Should Schools Feel Like Prisons? A Conversation Starter on Safety vs. Digital Surveillance
- The White Hatter
- Sep 3
- 5 min read
Updated: Sep 28
Caveat - We bring 30 years of law enforcement experience, a strong background in technology, and a commitment to privacy to the perspective shared in this article. In light of the recent mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, renewed calls are being made to “harden” schools against active shooters. What is often overlooked is that in this case, the tragedy unfolded from outside the school, every shot was fired from the exterior. Another concern is that making schools impenetrable can create serious challenges for law enforcement trying to respond if a shooter is already inside.
Recently, we read an article that promoted a “layered defence” approach to school safety, featuring tools like digital cameras, access controls, fencing, lighting, license plate readers, and even drones. (1) The first four are widely accepted and often effective. However, license plate readers and drone surveillance cross into unsettling territory that too closely resembles the security setup in jails, or technology strategies used by law enforcement, and we would suggest not the nurturing environment we would want for our children in school.
In several US districts, license plate readers (LPRs) are now a reality. For instance, a Georgia school system serving nearly 100,000 students uses Flock Safety’s LPR cameras to create a virtual perimeter around its campuses, alerting staff when threat‑listed vehicles approach and aiding crime deterrence. The school district stated that data is retained for 30 days, and only vehicle, not facial, data is captured. (2)(3)
Meanwhile, Wilson County’s Green Hill High School in Tennessee has piloted LPR technology that alerts law enforcement when vehicles of concern enter school grounds. (4)
These systems do offer proactive protection, but they also collect and store movement data on everyone driving through school zones. Without strong oversight and transparency, schools risk creating surveillance ecosystems that may chill normal behaviour.
Drone surveillance is also edging into some schools in the United States.
In Texas, the Boerne Independent School District is piloting a drone-based security system in partnership with Campus Guardian Angel. (5) These drones are deployed for rapid response against active-shooter threats, some equipped with non-lethal countermeasures like pepper balls, and act as “force multipliers” to protect students, and potentially minimize ambush risks for law enforcement when attending a school incident. (6) Some schools are even using drones to monitor outdoor althetic events (7)
However, it doesn’t stop there. Reports show that weaponized drones capable of deploying flash-bangs or incapacitating agents are already being evaluated buy some schools, raising serious alarms about escalation and long-term implications of such armed technology in schools. (8)
While it’s easy to understand the impulse to adopt every tool possible after tragedies, we must remember the fundamentals that have consistently proven effective:
Relationships matter. Students who feel connected to at least one trusted adult are less likely to engage in violence and more likely to share concerns when something feels wrong.
Training matters. A well-trained staff that knows how to secure doors, move and direct students quickly, and communicate under stress is the strongest first line of defence.
Early detection matters. Properly run behavioural threat assessment teams identify students on the pathway to violence before they act.
This is not to say technology has no role. Access control, well-placed cameras, visitor management, and alert systems, when carefully vetted and integrated, can support a layered security posture. But they must complement, not replace, the human systems of care, vigilance, and response.
Although it’s easy to see the appeal of drones, LPRs, and other high-tech solutions, we must consider the long-term cultural impact:
Schools aren’t prisons. A facility with fences, cameras, drones, and license plate readers mirrors correctional intent, not educational freedom.
Trust matters. Students and staff thrive in environments built on community, not constant monitoring.
Privacy has consequences. Surveillance that tracks vehicles or watches from the sky, often without clear limits or oversight, can lead to chilling effects, especially for vulnerable students.
Slippery slope. Drone tech might start benign but can shift to armed or invasive systems with little check.
Let’s spark dialogue here in Canada with these questions, so that what we see south of the boarder does not start creeping into our schools:
Are our safety strategies protecting kids or policing them?
What’s the line between reasonable security and normalization of surveillance?
If a school is implementing a school surveillance system, what is that system, how is the data collected and protected from a privacy standpoint, and does any third party have access to that data.
Instead of spending tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars on drones, license plate scanners, and databases, could we direct those resources toward teacher education, relationships, mental health support, a respectful school culture, and building trust?
If a school is implementing a school surveillance system, what is that system, how is the data collected and protected from a privacy standpoint, and does any third party have access to that data.
Canadian schools do have a “duty of care”. In Canadian law, duty of care generally refers to a responsibility to take reasonable steps to protect others from foreseeable harm. For schools, this means that administrators, teachers, and staff must act in a way that ensures the safety and well-being of students while they are under the school’s supervision.
This duty covers a range of areas:
Physical safety: Preventing injuries on school property, ensuring facilities and equipment are safe, and supervising activities appropriately.
Emotional well-being: Protecting students from bullying, harassment, and abuse.
Educational environment: Providing a safe learning space where students can engage without undue risk.
Canadian courts have found that the duty is comparable to the responsibility a “prudent parent” would exercise something knows as “In Loco Parentis” in law. That means schools are expected to provide at least the level of supervision and care a reasonable parent would give in similar circumstances.
Scope and Limits
The duty of care is not absolute, schools are not expected to prevent every possible harm, only those that are reasonably foreseeable.
The standard of care may vary based on the activity. For example, higher supervision is expected during field trips, physical education, or lab experiments than in a classroom lecture.
Teachers and staff are also bound by professional codes of conduct and child protection laws, which reinforce this duty.
In short, Canadian schools do have a recognized legal duty of care toward their students, and failure to uphold it can result in liability.
We would argue that the use of drones and LPR’s by a Canadian school would go beyond what would be legally expected specific to a duty of care. Never mind the amount of money these system cost to purchase, implement, maintain, and monitor.
Schools should feel like learning environments, not prisons. Cameras, access control, and lighting have a place. But when surveillance becomes the central pillar, we would argue that we are shaping a generation that accepts constant watch as normal, and in Canada not presently needed.
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
References
1/ https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2025/07/physical-security-schools-requires-holistic-strategy
5/ https://www.securitysales.com/news/texas-school-district-drones-active-shooter-prevention/612120/
