A parent would have the right to monitor a child's movement this way, and the schools have a limited authority to act in loco parentis, so the real issue is whether the parents of the kids consented to the monitoring. If they did, then there is no issue. If they object, then there is a problem.
There are thousands of children out there who compare schools to prisons, although probably more deliberately than Nova did.
I think Nova's point is one of the school being responsible for the kids while they are on school property, and compared it to the way the state is responsible for prisoners in their custody. Where he is wrong is that a school does not have custody of the children in their care for 6-8 hours a day, parents have custody-which means the kids live in their parents' home, are subject to their parents legal authority, and require their parents' consent to participate in school activities. Unless, of course, the kid is over 18.
Unless I missed something, these ID cards enable the school to know where a given student is at any given time during the school day. Isn't the school supposed to know where the kid is during the school day?
"Big Brother" goes by many names - the government, a school, any organization with a measure of power and influence over people associated with it.
For schools to insist on having that kind of control, well, to me it just doesn't pass the smell test.
Unless, of course, someone can post a legal precedent that it's now a punishable offense for a school to fail to cite the exact presence of 100% of its students during the school day - or even, for that matter, as long as the students are on school property. I wasn't able to find such a precedent.
I think it would be fun if a bunch of kids got together and collectively flushed their ID chips down the school toilets at the same time. Even the ones in the locker rooms. Hilarity would ensue.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|