Anyone who has children has had the discussion with them about what they did at school. Most of the time there is a cryptic message about what went on or who sat next to them at lunch. Sometimes you get a hurried explanation, as if to replay the entire day in a one minute burst. Rapid fire. Still at other times you might get the, “I don’t remember” or “Nothing much,” response.

The important thing is that a child has the chance to explain what occurred, what went on during the day. As a parent, it is one of the most important questions that I can ask and the one question I look forward to at the end of a busy day at work. It is also one of the ways that a parent can keep an open dialogue with their child.

What if your child could not communicate that information? What if your questions were met with a blank gaze? What if you were left with more questions than answers?

Some of those very concerns are on display in a court case pitting a family and their desire to keep their child safe against the school district educating their child.

A student in the SAD 75 School District has a disability that makes it very difficult to impossible to engage in any direct communication. His parents, it has been reported in other outlets, have repeatedly asked that their son be outfitted with a camera or recording device in order to make sure that the student can communicate his day with his parents. Repeatedly the school department has said no to the request. Now, it is in the hands of the court system.

What could be the potential harm in allowing a recording device? Why would a school department be against this initiative? The department has claimed, apparently, that the intrusion is a threat to the privacy of the teachers of the department to do and say what they will in their classrooms.

The teacher’s “privacy” while in a public building as public employees outweigh the wishes of the student and his parents to ensure that his day at school is a safe and orderly one.

To a lesser degree, the department has also argued that having a camera would be against the student policy of not allowing electronics in the classroom. That argument seems at face value to be a silly one. If you do not believe that there are phones with cameras roaming the halls of Mt. Ararat during school hours you would be mistaken.

Certainly, in an age where cameras are being fielded by entities, large and small, the intrusion into our daily lives is miniscule. I work in an environment where my every move within the institution is monitored by camera or door access card. The all-knowing security system knows where I am at all times. Do I think about it? No, because I am not trying to hide my activity.

Children are susceptible to all sorts of issues at school. Bullying, assaults, amongst others. A recording device could be just the sort of resource that would help a student, especially one who cannot communicate, be safe in their person. Be safe and guarantee that the student could make it back home in exactly the same way they left in the morning.

Anytime a parent sends their child out of the nest there is an expectation that the child is going to be safe. Even more so when the child is in the care of the local school department. While the time spent in school is full of instruction, the unwritten bond between parent and educator is that nothing will happen to that child.

If the school department and the staff needs to hide behind a veil of privacy what exactly is going on in the classroom?

That’s my two cents…

Jonathan Crimmins can be reached at j_ [email protected]