By Jo Best, 17 February 2005 12:25
NEWS The US primary school that was forcing its young pupils to wear RFID identification badges at all times has dropped the scheme, following an outcry from the pupils' parents and the American Civil Liberties Union.
The school, Brittan Elementary in Sutter, California, had originally introduced the scheme to monitor pupils' attendance and track if any un-badged individuals were on school grounds. However, parents had objected to the scheme, citing both health and civil liberties fears.
The month-old scheme has now been shelved as InCom, the company who supplied the tags for free, has terminated its agreement with the school, according to reports.
School principal Earnie Graham told parents at a special meeting: "I'm disappointed, that's about all I can say at this point."
Comments
There are 2 comments. Join the discussion
1. Graham Guy
My kids' school has six-foot high security fences around it that make it look like Colditz (?sp). If RFID could be used to provide access control without having to turn our nice little country village school into a replica of an inner-city reform centre than I say "Bring it on". As for privacy, would the ACLU prefer us to keep our privacy but lose our kids or what?
2. Simon
In reality, what has actually changed over the last few decades - apart from an increased paranoia ?
3 dacades ago I walked to the village school, along a road with no footpath and no street lights, and there was no gate on the front entrance. We were taught how to walk along a road - anyone remember the Green Cross code ? And we were taught not to leave the school grounds - and we had enough respect for the authority of the teachers that we obeyed (well mostly!). In short, from an early age we were taught to take some responsibility for our actions.
OK, there is more traffic these days, and quite frankly the standard of driving is getting worse (due in part to certain 'safety' campaigns!).
I genuinely do NOT believe that the level of risk at schools has changed significantly - what has changed is the level of fear, fuelled by obsessive media reporting. Oh yes, and the fear of being sued. So a lot of these schemes are not so much to do with safety, but as a 'cover your arse' policy against parents who (it seems) are just not taking responsibility for their offspring.
I claim no originality for the suggestion that all these security measures do is to teach kids that they can always rely on someone else to take responsibility for everything. So how does that prepare them when they have to venture out into the real world with no training in taking responsibility for themselves ?