Brian Lightman warns of a hidden danger in the Protection of Freedoms Bill
Every day in more than 1,000 secondary schools in England, students buy their lunch, check out library books and access buildings with finger recognition systems.
Students love it because they don't have to worry about losing or forgetting ID cards or dinner money; parents love it because it takes away the stigma of free schools meals (no one can tell who pays and who doesn't) and they know dinner money isn't being spent at the chip shop; schools appreciate the cost savings, compared to cash or card systems, which frees up money to spend on teachers and learning resources. So what's the problem?
The Protection of Freedoms Bill now going through Parliament proposes to put strict controls on schools using biometrics systems – controls which could make it extremely difficult to even use them, and which could add between £20 and £45 million a year nationally to the cost.
What's worse, the definition of biometrics in the legislation means that the rules will extend to all digital photographs used for identification purpose, as well as smart cards with student photos and CCTV. This means it 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.
Ironically, parents already back the use of this technology. Evidence shows that when parents have been made aware of how the systems work, and what kind of data they collect, 99.8 per cent have taken up the system.
The crux of the problem is that 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. For some pupils this could involve three or even four adults. In single parent households, where there are acrimonious divorces, or where a school is forbidden from contacting a parent because of a court custody order, this will be hugely problematic.
Legislation proposed by people who don't understand that it doesn't pose a threat
So if parents aren't protesting, why this is legislation being proposed? The only answer we can find is pressure from a handful of children's rights and civil liberties groups who do not understand that the systems don't store finger prints, only a random number which simply identifies an individual enough to tell one pupil from another. The stored information certainly could not be used by police or anyone else to track down and identify an individual student.
The ASCL completely agrees that parents should have a say in whether their children take part in biometric systems in schools. However, as in most other aspects of school life we believe this should be an opt-out system or, as a last resort, a signature from one parent on behalf of the family unit. Otherwise, the hoops that schools and colleges will need to go through to use these systems will be completely disproportional.
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 the benefits of biometric technology.
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.
Brian Lightman is general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders
The ASCL's full evidence to the bill committee is at www.ascl.org.uk/consultations
