Does your child's school fingerprint you?

[luvdisney00]

I have no problem with it and had it done 5 yrs. ago. My kids are in Catholic school, for the person who said you could avoid this by putting your kids in private school, the Catholic schools were the first to implement this policy. I don't know about other private schools, but charter schools are part of the public school system and should be subject to the same rules as the rest of the district.

When we had it done we had to pay $75, and I also had to have it done separately to renew my RN liscense, but how can you put a price on something that is designed to help the children be safe.

OP, I know it's a pain and maybe you feel insulted that they would question you, but really if even one person is found before they hurt a child, it's worth it. Think it over, it woulld be a shame for you to stop volunteering at school over his. Just go do it!

 

[scarlet_ibis]

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.

I don't have anything to hide.

but how can you put a price on something that is designed to help the children be safe.

It doesn't help the kids be safe.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

It doesn't help the kids be safe.

I don't see how it doesn't. Sure, it's not going to catch dangerous individuals who don't have a record, but it will catch those that do. I don't understand the argument that "since it won't stop everything, we shouldn't bother."

We aren't going to stop every murder, does that mean we shouldn't bother with a police force? We aren't going to save every burning building, does that mean we shouldn't have a fire department?

 

[AJRitz]

I don't see how it doesn't. Sure, it's not going to catch dangerous individuals who don't have a record, but it will catch those that do. I don't understand the argument that "since it won't stop everything, we shouldn't bother."

We aren't going to stop every murder, does that mean we shouldn't bother with a police force? We aren't going to save every burning building, does that mean we shouldn't have a fire department?

First, the mere existence of a prior record does not equal a present danger to children (or to anyone else, for that matter).

One half of being a society based on the rule of law is that when one violates the law, one pays the price. But the other half of being a society based on the rule of law is that when the price prescribed by the law is paid, the debt to society is settled. As I've pointed out previously, there are a range of offenses that might be terribly embarassing to someone, but that either happened remotely in time or relevance to the health and safety of children such that the privacy intrusion far outweighs the probative value of the information.

I don't have a criminal record. I do have a federal government security clearance. For my job, I'm perfectly willing to undergo an extensive background check (one that included personal interviews with family and friends by the FBI). But I'm not willing to allow just anyone to conduct a background check and poke around in my personal, private information. I've worked in a number of schools over the years. I know how school staffs gossip. I don't begrudge them that - knowing their community is important to their ability to do their jobs. But I certainly don't want my (or anyone else's) criminal background check information ending up the topic of office gossip.

Second, one of the problems with these checks that I haven't already talked about is the level of incorrect information that many of them include. Current research finds that approximately 20% of the information in a background check is incorrect. Fingerprinting isn't used to eliminate incorrect information, it's used to make sure that they get everything. Meanwhile, information in those background checks is frequently attributed to the wrong person. Individuals with the same name or birthdate can get their information mixed up. Identity theft victims frequently have charges against the people who stole their identities listed on their own reports. Regardless of the reason, in a class of 20 students with two parents each, eight parents will have incorrect information on their background check. If they're lucky, it's just a falsely reported bad check. If they're not so lucky, it's a violent felony criminal charge that belongs on the record of someone else with their name or birthday.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

First, the mere existence of a prior record does not equal a present danger to children (or to anyone else, for that matter).

Which, actually, is why I mentioned in my first post that I think the district should take into consideration what past arrests pertained to. A disorderly conduct arrest from 10 years ago that resulted in little to now jail time is probably not a big deal, compared to a child rape charge from 10 years ago where the person got out of jail last week.

 

[Leajess99]

Second, one of the problems with these checks that I haven't already talked about is the level of incorrect information that many of them include. Current research finds that approximately 20% of the information in a background check is incorrect. Fingerprinting isn't used to eliminate incorrect information, it's used to make sure that they get everything. Meanwhile, information in those background checks is frequently attributed to the wrong person. Individuals with the same name or birthdate can get their information mixed up. Identity theft victims frequently have charges against the people who stole their identities listed on their own reports. Regardless of the reason, in a class of 20 students with two parents each, eight parents will have incorrect information on their background check. If they're lucky, it's just a falsely reported bad check. If they're not so lucky, it's a violent felony criminal charge that belongs on the record of someone else with their name or birthday.

When we do background checks we get sent a copy of what is sent to the schools. This would allow said parent to find the "fraudulant" information and get it corrected. By never seeing your background check means that said "fraudulant" information can remain on there. I just do NOT understand the big deal. I have had the security clearance from the Government as a result of my former job and still do not feel that a background check for volunteering at a school or coaching a sport is that big of a deal. And for most the schools and sports are not going to say you cannot volunteer because you had a disorderly conduct charge back in the day. I doubt they would do it currently either. They are looking for more severe issues like domestic violence, child abuse/child neglect, attempted murder, murder, possible a repeated DUI offender.

 

[nicki.momof3]

I have read all the posts and I still honestly believe only those with something to hide whould make a big deal about this.

I am a teacher and honestly feel safer when I know a parent has a clear background.

If a parent refuses to comply with a simple background check and fingerprinting I really a happy they are not going to be in my classroom.

Not all helpers are good helpers. Ones that will go the little extra step to protect a child are the ones you want.

 

[Scurvy]

I don't have a problem with it. Teachers and staff in most schools have been required to have background checks in most places for quite some time. I think it only makes sense that anyone else who is going to be spending time with the students should also have those checks done. It doesn't strike me as an invasion of privacy, either, because to me "invasion" implies that it's being done against someone's will. Since the parents all have the right to refrain from volunteering if they don't want to submit to the check, their privacy isn't being invaded.

It always strikes me as funny the way people strike out at those who disagree with them. People might have valid (to them, at least) reasons for objecting to these sorts of background checks, even if I disagree. People also have valid reasons for supporting such checks - but somehow those people are just "sheeple". That sort of namecalling always makes me think that someone doesn't have a very good argument to support their case. Is it not possible that people may have very well thought out reasons for choosing to support and follow a rule? Must we rebel against every rule in order not to be considered sheeple, or is it okay as long as we don't follow them all? Are our only options being either rebels or sheeple? And does anyone else have a Tom Petty song stuck in their head right now?

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!

Does the school allow children to be on premises while there are no teachers there to supervise? That's really poor planning! Our schools have supervision outside for a set amount of time before and after school, and it states in the school handbook that students are not permitted to be on school property outside of those times. Some parents have been known to drop their kids off early or pick them up late, but that isn't the school's fault. If the kids are hurt when the parents have left them unsupervised outside the school, it's the parent's responsibility and not the school's.

I know you said you understand why they lock the doors. Since you disagree with it, do you have a better alternative in mind? That sort of door policy was enacted in my old school district after a non custodial parent kidnapped a child during the school day. No one knew he had entered the building until a student told the teacher she had seen the child leave with a man. If the other doors had been locked and the man had been required to go by the office it wouldn't have happened. I'm glad most schools have that policy now. I can't think of a good way to keep all the doors unlocked and still monitor who enters the building. Can you?

 

[nicki.momof3]

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!

Why would a parent drop off their child earlier than the start time. Schools are like any other business teachers and staff get paid to be there at a certain time. For the life of me I can not imagine why a parent would pull up, see no adults are present is the school is closed, and drop their kids off, and leave. Who does that????????

If the school opens 10 minutes prior to the starting time than it seems like common sense that you arrive then or if you arrive early you wait in your car with your child until supervision arrives.

 

[Alesia]

why would a parent drop off their child earlier than the start time. Schools are like any other business teachers and staff get paid to be there at a certain time. For the life of me i can not imagine why a parent would pull up, see no adults are present is the school is closed, and drop their kids off, and leave. Who does that????????

If the school opens 10 minutes prior to the starting time than it seems like common sense that you arrive then or if you arrive early you wait in your car with your child until supervision arrives.

mte!

 

[AJRitz]

I'll turn my last words on this subject over to Benjamin Franklin. "They who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It is my firm belief that, when we acquiesce to the proposition that it is appropriate for a government institution (which is what a public school is) to demand that we surrender essential liberties in order to be present in our children's classrooms, we teach both the government institution and our children a dangerous lesson.

 

[Scurvy]

I'll turn my last words on this subject over to Benjamin Franklin. "They who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It is my firm belief that, when we acquiesce to the proposition that it is appropriate for a government institution (which is what a public school is) to demand that we surrender essential liberties in order to be present in our children's classrooms, we teach both the government institution and our children a dangerous lesson.

What essential liberties are we being asked to give up?

 

[LovingDisny]

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.

I understand your privacy issues. I really do. However, the situation you described above is a perfect example of why we need these checks. Now that she has committed a crime and put children in danger her background checks and fingerprints will prevent her from getting any other job where she would be in a position to put more children in danger. To me this was a blessing. No children were hurt (unless you left that part out) and now she won't be allowed to drive any other children. Of course background checks are not going to catch everyone or people who have not yet comitted a crime but I have not seen any post on here that gives another solution to maintaining our complete privacy while doing our best to keep our children safe. Again I understand the privacy issue. Here in Texas we have been doing these checks for years and we also have to do them to coach sports or any club where we will be responsible for other children's safety. I really don't have another solution either so I would rather give up a little privacy (they won't find anything bad on my report anyway) and at least try to prevent someone dangerous being with my child or anyone elses.

When we do background checks we get sent a copy of what is sent to the schools. This would allow said parent to find the "fraudulant" information and get it corrected. By never seeing your background check means that said "fraudulant" information can remain on there. I just do NOT understand the big deal. I have had the security clearance from the Government as a result of my former job and still do not feel that a background check for volunteering at a school or coaching a sport is that big of a deal. And for most the schools and sports are not going to say you cannot volunteer because you had a disorderly conduct charge back in the day. I doubt they would do it currently either. They are looking for more severe issues like domestic violence, child abuse/child neglect, attempted murder, murder, possible a repeated DUI offender.[/QU

I am on the boad of my son's football organization. We have our volunteers fill out the background check form on line (as does our school) the form goes to an outside company (we never see the DL#'s or soc #) who sends back a "pass" or "fail" to the President and Vice President. They are not given specific information and no one else has access to it. When we set up our account with this company we gave them guidelines such things we have no tolerance for (any crime involving a child, murder, etc) if any of those things are on your record it is an automatic fail no matter how long ago. Again our organization does not see the full report, we just get back a name and that they failed. We let them know so that if they feel the information is incorrect they can contact the company and research it themselves. We also give guidelines for things like traffic violations and even public intoxication if they were over a certain number of years ago you still pass. I don't know if the schools do their checks like this, but I like that no one really sees your private information this way so if you have something petty like a bad check 12 years ago you are approved and no one at the organization even saw it.

 

[AJRitz]

What essential liberties are we being asked to give up?

I'll start with the right to be free from unreasonable government searches. While this isn't an evidentiary search per se, it is still an intrusive examination into one's life without probable cause for the search. The Supreme Court has recognized a Constitutional right to parent. Being forced to surrender a right to privacy in exchange for exercising one's right to parent is a Hobson's Choice.

Ugh. I said I wasn't going to post here anymore, and I let myself get sucked back in.

 

[luvdisney00]

I don't see how it doesn't. Sure, it's not going to catch dangerous individuals who don't have a record, but it will catch those that do. I don't understand the argument that "since it won't stop everything, we shouldn't bother."

We aren't going to stop every murder, does that mean we shouldn't bother with a police force? We aren't going to save every burning building, does that mean we shouldn't have a fire department?

I totally agree. I don't get the blanket statement "It doesn't help the kids be safe," but I will agree that it not going to catch everything. We can't just assume that our kids are totally safe because everyone who comes into their classroom has been checked, but what would we do differently if the parents WEREN"T screened? No one here is arguing that we should let down our guard because people have had a background check. How could it hurt to take this precaution? As I said in a previous post, if it prevents just ONE incident from happening, it's worth it.

 

[Scurvy]

I'll start with the right to be free from unreasonable government searches. While this isn't an evidentiary search per se, it is still an intrusive examination into one's life without probable cause for the search. The Supreme Court has recognized a Constitutional right to parent. Being forced to surrender a right to privacy in exchange for exercising one's right to parent is a Hobson's Choice.

Ugh. I said I wasn't going to post here anymore, and I let myself get sucked back in.

Sorry, I'm not trying to drag you back in, and you certainly don't need to feel you have to respond. But I don't understand this at all. This has nothing to do with the right to parent. It has everything to do with the right to volunteer in a school classroom, something that is not granted us in the Constitution. You can still parent your child if you choose not to allow the background check. You just can't volunteer in the classroom with other people's children.

 

[AJRitz]

Sorry, I'm not trying to drag you back in, and you certainly don't need to feel you have to respond. But I don't understand this at all. This has nothing to do with the right to parent. It has everything to do with the right to volunteer in a school classroom, something that is not granted us in the Constitution. You can still parent your child if you choose not to allow the background check. You just can't volunteer in the classroom with other people's children.

Sorry. A privilege conditioned on the surrender of a right is just as problematic as a direct violation of a right. Volunteering in a child's public school classroom is a privilege extended to parents of children in the class. Conditioning that privilege on the surrender of the right to privacy is inappropriate. In other words, if I want to exercise my right to parent, by taking advantage of a privilege afforded to parents, I shouldn't be compelled to surrender another right in exchange.

The bottom line is that these checks are the product of orchestrated fear, uncertainty, and doubt by media outlets that thrive on the sensationalist news value and firms making big piles of cash providing "reports" based on data of questionable reliability. There's simply no real justification for doing these checks.

The rate of crimes against children peaked around 1993, and since then has declined to what it was in about 1970. And those stats are falling across the board - even crimes against children by family members and acquaintances are falling.

The number one killer of children is car accidents. Should we bar children from riding in cars? The chances of a child being in a fatal car accident are 40 times higher than the chances of a child being hurt by a stranger.

Want some more stats? More than 1/3 of sex offenses against children are committed by other juveniles. OMG! Time to put all 12-14 year olds (who have the highest rate of sex offenses committed) in cages when they're in the same building with younger children!

"Think of the children" and "preventing even one attack" aren't real justifications. They're slogans. I have to ask, at what cost (in both money and our values)? If any action that would prevent even one attack should be pursued, then what about my suggestion early on that we just wrap all school visitors in saran wrap upon entry into the school? It's remarkably cheap, and would undoubtedly prevent all kinds of attacks. Granted, it might be inconvenient for the school secretary who has to cut the visitor free when it's time to leave. But hey, think of the children!

Or maybe we should just conduct elementary school via web conferencing. Sure, there'd be some up front cost in making sure that all students had the appropriate technological equipment. But at least if they're home they can't be victimized by visitors OR by teachers or staff in the school. Oh, oops. Family members make up about 1/3 of sexual abuse and assault offenders. Yep. Better lock those kids in their own rooms and slide meals in under the door. I wonder if we can require background checks of parents before allowing them to bring their babies home from the hospital?

90% of sexual abuse and assault perpetrators are male. Maybe we should just ban all men from entering schools, serving as teachers or administrators. There are still the school-aged boys to deal with (they commit about 1/3 of sexual abuses and assaults). Maybe if we conduct background checks on them, we can exclude those who would hurt other children?

I know those last few paragraphs are absurd. But that's really my point. There's simply not a body of evidence that suggests in any convincing way that background checks of adult volunteers provide any measurable improvement in child safety. The ONLY way to generate the kind of support for such background checks as appears to exist is to emphasize the few horrific anecdotes and ignore the overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary.

 

[LovingDisny]

Sorry. A privilege conditioned on the surrender of a right is just as problematic as a direct violation of a right. Volunteering in a child's public school classroom is a privilege extended to parents of children in the class. Conditioning that privilege on the surrender of the right to privacy is inappropriate. In other words, if I want to exercise my right to parent, by taking advantage of a privilege afforded to parents, I shouldn't be compelled to surrender another right in exchange.

The bottom line is that these checks are the product of orchestrated fear, uncertainty, and doubt by media outlets that thrive on the sensationalist news value and firms making big piles of cash providing "reports" based on data of questionable reliability. There's simply no real justification for doing these checks.

The rate of crimes against children peaked around 1993, and since then has declined to what it was in about 1970. And those stats are falling across the board - even crimes against children by family members and acquaintances are falling.

The number one killer of children is car accidents. Should we bar children from riding in cars? The chances of a child being in a fatal car accident are 40 times higher than the chances of a child being hurt by a stranger.

Want some more stats? More than 1/3 of sex offenses against children are committed by other juveniles. OMG! Time to put all 12-14 year olds (who have the highest rate of sex offenses committed) in cages when they're in the same building with younger children!

"Think of the children" and "preventing even one attack" aren't real justifications. They're slogans. I have to ask, at what cost (in both money and our values)? If any action that would prevent even one attack should be pursued, then what about my suggestion early on that we just wrap all school visitors in saran wrap upon entry into the school? It's remarkably cheap, and would undoubtedly prevent all kinds of attacks. Granted, it might be inconvenient for the school secretary who has to cut the visitor free when it's time to leave. But hey, think of the children!

Or maybe we should just conduct elementary school via web conferencing. Sure, there'd be some up front cost in making sure that all students had the appropriate technological equipment. But at least if they're home they can't be victimized by visitors OR by teachers or staff in the school. Oh, oops. Family members make up about 1/3 of sexual abuse and assault offenders. Yep. Better lock those kids in their own rooms and slide meals in under the door. I wonder if we can require background checks of parents before allowing them to bring their babies home from the hospital?

90% of sexual abuse and assault perpetrators are male. Maybe we should just ban all men from entering schools, serving as teachers or administrators. There are still the school-aged boys to deal with (they commit about 1/3 of sexual abuses and assaults). Maybe if we conduct background checks on them, we can exclude those who would hurt other children?

I know those last few paragraphs are absurd. But that's really my point. There's simply not a body of evidence that suggests in any convincing way that background checks of adult volunteers provide any measurable improvement in child safety. The ONLY way to generate the kind of support for such background checks as appears to exist is to emphasize the few horrific anecdotes and ignore the overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary.

I believe that if your child was the victim in one of the "few horrific anecdotes" you would have a different opinion. Speak to a parent who has a child who was hurt in an environment where a background check could have prevented it (and yes it can prevent dangerous people from being in the school. if they have a sex crime against a child on their record. they don't get in. That is helping to keep kids safe.) listen to their pain, see them as real people and not just an anecdote and I think your position may change. I don't agree with you that Saving One Child from being hurt is a slogan. No we can't keep them all in a bubble but keeping people with a drunk driving charge 6 months ago and people with crimes against children out of our schools, churches and sports organizations in my opinion does keep children safer. Not "never in danger, nothing bad is every going to happen" but safer than they would be if those people were not weeded out.

 

[Scurvy]

Sorry. A privilege conditioned on the surrender of a right is just as problematic as a direct violation of a right. Volunteering in a child's public school classroom is a privilege extended to parents of children in the class. Conditioning that privilege on the surrender of the right to privacy is inappropriate. In other words, if I want to exercise my right to parent, by taking advantage of a privilege afforded to parents, I shouldn't be compelled to surrender another right in exchange.

The bottom line is that these checks are the product of orchestrated fear, uncertainty, and doubt by media outlets that thrive on the sensationalist news value and firms making big piles of cash providing "reports" based on data of questionable reliability. There's simply no real justification for doing these checks.
The rate of crimes against children peaked around 1993, and since then has declined to what it was in about 1970. And those stats are falling across the board - even crimes against children by family members and acquaintances are falling.

The number one killer of children is car accidents. Should we bar children from riding in cars? The chances of a child being in a fatal car accident are 40 times higher than the chances of a child being hurt by a stranger.

Want some more stats? More than 1/3 of sex offenses against children are committed by other juveniles. OMG! Time to put all 12-14 year olds (who have the highest rate of sex offenses committed) in cages when they're in the same building with younger children!

"Think of the children" and "preventing even one attack" aren't real justifications. They're slogans. I have to ask, at what cost (in both money and our values)? If any action that would prevent even one attack should be pursued, then what about my suggestion early on that we just wrap all school visitors in saran wrap upon entry into the school? It's remarkably cheap, and would undoubtedly prevent all kinds of attacks. Granted, it might be inconvenient for the school secretary who has to cut the visitor free when it's time to leave. But hey, think of the children!

Or maybe we should just conduct elementary school via web conferencing. Sure, there'd be some up front cost in making sure that all students had the appropriate technological equipment. But at least if they're home they can't be victimized by visitors OR by teachers or staff in the school. Oh, oops. Family members make up about 1/3 of sexual abuse and assault offenders. Yep. Better lock those kids in their own rooms and slide meals in under the door. I wonder if we can require background checks of parents before allowing them to bring their babies home from the hospital?

90% of sexual abuse and assault perpetrators are male. Maybe we should just ban all men from entering schools, serving as teachers or administrators. There are still the school-aged boys to deal with (they commit about 1/3 of sexual abuses and assaults). Maybe if we conduct background checks on them, we can exclude those who would hurt other children?

I know those last few paragraphs are absurd. But that's really my point. There's simply not a body of evidence that suggests in any convincing way that background checks of adult volunteers provide any measurable improvement in child safety. The ONLY way to generate the kind of support for such background checks as appears to exist is to emphasize the few horrific anecdotes and ignore the overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary.

You're right - much of that is absurd.

Regarding the bolded, I wonder why the rate of those crimes has gotten lower? Perhaps part of it is due to sex crime registries and background checks.

School employees in most places these days are required to have background checks performed in order to work at the school. What is the point of running background checks on those people if we are going to allow other people to volunteer in the classroom without having background checks done? If it is important to know if teachers, administrators and staff members have a history of crime involving children, it is equally important to know if the school volunteers with access to those children have histories of those crimes.

Yes, car accidents are terrible things and it's tragic when children are killed in them. That's one reason many states require children to ride in car seats. That makes them safer. Does it prevent all deaths of children in car accidents? Sadly, no. But it does make children safer when they are in cars. Perhaps the background checks also make children safer when they are in school.

You are still confusing "rights" with "privilages". You are guaranteed the right to parent your child (barring egregious neglect or abuse on your part, at least). You are not guaranteed the privilage of volunteering with children. Volunteering is not parenting. Schools have the right to completely refuse to let any parents volunteer in their children's classrooms, and in fact some do just that. Some schools are allowing parents to volunteer, provided that they pass a background check. You are in no way required to cease parenting your child if you refuse the background check. You may choose to have a background check done if you wish to volunteer, and you don't have to if you aren't going to volunteer. We voluntarily surrender rights to recieve privilages all the time. I was searched at the last concert I went to, and people are routinely searched when they fly. I was even searched the last time I went into a jail - oddly enough, that was when I was going to have my fingerprints taken for my background check. For that matter, I was required to undergo a background check for my job, as was my husband. We have the right to avoid the background checks and searches, but we must also give up the concerts, flights and jobs if we choose to do that. All of those searches or background checks are allowable under the Constitution. I see no reason why background checks for school volunteers would be treated any differently, but if you do then maybe you should work on getting the Supreme Court to consider the matter.

 

[mstinson14]

Consider yourself lucky! Our schools have never allowed parent volunteers, and security is one of the reasons. All of the schools are locked, and class moms can only come in for parties (younger grades only). Parents can't even volunteer in the office, and if your child forgets something at home (like lunch), you get buzzed in, and take it to the office, and leave.

This is how it is for my dd's school