Safety Measure or Privacy Invasion?

As debates about the use of technology in classrooms intensify, some parents and advocates question whether placing cameras in classrooms that house students with significant developmental or intellectual needs is a necessary safety measure or an infringement on privacy.

The idea of cameras in special education classrooms isn’t new. In 2015, Texas became the first state to pass a law requiring video and audio cameras in self-contained special education classrooms at a parent or staff member’s request, and several other states have followed suit.

Districts and states adopting the technology believe it can deter bad behavior and provide critical evidence during investigations into abuse, or the use of excessive force, seclusion, or restraint, particularly for students who are unable to speak or share their side of the story. Proponents say video recordings also protect staff members from unfounded allegations of misconduct or abuse.

But as more districts install cameras, some face pushback from both staff members and parents who fear the technology is invasive.

And some experts warn that installing cameras without addressing systemic problems like staffing shortages and inadequate training on skills like de-escalating behavioral problems without using force or restraint fails to safeguard schools’ most vulnerable students.

“The idea that cameras in classrooms as a strategy is a reasonable request for schools to consider,” said Jacqueline Rodriguez, CEO of the National Center for Learning Disabilities, a nonprofit advocacy organization for both students and adults, “but to the extent that people see videos or videotaping in classrooms as the solution, we would wholeheartedly disagree. It is a very reactive measure that doesn’t address these issues or ensure [mistreatment] doesn’t happen.”

And, ultimately, schools that install cameras often pass policies that prevent administrators from surveilling classrooms or using videos for teachers’ performance evaluations. These policies also limit who can review footage and when—typically only after an allegation of misconduct has been reported.

“I know there’s this tension around the invasion of privacy vs. accountability, but we just have not seen it play out where people’s privacy has been really compromised, but we have seen the results and benefits of having the accountability tool,” said Denise Marshall, CEO of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA), a national nonprofit that protects the legal and civil rights of students with disabilities. COPAA does not have a formal stance on whether districts should install cameras.

Recordings are a tool to supplement investigations

Some districts, like Maryland’s Frederick County public schools, began installing cameras after concerns were raised about staff misconduct or the overuse of restraint and seclusion—practices that federal data show are disproportionately used among students in special education.

In Frederick County—where some special education classrooms already have cameras and the rest are expected to be outfitted by 2030—videos are intended to support investigations into misconduct claims, but aren’t “surveillance,” said Sarah Sirgo, the district’s chief of staff. They aren’t actively monitored and, per an agreement with the local teachers’ union, administrators can review footage only for limited reasons, such as investigating a safety incident, emergency, or misconduct claim reported through other channels.

Ultimately, the videos can provide critical evidence that affected students may not be able to provide themselves, she said.

“We have students who cannot provide their own first-person account of what may or may not have happened, and this is an ability to close a communication gap in describing what’s happening in classrooms, in very limited circumstances,” Sirgo said. “That’s the explanation for why cameras [are] in specialized programs and not everywhere.”

Strong privacy measures help ease concerns about cameras

Some families in the Maryland district had concerns about their children being recorded, Sirgo said. Some children in self-contained classrooms have significant mental and developmental needs, and may disrobe or experience toileting accidents during class, for example. Parents didn’t want those vulnerable moments seen by people outside of school.

In Frederick County, videos cannot be released through public information act requests because the vendor does not give the district the option to blur children’s faces. The district cannot release videos to the public, or even to parents if footage shows other people’s children. Parents can review videos of their children in person, under administrator supervision to ensure no copies are made, Sirgo said.

Conversely, few teachers had problems with being recorded, she said, though some were concerned about personal calls they make between classes being recorded, for example.

The district reinforced to teachers that classrooms are public spaces and not considered their personal offices.

Getting staff buy-in for installing cameras starts years before the pitch is made, Sirgo said.

If teachers don’t trust that administrators have their best interests at heart and that they will provide due process if complaints arise, they may be more resistant to being filmed.

“What you have to have in place for this to work is a culture of treating employees fairly,” Sirgo said.

Measuring success is about more than the number of incidents

Frederick County has not had any investigations into teacher misconduct claims since it began its pilot camera program, but that isn’t the metric it’s using to measure success, Sirgo said.

“What I would hate for people to say is that a lack of incidents is why it proves that the cameras are working,” she said. “Honestly, these incidents happening in programs like this are incredibly rare to begin with, so when something is already infrequent, you can’t attribute its continued absence to a new intervention without stronger evidence.”

The Frederick County school system is instead measuring success through feedback and climate surveys of both staff and parents to determine if cameras build a sense of trust and safety; an analysis of whether investigations are resolved more quickly, efficiently, and accurately; and how reporting patterns change over time.

“Effectiveness isn’t measured by whether nothing happens; it’s measured by whether the system adds clarity, improves our response, those kinds of things,” she said.

Through the first school year of the pilot program in 2025-26, administrators reviewed footage most often—about 90% of the time—to gather evidence for workers’ compensation claims, Sirgo said.

Addressing the root causes of mistreatment may be more effective than cameras

When misconduct and abuse claims in special education classrooms are made public, they tend to send shockwaves through communities. Those incidents often serve as catalysts for advocacy to install cameras, as seen in ongoing pushback in communities across the country, including California’s Central Valley, Hoover, Ala., Bakersfield, Calif., and Jefferson County, Ky.

Along with installing cameras, schools should focus on bulking up staff training on how to manage students’ behavioral needs and properly restrain students when necessary, said Rodriguez of the National Center for Learning Disabilities. Additionally, there are often not enough staff members in special education classrooms to adequately manage the number of students and their needs, and schools often lack consistent policies on how to address student behavior problems, Rodriguez said.

Marshall, of COPAA, agreed.

“Absent all of that, it’s a red herring, or a false safety net,” Marshall said. “It does nothing to prevent [abuse]—it just gives you that proof should something go awry.”

Still, buying and installing cameras can feel like an easier, more immediate solution to appease frustrated communities after an incident, she said.

“To actually say to a school community, ‘We have to address the culture in this school so that we don’t need these video cameras,’ that is much more complicated, and it takes not just wherewithal but funding and buy-in,” Rodriguez said. “So if people don’t feel like they have those three things, they’re just going to go immediately to what they feel like is consequential because people will look at that and say, ‘Well, you’re doing something, and that’s better than nothing.’”