Protecting freedom or a Luddite reaction?

The Protection of Freedoms Bill now going through Parliament dedicates a chapter to biometric systems in schools and colleges. If it goes through unaltered, which is looking increasingly likely, it could cost the education system between £20 and £45 million a year. What’s worse, the changes are a knee-jerk reaction to unfounded protests from by children’s and civil rights groups, not legitimate concerns raised by parents.  

The definition of biometrics in the legislation means that the legislation will extend to all digital photographs used for identification purpose, as well as smart cards with student photos and CCTV. This means will be even more difficult for schools and colleges to use CCTV to help maintain discipline and order, in direct contrast to the government’s pledge to support schools in reducing bad behaviour.

The new legislation will require the written permission of both parents, plus any other person with parental responsibility for a child, in order to use biometric systems, including finger recognition, iris scanning and digital images. The only exceptions are if one of the parents cannot be found or lacks capacity (in a legal sense) to make the decision, or where it would not be in the child’s interest to allow the parent to know his/her whereabouts (as with an abusive parent). Consent can be withdrawn at any time.

We completely agree 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.

For some pupils this could involve three or even four adults, some of whom refuse to cooperate either with the school or another estranged parent. In almost all other aspects of school life, parents either chose to opt out or one parent signs on behalf of the family unit. Either of these options would ease the administrative and financial burden on schools and colleges considerably.

What is particularly worrying is that the Parliamentary committee scrutinising the bill has only called for oral evidence from children’s and civil liberties campaigners even though ASCL and others have submitted detailed written evidence pointing out that the vast majority of parents do not have an issue with the technology.

About 30 per cent of secondary schools use biometrics systems for access, libraries or catering. These systems are not susceptible to children losing smart cards or key fobs and their access rights cannot be stolen. They enable parents to ensure that children spend money on what parents have given it for and can make schools more safe and secure places.  Evidence shows that when parents have been made aware of how the system works and what kind of data it collects, 99.8 per cent have taken up the system. This is a Luddite reaction and a huge backward step.

ASCL’s full evidence to the bill committee is at www.ascl.org.uk/consultations