Recording Equipments in Classrooms Ethical

Running head: RECORDING EQUIPMENTS IN CLASSROOMS ETHICAL PAPER 1
RECORDING EQUIPMENTS IN CLASSROOMS ETHICAL PAPER 4

RECORDING EQUIPMENTS IN CLASSROOMS ETHICAL PAPER
Name

Instructor

Institution

Course

Date

Introduction

The topic about installation of recording equipments in classrooms is interesting as it creates a moral contradiction. Failing to monitor classroom activities adequately can result in student misbehavior while some extent of recording might be considered unethical. As such, the actions that perspire in class should be recorded to such extent that the learners and instructors alike are satisfied. The law provides that the teacher might refuse to participate is the kinds of activities that aim to reveal persona but equally insists that the same teachers must take partial responsibility for the events that transpire at school. “Education Code Section 51512 permits teachers to tape themselves in the interest of improving the quality of education under the condition that the consent of the subjects of such recordings is acquired” (Kemerer, Sansom and Kemerer, 2005). Placing recording equipments in classrooms has the unintended consequence of diminishing the value of the right to privacy.

There are several positive results or probable benefits of allowing recording of classroom activities. For instance, school administration is able to achieve better decision making because it has access to information. According to Foreman (2014), recoding all the activities that happen in a classroom can reveal useful information concerning consequences of behavior. Resource utilization is optimized as educational instructors strive to achieve better time budgeting. Students are able to attain better grades because their behaviors are easily accessed to inspire policy formulation. In addition, classroom safety is emphasized. Responsible adults have the opportunity to study learner behavior relative to inherent circumstances. Student behavior is related to environmental aspects of the classroom set up. Installation of recording equipment intentionally provided useful information in developing behavioral improvement plans.

However, contrary school of thought suggests that installation of such equipment harms the right to privacy. Among the popular arguments is the dispute that recording equipment picks unnecessary information while simultaneously limiting the right to refuse public access to personal information. To some extent, it can also be argued that such information should not be presented openly to the public as ill intended persons could take advantage. According to Kachur, Stout, and Edwards (2010), technology can be an empowering tool in learning environments. Nevertheless, installation of such equipment can intimidate the instructors and learners; therefore, affecting the learning process. In anticipation of such secondary consequences, the Education Code provides that utilization of such equipment is only permitted if consent is given by the persons to be recorded.

In conclusion, the topic of using recording equipment in classrooms is a technological matter that has been approached with both liking and disliking. Some approaches support it while others dispute its usefulness in comparison to the consequences of adoption. It has secondary consequences relating to misuse of information and distracting the process of study. The government takes note of such issues and has a well developed legal framework that seeks to limit the extent of recording equipment utilization in classroom set ups. The main purpose of the policies like The Education Code is to ensure that institutional administration remains objective and accountable in responding to school related matters.
References

Foreman, P. (2014). Inclusion in Action PDF. Cengage Learning Australia, p.255.

Kachur, D., Stout, J., & Edwards, C. (2010). Classroom walkthroughs to improve teaching and learning. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Kemerer, F., Sansom, P. and Kemerer, J. (2005). California school law. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Law and Politics, p.379.