Definitely support. I agree that cameras absolutely need to be in classrooms where there are children with disabilities, please.

I am so thankful that we have you to help protect and support our children and staff.

Cameras ensure the safety of students and staff alike. As a mother of a nonverbal autistic child it is imperative for cameras to be in classrooms moving forward. It is exhausting to advocate for this year after year. I need to put all of my efforts on supporting my high support needs child.

Please help parents know their children are safe in BCPS by ensuring cameras are in classrooms of where there are children with disabilities indefinitely. We cannot continue to revisit this conversation every single year. Make this permanent once and for all.

Thank you for your consideration and time.

Dear School Board Members,
As one of the parents helping to draft this policy for a successful launch by the first day of school, I want to stress that there's a few words that must be changed in this policy.

The word “may” must be replaced with “MUST,” and other unnecessary language must be deleted.

Proposed Revision to Draft Policy 4900, page 2:
3. Parental review of the incident video MUST include up to 30 minutes before and after the incident itself.
(If no incident was captured, no review shall occur.)

The data clearly shows the issue. Parent viewings during the first two years of the pilot were severely restricted — only 2 viewings in 2021/22 and 4 viewings in 2022/23 — due to an unlawful interpretation of F.S. 1003.574. Following the State’s correction, there were 16 viewings in 2023/24, demonstrating that allowing parents to review videos, as required by law and in the students’ best interest, is neither an undue burden nor an unreasonable request.
This policy MUST reflect that commitment to transparency and parental rights.

Sincerely,
Melissa Carrion Ramos
Proud ACE-Autism Chair

The Draft Policy 4900 language below does not conform to the State Statute Pilot Program language and will not protect Students. Pre-Screening video and allowing Staff to determine if an "incident" occurred, or not, was not the intent or the letter of the Statute. This also undermines Parent confidence in the District regarding Student Safety. These are our cameras, installed in our classrooms, recording our children.
When little non-verbal Jack or Jill come home with cuts and bruises, Parents should have a right to view available video, not be told there is nothing to see, no video for you! as they were during the 3 year Pilot Program.

The word “may” needs to be replaced with “MUST” and other words deleted as well.
From page 2 of Draft Policy 4900
"3. Parental review of the incident video (delete) (will be limited to the may) MUST include (up to) 30 minutes before and after the incident itself. (If no incident was captured, no review shall occur.")
(“IF NO INCIDENT WAS CAPTURED, NO REVIEW SHALL OCCUR”)

The disparity in Parent viewings from the first 2 years of the Pilot to the last is evidence of dangerous behavior by District Staff. In 2021/22 there were 2 viewings by Parents "allowed," in 2022/23 there were 4 allowed, and in 2023/24 there were 16 viewings allowed. This is because the District interpreted the Statute the first 2 years to allow denial to view video to Parents based on an unlawful interpretation of FS1003.574. See 1003.574 Report of Inquiry, an excerpt:
Page 5
6. For these reasons, the bureau finds that the district violated the requirements of s.1003.574, F.S., regarding the district’s denial of the parent’s request to view video footage.

Parent viewings after the State correction (16,) and that all videos requested need to be reviewed when requested would indicate that allowing Parents to view video on request, as the Statute called for, and which is in the Students best interest, would not be an undue burden.

What are you trying to hide?
Respectfully, Steve Moyer