Controls on school biometrics a ‘Luddite solution'

Released 15/04/2011

Proposals in the Protection of Freedoms Bill could require schools to get written permission from both parents of a child before using CCTV. ASCL says this will cost the school system millions

Proposals in the Protection of Freedoms Bill to introduce harsh controls on biometric systems in schools is a "Luddite solution" in search of a problem and will cost the education system between £20m and £45m a year, the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) has warned MPs.

The new legislation will require the written permission of both parents plus any other person with parental responsibility for a child for schools to be eligible to use a biometric system.

Obtaining signatures from all adults with parental responsibility will be a costly, time consuming and bureaucratic undertaking, for instance in single parent families where one parent is chronically absent but still retains custodial rights, or where schools are not allowed to contact a parent because of a court order as part of divorce settlement, ASCL argues. It will also make it much more difficult for schools and colleges to use CCTV to help maintain discipline and order.

Evidence shows that in the 30% of secondary schools that have biometric systems, 99.8% of parents have no objection to it being used with their child, according to Biostore.

ASCL general secretary Brian Lightman commented: "ASCL completely agrees that parents should have a say in whether their children take part in biometric systems in schools and they should have the right to opt out of if they have concerns or are opposed in principle.

"However if the bill goes through, the hoops that schools and colleges will need to go through to use these systems will be completely disproportional. The bill introduces burdensome and bureaucratic new rules which are exactly the kind of legislation that the government promised to repeal, not enact.

"The reality is that in the next few years, we will be using finger recognition to log onto our laptops. This is the future and it is already in one in every three secondary schools. To enact this legislation is a Luddite reaction and a huge backward step."

Lightman argues this proposed legislation is a "solution in search of a problem".

"Biometrics in schools [is] a problem for a small number of pressure groups, not for parents," Lightman continued. "The technology stores a random number, not a fingerprint, so it only distinguishes between students well enough to charge them for their lunch. The information could not be used to identify a student outside of the school, by the police or any other outside organisation."

The definition of biometrics in the legislation appears to be extended to all digital photographs used for identification purpose, as well as smart cards with student photos and CCTV. Many schools and colleges use digital photographs to identify pupils in administration systems and use CCTV to keep order and reduce crime. Following this legislation they would be required to seek approval to continue doing so, at considerable cost.

Lightman continued: "The unintended consequence may be that students or parents will be able to prevent schools from using CCTV by refusing consent, this could seriously hinder efforts to protect other students from crime and disorder. It flies in the face of the DfE's promise to support schools in maintaining discipline.

"Schools and colleges have invested heavily in this technology, and for good reason," Lightman added. "It means that students eligible for free school meals can take them up without being stigmatised and parents know their children are not buying lunch at the chip shop.

"These systems prevent fraud and, with dinner money, intimidation and theft by other pupils. Systems using cards are more expensive to install, more open to abuse and not as effective as cards are often lost, stolen or simply left at home."

See more news stories like this