Smile! You’re on your principal’s camera!

Overzealous principals are a dime a dozen in the Educational Twilight Zone, but one of them — Gary Williams in Brooklyn’s Borough Park — has really outdone himself.

Apparently Williams fancies himself a sort of James Bond. And what Bond-like devices was our would-be 007 caught using in school, according to a Feb. 14 article in the Daily News? A motion detector, which he used to guard his office, and a hidden camera pencil sharpener, also in his office, an appropriate choice for the principal of the SEEALL Academy. (A sign outside the school’s main entrance says “We SEEALL the world has to offer” — which now takes on a whole new meaning for students and staff.)

Williams supposedly bought the fancy sleuthing gadgets ($490 for the hidden camera and $330 for the motion detector) because he had been robbed several times at school — but why he invested in high-tech spy gear rather than a better lock on his door remains a mystery.

But wait. The story gets even better. Two other paranoid principals, Marilyn Shevell of Martin Van Buren HS in Queens and Gary Beidleman of Brooklyn’s Foundations Academy, were also recently caught with espionage equipment in their schools.

Shevell purchased a $200 hidden camera exit sign, which officials claim was never used, and Beidleman had several hidden-camera boom boxes from the same source — but insists he had ordered regular ones and was sent the spyware by mistake.

In total, Williams, Beidleman and Shevell spent $1,700 over two years on their new toys, which likely violate Department of Education rules that forbid photographing students without parental permission.

So where do Big Brother principals go for their gear? All three got their equipment from the same shadowy source … you guessed it … the DOE website!

Beware! That innocent-looking teddy bear, exit sign or pencil sharpener just might contain a hidden camera. That’s right, folks. The DOE had 45 different varieties of undercover cameras — including one hidden inside a cute teddy bear, in case you need to spy on kindergartners — for sale on its official purchasing site.

But that’s not all it had. Also available on the site were several erotic books, including “Five-Minute Erotica: 35 Passionate Tales of Sex and Seduction,” by former Playboy columnist Carol Queen, and “The Dieter’s Guide to Weight Loss Before, During, and after Sex,” which features a chapter on “Sex with Wildlife,” among other topics. And rounding out the DOE’s selection of totally inappropriate items for sale were the book “Raising the Bar: Better Drinks for Better Entertaining” and “The Cocktail Kit,” which includes six drink makers.

After the Daily News inquiry, the DOE pulled all of the contraband items cited in this article off the market.

The educrats at Tweed are on a roll this winter. In another shocking lapse of judgment, former Chancellor Joel Klein and the Department of Education argued in a recent court case that the only parents who are entitled to have the DOE pay for private school tuition when the public schools fail to provide their special-needs children with the services they need are — amazingly — parents who can already afford to pay private school tuition. Makes sense, right?

In his decision in the case, which ensued when the parents of an underserved special-needs student sued the DOE, U.S. District Judge Paul G. Gardephe described the position of the chancellor and the DOE, who contended that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act grants courts no authority to order a school district to make a retroactive tuition payment, “arguing that the private school tuition remedy is available only to parents with the financial means to pay — in the first instance — private school tuition out-of-pocket.”

In other words, the DOE wants parents to pay the tuition up front and will then reimburse them for it if ordered by a court. And those who can’t? Well, too bad …

Luckily, Judge Gardephe decided against the DOE, writing in no uncertain terms that “this Court concludes that imposing such a limitation on this remedy is inconsistent with the statutory language and with Supreme Court jurisprudence interpreting IDEA, and would be entirely antithetical to Congress’ clearly expressed legislative intent and purpose in enacting IDEA.”

Foiled again, Tweed!