Posts
Two years ago I was having lunch with my daughter at school, which was a weekly tradition we had since she was in second grade. At lunch a couple of the kids noticed my cool PDA cell phone and wanted to check it out, so I let them, and of course they quickly discovered the built-in camera. Suddenly everybody wanted to take a picture and be in one. Instead of a free-for-all I set up a system. Each kid could take a picture of the kid next to them, then pass it along. The person who just had their picture taken could look at the picture of his/herself and then take a picture of the next kid. Everybody got their turn as both photographer and subject, without causing a lunchroom disruption.
Of course nothing is simple in this world, and I knew I was going to be reminded of that (again) when I left the cafeteria only to find the Vice Principal making a stern beeline for me. In her office she asked about what now could be best classified as an "incident." I told her, and she told me to delete all of the pictures on the phone, because not every parent had signed the photo permission form. Now mind you I was not a School Board member at the time, not a representative capable of acting on behalf of the school or the school system. I was a Dad. I was the same Dad who had made and edited a video of the same classroom of kids for one of their projects. The same Dad who had taken class portraits before on the playground at the request of a teacher. The same Dad who has taken pictures of Bingo and winter festivals and flag-raising ceremonies at elementary schools. I had hoped to take all of the pictures on that phone and make a collage for the kids, but somehow this was different from those and so I deleted all of the pictures right there in the school's office.
I hadn't thought much about it again until yesterday, when I was at another school, this time as a School Board member, reading a book for Dr. Seuss day. After I was done reading, a teacher asked to get my picture with the book for the website. I didn't want to be alone in the shot, so I plopped down on the floor and the kids instantly gathered around me to be in the frame. After a few takes (some with eye-crossing, tongue-sticking funny faces) we wrapped it up.
Later in the day, the teacher emailed me a copy of the photo, and I have to tell you that it is a wonderful thing to see. My smiling mug with a Dr. Seuss book, surrounded by countless, joyous bright eyes and shiny teeth. I sent copies to my family, I ordered large prints for framing. But when I showed it to a fellow Board member with delight, the reaction was quick... "you can't use that photo. Did those kids' parents all sign the release?"
It can't be simple anymore. A person can't just snap a harmless picture, because around every turn is a threat of one kind or another. The threat of a litigious parent. The threat of an abusive ex-husband stumbling upon a child's whereabouts. In this area, the threat of having your mother be a classified operative. I don't know why we need those permission forms, or why somebody wouldn't sign one, but we have them and that's the world we live in now.
I wanted to post that photo here, to share it with all of you, because it is the highlight of my month. It is escape from budget distress and fights about penguin books and the pile of papers that reappears on my desk every morning. It is the why. I wanted to post it here but if I do, will I be sued by the parent of one of those smiling kids? Will it be the principal or the Superintendent who calls me to tell me I have to take it down? Will the teacher be able to post it on the website?
The next time you see a picture of a public school class in a local paper, look to see if you can see the kids' faces, or if you just see the backs of their heads.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Parents & Pictures
Posted by John Stevens at 1:26 PM
Labels: Food for Thought
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 Comments:
I'm reluctant to give automatic permission for government to invade my children's privacy by publishing photos of them. I don't mind photos of groups of children with their faces showing provided the caption does not identify the children and is so vague that one could not figure it out quickly. For example, a photo labeled 5th graders at Sugarland Elementary might be OK but not one labeled Mrs. Jones' 2008 5th Grade reading stars.
I also reject the use of children as "extras" or props in producing a political message or institutional promotion. There is a difference between candid news photos and staged promotional photos. News photos don't require permission because the focus is on the newsworthy subject and thus only the backs of children’s heads typically show.
However if children are used in a staged promo shot (likely because the photographer wants a photogenic face or to show diversity) I as a parent want to be able to withhold approval to use the photo.
Particularly inappropriate is a school board member (or a dad preparing to run for the school board) putting pictures of children on his blog without parental permission. A child's likeness should not be exploited to support a political campaign which the parents might not approve.
This is different from a dad with a few pictures of his child and their friends published on a private blog. It isn't a question of privacy, but of implied endorsement. A frontal picture of Mr. Stevens reading to children so the children's back is to the camera is a candid news photo. I don't care if you place that on your blog. However you described a let's-gather-around-John group shot which is a promo shot and I'm glad you didn't take advantage of children by publishing that picture without parental approval.
Lastly, there was no mention of the religious objections some groups have to photography. I don't want to tell people that they can only attend public school if they drop their ridiculous objections to photography (to paraphrase Mr. Stevens.)
Often religious objections focus on the self-aggrandizement that comes with portrait photography so security cameras aren't the issue. Insensitive shutterbugs are.
On a related topic: You use litigious as an epitaph but it was that subtle threat and the realization that a parent could sue that brought a close to the "And Tango Makes Three" book controversy. The Board has a history of zero tolerance for students breaking the rules even if the rules are broken for a noble reason (Google "Ratnor Loudoun knife" or read this opinion: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002157.U.pdf) But a majority of the Board seemed uninterested in holding the administration accountable to upholding the policy regulations regarding book challenges. What recourse other than litigation does a parent have when the chief executive follows the rules only when it is politically expedient and the school board says they don't want to review executive decisions when it is only a small number of parents or students that are affected?
As usual Ed, you make excellent points. Thank you.
Very good subject - we should have a lot more discussion regarding Internet Safety altogether - for example, what's become of the "Virginia Internet Safety in Schools" Law passed last year and ostensibly providing guidelines for schools 2 years ago? (As we reported in our Loudoun-based Internet Safety blog, http://dadministrator.blogspot.com/2006/03/virginia-internet-safety-in-school-law.html . From our perspective and actual knowledge of what's been done in our Schools, VERY little has improved. We constantly find evidence of high percentages of school age children not having been taught the basic protocols by either teachers or parents (see this post - http://www.dullessouthonline.com/loudoun_schools/2007/11/over-50-of-loudoun-3rd-grade-girls-have.html ).
Post a Comment