Does your child's school fingerprint you?

[RMulieri]

Yup..Normal.It is for the protection of the children.I have to do it for my nursing job as well.

 

[PrincessTiffany]

As far as I'm concerned these invasions of privacy are just one step closer to having a barcode implanted on ours foreheads and that is a far more troubling issue that I wish to protect my children from.

I don't teach my children to just blindly follow the masses like all of the other sheeple. Yes. They probably will be dissapointed to not have me in their classroom next year, but hopefully in the end they will have learned that the right thing to do is to follow your own morals, even if no one else believes in it.

But getting fingerprinted is not immoral. You may find it an invasion of privacy, but it is not immoral.

 

[teacup princess]

Here is the definition of morals from Webster's Dictionary:

Morals: 1. Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong.

 

[jodifla]

I'm so angy right now. I just found out that my child's school is planning to fingerprint and run a criminal background check on any parent who wishes to volunteer in the classroom next year. Not only this, but they plan to charge you $20 and make you eat up what will probably end up being an enitire day proving your identity to them and standing in line at the police station so they can determine if I am safe to be with my own child. NO THANK YOU!!! Is this really what our world is coming to? Since when did we as parents become suspects of heinous acts involving our own children?

I currently volunteer 3 days a week of my own time for free to help out my kid's teachers. I guess next year I'll have alot more free time on my hands because I refuse to follow this stupid, asinine policy. I don't have a criminal record, but am I being unreasonable? Does your school do this?

I can't see how this is doing anything but hurting the children. I don't recall any newsworthy events of parents performing unmentionable acts to children when the teacher is standing right there. The district has already cut it's staff to the bone, now they want to get rid of their volunteers? I truly enjoy helping in my child's classroom, being there for class partys, field trips, ect. Nope. No more. Good luck stupid district ###. Have fun without me.

Thanks for the rant. This one just threw me over the edge.

I agree with you. Luckily, my son's school hasn't started this yet.

 

[arielmomma]

As is customary anymore in so many of these threads, rather than affording a respectful environment of varying opinions, a couple of posters have become impudent and forced the OP has become defensive.

Since I doubt anything more valuable is going to come out of here, its time to whip out the and watch the claws come out until the Mod closes the thread.

Who needs reality TV? God Bless America!

 

[AJRitz]

Your privacy vs. the safety of several hundred children.

But right here is the rub, isn't it. I'll say it again, because no one responded when I brought it up initially. "It will make it safer for the children" isn't an explanation without evidence that it actually does so. At this point, there is as much evidence that background checks for volunteers make for a safer environment for children as there is evidence that wrapping volunteers in Saran Wrap upon entry to the school makes the school environment safer for children. Which is to say NONE. We can argue about logical assumptions (and based on logical assumptions, wrapping volunteers in Saran Wrap is a much stronger basis to make an assumption that kids would be safer). But there's ZERO evidence. Background checks are all about fostering an environment of fear, uncertainty, and doubt among parents, by focusing on scary anecdotes rather than empirical evidence.

 

[hippiemama76]

Now.... here is the cynic coming out in me. I do not believe school districts require this to protect the children as much as they do it to protect themselves. We are in a sue happy society. If a parent sues a school district because of some inappropriate behavior by a volunteer, one of the first questions asked will be "What steps did the district take to make sure the students would be safe around this person?" They need to make it clear that they did their due diligence in finding out exactly who is volunteering in the classrooms. Many parents are happy to oblige because, as a pp pointed out, most people do not have anything to hide in that regard and are happy to give up a measure of privacy because they feel it means their kids are safer.

Remember a lawsuit, even a frivolous one, can cost the district a lot of money. That is one reason insurance companies are also requiring this from the schools.

I totally agree with this assessment (speaking as a former teacher).

HippieGirl is starting Kindergarten in August, and her school requires the fingerprint/background check for everyone who volunteers. You also have to scan your DL in the office to get a volunteer pass. The DL machine is hooked up directly to the police department and checks for any current issues. If you pass the DL scan, the computer spits out a one day pass with your name, the picture from your DL, and (very predominantly displayed) the date (so the passes cannot be reused).

It will make things safer, or at least better documented. Does little to take care of irresponsible adults working in the system. At the last school I worked before SAH, there were several employees that were involved with students. One of the teachers was even married to a former student (they got married 2 years after she graduated from high school). It was known, but almost impossible to do anything about.

 

[teacup princess]

But right here is the rub, isn't it. I'll say it again, because no one responded when I brought it up initially. "It will make it safer for the children" isn't an explanation without evidence that it actually does so. At this point, there is as much evidence that background checks for volunteers make for a safer environment for children as there is evidence that wrapping volunteers in Saran Wrap upon entry to the school makes the school environment safer for children. Which is to say NONE. We can argue about logical assumptions (and based on logical assumptions, wrapping volunteers in Saran Wrap is a much stronger basis to make an assumption that kids would be safer). But there's ZERO evidence. Background checks are all about fostering an environment of fear, uncertainty, and doubt among parents, by focusing on scary anecdotes rather than empirical evidence.
__________________

Agree 100%

 

[MomtoEmIs&Ow]

Our school makes all parents get a criminal background check done, and they should! I have not read through all the posts but I think that the OP's child would be the one lossing out because 'mom' does not school policy. You hear about people molesting their own children, so why would they not do it to yours if they had the chance. Not something I want to risk, check away I have nothing to hide!

 

[Magpie]

You may or may not agree with background checks and fingerprinting. The school's reasons may or may not have anything to do with your child's safety. Maybe it's about insurance.

None of that matters compared to your original reason for volunteering in your child's classroom.

You do it so that you can be involved in your child's education, and aware of how your child is doing in school, right? You do it because you don't want to hand your child over to strangers for seven hours a day and have no idea what happens to them during that time. You do it because you want to be a part of your child's life.

Presumably you do it for the good of your child. Because if this isn't about your child, then why on earth were you volunteering in the first place?

Honestly, if you're this offended with the school policy, then you should pull your child from the school. Maybe there's a private school somewhere that doesn't do background checks, and you'll feel more comfortable sending your child there. Homeschooling is always an option, too.

BTW - if later on you ever want to be involved in your child's sports, scouting, band, and church activities, you'll almost certainly need a background check for those, too. You may think it's immoral, but most parents would like to know if the person driving kids to a regional competition has a conviction for drunk driving.

(I bet the Disney Corporation knows lots more about you than your gov't... )

 

[teacup princess]

You may think it's immoral, but most parents would like to know if the person driving kids to a regional competition has a conviction for drunk driving.

Well, considering I live in an area where a local bus driver with no prior convictions blew a .2 moments after dropping her last child off the bus I've lost a little faith in the checks and balances system. You can implement all the checks you want, but you can't control any one individuals lapse in judgement at any particular moment in time.

 

[allison443]

You may or may not agree with background checks and fingerprinting. The school's reasons may or may not have anything to do with your child's safety. Maybe it's about insurance.

None of that matters compared to your original reason for volunteering in your child's classroom.

You do it so that you can be involved in your child's education, and aware of how your child is doing in school, right? You do it because you don't want to hand your child over to strangers for seven hours a day and have no idea what happens to them during that time. You do it because you want to be a part of your child's life.

Presumably you do it for the good of your child. Because if this isn't about your child, then why on earth were you volunteering in the first place?

Honestly, if you're this offended with the school policy, then you should pull your child from the school. Maybe there's a private school somewhere that doesn't do background checks, and you'll feel more comfortable sending your child there. Homeschooling is always an option, too.

BTW - if later on you ever want to be involved in your child's sports, scouting, band, and church activities, you'll almost certainly need a background check for those, too. You may think it's immoral, but most parents would like to know if the person driving kids to a regional competition has a conviction for drunk driving.

(I bet the Disney Corporation knows lots more about you than your gov't... )

I agree with the above...my kid's (private) school requires fingerprinting and a background check....I don't really think it's that useful because (a) they only check fingerprints in our state and (b) if you come back as "clean" that doesn't really guarantee anything, only that a person hasn't been caught/convicted of anything yet. A person could still be a child molester or whatever.

That said, I paid my fee ($45!!) and went through the process which included taking a child abuse prevention/awareness course (3 hours) because it was necessary in order to continue my volunteer work at the school.
It all comes down to what choice you want to make.

 

[brandylouwho]

I resigned from a community board over the decision to require these sort of background checks. Maybe this one is different and more limited. But often, these background checks are nothing but overbroad invasions of privacy. Sex offender lists are already matters of public record, and could be readily checked by existing staff at no cost. Fingerprinting and criminal background checks have the potential to turn up decades old, wholly irrelevant, and potentially embarrassing information. Why would it matter that a parent wrote a bad check back in college 15 years ago? And why should that be of any interest to the safety of children in a classroom.

Furthermore, there is not one shred of evidence that performing such background checks has ever protected a child from any kind of harm. Background checks are useless against those who have not be caught and/or convicted of an offense. Offenses that actually take place in a school are extraordinarily rare, and even then are most frequently committed by school staff if they do happen. And if the school is following best practices, volunteers aren't left alone with children in the classroom anyway.

All these background check policies accomplish is:
1) Create a false sense of security among those who believe that because of background checks, their child is safe from predators.
2) Impose inconvenience and potential embarrassment on people who are already giving generously of their time and effort
3) Exclude from participation individuals who have no relevant offenses in their past, but would prefer not to share with school administration that time 20 years ago when they got caught smoking a joint outside a Jimmy Buffett show.

I could not agree more!. Luckily, our district does not have such policies. And I certainly do agree with those who believe these policies are more about CYA (cover your ***) than protecting students. They are implemented so if/when something does happen the district can say, "Well, we did a background check and they passed it."

That being said, it would not stop me from volunteering at school. I would oppose such proposals, but in the end I'd suck it up and do the check if I had to. Heck, it wouldn't be the first time--I had to go through a pretty extensive one for my job (in the office at a law enforcement agency).

 

[Magpie]

Well, considering I live in an area where a local bus driver with no prior convictions blew a .2 moments after dropping her last child off the bus I've lost a little faith in the checks and balances system. You can implement all the checks you want, but you can't control any one individuals lapse in judgement at any particular moment in time.

No, you can't. Nothing works 100 percent of the time.

But isn't it nice to know that your local bus driver can't just move to the next county over and get another job driving children? Or would you be okay with that, since background checks are immoral?

A background check is about risk reduction, not harm prevention. It's a replacement for those days when we lived in small towns and everyone knew everyone else's business. "Oh, we can't let Bob drive the kids. Remember when he got wasted and cracked up his car, three years ago?" "Oh, we can't let Mary organize the milk money. She regularly blows all her money gambling." "I would NEVER let Pete near my kids. He's a creep. I heard he got his own daughter pregnant."

Nowadays most people are strangers. We don't know anything about them. But at least we can find out if they've been convicted of something, before we hand over our children to them.

That doesn't seem like much to ask.

 

[DeniseinNS]

I think it's a great idea to take those safety precautions, I would gladly pay that and be happy that they were looking out for the kids so well. My child's safety is well worth more then the $20 that it costs for that.

 

[teacup princess]

I think I'm done now. This is just going to turn into personal attacks for statements taken totally out of context. Thanks to all those who chimed in with useful discussion. I had no idea this practice was already so widespread.

 

[DaniB]

Personally I'm with the original OP and agree with AJRitz. Many of these security measures are not done for the sake of security. They are done to secure the school against liability in a world gone "sue-crazy". AND gives the illusion of safety to parents.

In our school district, the school requires a police background check every school year in order to volunteer. I'm fine with that. I volunteer frequently for class trips as I'm a stay-at-home-mom. But fingerprinting? Oh please...

And our school locks every door except the front door. I understand their reasoning, but I disagree with it. Teachers are not out in the school yard until 10 minutes before school starts and only 10 minutes after. There are many children who start showing up 20 minutes before, and remain 20 minutes later. At least twice during the school year I see a child get hurt playing, with no way of getting inside for help until they walk all the way around the school. Lovely. Considering schools are getting more worried about possible abduction, how does having locked doors help a child outside who can't run back in for help? Yeah - makes perfect sense!

Ohh, and yes - did I mention the school removed the climbing/slide playset because it was deemed too old and unsafe? Reasonable enough. But instead of replacing it with a new one, they "landscaped" the old area with a couple of baby trees and lage boulders lined up in a large circle. For some reason they seem to think the boulders are not an invitation to the younger grades (1-6) to jump on from boulder-to-boulder-to-boulder. I feel sorry for the recess supervisors who need to tell the kids daily "stay off the rocks!". I guess the school wasn't worrying about liability when they replaced the playground equipment with boulders...

I stumbled across a site called "Free Range Kids" and had to unsubscribe to it within a month or two. Not because I disagreed with them - in fact, I agree with them! But to sit there reading these insane stories, mouth open, shaking my head in disbelief every day was too much. Luckily I quickly realized that the majority of these are in the States, with a few sprinklings from other countries.

I still remember two that had me laughing in total disbelief. They HAD to be joking. One school refused to let children ride their bikes to school on the grounds that it wasn't safe. I understand not on school property, but not to school. I cheered the mom who challenged that!

And another school refuses to let children leave school when the day ends. Parents wear badges (handed out by the school) to prove who they are and pick up their children one by one. A teacher (at the front-door and drive-through pick-up spot) radios back into the school the OK to send so-and-so out. Apparently the neighbourhood was getting quite upset by the immense line-up of cars snaking around the streets for an hour or more every day.

 

[scarlet_ibis]

$20 for one background check, but when I applied for the bar exam, I had to have a background check (and driver record) from EVERY STATE that I had lived in. Which was five at that point. Very expensive.

 

[jackie101]

Yup thats nomal. It's called a cori check...and personally I wouldn't want anyone near my child who wasn't cori'd.

same here in mass

 

[jackie101]

Your privacy vs. the safety of several hundred children.

So, don't volunteer if you feel this is intrusive. Whatever.

I am tired of parents who think that the entire school system, our entire society, in fact, should be tailored to their whims.

If you want to volunteer without submitting to a background check, put your kids in a private or charter school.

Quit wasting your time and energy fighting every rule that comes your way.

My children go to a charter school and we also need a corri on file every year to volunteer at the school