America and Britain may be losing their rights, but at least other countries aren't. Right? Right?..

[Zoombie]

Obviously, a school system is better than none.

But that does not mean THIS school system is better than a hypothetically better one.

Just like saying, it's better to have glasses than no glasses, but I'd still rather have cybernetic eyes that has 10x zoom, X-ray vision and night vision built in.

[Don]

Originally Posted by SPMiller

Never forget that the motivation for implementing public education in the first place was to provide sufficient workers for the Industrial Revolution.

Not that being skilled and knowledgeable is a bad thing. Remember how many people were educated before that. Uh, in case you have the rose-colored glasses problem, the answer is, "not many".

More than one might suppose, particularly given today's standard. That's why things like "Common Sense" and "The Federalist Papers" actually had an impact among some reasonable portion of the populace.

In the second half of the 17th century, the literacy rate for adult men in New England is estimated to have been as high as 95%, more than twice the estimated literacy rate for men in England. American women had literacy rates higher than 60%. Nowhere in the world was literacy greater.

Hand a copy of "Common Sense" to the average high-school senior: hilarity ensues.

[benbradley]

Schools are better than no schools, but I don't know why there should be a system.

[Celia Cyanide]

Originally Posted by NoGuessing

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/educ...toilet-cameras

The scariest thing is it was met with this reaction;

The request came from pupils and parents, he said.

He had had no parent feedback yet but when the suggestion was announced at a senior assembly, it was met with applause.

So the students want this, apparently.

[veinglory]

Some of my experiences in Kiwi high school bathrooms might have been avoided by CCTV, so I can see students supporting it.

[Becca_H]

I'd be the minority that favours cameras in school toilets. I was bullied in them - very badly. I couldn't use the toilet at school for fear of something happening.

And that's on top of the other stuff that happens in toilets: smoking, drugs, setting fires. I know it doesn't stop this happening - it'd just happen elsewhere, but it'd be a start. Bullying is the main thing though. Kids have to go, and it's a place where bullies can pin you down without anyone seeing.

As for searching phones, a new law comes into effect in the UK on 1st September, allowing teachers to search and modify content of mobile phones. It's mainly to stop videos (like bullying or filming teachers having breakdowns) appearing on YouTube that night. It's not just New Zealand.

[SPMiller]

Originally Posted by Don

More than one might suppose, particularly given today's standard. That's why things like "Common Sense" and "The Federalist Papers" actually had an impact among some reasonable portion of the populace.

Hand a copy of "Common Sense" to the average high-school senior: hilarity ensues.

Measuring Western literacy by adult men in New England only. Gee, that's amazing. I don't even need to swing at this softball to hit a homer. Thanks, Don.

[Don]

Originally Posted by SPMiller

Measuring Western literacy by adult men in New England only. Gee, that's amazing. I don't even need to swing at this softball to hit a homer. Thanks, Don.

Well, other than I also mentioned the rate for women, and pointed out it was the best in the world for the time. Additional cites are always welcome on the table.

[NoGuessing]

Originally Posted by LOG

Hmmm, for me "toilet" has only ever referred to the actual device. Maybe it's a geographical thing, like how everyone around here calls soda, pop.

Originally Posted by Kathleen_

In Australia and New Zealand "toilet" does refer to what an American would call a "restroom". The Dominion Post is a New Zealand newspaper and the writer was probably a New Zealander, writing for New Zealanders. His use of the word "toilet" would not have been for dramatic effect, but because that's what the room is called. I would NEVER refer to that room as a restroom and would only call it a bathroom if it actually contained a bath.

When I was younger I had some interesting conversations with Americans online when I mentioned I needed to take my toothbrush to school as I had a dentist's appointment after lunch and wanted to brush my teeth in the toilets. Or when I moaned that I left my hairbrush in the toilet.

Originally Posted by veinglory

As a Kiwi I can tell you we called what Americans call the "rest room" the "toilet", the entire room/suite. And having a CCTV in there is hardly uncommon in many countries.

^These. I probably should have remembered to explain the difference in terminology before posting.

[Zoombie]

It's still nasty.

[NoGuessing]

Definitely. I'm an excessively private person when doing my business. I even lock the door when there's no one in the house.

Using a urinal when there's a camera in the room? Get lost. Not having soap to use? My God.

[Celia Cyanide]

Originally Posted by Zoombie

It's still nasty.

I don't really see how nasty it is when it happened because students were complaining they couldn't use the restroom. They felt unsafe and uncomfortable. It seems the students are happy with this change.

[Kathleen_]

I think it's nasty that the toilets were getting so dangerous that the students are glad to have cameras in them. I went to a school with a toilet block we'd avoid, but I've never been to one where I felt like I couldn't use any of the toilets safely

...and no soap, in my experience only about 1/3 of students use it. 1/3 barley wash their hands, a couple of seconds splash under the water at the most and 1/3 think the school soap is too germy so they bring their own and now you can get packets of soap leaves and stuff. Liquid soap would be a solution but comes with problems of its own.

I can't think of anyone doing anything private and not-naughty in the public area of the school toilets. The most private thing you did was wash your hands, brush your teeth, redo your hair and if you were doing some kind of production ou miht pain your face but usually you'd do that in a classroom and someone else would be painting it for you. If we had to get changed we'd do it in the changing rooms or in a toilet cubical.

Of course, if boys decided to have competitions to see how high they could pee in the common area then that would be caught on cam but that is a 'naught act' and really really gross because they are essentially just peeing on the floor of a common area. And I'm sure urinals would be shielded off or otherwise not be able to be seen by the cameras.

Having cameras in the toilets is a bad thing, yes, but moreso because the behaviour was so dangerous in the first place than because of an invasion of privacy. Yes, the bad behaviour will just move somewhere else but at least kids can pee in peace. It's not good to hold it in too long you know!

[Celia Cyanide]

Originally Posted by Kathleen_

Having cameras in the toilets is a bad thing, yes, but moreso because the behaviour was so dangerous in the first place than because of an invasion of privacy. Yes, the bad behaviour will just move somewhere else but at least kids can pee in peace. It's not good to hold it in too long you know!

Yes. Someone else made the point that kids HAVE to go to the bathroom. They can't avoid it. If the bad behavior were taking place elsewhere, then at least kids could avoid those areas.

[muravyets]

Originally Posted by SPMiller

Never forget that the motivation for implementing public education in the first place was to provide sufficient workers for the Industrial Revolution.

Not that being skilled and knowledgeable is a bad thing. Remember how many people were educated before that. Uh, in case you have the rose-colored glasses problem, the answer is, "not many".

I don't think that's what Benjamin Franklin had in mind when he championed universal education before the Revolution. That was a little early for that Prussian system stuff. I thought he was motivated more by that old Congregationalist/Quaker/etc. thing about how every Christian should be able to read the Bible for themselves. Those 17th/18th century Protestants were real big on literacy, and Franklin was real big on knowing stuff in general. Free libraries, free schools, he was into all that kind of thing.

[Don]

Originally Posted by muravyets

I don't think that's what Benjamin Franklin had in mind when he championed universal education before the Revolution. That was a little early for that Prussian system stuff. I thought he was motivated more by that old Congregationalist/Quaker/etc. thing about how every Christian should be able to read the Bible for themselves. Those 17th/18th century Protestants were real big on literacy, and Franklin was real big on knowing stuff in general. Free libraries, free schools, he was into all that kind of thing.

True of the founding fathers in general, I think. Jefferson founded the University of Virginia, and proposed public education for Virginia in 1779, although it was considerably later that it came to be. Alexander Hamilton was involved with the New York Board of Regents, IIRC.

[Zoombie]

Originally Posted by Celia Cyanide

I don't really see how nasty it is when it happened because students were complaining they couldn't use the restroom. They felt unsafe and uncomfortable. It seems the students are happy with this change.

It's nasty because I dislike non-democratic surveillance.

[Kathleen_]

Originally Posted by Zoombie

It's nasty because I dislike non-democratic surveillance.

What does "Non-democratic surveillance" mean and how does it differ from "democratic surveillance"? I ask because I've never heard surveillance split up into democratic and non-democratic.

From the sounds of it I’d guess that “non-democratic” is when it’s forced on a population without their agreement and that “democratic” is when the population are either presented with the idea and agree with it or request it. Am I right?

[NoGuessing]

I dislike the fact a minority of idiots have given schools the idea they can watch kids wherever the hell they like.

I don't care what they're doing in there, cameras in bathrooms creeps me out.

It's ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff. The cameras are a reaction to the problem. Now instead of destroying sinks or whatever they may well move on to destroying toilets. Will they put cameras in there then?

I find it very hard to believe no one is telling teachers who is doing it.

[Celia Cyanide]

Originally Posted by NoGuessing

I dislike the fact a minority of idiots have given schools the idea they can watch kids wherever the hell they like.

I don't care what they're doing in there, cameras in bathrooms creeps me out.

You dont have to go to school there, do you? If it doesn't bother the students, why should it bother you? The cameras are being put there to enforce rules that the students feel are not being enforced. And they seem to approve of the idea.

Originally Posted by NoGuessing

It's ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff. The cameras are a reaction to the problem. Now instead of destroying sinks or whatever they may well move on to destroying toilets. Will they put cameras in there then?

They wouldn't really need to. If that ever happened, cameras in the restroom could tell them who was destroying toilets. They wouldn't have to be placed inside the stalls.

Originally Posted by NoGuessing

I find it very hard to believe no one is telling teachers who is doing it.

I don't. When I was in school, nobody wanted to be the one to tell the teacher or principal when someone was breaking the rules, even if it bothered us.

If the teachers knew who was doing this, why would they let it go? That doesnt make sense.

[muravyets]

I don't think this is imposed surveillance because the student body knows and approves of it. I just think it's poorly conceived surveillance because it carries with it some strong backfire potential. Some unintended consequences are predictable.

[Zoombie]

Originally Posted by Kathleen_

What does "Non-democratic surveillance" mean and how does it differ from "democratic surveillance"? I ask because I've never heard surveillance split up into democratic and non-democratic.

From the sounds of it I’d guess that “non-democratic” is when it’s forced on a population without their agreement and that “democratic” is when the population are either presented with the idea and agree with it or request it. Am I right?

Well, you're right.

It's just "democratic surveillance" is easier for me to spell than the actual term I need to use: Sousveillance.

Basically, surveliance is viewing from above, while sousvelliance is viewing from below. One is a centralized (usually authoritarian in some way) force that observes people. The other is a participatory panopticon, wherein there is an even distribution of power and observation.

A surveilled society is one of intense power inequity. THEY can watch US and act on that information, but WE cannot watch THEM and act on it. In other words...Orwell, with tellyscreens and everything.

A souvellied society is one of power equality. THEY can watch US, but WE can WATCH right back. That is, shockingly enough, closer to what we have today than Orwell had ever dreamed. Yes, there are security cameras in the BART, but there were enough cellphone cameras to catch video footage of a cop shooting an unarmed man in the head.

Just an example.

Now, some people don't like this equalizing of power.

Why do you think cops hate getting filmed?

[Kathleen_]

Hmmm... not sure that I am right because your description doesn't match up with what I thought, but I think I understand it. What you're saying is that if there were cameras in areas staff were threatened that were monitered by students then it is ok to have cameras in areas where students are threatened monitered by staff but not otherwise? What happens if there isn't any areas in the school where staff are threatened? Also the students were under threat from other students, what if the staff were underthreat from students, should students still be the ones monitering the serveillance?

You mention power inequality, if the student body are campaigning for cameras in student toilets but the staff deny their requests isn't that also power inequality? You have the minority in power denying what the majority want. I'm not sure that's a good thing.

I an understand your point, and it's a very good one (if they can watch us, we should be able to watch them) but I'm not sure that it applies in this situation. Besides, I'm sure installing a security system is very expensive, not to mention the space to store the footage. It would make sense to put it only in problem areas and not everywhere.

Thanks for introducing me to some new words and an interesting conversation

[Zoombie]

Well, I think the whole school power inequity system is...troubling, if only because it teaches kids to follow a hierarchy from the get go and it takes a LONG time to get rid of that notion...

[Don]

I think that kids that can't be trusted to visit the bathroom without trashing it indicate problems that won't be solved by the addition of any number of video cameras, and doing so shows a tremendous lack of interest in solving the issues involved.

This is one of those 'bandaid on a severed artery' solutions bureaucratic institutions are famous for.