Schools

Current School Board to Decide on Interior Cameras

Decision on cameras within schools to be made before incoming school board's term begins

With three regular meetings left before the newly elected Fairfax County School Board takes over, the current board has decided to keep the decision on allowing the use of cameras inside high schools in their own hands.

has been amended to allow each high school to decide whether cameras will be installed inside the school walls. It will not be a requirement. Also, elementary and middle schools are not a part of this proposal.

Though two board members — Sandy Evans (Mason) and Dan Storck (Mount Vernon) — suggested the board hold off the vote until after Jan. 1 when the new term begins, others said piling this issue on top of the other duties new members would have to deal with upon taking office would only run the risk of delaying the decision even longer.

Find out what's happening in Oaktonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

"This is not a criticism of the newly elected school board members, but I don't see a single one of them in the room and I do not believe that there were any of them here for the last work session where we discussed this," Tessie Wilson (Braddock) said. "So they're going to come in way behind the curve in terms of information on this. This is something this board started, and this board should go ahead and finish it."

Chairman Jane Strauss (Dranesville), who will determine the date of the vote, said the decision will be made by the current board.

Find out what's happening in Oaktonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The discussion on camera surveillance at Monday's work session came after a presentation from Dean Tistadt, FCPS' chief operating officer, who laid out the findings from PTSA meetings on the topic.

High school principals, who the school board charged with presenting the idea of surveillance cameras in designated hot spots and gathering feedback from the PTSAs, reported back to show 17 of the 25 school communities supported the idea. Two — Langley and Annandale high schools — opposed it. Four high schools reported their communities were split on the issue, while two others took no position.

Despite the staff's conclusion most schools and parents stand in favor of allowing school communities to decide whether they want the cameras, some on the board were not ready to jump out in support of the policy change.

"At some point the logical extension of people being used to the notion that somebody is watching them at all times I think errodes something very fundamental about what we are as a country and what we are as a society," said Stu Gibson (Hunter Mill), who has stood against the proposal since its introduction. "... It has nothing to do with the motives of the people who are doing the lauching ... It has everything to do with this shrinking notion of privacy."

Members Storck, Evans and Brad Center (Lee) asked further questions of FCPS staff, such as the details of the process principals must follow to have cameras installed in their schools, guidelines for when the tapes would be reviewed and whether students' opinions are being considered.

Tistadt said principals have expressed interest in cameras for the purpose of recalling reported incidents, not to have security personnel watching the cameras every moment of every day. The policy does not include guidelines for circumstances in which the cameras can be reviewed.

Storck also said he found the community meetings "deeply flawed," with principals pitching their preference without allowing proper dialogue among parents before weighing in with their own opinions. 

"I was looking for a true, maybe a purer community engagement about the issue," said Storck, who attended three of the PTSA discussions. "We need to make sure it's done in that even-handed way that gives everybody on both sides of the issue the sense of we're approaching this in a fair, equitable way."

He suggested conducting countywide community meetings to take place, an idea board member Kathy Smith (Sully) said would be irrelevant to deciding on the policy change because schools could use their own discretion to determine what is best for their own communities.

"These are going to be school-based decisions, and that's what has really raised my comfort level with this. ... Most people are comfortable speaking in their schools with their principals with their school communities," Smith said.

Center offered the possibility of launching a pilot program, which would allow both the school communities and the incoming school board to determine whether the cameras are effective. Tistadt said he did not see a pilot as being a proper solution because the timeline for running the program would likely be long, as there is no baseline to measure effectiveness.

If approved, the policy would put Fairfax County in line with surrounding counties' policies on the topic. Currently, Fairfax and Arlington counties are the only ones in the area to not allow interior surveillance cameras.

FCPS did not find any studies from other school systems that looked into the efficacy of interior cameras. With the addition of exterior cameras, along with other measures, FCPS has found a decrease in incidents outside of the schools.

"You would think intuitively if we installed we would see an increase in number of incidents captured that now we don't see happening in the first place, and over time you would think you would see they have declined," Tistadt said. "That pattern is probably going to happen. We will capture that and report it to the board as part of the operational expectations of my department."

If every high school chooses to put cameras inside their schools, the estimated cost would be about $885,000. With two schools already opposing interior cameras, and $127,000 in proffers that could be used toward the cameras, the cost would likely stand at about $600,000 to $700,000, Tistadt said. It would not be paid for with public funds, as schools would use their own account money to pay for the cameras.

"That tells you how important this is to principals, that they're willing to take their school account money and say this is where they're willing to spend it," Tistadt said. "It speaks volumes."

The proposal comes at the heels of two large-scale food fights that drew media attention. In late May, four  students . Two weeks earlier, more than 100 students at after a massive food fight occurred during lunch. In a survey issued by the association, 18 principals reported their schools have experienced at least 16 food fights collectively over the last two years.


Results of PTSA Meetings
Meeting Held
PTSA Position Attendance Annandale yes Oppose 45 Bryant NA NA NA Centreville yes Support 8 Chantilly yes Support 45 Edison yes Support 30 Fairfax yes No position 15 Falls Church yes Support 125 Hayfield yes No position 35 Herndon yes Support 33 Lake Braddock yes Support 75 Langley yes Oppose 100 Lee yes Support 24 Madison yes Support 50 Marshall yes Support 18 McLean yes Split 29 Mt. Vernon yes Support 55 Mt. View NA NA NA Oakton forum Support 18 Robinson yes Support 25 South County yes Support 80 South Lakes yes Support 35 Stuart yes Split 52 TJ yes Split 30 West Potomac yes Support 27 West Springfield yes Support 65 Westfield yes (board) Support 40 Woodson yes Split 26 Total

1,085


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

More from Oakton