Does your child's school fingerprint you?

[Leajess99]

This is done in many school districts. The parents who choose not to participate simply do not volunteer in the school.

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

 

[MiniGirl]

We are homeschooling now, but I know I had to have a background check to volunteer at my dds' school. If you were going on an overnight trip, you had to be fingerprinted as well.

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

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

 

[ShannonMB]

I would be totally uncomfortable if the teachers, coaches, aides, etc, at school did not have background checks, so why would I want other parents in and out of the school interacting with the kids and taking them on field trips if they weren't screened in a similar manner? My DD's school does background checks/fingerprinting, and I feel better knowing this as we discuss her field trip to the zoo tomorrow which I am unable to attend. If someone I don't know is going to be directly supervising my kid, I prefer that they be checked out. Not every perv has a record, but I'm glad they at least look into it!

 

[Leajess99]

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

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

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

Just so you know, Sex offender registries online do not list all individuals convicted of sex offenses. There are some categories where the offender is not required to be registered on a sex offender registry.

 

[luckyfin]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but many schools or agencies that work with a protected class (i.e. children, developmentally disabled, sometimes the elderly) also are required to participate in programs that provide immediate notification to the employer if an employee or volunteer is arrested and fingerprinted. It would not necessarily mean that the employee would be terminated, there is a process that involves a risk analysis that determines whether or not an employee should be provisional (allowed to be left alone with a member of the protected class) or not. It may mean termination or being asked not to volunteer, as in many situations it would be difficult to support someone not being able to be left alone at any time. It would also be necessary for that person to provide updates of any follow up regarding the resolution of the charge, such as court dates, completion of community service or a court ordered class. Long story short... if somebody were to make a poor decision, say drink more than they should and get a DUI, guess who is going to find out within 24 hours? Some might think it is an invasion of privacy, others a necessary evil.

 

[Leajess99]

our school system does CORI's but not SORI's. The one thing I found out from another mother is that the school cannot stop you from volunteering in your own child's class even if you failed your CORI. You cannot volunteer in with other children but they cannot stop you from being there with your own child

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.

 

[AJRitz]

Just so you know, Sex offender registries online do not list all individuals convicted of sex offenses. There are some categories where the offender is not required to be registered on a sex offender registry.

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).

 

[scarlet_ibis]

Just so you know, Sex offender registries online do not list all individuals convicted of sex offenses. There are some categories where the offender is not required to be registered on a sex offender registry.

Well, I'm pretty sure that "preys on children" is one of the categories that gets you on the registry. On the other hand, I'm pretty comfortable if those who urinate in public get left off the list.

Back to topic, what do fingerprints get you? If someone comes back clear, that does NOT mean they are not a potential threat. It just means that they haven't been caught (or haven't committed their crime) yet. One of the dangers, even of registries, is complacency.

 

[santa's surpriz]

I volunteer frequently.I did the background check, fingerprinting , and need a badge to volunteer. I appreciate it! Do you how many actually do have a past? There are just too many wackos out there. There is not a license to have a child and yes people can redeem themselves but when you are talking about my child so there is no question. IMO, it's a measure that will "CMA" the school district in the event a volunteer does commit an "act" with a student.

Also for what's it's worth, my parents do HR consulting and some how their last few clients have been school districts. Their job is to investigate, interview, and make there best judgement if the employee is guilty of violating policy. If the case makes it to trial they need to give testimony of their investigation and decisions. You would be AMAZED at the things you do not hear about. Some of it harmless HR violations but there are quite a few incidents where school employees are accused of inappropriate behavior with a student or fellow employee.

 

[PaulaSue]

OP you school is WAY behind the times. At my girls school and their old school district EVERY person who comes in to help with any child MUST have thier clearences, 2 of them. My oldest is in 5th grade and it has been required years before she even started K. I heard the old school now requires FBI ones also.

 

[EKW]

The Independence, MO school district has been doing this for a few years. Parents have to pass a background check even if they just want to go on a field trip with their child.

I'm sure this is largely in response to litigation and insurance issues.

School districts have to cover themselves.

 

[EKW]

Thank you AJRitz and Arielmomma for stating the obviously minority opinion so eloquently. You've expressed better than I could exactly how I feel about the issue.

Your privacy vs. the safety of several hundred children.

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

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

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

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

 

[bwilcox]

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).

I don't know about other states, but the registry in my state tells the reason the person was put on the registry. The great majority are offenders against children (it even says the age the child was at the time). I only found a couple in my town that would be statutory rape.

 

[PrincessTiffany]

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.

Wow! Overreact much?

Just pay the $20 bucks, it's not that big of a deal.

We live in a Alabama, to get in my kids grade school you must show your driver's license, which is run through the computer system and you are printed out a badge with your picture and name on it. I would have absolutely no problem being fingerprinted.

And since this background check has started being done, the school learned that one of the Dads that used to come to the school a lot was convicted of having sex with a 14 year old girl about 10 years ago. He is now not allowed to volunteer in the classrooms or go on field trips. He is allowed to come to public assemblys, like honors day.

 

[dbarker]

Yes, our school does this. When DS was in 2nd grade, a little girl was molested (I think in the girls' restroom) in the middle of the school day. Needless to say, now our school is pretty much on lock down during the day and you don't get in w/o having been checked.

 

[scottish mum]

In Scotland where I live you must have a police disclosure done on you before you are allowed to be a parent volunteer. It does cost money but our school paid for mine. We don't do fingerprints but to be honest I would happily provide them. I have nothing to hide so have no worries about all the checks that need to be done. I put my children to school and I am happy in the knowledge that the school are doing the most that they can to ensure that all children are safe at all times.

If you want to be a volunteer then you know you must go through all the police checks. If you don't want to go through the checks then you can't volunteer simple

 

[teacup princess]

Your privacy vs. the safety of several hundred children.

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

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

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

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

Um, didn't you read my first post? It said very plainly a couple of times that I wasn't going to volunteer next year not that I was going to fight the system. But thanks for your rude response to what has been so far a fairly polite discussion, even for the Dis.

 

[indimom]

I have to do this for my job as a day care provider. It's not difficult or time consuming. Also the school may have no choice since insurance and other issues may force them to adopt such policies. The state of Indiana requires that I do this for any aides or volunteers or anyone living in my home over the age of 18. My children will have to be checked in a few years. Beyond the state, there is my insurance. If I didn't follow these guidelines, my costs would be astronomical - if I could get coverage at all. Enough said.

Personally I'm glad the schools have these policies as long as they don't consider all "approved" volunteers as 100% safe around the children. This will not weed out EVERY sick individual. There are plenty of abusers who get away with stuff for years before being caught, some never are. And I assure you that if they want to try something in a room full of people, they will. In an underhanded and sneaky manner. Or just by enticing the child into another more compromising situation at some other place and time.

Just my two cents.

I understand your frustration to some extent, but it's what this world has come to. Noone wants to be the person/school/church/organization which blindly trusted an individual with their children only to pay a more serious price for it...

 

[okeydokey]

Um, didn't you read my first post? It said very plainly a couple of times that I wasn't going to volunteer next year not that I was going to fight the system. But thanks for your rude response to what has been so far a fairly polite discussion, even for the Dis.

What a shame, to deprive your child your presence in the classroom over an issue like this.

 

[teacup princess]

What a shame, to deprive your child your presence in the classroom over an issue like this.

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

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