Does your child's school fingerprint you?

[bellebud]

Good luck stupid district ###. Have fun without me.

but it's really "good luck *your kids*. have fun w/out me", not good luck district. you're telling your own kids that because the school has a policy that pisses you off, you'll now be less involved in their lives. 3 days a week is a lot of time in the school, and I think it's really wonderful you did that, and I bet your kids thought it was wonderful too. I feel sorry for your kids.

 

[skalenik]

I am completely for classroom volunteers being fingerprinted and/or having some sort of background check inorder to volunteer in the classroom. Teachers and staff in our district must be fingerprinted and have background checks before being allowed to work in the school system. When I went for my fingerprinting for my teaching license, it took 30 minutes from start to finish. When the time comes for me to volunteer in my child's classroom, I would totally be willing to do anything they needed me to do whether it was being fingerprinted again or attending some type of seminar. To me, it would make me feel better and at ease, knowing that classroom volunteers would go through some sort of screening process too.

 

[tiggger1]

I would recommend you recheck that because I know in our district and all the districts I have lived in you canNOT volunteer in the school district at all if you failed your CORI. They can and do stop you because even in your own child's classroom you are with other children.

Sorry I forgot I posted!

The only reason I know this is because last year my daughter's class had a walking field trip. the day before one mother was told that because her CORI didnt come back yet, she couldnt go. She left and showed up the next morning with her husband who is a lawyer with a paper stating the even if she failed the CORI while she could not volunteer with other kids, they could not stop her being in the classroom/trip with her child...the school's lawyer looked at it and they let her go on the field trip....

 

[brockash]

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.

Our school doesn't do this, but I wish they did. The only thing they do (and it's not really even them, it's parks and rec) is run a background on anyone that coaches a sport.

I volunteer a lot at my son's school, and while I agree it'd be a pain to spend basically a whole day dealing with it, I'd support it, if our school would do something like that. Personally, even if the criminal doesn't "do" anything to my kid, I still don't want a criminal around my child.

 

[Magpie]

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.

Hey Teacup, you called everyone who disagreed with you "sheeple". So I figured it was an invitation to play.

Baaa...

I had no idea this practice was already so widespread.

It's a sign of the apocalypse, you know.

 

[here757]

While this is true of some offenses in some states, more frequently the lists are overbroad instead of under inclusive. In many states, some or all of the following offenses require registration as a sex offender (even if the convictions took place before the registration statute was in place):
1. "Romeo and Juliet" statutory rape (e.g. 18-year-old high school senior convicted of having sex with his 16-year-old high school junior girlfriend).
2. Public urination - like the guy at the overcrowded bar who steps outside and pees in the alley.
3. A 17-year-old receiving a "sexting" photo from a 17-year-old girlfriend (it's possession of child pornography)
4. A 12-year-old who touches a classmate inappropriately
5. An individual who was accused of a sex crime before registration requirements were on the books, and plea bargained the charge in order to avoid putting their family through the public attention of a trial - even if the accused maintains his/her innocence - may now by required to register as a sex offender and has no opportunity to reconsider the decision to accept a plea bargain (a decision that likely would not have been made, had the registration statutes been in existence).

seriously... u think that the school has enough staff to spare. with all the budget cuts there are not enough teachers. and u suggest that someone look sex offenders up online?
alot of sex offenders dont even register...

 

[scarlet_ibis]

seriously... u think that the school has enough staff to spare. with all the budget cuts there are not enough teachers. and u suggest that someone look sex offenders up online?
alot of sex offenders dont even register...

Apparently they have enough staff to go through all of these background checks. Or are you saying that they don't even look at them? (raising eyebrow)

A lot of sex offenders haven't been convicted yet. A lot of future sex offenders haven't committed a crime yet. Of the three big in-school sex abuse scandals in my area recently, all have been school employees (teachers, administrators, janitors), many of whom are men in their 20s.

 

[here757]

Apparently they have enough staff to go through all of these background checks. Or are you saying that they don't even look at them? (raising eyebrow)

A lot of sex offenders haven't been convicted yet. A lot of future sex offenders haven't committed a crime yet. Of the three big in-school sex abuse scandals in my area recently, all have been school employees (teachers, administrators, janitors), many of whom are men in their 20s.

we have had a few sex scandals here too... wonder why..
make you wonder seriously if they do look at them

the background check is reviewed by the school district.. not just the school itself..
the district approves or disapproves it.

 

[disneydreamer98]

$20 and a day of my time is a small price to pay to help secure the safety of my children. It's not to prove that I'm safe to be around my kids...is for self assurance that my kids are safe from all the other people coming into contact at their school. Background checks won't 100% assure the safety of my kids, but it does make me feel better. I was so happy when our school district implimented this requirement last year. I figure that the people who complain about it and fight it aren't the kind on people the school needs around anyways....that's my 2 cents for what it's worth.

 

[scarlet_ibis]

we have had a few sex scandals here too... wonder why..
make you wonder seriously if they do look at them

the background check is reviewed by the school district.. not just the school itself..
the district approves or disapproves it.

But a background check doesn't find anything if there's no conviction. Of the high-profile cases here recently, one was a 25 year old teacher and another was a 24 year old custodian. It's unlikely that these men would have had anything other than a clean record when they were hired.

 

[scarlet_ibis]

I figure that the people who complain about it and fight it aren't the kind on people the school needs around anyways....that's my 2 cents for what it's worth.

Thanks for that. I'm co-chair of my school's PTO. I guess I'm not the kind of person the school needs around.

 

[disneydreamer98]

Yep and in our school district it means they canNOT attend field trips either.

Same with ours.

 

[disneydreamer98]

Thanks for that. I'm co-chair of my school's PTO. I guess I'm not the kind of person the school needs around.

I'm the President of our school's PTO and like I said...that's my 2 cents, take it for what it's worth. Everyone is intitled to their opinion, just like the OP.

 

[Magpie]

A background check is less work for school staff than making sure all the kids have their vaccinations and all contact info is up to date.

My background check was just a single page form letter from the police department with a box checked off next to a statement saying, "This person has no criminal convictions on record as of..." and the date.

 

[disneydreamer98]

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.

Amen!

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.

So throw caution to the wind and to heck with checks and balances that just might catch the other 98.9%!

Hey Teacup, you called everyone who disagreed with you "sheeple". So I figured it was an invitation to play.

Baaa...

 

[tartemis]

But a background check doesn't find anything if there's no conviction. Of the high-profile cases here recently, one was a 25 year old teacher and another was a 24 year old custodian. It's unlikely that these men would have had anything other than a clean record when they were hired.

True. But, it is one more tool that a school has to work with. In any event, it is probably for insurance purposes anyway (as previously mentioned) and if it lowers insurance rates and therefore leaves more money to educate you child, isn't that another bonus?

I just don't see the outrage. And I am very anti-big brother.

 

[daisyduck123]

Yes, the elementary school I teach at already does this (my school has over 650 students K-5).

Last week, we actually had to tell a parent chaperone that she could not ride on the bus to the museum with our class because she did not send in her paperwork in time for the background check to occur.

 

[Luv Bunnies]

I have no problem with fingerprinting and background checks for anyone who works with children. I think it mostly acts as a deterent to those who have crimial backgrounds. Why would someone volunterarily go in to be fingerprinted knowing they wouldn't pass? The requirement itself will weed out people who shouldn't be working in a classroom.

I work for my son's school district and was fingerprinted before I started my job. I am cleared for all volunteer work including overnight trips. It's not required for day-to-day classroom work but is required for overnight trips. My DH was fingerprinted before he chaperoned science camp last year. Our district office has fingerprinting equipment so he was able to go there to have it done. It cost him $10 and it was money well-spent. Knowing that everyone going on an overnight trip with my son was cleared is worth more than $10! All of our volunteers are required to have clear TB tests and have to pay for those, too. It's all worth it to me.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

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.

Good.

I know of at least one district in my area that does child abuse history clearance (known in Pennsylvania as Act 33).

As for a criminal background check, I think that should be required, too, but districts should have a little leeway on it. For example, if you some disorderly conduct charge for college, they should wave that off. However, if you had an arrest, in, say, the past year, though, they should probably consider not letting you in the building.

 

[nicki.momof3]

I could not imagine that anyone with nothing to hide would mind taking a few minutes out to have this done. After all it is for the safety of our children. Our school does not do it but wish they did.

My husband's coaches oour boys football and baseball teams and both organizations require a background check.

Those with something to hide are the ones that are going to make a big stink about this. Personally - they are the people I don't want near my children.