Schools and Photography

[mwfanelli2]

I don't mean photography classes! Several students were taking cell phone pictures in a classroom, sending fellow students up to the teacher to distract her attention. These photos were then posted on the internet.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...2?OpenDocument

The student's lawyers are claiming a "first amendment right" to take all the photos they want (sounds very dubious to me). On the other hand, states and the federal goverment have very strict privacy rules for schools. I can't even take photos of my students in the lab without written permission from each one.

In my classes, I banned all cell phone use after a couple of students were caught taking photos when they thought I wasn't looking. Now, if I hear or see a cell phone, that student is kicked out of the class regardless of reason.

What do y'all think?

[walterick]

Wow, Michael, this is almost a 180 degree turn for you. You are traditionally very "anti-interference." Now it seems you are supporting efforts to erode people's rights, in the name of order and convenience. Do explain

[another view]

Wow, Michael, this is almost a 180 degree turn for you. You are traditionally very "anti-interference." Now it seems you are supporting efforts to erode people's rights, in the name of order and convenience. Do explain

First thing I thought of too!

I'm more middle of the road and do agree with Michael on this. Classrooms are for learning, not distractions. I can't think of any productive reason for someone doing anything with one during class. Twenty-something years ago, the class clown decided to take a picture of the blackboard rather than taking a bunch of notes (like the rest of us had been doing). It was funny because it was unusual, but it blew the train of thought. Not that I was the greatest student or anything...

[SmartWombat]

This is the electronic version of sending notes around the class, instead of paying attention.
Sounds even more disruptive.
Unless they have phasers set to stun - sorry ringer to silent.

Now taking photographs of the board, so you don't have to take notes, is a clever idea.
Until you think about the repetition involved in listening, simultaneously forming a precis, writing that, then re-reading. All of which helps you to learn - which is what you ought to be doing.

It's always been a constant battle of wits between the kids, who think it's great fun not to learn and better to play, and the teachers who have to try to get some knowledge in there during the lesson.

This is just technology changing the rules of that game.
Tempest would fix it
But it's a little expensive.

[mwfanelli2]

Wow, Michael, this is almost a 180 degree turn for you. You are traditionally very "anti-interference." Now it seems you are supporting efforts to erode people's rights, in the name of order and convenience. Do explain

LOL! No, its not. Taking photos of students and instructors without their permission in a classroom goes beyond the student's rights to act: they interfere with the rights of others to privacy. I believe that people have a valid expectation of privacy in a classroom. If it took place in a public park, for example, I'd have no problem with it.

[SmartWombat]

Isn't the classroom not a public place?
I seem to remember US laws on private (school board?) property are different.
Not that the law is the right way to handle it.
That's a real sledgehammer and peanut scenario.

[zrfraser]

Well it depends on what the handbook says. If the handbook says anything about taking photos then there might be something. However, if nothing is in the hand book then the school has no leg the stand on. Alos, the device has to be clearly defined. A cell phone simply isn't a cell phone anymore. Its a camera, mp3 player, internet browser. If its not clearly defined then that could be a problem. I also fail to see what the big deal is. Some students took very poor photos of the teacher. She wasn't doing anything she shouldn't have been so there is no slander case, they were not sexual in nature, so its not porn shot by a minor. Its kids being dumb with a cell phone. Who hasn't tried wasting a teachers time in the classroom (I was a teacher for a year).

Z

[SmartWombat]

Someone has too much MONEY to play with - do you know what First Amendment lawyers cost?
Do you know how hard it is to get one? When they're not doing big corporate cases that is.
Or someone is bankrolling the family's suit to make a political point.
I doubt this would be considered a pro bono case, but it may be.


This seems a huge waste of money from the school/government's budget to defend the case.
Not something they have a choice about though.
Hm your tax dollars at work, huh?
That family's tax dollars at work.
They're indirectly paying to defend their school against themselves.
Gives me a headache thinking about that one.

Unfortunately that's something that's come across the pond (thanks guys) the litigious culture.


http://www.thompsoncoburn.com/Firm_I...esumes/328.pdf
Doesn't mention First Amendment law as a specialty.
It does mention an amicus brief [sic] and a quick google reveals "Amicus Curiae briefs are filed in many Supreme Court matters ... Some organizations file friend of the court briefs in an attempt to "lobby" the Supreme Court, obtain media attention, or impress members."
I think it's his experience of Internet and Communications cases that's relevant.

[mwfanelli2]

Isn't the classroom not a public place?
I seem to remember US laws on private (school board?) property are different.
Not that the law is the right way to handle it.
That's a real sledgehammer and peanut scenario.

Well, a public school is sort of a public place. But what the law requires (I got my law degree from watching TV shows) is whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. You just don't expect to be photographed without your knowledge while on school grounds.

Handbooks can not possibly cover every situation. I don't have to have a specific rule for every electronic device known to mankind listed specifically. Every school I have ever been in does state that no cell phones are to be turned on while on school grounds. I doubt very much it has to list all the accessories that each cell phone has.

It doesn't matter what the subject matter is. Whether it is harmless images as in the high school case or, as in my class, guys taking secret photos of females in the class, it is wrong. Your rights stop when they infringe on mine.

Privacy laws governing schools are very strict. I am prohibited from talking to anyone, even parents, about a students grades or class performance. This includes the underage kids I sometimes get. I can't let students see the grades of others. I can't discuss a student's standing in the class when other students can hear me. To get around these rules, I need WRITTEN permission from the student with a detailed outline of what they will and will not allow.

[livin4lax09]

what about students drawing pictures of their profs?

[SmartWombat]

Drawing?
Like sketching unflattering caricatures in the margins of the notes?
Hardly disrupting, doesn't need assistance to distract the teacher.
Also doesn't get published on the internet I suspect.
Doesn't seem to be in the same class (pardon the pun)

[MJS]

I make them check their phones at the door and get them afterwards. One of our teachers caught them forwarding answers to a test via messenger, they have since chosen to withdraw from class.

[SmartWombat]

While I was at school, there were calculators with primitive wireless messaging capabilities, those were specifically banned form exams, but not from the classroom.
They were so expensive that we never had problems, but they wanted the exam procedure watertight.

[shutterman]

There are quite a few cases of kids testing the 1st amemdment...

The following is a ruling based not the kid who made the "bong hits for Jesus" banner..

"Our cases make clear that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 506 (1969). At the same time, we have held that "the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings," Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675, 682 (1986), and that the rights of students "must be 'applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.' " Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S. 260, 266 (1988). Consistent with these principles, we hold that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use. We conclude that the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it."

so you can see that free speech as most people think it exists doesn't apply to schools.

thanks,
Wes

[another view]

Public schools are public places, but just like a military base or goverment agency I (as a citizen, not teacher, student or employee) can't just walk in and do whatever I want. That's how it should be (IMO) for safety, security and privacy. I agree with what Paul said, seems like a huge waste of budget for the school board.

[Frog]

I know of no reason why a kid needs a cell phone at school, period.
I hate cell phones!

[mn shutterbug]

I know of no reason why a kid needs a cell phone at school, period.
I hate cell phones!

I agree, except that I need my cell phone. Kid's don't.

[livin4lax09]

Drawing?
Like sketching unflattering caricatures in the margins of the notes?
Hardly disrupting, doesn't need assistance to distract the teacher.
Also doesn't get published on the internet I suspect.
Doesn't seem to be in the same class (pardon the pun)

the idea I got from the article is that the main problem was that the pictures were posted on facebook. Reading it over, it seems that this was not the only problem, as you mentioned, because of the distraction, but it also doesnt seem like it was much of a distraction, as she was just talking to students. I have to wonder if they would face the same problem if there hadnt been a distraction, they just took the photo. Or, if there would be the same problem if it hadnt ended up on facebook. The problem I saw was the image of someone going on a public website. And in THAT case, it shouldnt matter whether it's a drawing or a photograph. but it probably would have, I can't see anyone punishing someone over drawing. This is the problem I see in our world today...Photographers are now being under suspicion for taking photos in cities, but an artist can sit outside drawing a building (which could be achieving the same thing for terrorism) and not even be questioned.


I don't see a problem with students having cell-phones in the classroom as long as they are respectful enough to not use them during class and they are on silent. I personally turn my phone on silent every time I walk into a classroom, and only take it out of my pocket to check the time. But I know a lot of students who text during class, and I just find that disrespectful. I guess it just comes down to maturity, which most of the population (especially nowadays, with these young'ns who are obsessed with texting) don't have, because they fail to realize how disrespectful they are being.

[Medley]

I guess it just comes down to maturity, which most of the population (especially nowadays, with these young'ns who are obsessed with texting) don't have, because they fail to realize how disrespectful they are being.

And that's a big part of the problem, Brent. A policy of "no cell phones in the classroom, unless you are respectful" has holes big enough to drive a semi through- legally speaking.
So the policies tend to the extremes- no phones at all, or fair for everyone.

So I understand the positon of the UW law prof. There was nothing illegal in the student's actions. So the question becomes "did the student violate school policy?". If so, then the discipline is justified. However, if the answer is "yes", then the next request from the student's lawyer should reasonably be, "OK, show me the policy that states his actions weren't allowed."

I'm guessing that the school has no such policy. I think that if it did, the superintendant would be quoting it chapter and verse.

So if I were a betting man, I'd wager that the school loses the suit, but creates a clearly defined policy regarding cameras in the classroom as a result.

- Joe U.

[mn shutterbug]

Just give me 1 good reason why a student should "need" a cell phone in school. If there is a home emergency, parents can call the school, just like in the "good old days". Anything else can wait.

[Medley]

Having Googled this story and read up on it, I now understand the argument a bit better.

The school has no policy on cameras in the classroom. It does, however, have a policy against creating distractions in the classroom. That is the policy that young Logan is being disciplined for breaking.

The lawsuit contends that no one was aware that the photos had been taken until they were discovered online, so the distraction was created when then photos were posted to the web. This was done at the Logan residence, from a privately owned computer, and the district has no jurisdiction to discipline it.

So assuming that Mr. Sableman is correct in stating that prior case law supports that position, the case will hinge on which action caused the disruption- taking the photos or posting them to the internet.

I believe that two questions are all that is neccessary to decide this:

1) If Logan had taken the photos, but had not posted them to the internet, would a similar disruption likely have occured?

2) If logan had taken similar photos of the teacher outside of the classroom, perhaps even off school grounds, and posted them to the internet, would a similar disruption likely have occured?

The school district wouldn't want me to be on this jury. My money is still on the plaintiffs.

- Joe U.

[MJS]

I have great fun catching cell phone users in the class. Of the 10 editing workstations in my classroom/studio, one has a really cheap pair of speakers with bad shielding. We have no problem picking up EMI or electro magnetic interference from any cell phone being illegally used in class. It ends up being a demonstration and a confiscation at the same time. They learn a valuable lesson about well constructed cables and a lesson in civility at the same time.

[livin4lax09]

Just give me 1 good reason why a student should "need" a cell phone in school. If there is a home emergency, parents can call the school, just like in the "good old days". Anything else can wait.

what if we're talking about college students?

[mn shutterbug]

what if we're talking about college students?

Same thing. Why would they need a cell phone in class? They can have a phone, but turned off, and then between classes, turn it on to check their messages, and then shut it off again.

[mwfanelli2]

what if we're talking about college students?

My students are college kids! After the incident in my classroom, all cell phones are now required to be shut off during class. However, students are free to come and go as they like. So, if they have some "urgent" call to make, they can do it in the hallway or during a break.