Does your child's school fingerprint you?

[lovetoscrap]

This is an interesting debate. I am one of those that also hates to have Big Brother in my life -- I really wanted to refuse to fill out the Census with anything other than the number and ages of people in my house but DH filled it out so they wouldn't arrest me (after I got in a fight with the people they would send to my door when I told them to MYOB !)

I am also a former teacher/current substitute teacher/ PTA VP and former homeschooler. I have my good days and bad days with the public schools and how I feel about their "control" over our lives. But frankly I would have many of the same problems with a private school.

That said, I have no problem with a fingerprinting and legal background check. I get up in arms over medical and financial background checks. Legal information is essentially public record but you have no reason to have an in-depth history of my kids medical records, nor do you need to do a complete Credit Report on me when I am applying for a Temp Position as a Receptionist (yes, they wanted that ) I have had TB tests as a necessary evil but they tick me off.

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?

Have to agree with this. Having shown up to drop my DD off at school to find it surrounded by police cars because some jerk was threatening to kidnap his daughter from school "by force" because of a custody dispute, and having been nearly in the middle of a non custodial kidnapping at a daycare I worked at I want the doors locked. This district actually only did that the end of last year and I am glad they finally did it. Before anyone could walk in and wander the schools without anyone knowing because of the way the office was positioned.

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.

And how would it feel to find out after that she had a DUI conviction 5 years ago but no one bothered to do a background check on her because it was "too intrusive"? Or that they did a check but she gave them a different name--something a fingerprint check might have found?

No, you may not be able to catch everything or prevent anything, but if it prevents one person from working with kids that shouldn't be then it is a good thing. And it isn't just sexual crimes that we need to worry about, it is any sort of violent or neglectful or dangerous crime. Volunteers do end up alone with children either alone or in groups. I don't want the parent that is assigned to my DD and her friends on a field trip to be one that has been convicted of child neglect or assault.

I agree that it is a slippery slope, but would actually welcome background checks here-- they don't do them at all. I don't know where the line is, and I have no idea where this will go in the future.

 

[mjkacmom]

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.

People do it all of the time here, plus many kids walk without parents. It has been like this forever (I grew up here). The building is 100 years old, and the drop-off is on a very narrow 1 way street, being fed into by 3 other streets. It takes a good half hour from start to finish. I live a minute from the school, and if I drop off, I leave my house 15 minutes before school starts. When I drop off, there are a bunch of kids and parents on the lawn, and the patrols line the kids up. The doors open at 8:30, and are locked at 8:40, so if you get stuck at the end of the line, you will have to go a couple of blocks to park, walk your child up to school, and ring the buzzer.

 

[r&kmommy]

My son's school doesn't do it, but my ex-coworker's kid's school does it. Apparently it's very common (lol as evidenced by this thread). . . I think it's an awesome idea and can't see why anyone would object to doing it if it means another layer of safety for the kids.

I volunteer at my sons school 1 morning a week and work with kids who need extra help (it's basically like sitting with my ds helping him with homework, I'm not teacher-trained lol). . . and I am often in the classroom alone with 1-2-3-4 or 5 kids. There are many pervs, wierdos and killers who have kids, and this is one way to weed them out.

 

[scarlet_ibis]

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.

(1) If we're concerned about weeding out crimes against children, why do we need every other aspect of the criminal record reported?
(2) The bolded part is what REALLY concerns me here. Why keep someone with a DUI 6 months ago out of the school? First off, being charged with something is not a conviction. Innocent until proven guilty. Second, DUI is not a crime against children (necessarily). Third, unless they are driving on a field trip, there's really no relevance to volunteering in the lunchroom or for a class party.

 

[pyrxtc]

Our towns fingerprints all their school volunteers. I am in full support. We had almost the entire two towns (we share one elementary school) show up for fingerprinting. The police ran out of papers and had to get them all to come to the station on another day. We rely on volunteers to get a lot of stuff done at the school. Our school is a Blue Ribbon school for volunteers and has over 4,000 volunteer hours each year.

 

[ML_LovesDisney]

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.

That is so ridiculous!!!! We are fingerprinted at our DD's daycare for entry into the school, so someone doesnt have to open door everytime but its locked. But not for purposes of background checks! I would be outraged as well. Welcome to our new society of "Big Brother"ish tactics. This country is actually VERY safe and getting safer every year (not including terrorist threat maybe but even then, still pretty safe as compared to other nations) and yet people are getting more and more fearful. I am VERY fearful and won't even let my kids out of my sight but fingerprinting PTA parents?? Thats a bit extreme.

 

[declansdad]

If you have nothing to hide, there isn't going to be anything to find. So there wouldn't be any invasion of privacy.

It also isn't fair to say this types of checks haven't prevented anything from happening. If someone fails the check, they are not going to be allowed to volunteer in the school or with whatever organization required the check. This alone could prevent something form happening.

 

[declansdad]

Having background checks done is an insurance issue but it is also a protection issue. The checks are not being done for only one reason.

 

[LovingDisny]

(1) If we're concerned about weeding out crimes against children, why do we need every other aspect of the criminal record reported?
(2) The bolded part is what REALLY concerns me here. Why keep someone with a DUI 6 months ago out of the school? First off, being charged with something is not a conviction. Innocent until proven guilty. Second, DUI is not a crime against children (necessarily). Third, unless they are driving on a field trip, there's really no relevance to volunteering in the lunchroom or for a class party.

In the instance with a drunk driving conviction I would only want them excluded from driving any of the kids, not necessarily kept from a classroom. I should have been more clear.

 

[labdogs42]

Meh. It doesn't bother me. If it keeps crinimals away from my kid, let's go for it. I already had my fingerprints taken and background checked when I was a substitute teacher. My son goes to Catholic school and we have to take a special class before we volunteer in the classroom. I'm not sure if they actually require fingerprints or not, but if they do, mine are already done! I really don't think it is a big deal.

 

[LovingDisny]

My point was really this; I believe that we do need the background checks and fingerprints but I also think that the schools need to give guidelines just like we do in our sports organization. No one at the school should be given the detailed information. They should have an outside company do the checks with guidelines. For example, if a person has certain things (traffic related just as an example) on their record but they were 5 years ago you still pass, certain things if they were 10 years ago you pass and then you have certain things such as crimes against children where you have no time limitation. Anyone with those crimes will fail the check. The school would have to give the company their guidelines. That is the way we do it here in our sports organization and it works well. Very few people are given your personal information and minor things that were a long time ago or not releated to supervising or working with children wont effect your ability volunteer with them.

 

[AJRitz]

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.

The research evidence doesn't support that proposition, but clearly around here evidence is less important than a nice cuddly dose of false security.

 

[declansdad]

The research evidence doesn't support that proposition, but clearly around here evidence is less important than a nice cuddly dose of false security.

Can you provide evidence that they don't work?

 

[AJRitz]

Can you provide evidence that they don't work?

Background checks do not have any effect on crime rates, and I never argued that they did. Rather, my point is that background checks are abusive and unnecessary. The reason cited most often for the need for background checks is the horrible risk to which children are exposed by contact with un-vetted volunteers. But the crime rate evidence suggests that the actual risk to children is tiny. As I said before, riding in a car is 40x more likely to result in injury to a child than the chance of a child being the victim of a crime (and that doesn't even address the addition evidence that fully 1/3 of such crimes are committed by other children, who aren't included in background checks).

Meanwhile, the evidence is that background checks are incredibly faulty. They are based on what the database experts call "dirty" data. That is, the data is entered in inconsistent ways by various agencies, with no normalization. The quality of any report is limited by the quality of the data that goes in to the report. Background check data is a mess, and so are the reports. (The only exception would be the kind of background checks involved in government security clearances, which are qualitatively different in that a highly-trained individual reviews the messy data and does additional research on each bit of data to confirm its accuracy). In addition to the reported error rate of, at least, 20% (that's the rate of incorrect data showing up on someone's report); friends in law enforcement tell me that the interpretation of the "correct" raw data is done extremely poorly by private sector companies. Different jurisdictions use different terminology and different criminal procedures. As a result, a background check may report a criminal conviction when what really occurred was a false arrest. I've been told he misinterpretation rates are as high as 75%, but I suspect that's hyperbole. But even a misinterpretation rate that is equal to the false information rate means that close to half of the reports being generated aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

 

[declansdad]

Background checks do not have any effect on crime rates, and I never argued that they did. Rather, my point is that background checks are abusive and unnecessary. The reason cited most often for the need for background checks is the horrible risk to which children are exposed by contact with un-vetted volunteers. But the crime rate evidence suggests that the actual risk to children is tiny. As I said before, riding in a car is 40x more likely to result in injury to a child than the chance of a child being the victim of a crime (and that doesn't even address the addition evidence that fully 1/3 of such crimes are committed by other children, who aren't included in background checks).

Meanwhile, the evidence is that background checks are incredibly faulty. They are based on what the database experts call "dirty" data. That is, the data is entered in inconsistent ways by various agencies, with no normalization. The quality of any report is limited by the quality of the data that goes in to the report. Background check data is a mess, and so are the reports. (The only exception would be the kind of background checks involved in government security clearances, which are qualitatively different in that a highly-trained individual reviews the messy data and does additional research on each bit of data to confirm its accuracy). In addition to the reported error rate of, at least, 20% (that's the rate of incorrect data showing up on someone's report); friends in law enforcement tell me that the interpretation of the "correct" raw data is done extremely poorly by private sector companies. Different jurisdictions use different terminology and different criminal procedures. As a result, a background check may report a criminal conviction when what really occurred was a false arrest. I've been told he misinterpretation rates are as high as 75%, but I suspect that's hyperbole. But even a misinterpretation rate that is equal to the false information rate means that close to half of the reports being generated aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

What you are posting is not evidence, it is anecdotal information that you are providing to the thread. It is no different than the postings that support the practice.

 

[Scurvy]

Background checks do not have any effect on crime rates, and I never argued that they did. Rather, my point is that background checks are abusive and unnecessary. The reason cited most often for the need for background checks is the horrible risk to which children are exposed by contact with un-vetted volunteers. But the crime rate evidence suggests that the actual risk to children is tiny. As I said before, riding in a car is 40x more likely to result in injury to a child than the chance of a child being the victim of a crime (and that doesn't even address the addition evidence that fully 1/3 of such crimes are committed by other children, who aren't included in background checks).

Meanwhile, the evidence is that background checks are incredibly faulty. They are based on what the database experts call "dirty" data. That is, the data is entered in inconsistent ways by various agencies, with no normalization. The quality of any report is limited by the quality of the data that goes in to the report. Background check data is a mess, and so are the reports. (The only exception would be the kind of background checks involved in government security clearances, which are qualitatively different in that a highly-trained individual reviews the messy data and does additional research on each bit of data to confirm its accuracy). In addition to the reported error rate of, at least, 20% (that's the rate of incorrect data showing up on someone's report); friends in law enforcement tell me that the interpretation of the "correct" raw data is done extremely poorly by private sector companies. Different jurisdictions use different terminology and different criminal procedures. As a result, a background check may report a criminal conviction when what really occurred was a false arrest. I've been told he misinterpretation rates are as high as 75%, but I suspect that's hyperbole. But even a misinterpretation rate that is equal to the false information rate means that close to half of the reports being generated aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

I don't know how accurate the background checks for schools really are, having (still) never seen any actual evidence about it. I am more more familiar with background checks for security clearance, which of course are very accurate. I can definitely concede that if background checks for schools were incorrect more often than they were correct, there would be no point in doing those checks. I find it hard to believe that is the case, however. And if it is, then rather than doing away with the background checks entirely, it seems a more obvious solution would be to improve the accuracy of the background checks.

I'm still completely confused by your repeated mentions of car accidents. What does one have to do with the other? Certainly cars are dangerous, that's why we do what we can to make children safer in them. If interactions with adults are less dangerous than cars, that's still no reason not to attempt to also make those interactions as safe as possible. Your argument is like saying someone who rides a motorcycle sometimes shouldn't bother wearing their seatbelt when they're in a car. The fact that one thing you do is a higher risk than something else is no reason to not take reasonable precautions during your other activities.

As for crimes against children by other children - yes, those are terrible. And that's one reason that children are not ordinarily left unattended in schools together. They are monitored by adults. But the adults are frequently in a position to be alone with children, and the children are more likely to see them as trusted authority figures (both in school and around town, if they frequently see them working at school) which is one reason it's nice to know if they have a history of criminal behavior involving children.

Regarding the bolded: First, the background checks are not abusive. Second, your other arguments don't support the fact that they are unnecessary, rather they could (if accurate) support the fact that they are not entirely reliable and not entirely effective. That just means they need to be improved, not that they need to be discontinued.

I also don't understand why you keep saying that the only argument in support these checks is the exaggerated reports of horrible risk from unchecked volunteers. I think most reasonable people realize that the vast majority of volunteers are not going to abuse the children they have access to. There isn't a pedophile lurking behind every bookshelf in the library. However, the fact is that without these checks, it is possible that people with a criminal history could volunteer (or become teachers, or school janitors, etc) in an effort to gain access to children. Requiring these background checks helps to weed out the people you didn't know had criminal records, which can't possibly be a bad thing. It also discourages those with records from even attempting to volunteer or get jobs in schools. Most people aren't stupid enough to risk having the check run if they know they were convicted of molestation or kipnapping or anything else that might be a red flag. That's also a good thing. Does it weed out those who haven't been caught yet? Of course not, and that's a shame. But that's no reason to stop weeding out the ones who have already been caught and could easily become repeat offenders.

 

[LuvLDM]

My child's school doesn't do background/fingerprint checks for parent volunteers but if they start I have no problem complying.

The front office does require photo ID for any parent wanting to access the campus, I'm stunned at how often I see parents complaining about this

 

[lovetoscrap]

I am VERY fearful and won't even let my kids out of my sight but fingerprinting PTA parents?? Thats a bit extreme.

I actually would not be surprised at all if the National PTA started requiring background checks/fingerprints for all Officers and Committee Chairs at all levels. . I can also see the National PTA becoming an advocate for background checks becoming required for all schools.

 

[LovingDisny]

I don't know how accurate the background checks for schools really are, having (still) never seen any actual evidence about it. I am more more familiar with background checks for security clearance, which of course are very accurate. I can definitely concede that if background checks for schools were incorrect more often than they were correct, there would be no point in doing those checks. I find it hard to believe that is the case, however. And if it is, then rather than doing away with the background checks entirely, it seems a more obvious solution would be to improve the accuracy of the background checks.

I'm still completely confused by your repeated mentions of car accidents. What does one have to do with the other? Certainly cars are dangerous, that's why we do what we can to make children safer in them. If interactions with adults are less dangerous than cars, that's still no reason not to attempt to also make those interactions as safe as possible. Your argument is like saying someone who rides a motorcycle sometimes shouldn't bother wearing their seatbelt when they're in a car. The fact that one thing you do is a higher risk than something else is no reason to not take reasonable precautions during your other activities.

As for crimes against children by other children - yes, those are terrible. And that's one reason that children are not ordinarily left unattended in schools together. They are monitored by adults. But the adults are frequently in a position to me alone with children, and the children are more like to see them as trusted authority figures (both in school and around town, if they frequently see them working at school) which is one reason it's nice to know if they have a history of criminal behavior involving children.

Regarding the bolded: First, the background checks are not abusive. Second, your other arguments don't support the fact that they are unnecessary, rather they could (if accurate) support the fact that they are not entirely reliable and not entirely effective. That just means they need to be improved, not that they need to be discontinued.

I also don't understand why you keep saying that the only argument in support these checks is the exaggerated reports of horrible risk from unchecked volunteers. I think most reasonable people realize that the vast majority of volunteers are not going to abuse the children they have access to. There isn't a pedophile lurking behind every bookshelf in the library. However, the fact is that without these checks, it is possible that people with a criminal history could volunteer (or become teachers, or school janitors, etc) in an effort to gain access to children. Requiring these background checks helps to weed out the people you didn't know had criminal records, which can't possibly be a bad thing. It also discourages those with records from even attempting to volunteer or get jobs in schools. Most people aren't stupid enough to risk having the check run if they know they were convicted of molestation or kipnapping or anything else that might be a red flag. That's also a good thing. Does it weed out those who haven't been caught yet? Of course not, and that's a shame. But that's no reason to stop weeding out the ones who have already been caught and could easily become repeat offenders.

Well Said

 

[Alesia]

I am VERY fearful and won't even let my kids out of my sight but fingerprinting PTA parents?? Thats a bit extreme.

Why is that extreme? I'm the vice president of our PTA, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm a trustworthy person. Would you trust me to be alone with your children - not knowing anything about me?

I am more than happy to submit to any kind of background check the school requires of me, because I have nothing to hide.