Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm talking about a mean parent not a sexual pervert. The point is that teachers should be aware of what is happening in their classroom. I have a friend that works at a school where in order to observe your child's class or eat lunch with them you have to pass a background check first. That is just silly - and unnecessary. I never worked at one that bad but I wouldn't be surprised for that to become more common.
I'm not talking about a sexual pervert either. I'm surprised by the idea that a volunteering parent would/could ever be mean to any child in the classroom. I'm not quite sure how I would handle that situation if it happened (and I became aware).
The fallacy of pretending that anyone here has stated that background checks are the end all be all of protecting students is ridiculous. Background checks are a simple idea, that no one claims are perfect, but are a step in the right direction.
A STEP in the right direction is correct. We agree there. But you keep going on about all these people who want "felons" in the classroom, like we all want to allow work release inmates to do their community service in our children's schools. A STEP in the right direction means screening someone's background and seeing a conviction. A FURTHER step in the right direction would be to assess the situation to see if it is relevant (such as, a conviction six months ago for child porn, or a conviction 15 years ago for possession of marijuana? A year old conviction for domestic battery, or a 20 year old conviction for writing a bad check?) Some people here are simply capable of making the distinction, and some school districts are as well.
Job applications ask for convictions within the last 5-7 years. Depending on the job, they can do more extensive screening and go back farther...but we aren't talking about people applying for the job of superintendent or principal, we are talking about parent volunteers, who are volunteering to spend an hour or so a week, if that much, as a classroom helper. For field trips and events where the adult would be IN CHARGE of a group of kids, I can see the need for more extensive background checks...but even then, a little common sense would go a long way.
I'm not talking about a sexual pervert either. I'm surprised by the idea that a volunteering parent would/could ever be mean to any child in the classroom. I'm not quite sure how I would handle that situation if it happened (and I became aware).
I had it happen. She was very impatient and easily snapped at the kids, especially at those who were not as well groomed or dressed. When I tried talking to her about it she flat told me some of the kids were stupid - I kid you not. I tried diplomatically convincing her to try a different volunteer opportunity but my assistant principal had to end up stepping in. I decided I was not paid enough to babysit her while she volunteered in my class. I have seen it once or twice when parents volunteer to work in the cafeteria, that place just seems to bring out the worst in people.
I had to get a background check to be a Cub Scout leader, and later a Boy Scout leader. Same thing for YMCA coaching and coaching with our local youth sports organization. Similarly, my wife has to get them all the time as a social worker.
I'm pretty sure I also had to get a background check to volunteer at my kids' Catholic school. In addition , all volunteers at school who come in contact with kids are required to keep up with an ongoing program administered by the Diocese that's geared towards heightened awareness of warning signs.
I had it happen. She was very impatient and easily snapped at the kids, especially at those who were not as well groomed or dressed. When I tried talking to her about it she flat told me some of the kids were stupid - I kid you not. I tried diplomatically convincing her to try a different volunteer opportunity but my assistant principal had to end up stepping in. I decided I was not paid enough to babysit her while she volunteered in my class. I have seen it once or twice when parents volunteer to work in the cafeteria, that place just seems to bring out the worst in people.
I don't know what causes that to manifest in a person. Children can certainly be annoying, but what would compel a short tempered person to volunteer with kids I don't know. As a new mom of a 12 week old I'm on my baby honeymoon and the thought of anyone being mean to her makes me dizzy.
I don't know what causes that to manifest in a person. Children can certainly be annoying, but what would compel a short tempered person to volunteer with kids I don't know. As a new mom of a 12 week old I'm on my baby honeymoon and the thought of anyone being mean to her makes me dizzy.
It's really a different aspect to this conversation. Well, not so much about felons and danger or whatever, but exposing strangers to our children without our knowledge who will then treat them however they like. It could be bad if the child is sensitive. I know it's inevitable. That's just life. My own mother is a bit of meany and I don't let her hang alone with my daughter and never will. I hate that people I don't even know could have that opportunity at too early a time in her life. I'd rather pay out the whazoo for a school that doesn't have a need for that many parent volunteers to be honest.
A STEP in the right direction is correct. We agree there. But you keep going on about all these people who want "felons" in the classroom, like we all want to allow work release inmates to do their community service in our children's schools. A STEP in the right direction means screening someone's background and seeing a conviction. A FURTHER step in the right direction would be to assess the situation to see if it is relevant (such as, a conviction six months ago for child porn, or a conviction 15 years ago for possession of marijuana? A year old conviction for domestic battery, or a 20 year old conviction for writing a bad check?) Some people here are simply capable of making the distinction, and some school districts are as well.
Job applications ask for convictions within the last 5-7 years. Depending on the job, they can do more extensive screening and go back farther...but we aren't talking about people applying for the job of superintendent or principal, we are talking about parent volunteers, who are volunteering to spend an hour or so a week, if that much, as a classroom helper. For field trips and events where the adult would be IN CHARGE of a group of kids, I can see the need for more extensive background checks...but even then, a little common sense would go a long way.
1. School employees, at least in my state, have full background checks. Not 5-7 years, but a complete check. This is true for janitors, principals, teachers, basically anyone who can come into contact with students.
2. Are we now supposed to keep separate lists of who can volunteer in what capacity? What kind of privacy violation would that be? Now at least when a parent isn't a volunteer the school community assumes it is their choice and not because they are on the "no field trip" list.
3. What you are suggesting, is that the school put a known drug user in a classroom with students because it was 15 years ago. Think about it. Even if it was 15 years ago, how is the school supposed to know if that person is still using? Now imagine during a field trip Mr. X misplaces someone's child, and it turns out the school knew Mr. X was a drug user but they had given him a pass because it was "only" marijuana and it was "15 years ago".
Basically, you are suggesting that the school give tacit approval to drug users. That is insane, and what message does it send?
PS. I suggest you look up what is or is not a felony. Ex: writing bad checks is not a felony unless it is over $500.
It's really a different aspect to this conversation. Well, not so much about felons and danger or whatever, but exposing strangers to our children without our knowledge who will then treat them however they like. It could be bad if the child is sensitive. I know it's inevitable. That's just life. My own mother is a bit of meany and I don't let her hang alone with my daughter and never will. I hate that people I don't even know could have that opportunity at too early a time in her life. I'd rather pay out the whazoo for a school that doesn't have a need for that many parent volunteers to be honest.
Don't let that one example put you off. Honestly, most people are great and I'm not sure that expensive schools have any less need for parent involvement than public schools. I'm not at all the type of person that would usually get involved with a school but when your kids are in it it's kind of different.
And you'll get to know everyone. It's always the same people that do most of the volunteer stuff. It's not scary at all in that sense. It's not like a bunch of strangers, your kid is going to be hanging out with the children of these parents.
1. School employees, at least in my state, have full background checks. Not 5-7 years, but a complete check. This is true for janitors, principals, teachers, basically anyone who can come into contact with students.
2. Are we now supposed to keep separate lists of who can volunteer in what capacity? What kind of privacy violation would that be? Now at least when a parent isn't a volunteer the school community assumes it is their choice and not because they are on the "no field trip" list.
3. What you are suggesting, is that the school put a known drug user in a classroom with students because it was 15 years ago. Think about it. Even if it was 15 years ago, how is the school supposed to know if that person is still using? Now imagine during a field trip Mr. X misplaces someone's child, and it turns out the school knew Mr. X was a drug user but they had given him a pass because it was "only" marijuana and it was "15 years ago".
Basically, you are suggesting that the school give tacit approval to drug users. That is insane, and what message does it send?
PS. I suggest you look up what is or is not a felony. Ex: writing bad checks is not a felony unless it is over $500.
That's not what you said a few posts ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
As for privacy, if a parent knows they are going to fail the background check, why would they go through with it? And as for passing on, yes, the administration would notify the pertinent teachers that Parent X did not pass the background check. There is no need to go into detail beyond that.
You get randomly drug tested then as a teacher? Get a pee test every morning, make sure you're fit? And how often do you get fingerprinted? Every year I hope - no actually make that every quarter, how do I know you didn't get arrested some time during the last couple of months. And the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for that, I hope the drug testing and background checks come out of your pocket and not mine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
