged influence on reducing or affecting crime rates in those communities).

The following snippets are from two different articles that have offered commentary on the issue as it pertains to CCTV & crime in the UK.

Massive investment in CCTV cameras to prevent crime in the UK has failed to have a significant impact, despite billions of pounds spent on the new technology, a senior police officer piloting a new database has warned. Only 3% of street robberies in London were solved using CCTV images, despite the fact that Britain has more security cameras than any other country in Europe. (source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1)

A comparison of the number of cameras in each London borough with the proportion of crimes solved there found that police are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any.

In fact, four out of five of the boroughs with the most cameras have a record of solving crime that is below average. (source: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...s-of-cctv-cameras-yet-80-of-crime-unsolved.do)

 

[eponabri]

When my kids were in school, we had parent volunteers who called parents within an hour after roll was taken in each class room, to ask if the student was truly home from school and was ill. We wrote down what time the call was placed, with parent or guardian we talked to, the reason for the absence. We called home, the parent's work place, a back up person (neighbor or family member). This was done at all elementary, middle schools and high schools. I'm amazed that all schools don't do this. My last job was as a Parent Liaison for the school district and one of my chores was to find parent volunteers to help with this.

 

[just]

http://thekyronhormanpetition.ning.com/

This petition is for Kryon Horman and for every child NATION WIDE to be provided SAFETY AND SECURITY. No child should ever be put in a position where their safety is put to the test and left in question.

This petition is for everyone to join together and make it mandatory that every school should have a survalence system and provide a system of security for every student/child attending. <snipped from FB site to explain what this is about>

Do you agree that every school should be required to have a surveillance system? And should it be called "Kyron's Law"?

I think surveillance would be great for more than random kidnappings (which I think are almost non-existent from schools?), but for drugs and fights and other crimes. If you talk to police, they will tell you that young criminals go to schools to 'meet up' and do drugs, fight, bully and beat up other kids, vandalize, etc. Schools have always been a gathering spot for criminals and surveillance equipment would save thousands, I believe, in repairs and catch countless druggie/assault criminals.

 

[bessie]

When my kids were in school, we had parent volunteers who called parents within an hour after roll was taken in each class room, to ask if the student was truly home from school and was ill. We wrote down what time the call was placed, with parent or guardian we talked to, the reason for the absence. We called home, the parent's work place, a back up person (neighbor or family member). This was done at all elementary, middle schools and high schools. I'm amazed that all schools don't do this. My last job was as a Parent Liaison for the school district and one of my chores was to find parent volunteers to help with this.

We followed a similar protocol when my son was in elementary school. A core group of parent volunteers was on the school premises from 8-5, Mon-Fri, working in the office, assisting in classrooms, monitoring the halls, and patrolling the premises. We freed the teachers to do their job of teaching, and nothing slipped by us.

 

[TxLady2]

Security cameras don't deter criminals, they just make it easier for LE to identify the perp... most of the time.

 

[ami]

I'm opposed to the widespread use of surveillance systems, particularly in the public sector, except where there is an advanced need for heightened security. At this time, schools don't fall into that realm. While the reasoning is sound -- in the interest of protecting children, no measures are too extreme -- I can't support this effort. I see it as an issue that should be decided at a local level, where individual communities choose whether or not to allow electronic surveillance in their schools. A federal law mandating the practice only furthers government's encroachment on our privacy, which already seems to be inching its way closer to our homes.

I also wonder what would be the practical effect of all these cameras. Would it ease the responsibilities of school employees? Cause them to be less vigilant? Encourage complacency? Would parents begin to take for granted their child's safety while in school? Most definitely. So many parents already deny the risk factors that threaten children because they're either too selfish or lazy to take the necessary steps to protect them. This law would give them one more reason to shuck their responsibility. Likewise for many weary teachers.

A better use of federal funds would be mandatory security training for school employees and parents to be completed at least once every two years. Ideally, it would include instruction on the dangers, best practices to safeguard against them, and non-threatening methods to teach children to protect themselves. The added bonus would be armor that children carry with them beyond the schoolgrounds. I realize that many schools do implement some form of safety instruction for kids, but what are the standards? How often are parents included? A half-day intensive seminar with supplemental classroom materials offered at a few different times in the first few weeks of each school year would place the responsibility back where it belongs, in the hands of the adults who are entrusted with the welfare of our children.

I really like the idea (BBM). On the other hand, I have a teenager and I know that although she's been instructed from day 1 about strangers, what to do if someone should approach you, emergency words to use if you're in a situation you can't handle and need help, code words to use if someone who is not a parent claims to be there to pick you up because a parent cannot be there, what to do if a car approaches, or someone grabs you, or someone offers you drugs.... there has been so much instruction about this that your average child is just inundated and overwhelmed. "I know, I know, stop drop and roll, scream fire, look both ways, just say no, run away, find a police officer, dial 911, 15 and 2, code word: grapefruit, that's a bad touch..." I can't imagine what more one could do to help a child protect themselves these days.

However I do really support the idea for the teachers, administrators, bus drivers, etc to have increased security training. Making the schools safer doesn't necessarily have to mean security video but good security practices. I don't know exactly what those are, but surely they can borrow from other places in need of good security (no, not prisons, more like companies with sensitive information or restricted access to certain departments).

What would have helped Kyron? Would cameras have 'seen' the moment he was spirited away? Would they have at least time stamped the last sighting of him? Would they have deterred someone from doing something to him on the school grounds? Early reporting of his absence at 10am - would that have helped? I don't know if any of those things could have saved him.

Upon reading the question asked by the first post in this topic, my only reaction was to shudder in horror. No, my goodness no, surveillance systems should not become mandatory for any schools! So many American children are already contemptuous of school because of its feeling like a prison, and adding constant surveillance is certainly not going to help matters on that front. Many American schools already force students to come through metal detectors on their way in, because of a fear someone might be carrying a knife or a gun; these same students encounter police officers within their schools, because it's possible that someone is going to become overly violent or market illegal drugs; and they are then forced into a system that assumes a solitary solution will work for every individual, because it's considered too difficult to create a system that's conducive to everyone’s needs.

It’s best to remember that instances of extreme violence, drug dealing, and other severe illegalities are incredibly rare among schoolchildren. It is equally important to remember that outsiders causing violence, drug dealing, and other severe illegalities within schools is even rarer! Even in light of a case like Kyron Horman’s, a case which I can tell has affected a great many of us on an emotional level, it is absolutely crucial that we remember that sacrificing our children’s freedoms for the idea of security is a foolish ideal.

Yes, surveillance cameras may have at least briefly stopped Kyron Horman’s disappearance, and they may have prevented or lessened the impact of other tragedies that have taken place at schools, but an extreme tightening of security will only serve to make children more and more uncomfortable in what is intended to be a joyous learning environment. This type of discomfort leads to anxiety, it leads to fear, and it leads to a non-enjoyment or even outright contempt of the educational process in its entirety. I, for one, would rather contend with an extremely low risk placed upon any child’s safety than be faced with the near certainty that she or he will see education as a nerve-racking and distinctly unenjoyable experience.

Schools should be places where children can learn to their heart’s content. And we must remember that their heart’s content is a great deal, for children are generally extremely curious creatures who carry a voracious appetite for knowledge. They should absolutely never feel like something has in any manner quashed their personal liberty or served to limit the potential of their intellect. It may have come to him more than two-hundred years ago, but Benjamin Franklin got it absolutely right when he wrote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

If anything qualifies as the most essential of liberties, it is humankind’s indefeasible right to education and the learning process. Surveillance systems would only provide a temporary illusion of safety for our children and the children of others. It is an unfortunate fact that those who would commit predatory acts are always seeking the most convenient avenues of perpetrating them. They will occasionally, despite the best of our efforts, succeed in their attempts. It is our duty as human beings to see to it that newer and non-intrusive ways can be found to limit their successes, but it is never our responsibility to diminish a child’s freedoms for the sole purpose of possibly defending them from oft imagined monsters. Children are not only children, they too are human beings, and they deserve the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that all of us share.

I really appreciate your post, but disagree with the bolded portion. Kids do bring knives and other weapons into schools and threaten each other with them, they just do. My teen is at a very good, very safe HS with no metal detectors. She saw a boy flashing a hunting knife to his friends in class. When this was reported by another student in the class, they went into a "lock down mode" where students are locked in their classrooms and huddled away from the sightline of the door and police are called. A whole school day gone. Bullying is rampant, kids getting pushed into lockers - forget 'the joy of learning' when you're afraid to walk down the hall. My teen fees much safer now that they have security guards in her school. The uniforms scare the bullies and good kids like my daughter can walk in peace now. I think the collective stress level went down 4 or 5 notches. Saves the teachers from needing to be "security" as well -- in our district it has worked out well for all of us. (we don't have metal detectors though and as far as I know, no one wants them)

 

[cluciano63]

My only question is...if security cameras are made to be a requirement...what goes? Something always goes...

Seems to me that each community could do fund raisers for cameras in their schools or work with a local business owner to donate the equipment or provide it at cost. I hate to see new laws for everything. Kyron's situation is so rare, so unique, we have to really do some digging to find other cases, where it is not custodial. In those cases, LE knows who has the child, so cameras are not the answer. And the only help that cameras at Skyline would have provided is possibly knowing when and with whom Kyron left-yes, that is a lot, but it probably would not have changed the outcome.

 

[Sly Scorpio]

I am all for anything that protects our children, even an idea that might up the safety factor although it may not be realistic. I'm not sure if internet petitions work but I signed it. I was raised by a cop, I'm paranoid, and I will have my children wear gps anklets. So I say, if they can find the funding, go for it. Florida's lottery money is supposed to go to schools, most of them should already have them here anyway-- even though none of my local schools do.

 

[Ada Wong]

I really appreciate your post, but disagree with the bolded portion. Kids do bring knives and other weapons into schools and threaten each other with them, they just do. My teen is at a very good, very safe HS with no metal detectors. She saw a boy flashing a hunting knife to his friends in class. When this was reported by another student in the class, they went into a "lock down mode" where students are locked in their classrooms and huddled away from the sightline of the door and police are called. A whole school day gone. Bullying is rampant, kids getting pushed into lockers - forget 'the joy of learning' when you're afraid to walk down the hall. My teen fees much safer now that they have security guards in her school. The uniforms scare the bullies and good kids like my daughter can walk in peace now. I think the collective stress level went down 4 or 5 notches. Saves the teachers from needing to be "security" as well -- in our district it has worked out well for all of us. (we don't have metal detectors though and as far as I know, no one wants them)

I'm sorry to be so dismissive, but this is a classic argument from hasty generalization. You're using a solitary experience, your daughter seeing another child carrying a hunting knife, and using that to make a judgment that children frequently bring knives and weapons to school and use them for intimidation or violent purposes.

I'm sincerely apologetic for your daughter's unfortunate experience at her school, but a solitary occurrence does not justify the generalization you've reached. There are also a number of unanswered questions. For instance, why did the boy bring the knife to school? Was he simply making a poor decision about where to try showing off his hunting knife to a friend, or was he actually intent on using it for some violent purpose at school that day or in the future?

If it was the former, he should certainly be taught to have more common sense regarding his hunting implements, and he likely should have been removed from school for that day, but it's hardly something that should have facilitated a full lockdown environment. If the boy was cooperative and non-violent, the biggest problem in the scenario is a gigantic overreaction by the school itself.

If extra security has worked out well for your daughter and her school, that's absolutely great! However, this doesn't mean or even remotely imply that the same procedures are or would be effective in other schools. I stress that my statements are not solely my own opinion. Views from psychologists, cognitive scientists, and children themselves have tended toward suggesting that many school practices, including overbearing safety procedures, are distracting from and sometimes directly harmful to education as a whole.

 

[just]

Security cameras don't deter criminals, they just make it easier for LE to identify the perp... most of the time.

Imagine if there is (or can be) a company that sets up security cameras all around schools and monitors them real-time. You better believe it would deter crime. The moment the spray paint can comes out, 5-0 would be on it. And even if there weren't real time monitoring, signs all around the schools that say "Surveillance Cameras" or whatever they say would absolutely deter teens/gangstas from hooking up there.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I really appreciate your post, but disagree with the bolded portion. Kids do bring knives and other weapons into schools and threaten each other with them, they just do. My teen is at a very good, very safe HS with no metal detectors. She saw a boy flashing a hunting knife to his friends in class. When this was reported by another student in the class, they went into a "lock down mode" where students are locked in their classrooms and huddled away from the sightline of the door and police are called. A whole school day gone. Bullying is rampant, kids getting pushed into lockers - forget 'the joy of learning' when you're afraid to walk down the hall. My teen fees much safer now that they have security guards in her school. The uniforms scare the bullies and good kids like my daughter can walk in peace now. I think the collective stress level went down 4 or 5 notches. Saves the teachers from needing to be "security" as well -- in our district it has worked out well for all of us. (we don't have metal detectors though and as far as I know, no one wants them)

In 2006, we had a lockdown at my high school because someone called in threatening to shoot up the school. We all had to stay in our homerooms for about 3-4 hours while the police searched everyone's locker. There was an announcement made that there was NOTHING illegal found in anyone's locker--no guns, knives, drugs, etc. My school is ranked a 6 on greatschools.org so it's not one of the premier schools either. I don't think it's right to make the assumption that schools are filled with students carrying weapons.

 

[EmmilieCaterham]

While the school should have had a better call system in place regarding absenteeism and notifying the parents of absences; while I agree that all children should feel/be safe in school, I am not sure I support mandatory security cameras in all schools. Show me actual statistics first.
I think the school is being unfairly targeted in that, had Terri not carried out her plan the way she did, she would have disappeared Kyron differently had she known and had Skyline had a security system ie cameras in place. I would really hate to see Skyline have to settle a lawsuit for something that Terri clearly manipulated and unfairly put the school in the center of.

I don't think we need to meet a requirement of statistics for children like Kyron who come up missing from school. I think one life taken is one life too many! I think surveillance should be mandated to ensure the safety of it's students. This will also help reduce other problem areas in school such as violence, theft, drug deals, and vandalism.

Emmilie Caterham
Kyron's Law-School Safety & Prevention Act

 

[ami]

I'm sorry to be so dismissive, but this is a classic argument from hasty generalization. You're using a solitary experience, your daughter seeing another child carrying a hunting knife, and using that to make a judgment that children frequently bring knives and weapons to school and use them for intimidation or violent purposes.

I'm sincerely apologetic for your daughter's unfortunate experience at her school, but a solitary occurrence does not justify the generalization you've reached. There are also a number of unanswered questions. For instance, why did the boy bring the knife to school? Was he simply making a poor decision about where to try showing off his hunting knife to a friend, or was he actually intent on using it for some violent purpose at school that day or in the future?

If it was the former, he should certainly be taught to have more common sense regarding his hunting implements, and he likely should have been removed from school for that day, but it's hardly something that should have facilitated a full lockdown environment. If the boy was cooperative and non-violent, the biggest problem in the scenario is a gigantic overreaction by the school itself.

If extra security has worked out well for your daughter and her school, that's absolutely great! However, this doesn't mean or even remotely imply that the same procedures are or would be effective in other schools. I stress that my statements are not solely my own opinion. Views from psychologists, cognitive scientists, and children themselves have tended toward suggesting that many school practices, including overbearing safety procedures, are distracting from and sometimes directly harmful to education as a whole.

Wow, old post I missed. The statistics show that kids are bringing knives, etc., to school, even as young as kindergarten age, and increasing in numbers in the last decade. Not my single anecdote, not your experience or anyone's single experience about what someone found or didn't find when searching an individual school locker, but data compiled by teachers and administrators in schools across the nation. Especially with the advent of anti-bullying laws, there are many, many studies now published and available that identify specific practices that have been successful and unsuccessful in schools across the country. And this does imply quite strongly that certain security measures are effective in schools - my own anecdote was one small illustration.

The bolded portion: depends on what "overbearing" means. Cameras? Can't see how they would distract students, nor security guards who are responsible for checking the pass status of children in the hall or as they leave the building outside normal hours. Kids in class don't come in contact with either.

The lock down I described was an illustration of a security procedure that took away from the child's education and I used it to illustrate that specific fact.