An Assessment of Evaluation of Surveillance Camera Systems by School Administrators’ and Teachers’ Views

Abstract

Background. Printed and/or visual media coverage (Altun, Güneri & Baker, 2006) and a large body of research results (Alikaşifoğlu et. al., 2004; Çınkır & Kepenekçi, 2003; Demirtaş, 2007; Dönmez & Güven, 2002; Durmuş & Gürkan, 2005; Geyin, 2007; Güven & Dönmez, 2002; Kapçı, 2004; Kepenekçi & Çınkır, 2006; Öğülmüş, 1995; Özer, 2006; Tor & Sargın; 2005; Türkmen, 2004) show that students and teaching staff in Turkey experience some physical and psychological safety concerns which they perceive as threatening. Such events as violence, harassment, extortion, vandalism, alcohol and drug abuse, substance addiction and theft, causing serious risks for students (Verdugo & Schneider, 1999). In many countries, various preventive measures including night-vision cameras in parking lots, random locker searches, armed police guards in the school yards, metal detectors at school entrances, surveillance cameras in halls, transparent backpacks, bomb-sniffing dogs, and computerized student ID cards etc. (Dinkels, Cataldi, Kena & Baum, 2006; Fredrik, 2004; Garcia, 2003; Garza, 2002; Green, 1999; Lewis, 2003; Miller, 2003; Nanjiani, 2000; Schneider, 2001; 2002) are taken to promote school safety. A review of these measures enables us to assert that there are two widely-accepted approaches to solve school safety problems and to establish a peaceable school environment where all stakeholders fell safe: (1) school climate-culture model and (2) police model (Dönmez & Güven, 2001, Dönmez & Özer, 2009). School climate-culture approach ignores police model-oriented measures, and rather deals with students' personal traits, students' individual problems, and characteristics of school climate and culture (Dönmez, 2001, 66–67). On the other hand, police model can be regarded as an approach that focuses on getting information about events in a short span of time and intervening in these events immediately by using advanced technological resources (Dönmez & Güven, 2001). To this approach, enhancing the monitoring activities, using hard codes of conduct and/or hard discipline and punishment procedures, and presence of school safety personnel in schools will lead a decrease in the number of violence events experienced (Garcia, 1994). Purpose. Despite some debates about cost, convenience, efficiency, and possible ethical problems of the surveillance cameras (Warnick, 2007), media coverage shows that more and more of them are being used in schools. In this respect, the purpose of this research is to determine the school administrators' and teachers' views on surveillance camera systems in terms of their contribution to school safety and discipline. It has been also intended to determine whether participating administrators' and teachers' views differ significantly in terms of some variables including gender, school type, duty type, the time surveillance camera has been used and school size. Method. The population of the study was consisting of a total number of 100 school administrators and 1.847 teachers working in primary (n=14; 18,9 % of primary schools) and secondary (n=16; 48.48 % of secondary schools) schools where surveillance cameras were used. Since researchers were able to have access to the whole population, all administrators and teachers who work in the schools with surveillance cameras were included into the study instead of having a sample. In order to measure administrators' and teachers' views a self-administered scale entitled Surveillance Camera Systems & School Safety scale, developed by Dönmez and Özer (2008) was administered on the teachers working in primary and high schools equipped with surveillance cameras within Malatya city centre. The data were collected from 523 administrators (n=84) and teachers (n=439). Descriptive statistics were computed and differences in teachers' and administrators' views on surveillance cameras by gender, school type, and duty type variables were tested by using t-test. For the usage duration of surveillance cameras and school size variables One-Way ANOVA analysis with LSD post hoc test was used. Results and conclusions. Results about the location of the cameras revealed that they are mostly used in corridors (97%), school yards (97%), and entrance-exit doors (97%), and cafeterias (47%). In terms of the time surveillance cameras have been used, results showed that 53% of the schools have been using the system for a year, 23 % have been using for two years, and 24 % of them have been using the surveillance cameras for three years, which seems to agree with the idea that these systems are becoming more and more common. Results also showed that there is a statistically significant difference between administrators' and teachers' views. Accordingly, compared to the teachers, school administrators were more likely to believe that camera systems contribute to the school safety and discipline. Considering the school type, the high school administrators and teachers rated the surveillance system higher than the elementary school administrators and teachers did. However, no significant difference was found by gender, the time surveillance camera has been used and school size variables.

Keywords

• surveillance camera systems , school safety , school management

Güvenlik Kamera Sistemlerinin Yönetici ve Öğretmen Görüşlerine Göre Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı ilköğretim ve ortaöğretim okullarında kullanılmaya başlanan güvenlik kamera sistemlerine ilişkin yönetici ve öğretmenlerin görüşlerinin belirlenmesidir. Yönetici ve öğretmen görüşlerinin cinsiyet, okul türü, görev türü, kamera sisteminin kullanılma süresi ve okul büyüklüğü değişkenlerine göre farklılık gösterip göstermediğinin belirlenmesi araştırmanın alt amaçları olarak alınmıştır. Araştırmanın verileri, 2007–2008 eğitim-öğretim yılında, Malatya ili merkez ilçedeki kamera sisteminin kullanıldığı ilköğretim ve ortaöğretim kurumlarında görev yapan yönetici ve öğretmenler arasından, gönüllü olarak araştırmaya katılmayı kabul eden toplam 523 yönetici (n=84) ve öğretmenden (n=439) toplanmıştır. Araştırmada, Dönmez ve Özer (2008) tarafından geliştirilen, yöneticiler ve öğretmenlerin okullarda kullanılan kamera sistemlerini, güvenlik ve disiplin açısından nasıl algıladıklarını betimlemeye çalışan “Güvenlik Kamera Sistemleri Okul Güvenliği Ölçeği” kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen veriler üzerinde yapılan analizler sonucunda görev türü ve okul türü değişkeni açısından katılımcıların görüşlerinin anlamlı biçimde farklılaştığı, ancak cinsiyet, kamera sisteminin kullanılma süresi ve okul büyüklüğü değişkenleri açısından farklılaşmadığı belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• kamera sistemleri , okul güvenliği , okul yönetimi

Kaynakça

1. Altun, S. A; Güneri, O. Y. & Baker, Ö. E. (2006). Basındaki yansımaları ile okulda şiddet. Eğitim Araştırmaları, 6(24):12-21
2. Alikaşifoğlu, M., Erginöz, E., Ercan, E., Uysal, Ö., Kaymak, D. A., & İlter, Ö. (2004). Violent behaviour among Turkish high school students and correlates of physical fighting. European Journal of Public Health, 14, 173–177.
3. Blitzer, H. L. (2002). Surveillance tools for safer schools (Final Report). Rockville, MD: National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS).
4. Center to Prevention Handgun Violence. (1990). Caught in the crossfire: A Report on gun violence in our nation's schools. Washington, D.C: Center to Prevention Handgun Violence.
5. Çınkır, Ş., & Kepenekci, Y. (2003). Öğrenciler arası zorbalık. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 9(34), 236–253.
6. Demirtaş, İ. Y. (2007). İlköğretim okullarında görev yapan yönetici ve öğretmenlerin okul güvenliğine ilişkin rol ve beklentileri (Yayınlanmış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Sakarya: Sakarya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
7. DeVoe, J. F., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Ruddy, S. A., Miller, A. K., Planty, M., et al. (2002). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2002. NCES 2003–009/NCJ 196753. Washington, DC: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice.
8. DeVoe, J. F., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Miller, A. K., Noonan, M., Snyder, T. D., et al. (2004). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2004 (NCES 2005–002/NCJ 205290). U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

9. DeVoe, J. F., Peter, K., Noonan, M., Snyder, T. D., & Baum, K. (2005). Indicators of school crime and safety:2005 (NCES 2006–001/NCJ 210697). U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
10. Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E. F., Kena, G., & Baum, K. (2006). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2006. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office and U. S. departments of Education and Justice.
11. Dinkes, R., Kemp, J., & Baum, K. (2009). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2008 (NCES 2009–022/NCJ 226343). Washington,DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Dönmez, B., & Güven, M. (2001). Ortaöğretimde görev yapan öğretmen ve okul yöneticilerinin okul güvenliğine ilişkin algı ve beklentileri (Araştırma Projesi Raporu, Proje No: 2001/54). İnönü Üniversitesi, Malatya.
12. Dönmez, B., & Güven, M. (2002). Ortaöğretimde görev yapan öğretmen ve okul yöneticilerinin okul güvenliğine ilişkin algı ve beklentileri. Yaşadıkça Eğitim, 75(74), 60–64.
13. Dönmez, B., & Özer, N. (2008). Surveillance camera systems and school safety: a scale development study (Unpublished Manuscript). Malatya: İnönü University, Faculty of Education.
14. Dönmez, B., & Özer, N. (2009). Yöneticiler, öğretmenler, öğrenciler ve veliler için okul güvenliği ve güvenli okul. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
15. Durmuş, E., & Gürkan, U. (2005). Lise öğrencilerinin şiddet ve saldırganlık eğilimleri. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(3), 253–269. Fields, L. (1996). Effects of videotapes and verbal feedback on disruptive/negative behavior of students riding school buses. (UMI Number: 9637030).
16. Fredrik, N. (2004). Surveillance 101. T H E Journal; 32 (1), 12-16.
17. Garcia, C. A. (2003). School safety technology in America: Current use and perceived effectiveness. Criminal Justice Policy Review 2003; 14; 30-54. Garcia, P. A. (1994). Creating a safe school climate. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 24(2), 22–24.
18. Garza, K. (2002). School security moves into the digital age. T H E Journal, 30(5), 44-45.
19. Gaustad, J. (1991). Schools respond to gangs and violence. Oregon School Study Council (OSSC) Bulletin, 34(9).
20. Geyin, Ç. (2007). Genel liselerde okul güvenliği algılarının incelenmesi (Yayınlanmış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
21. Green, M. W. (1999). The Appropriate and effective use of security technologies in U.S. Schools: A Guide for schools and law enforcement agencies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
22. Güven, M., & Dönmez, B. (2002). Ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin okul güvenliğine ilişkin algı ve beklentileri. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(4), 59–68.
23. Heaviside, S., Rowand, C., Williams, C., & Farris, E. (1998). Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996-97 (NCES 98-030). Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
24. Kapcı, E. G. (2004). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin zorbalığa maruz kalma türünün ve sıklığının depresyon, kaygı ve benlik saygısıyla ilişkisi, Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(1), 1–13.
25. Kepenekci, Y. & Çınkır, Ş. (2006). Bullying among Turkish high school students. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 193–204.
26. Lewis, T. (2003). The surveillance economy of post- Columbine schools. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 25, 335–355.
27. Nanjiani, N. A. (2000). School violence and technology. T H E Journal; 27(10), 76-79.
28. Mansfield, W., Alexander, D., Farris, E. (1991). Teacher Survey on Safe Disciplined, and Drug-Free Schools. Washington. D.C: National Center for Education Statistics.
29. Miller, A. M. (2003). Violence in U.S. Public Schools: 2000 School Survey on Crime and Safety, NCES 2004–314 Revised. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Government Printing Office.
30. Öğülmüş, S. (1995). Okullarda (liselerde) şiddet ve saldırganlık. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi.
31. Özer, N. (2006). İlköğretim ikinci kademe öğrencilerinin okul güvenliğine ilişkin algıları. (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), İnönü Üniversitesi, Malatya.
32. Özer, N. & Dönmez, B. (2007). Okul güvenliğine ilişkin kurumsal etkenler ve alınabilecek önlemler. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 35(173), 299-313.
33. Phaneuf, S. W. (2006). School security practices: Investigating their consequences on student fear, bonding and school climate. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland - College Park, MD, USA
34. Schneider, T. (2002). Guides to creating safer schools-Guide 4: Ensuring quality school facilities and security technologies. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
35. Schneider, T. (2001). Newer technologies for school security (ERIC Digest No. 145). Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED449550).
36. Suarez, L. A. (2004). Focusing on teacher perceptions of the use of school-wide surveillance cameras (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). The University of Southern Mississippi (UMI Number: 3165255).
37. Tor, H., & Sargın, N. (2005). İlköğretim okullarının ikinci kademesinde okuyan öğrencilerin şiddet hakkındaki görüşleri. XIV. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Denizli.
38. Türkmen, M. (2004). Orta öğretim kurumlarında okul güvenliği ile ilgili yaşanan sorunlar. (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, Çanakkale.
39. Verdugo, R.R., & Schneider, J. M. (1999). Quality schools, safe schools: A theoretical and empirical discussion. Education and Urban Society, 31(3), 286–308.
40. Warnick, B. R. (2007). Surveillance cameras in schools: An ethical analysis. Harvard Educational Review. 77(3), 317-343.