Does your child's school fingerprint you?

[Mkrop]

So all you have to do is get your background check before you arrested. Alrighty then.

(My kids are about 6 years apart. I could conceivably spent something like 19 years in one school system. A lot can happen in 19 years.)

We do not fingerprint although I would be ok with that...

This is why our school requires renewal of your back ground check every 5 years. I just had to redo mine because my oldest was entering 6th grade in a K-8 school.

The coaches for Little League have to do one every year.

 

[CrAzY4DL]

At my DDs' school, a TB test is required to volunteer in the classroom and to attend any field trips. While on the field trip, you are only allowed to "watch" your child. To be able to chaperone on a field trip/be left alone with child/drive children to event you have to be fingerprinted through the Sheriff's department which costs the parent $75 and took less than 10 minutes. Both DH and I have the TB test and I did the fingerprinting because I am a SAHM and go in to each girls class once a week and never miss a field trip. The past 2 years, DH has been tagging along on field trips as well, where he just mingles with me and my group but he isn't the "chaperone". I like that this is the schools practice, makes me feel a little safer when I can't be there.

 

[Scurvy]

And since the grades go up to grade 8 - most of the older grades walk to school on their own or with other kids. I cannot comment on the odds of an actual abduction taking place (only my opinion) on school grounds - but if a child was actually approached by a stranger or gets injured - its unreasonable (to me) that they cannot enter the school easily for assistance. As a child, I never had a problem getting in to school through any door when needed.

Seriously though - how many parents "supervise" children in Grades 6, 7 and 8? By then, the children are old enough to walk to school and wait for the bell if they get there a bit early. Heck, I was walking to school by myself by Grade 4.

I doubt that most parents supervise their middle schoolers every minute. However, it sounds like the parents know what the situation at your school is. Teachers are not responsible for the students who arrive at the school before they are outside to supervise. If parents are uncomfortable with their children possibly being injured and having to walk around the school then the obvious solution is to not allow them to be at the school outside of the hours when there is supervision. The school has made their policy clear; parents have to decide what they are comfortable with and make the choice about what they will allow their children to do based on that policy.

Besides, how many kids actually get injured before or after school while there is no supervision? If that's a common occurance, I'd be more concerned about that than about how many doors are unlocked.

It sounds like your school either isn't doing a very good job of monitoring who enters the front of the school or they don't stop you because they recognize you. Most schools these days either have the front entry visible from the office or they have a camera on the entrance, so they know when someone enters the school. They also require visitors to sign in and/or get a visitor badge. Are you not required to sign in at the office? If not, that really defeats the purpose of only having the front door unlocked!


MTE means "My thoughts exactly", I think.

 

[Ashlotte]

I WISH my child's school would do this. Not because I think it is necessary, but because our school instead adopted a no volunteers in the classroom policy because of "an incident that happened a few years back." I still have no idea what the "incident" was, but I have been very frustrated all year that they don't allow parents to volunteer in the classroom (other than Art Lit or parties). If we volunteer, we have to run copies or other paper shuffling duties in the library.

 

[cinjam]

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.

Very well said Magpie

 

[scarlet_ibis]

Well, the bus driver is an EMPLOYEE and things like driving record and criminal history toward children are relevant to his job responsibilities. That's the fundamental difference.

 

[Scurvy]

Well, the bus driver is an EMPLOYEE and things like driving record and criminal history toward children are relevant to his job responsibilities. That's the fundamental difference.

The bus driver will be entrusted with driving the children around. That's what makes his driving record relevant. The volunteers and all school employees will be working with and have access to the children. That's what makes their criminal history toward children relevant. The fundamental difference is that the bus driver is the only one whose driving record is necessarily relevant, assuming he's the only one who will be permitted to drive the children anywhere.

 

[Captain_Hook]

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.

Everyone keeps talking about their privacy and surrendering their right to privacy.... I'm just a little confused where privacy comes in? A criminal background check, particularly one done by fingerprints is going to find formal charges which may or may not have resulted in a conviction. All of that information is public. Where is the reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to public information? This isn't a search under the fourth amendment. I don't need probable cause to search public records and I also don't need it when I have consent.

Sorry if this was already addressed -- I haven't finished reading the thread...

 

[RMulieri]

Everyone keeps talking about their privacy and surrendering their right to privacy.... I'm just a little confused where privacy comes in? A criminal background check, particularly one done by fingerprints is going to find formal charges which may or may not have resulted in a conviction. All of that information is public. Where is the reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to public information? This isn't a search under the fourth amendment. I don't need probable cause to search public records and I also don't need it when I have consent.

Sorry if this was already addressed -- I haven't finished reading the thread...

True

 

[Scurvy]

Everyone keeps talking about their privacy and surrendering their right to privacy.... I'm just a little confused where privacy comes in? A criminal background check, particularly one done by fingerprints is going to find formal charges which may or may not have resulted in a conviction. All of that information is public. Where is the reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to public information? This isn't a search under the fourth amendment. I don't need probable cause to search public records and I also don't need it when I have consent.

Sorry if this was already addressed -- I haven't finished reading the thread...

That's a good point.

 

[Grendalynn]

Yikes! I was surprised to see just how many posts regarding the background check issue... To me, I am more than willing to pay the measly $24 to be a part of my children's educational experiences and to help keep kids safe. What is your kid worth?

I will get right to my point... I am sure that some of you would be the first ones to complain and be in an uproar when something god-awful happened to your kid or someone elses. I can hear it now - "Why weren't there stronger security measure in place" or "why aren't we working harder to protect our kids".... My personal feeling is - if you aren't guilty or don't have a shady past, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about.


I worked at our School Districts Superintendants Office for a few years... that is where people in our town come to get the necessary paperwork to have their fingerprints done and background checks. There is def. a mix of feelings when it comes to the process... and I get it. This a new district policy within the last 2 years for all volunteers have this done. Some local organizations and PTA/PTOs offer to reimburse some or all the costs. Other just choose not to volunteer and spend all the "valuable" time elsewhere...Really? Come on people. These are your kids. This is all well and good... and everyone is entitled to their own opinions and feelings .... but I am more than willing to pay whatever is necessary to keep my kids and others kids safe. Are you?

 

[AJRitz]

It's not about the money (for me, though it may be for some).

It's about the startlingly remote possibility of background checks actually leading to a meaningful improvement in child safety.

It's about the fear-mongering that is encouraged by requiring background checks, which is belied by current research into crime rates and patterns.

It's about the invasion of privacy that is being imposed. Yes, the data is public data. But turning the keys to personal data over to school administration is an intrusion into one's privacy - otherwise, the school would just run background checks on everyone, without waiting for their consent, and just roll it into the school fees.

It's about the incredibly poor quality of the data upon which these background checks are based, and the poorly trained individuals who interpret the data that is returned, frequently incorrectly.

It's about the presumptions of guilt, whereby parents whose poorly-maintained and/or interpreted data raises a "red flag" must prove their innocence, rather than those wishing to restrict their access to a public accomodation being obligated to prove their guilt.

It's about inappropriate presumptions of future guilt, where individuals have completed court imposed sentences and/or treatment, but continue to be "punished" (and I will even reluctantly concede that sexual offenses might need to be treated differently here, but presumptions of future guilt with regard to non-sexual offenses are particularly troubling).

It's about the manner in which schools and vigilante watchdog groups turn individuals into societal pariahs, without bothering to confirm the validity of data or inquire into circumstances.

 

[Grendalynn]

It's not about the money (for me, though it may be for some).

It's about the startlingly remote possibility of background checks actually leading to a meaningful improvement in child safety.

It's about the fear-mongering that is encouraged by requiring background checks, which is belied by current research into crime rates and patterns.

It's about the invasion of privacy that is being imposed. Yes, the data is public data. But turning the keys to personal data over to school administration is an intrusion into one's privacy - otherwise, the school would just run background checks on everyone, without waiting for their consent, and just roll it into the school fees.

It's about the incredibly poor quality of the data upon which these background checks are based, and the poorly trained individuals who interpret the data that is returned, frequently incorrectly.

It's about the presumptions of guilt, whereby parents whose poorly-maintained and/or interpreted data raises a "red flag" must prove their innocence, rather than those wishing to restrict their access to a public accomodation being obligated to prove their guilt.

It's about inappropriate presumptions of future guilt, where individuals have completed court imposed sentences and/or treatment, but continue to be "punished" (and I will even reluctantly concede that sexual offenses might need to be treated differently here, but presumptions of future guilt with regard to non-sexual offenses are particularly troubling).

It's about the manner in which schools and vigilante watchdog groups turn individuals into societal pariahs, without bothering to confirm the validity of data or inquire into circumstances.

Then I suggest you get off the computer and start doing soemthing about it and help the cause... And stop moaning and groaning about how its being done wrong.

The Disboards are clearly not the legistative branch you need to be talking to. Mickey Mouse may be president of my house, but not everyone in the USA would agree...

 

[Scurvy]

It's about the invasion of privacy that is being imposed. Yes, the data is public data. But turning the keys to personal data over to school administration is an intrusion into one's privacy - otherwise, the school would just run background checks on everyone, without waiting for their consent, and just roll it into the school fees.

That would be a huge (and pointless) waste of school funds. Why spend money on background checks for people who aren't going to be working with the kids? It makes far more sense to only check those who are actually going to be in the school, gaining access to kids other than their own.

 

[Ava]

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?

Completely agree with this. Being involved in my child's education by volunteering at school would far outweigh any objections I had to the principle of a background check or fingerprinting. My mom chaperoned several field trips in my elementary years, and I still remember those trips & how having her there made me feel special. I hope I can do the same for my own DD, and if I have to do a background check or be fingerprinted to do that, I will gladly comply.

 

[RMulieri]

Then I suggest you get off the computer and start doing soemthing about it and help the cause... And stop moaning and groaning about how its being done wrong.

The Disboards are clearly not the legistative branch you need to be talking to. Mickey Mouse may be president of my house, but not everyone in the USA would agree...

Well said...

 

[nettekay]

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.

[/I]

When the background checks are done the schools do not have access to the results. They are just given a paper saying yes or no the person is cleared. The only people who see the report are the police running the check and they are not allowed to give out any other information.

 

[Minniemama350]

OK, so if someone comes into your child's school to volunteer, how do you propose they decide that this person is acceptable? You cannot simply look at a person and know that they target children. These sick individuals come from all walks of life. If you have a better way of keeping kids safe, I'd love to hear it. I don't take the safety of my own children or of the 1st graders I am trusted with lightly. If something turns up in someone's background check that embarrases them, I'm sorry, but it is more important that we are keeping children safe. THAT IS part of a school's responsibility. When you drop your child off, it is a no-brainer: you expect us to keep your kid safe and for NOTHING to happen to them to the contrary.

 

[Kriii]

I haven't read through any but the OP but I do think it is very smart of the school to require this. The employees at the school have to go through background checks and I think anyone who is in contact with the kids while under the school roof should be included. I personally would upset if my child's school did NOT require this.