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.
Where have I complained in the slightest about the rigor of testing for teachers? No where. It is an appropriate FIRST STEP towards protecting children. The exact same way prohibiting felons from classroom volunteers and from field trips does the same.
The difference is you are trying to trying to make everyone else accept the risk (however small) from allowing felons into the classroom and on field trips instead of accepting the consequences of having a criminal record. That is fundamentally unfair and unsafe to those who did nothing wrong. Even if the risk is tiny, why should the felons get the benefit of the doubt when they are the ones who caused their own exclusion in the first place?
Personal responsibility means your husband, and anyone else (even potentially nice people) whose actions mean they could be excluded from volunteering in classrooms or on field trips, should accept those natural consequences and just volunteer in another way. No one's children should be subjected to any potential risk (even a tiny one) from any felon just so your husband can read a book.
My husband is not a felon. I never said he was. I said he had a conviction.
I asked you if you thought his very old conviction for carrying a tool of his trade in his pocket while walking down the street should exclude him from volunteering. I was interested in your take on that. Oh by the way, don't walk down the street in Hollywood with a concealed screwdriver, either.
I certainly know now that if someone ever does something, no matter how small a risk to the GP, you will never let an opportunity go by to remind them of it. That scares me more than "felons" in the classroom.
This is not about my husband. It's about the effect on schools - other than yours - that will really suffer from lack of parental involvement once they get the idea that there's a trip to the police station for fingerprinting in their future should they put themselves forward.
That, and the idea that you will willingly exclude very good people from their schools because you need to cover your arse. Good job.
lkb0174, with all due respect I am glad you are not teaching my children with such black and white clarity on the issue. I think it impossible for such an attitude not to convey in your teaching. I would rather my children think critically and practice the skill of deliberation. Zero tolerance policies (like background checks for ALL volunteers) are placebos for the dull of mind. (Except placebos are harmless! These policies inflict measurable harm for an imagined gain.) Again, a relevant database already exists of individuals deemed harmful to children. Simply check whether a volunteer's name is on it! (But don't get me started on all the names on that list inappropriately.)
Likewise, I am blissful that your children and mine were not classmates. I am sure your children likewise would not have liked our top 25 public engineering and science magnet.
Your inability to recognize that people can harm children in ways other than sexually molesting them is deeply disturbing.
What harm is there from excluding felons from the classroom? In fact, many teachers have talked about the FACT that most schools have to turn away classroom volunteers and chaperones. You ignore that again, and again because it underlines how excluding the 8% of adults who are felons is actually harmless.
Quote:
Also, are you confessing to the same crime Finster's husband was found guilty of years ago? Oh, you haven't been caught yet carrying it somewhere disallowed (statutes change frequently, you never know, just ask the TSA) so you're still pristine. Thank you for proving my point.
LOL! Carrying a POCKET knife is not a crime. I have a folding serrated sailing knife, which is less than 3 1/2" long, and does not break any laws. I know this because I am a responsible person and make sure I do not break laws. Her husband was NOT (by your her own admission) convicted of carrying a pocket knife but rather a switch blade. They are not the same thing. One is illegal, one is not. Being a responsible person means you learn those differences.
My husband is not a felon. I never said he was. I said he had a conviction.
I asked you if you thought his very old conviction for carrying a tool of his trade in his pocket while walking down the street should exclude him from volunteering. I was interested in your take on that. Oh by the way, don't walk down the street in Hollywood with a concealed screwdriver, either.
Since when is a SWITCHBLADE a tool of the trade?
Since 1996 (well over 15 years ago) even spring assisted pocketknives have been exempt from the switchblade laws, and there is literally no limit on length. Those knives, all typically tools of the "trade" types, are all 100% legal in California. Weird.
BTW, switchblades are frequently prosecuted under the "dirk,dagger" clause and as such, it would be a felony in California. You did say it was LA right? And that he was being "railroaded". That is weird, if they were really trying to railroad him, why would they let him off on a misdemeanor? Odd.
Especially since said knife would HAVE to be produced during trial, and how the knife laws in California are distinctly lenient.
Hmmm, if it walks like a duck....
Quote:
I certainly know now that if someone ever does something, no matter how small a risk to the GP, you will never let an opportunity go by to remind them of it. That scares me more than "felons" in the classroom.
This is not about my husband. It's about the effect on schools - other than yours - that will really suffer from lack of parental involvement once they get the idea that there's a trip to the police station for fingerprinting in their future should they put themselves forward.
That, and the idea that you will willingly exclude very good people from their schools because you need to cover your arse. Good job.
You have not shown that schools are being adversely effected by losing that 8% of the parent population that are felons. Please support this assertion you make over and over again.
Is that the line? I haven't seen anyone actually confirm that.
As far as I know, if you do have a conviction of any kind then you need to proceed to a full FBI check. If anyone has any knowledge about that, I'd be interested to know what the ACTUAL rules are.
And it's got nothing to do with going on field trips. It's got to do with forcing parents to go through a finger printing procedure etc in order to help out at their own school. Which is completely OTT in my OPINION. Which has nothing to do with my husband, he is not barred from doing anything at my daughter's school. There are other schools who's parents are not going to voluntarily get fingerprinted at any police station ever regardless of being convicted for anything or not. It's fine for all those of you in affluent hoods who probably have not much need for extra hands. Even then I'm sure there are parents who see this whole thing as a very un-American invasion of privacy.
If you are that worried about other people then homeschool, but make sure you send your spouse for a fingerprint background check first.
I don't know the line, I thought we were talking about felonies, and "felons", which should be very clearly denied access. I have no idea what my school restricts, I just know that everybody has to clear a background check before volunteering, and I had no problem with it and never bothered to ask where the "line" is, lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
My point was, and still is, that in the classroom setting there is very little leeway for a child to be harmed by another's parent. Regardless of that parent's past. Thus, I believe this goes too far and causes more problems than it helps. The fact that the school might have to deal with an issue occasionally is not my problem, that's what we pay you for. The potential for issues exist in this world, and you can't background check your way around that, as you have acknowledged, and you'd be correct.
so you are ok with allowing pedophiles into the classroom and make it a teacher's job to police him so he doesn't rape little Johnny in the corner??? Last time I checked a teacher's job was to teach, not supervise adults who might or might not have ill intent. Which is why lkb also mentioned that there was rarely any parent volunteers in the classroom, it just causes disruption sometimes, even when they are free from any criminal background.
Why should a school have to deal with any problems, and how is that the teacher's problem? How is that not your problem? If the district or school doesn't have a policy for making sure that employees and volunteers are background checked, the hell it is MY problem, because my kid wouldn't be exposed to that risk. I certainly am not ok with allowing potential criminals into my kids classroom, or worse, alone on a fieldtrip with a potential criminal, and asking one teacher to police the situation. I have been on many fieldtrips and it is 2-3 kids plus my kid, and we are on our own out and about and the teacher would have no clue what I am up to.
Nobody is "forced" to do a background check to volunteer, they choose to do one if they would like to be given the opportunity to volunteer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Your inability to recognize that people can harm children in ways other than sexually molesting them is deeply disturbing.
What harm is there from excluding felons from the classroom? In fact, many teachers have talked about the FACT that most schools have to turn away classroom volunteers and chaperones. You ignore that again, and again because it underlines how excluding the 8% of adults who are felons is actually harmless.
.
Yes, background checks are not just to make sure you have not committed a crime that you might also commit in the 30 minutes you are volunteering in a classroom! It helps weed out those with character and moral flaws from having access and opportunity from influencing the children.
While my kids might be perfectly safe with a criminal inside a classroom with 24 other kids and a teacher, my child is also likely to start respecting and trusting this individual, and be accepting of their actions outside of the classroom.
Well I suppose you should enlighten me with your vivid imagination of all the possible types of harm inflicted on children by these parents with past wrongdoings. I can imagine them being stabbed by that weapon you constantly carry, I suppose, but clearly no background check would prevent that.
Consider that these are the parents of the very children in the classroom. It hurts them, the children themselves, for their own parents to be unwelcome, never mind the usefulness of having extra sets of hands when needed or the whole premise of parent involvement breeding community and academic success. How excited the kids are when their parents visit the school, but I guess to deny that joy to a child doesn't constitute real harm to you.
My point about our particular school is that many make the assumption that lower SES schools suffer the most from these policies and that may be true, but all schools suffer. You keep throwing around that 8% statistic but in practice schools lose more than 8% percent of the volunteers with these nonsensical requirements, in addition to money that could be better spent on tangible benefits for the kids.
Really to keep your children safe you should never let them out your front door and encounter any other human being. Better to never let them talk to anyone who has ever done something wrong, certainly those people have nothing to teach us. Keep your halo polished, and by all means keep them away from the churches! Those pews are packed with hypocrites and moral deviants.
Well I suppose you should enlighten me with your vivid imagination of all the possible types of harm inflicted on children by these parents with past wrongdoings. I can imagine them being stabbed by that weapon you constantly carry, I suppose, but clearly no background check would prevent that. .
really? I don't have to vividly imagine what a criminal might want to do, I just have to prevent access to my child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fnh
Really to keep your children safe you should never let them out your front door and encounter any other human being. Better to never let them talk to anyone who has ever done something wrong, certainly those people have nothing to teach us. Keep your halo polished, and by all means keep them away from the churches! Those pews are packed with hypocrites and moral deviants.
keeping your child away from known criminals = not allowing them out of the house, ever?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fnh
Consider that these are the parents of the very children in the classroom. It hurts them, the children themselves, for their own parents to be unwelcome, never mind the usefulness of having extra sets of hands when needed or the whole premise of parent involvement breeding community and academic success. How excited the kids are when their parents visit the school, but I guess to deny that joy to a child doesn't constitute real harm to you.
.
I'm sure that children of felons are hurt by a lot of thing as a result of their choices, not being able to volunteer in a school probably being a very small one. Lots of kids don't get to see their parents volunteer, because they work full time, are single parents, don't have transportation, are hooked on drugs, don't have a parent, etc. We can't change reality for everybody because it denies a child excitement.
Am I really arguing the logic of keeping criminals out of a classroom?? Is this really a major problem for them, do we have an influx of felons needing access to the schools? Moving on............
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.
1. Here also. I underwent full scrutiny to work one hour every morning as a breakfast aide.
2. What are even talking about, known drug user? Where did I ever say that? I said an OLD conviction of possession, not a drug user. Including in the screening process, along with the background check, is a DRUG TEST. If someone fails the drug test, naturally, they shouldn't be working with children. Someone failing a current drug test and someone having a decades old conviction and PASSING a drug test in the here and now are two totally different things, and I can't even believe you put the two in the same category.
3. Lists? Who would keep lists and why? I expect common sense and discretion to be used. Someone does the hiring, there's no universal "list" for anyone to have. That "someone" should be able to look at an applicant's history, and if there is a conviction, be able to determine if it has any bearing on the applicant's life now or the position they are applying for. Common sense should be able to determine that ONE conviction from several years ago doesn't mean that this person is STILL trouble and children aren't safe around them. I'm not lobbying for "felons" in the classroom, I'm lobbying for the best and most dedicated people to be in the classroom. I expect administration to have enough brains to determine who those people are, even if they happen to have an old conviction on their record.
And by the way, I am well aware of what a felony is, and writing bad checks CAN be a felony.
Well I suppose you should enlighten me with your vivid imagination of all the possible types of harm inflicted on children by these parents with past wrongdoings. I can imagine them being stabbed by that weapon you constantly carry, I suppose, but clearly no background check would prevent that.
Ok, how about that old drug conviction people keep talking about? How do we know that person isn't still using? How do we know that person will not be using on the field trip they want to chaperone? How do we know that said drug using parent will not forget one of the children in their care, at best?
BTW, a sailing knife has no point, similar to a butter knife, it cannot "stab" anything. As an aside, my very first year, a teacher saved a student's life with the exact same model of knife (mine was a gift from that teacher). So really, your attempts to paint a 3 1/2" sailing knife as a threat to high school students just reminds me how lucky we were that that teacher was such a good sailor.
Quote:
Consider that these are the parents of the very children in the classroom. It hurts them, the children themselves, for their own parents to be unwelcome, never mind the usefulness of having extra sets of hands when needed or the whole premise of parent involvement breeding community and academic success. How excited the kids are when their parents visit the school, but I guess to deny that joy to a child doesn't constitute real harm to you.
Already, many schools that allow classroom volunteers, do not allow parents to volunteer in their own children's classroom. There is a whole host of reasons for this.
You don't have to be in the classroom to volunteer and show your children "joy". You can volunteer to do other things (frequently things we need far more than passing out cake) in the school.
There are parents who smoke marijuana with their children. These people do not see "harm" in that either. If we exclude some of them from chaperoning field trips, I am perfectly fine with that.
Quote:
My point about our particular school is that many make the assumption that lower SES schools suffer the most from these policies and that may be true, but all schools suffer. You keep throwing around that 8% statistic but in practice schools lose more than 8% percent of the volunteers with these nonsensical requirements, in addition to money that could be better spent on tangible benefits for the kids.
Proof? I have posted several links. Multiple teachers who are actually in a position to know how many volunteers there are or are not, have said they have to turn away volunteers even with these background checks because there are more of them then needed. So please, show any evidence that background checks are excluding more than the felons.
Money better spent? I have no idea why you think handing out crepes is saving your school money. But you are not.
1. Here also. I underwent full scrutiny to work one hour every morning as a breakfast aide.
All of us should.
Quote:
2. What are even talking about, known drug user? Where did I ever say that? I said an OLD conviction of possession, not a drug user. Including in the screening process, along with the background check, is a DRUG TEST. If someone fails the drug test, naturally, they shouldn't be working with children. Someone failing a current drug test and someone having a decades old conviction and PASSING a drug test in the here and now are two totally different things, and I can't even believe you put the two in the same category.
Not true. In my state volunteers are not given a drug test. It is not even part of the federal standard for screening of volunteers. As a matter of fact, I could not find a single parent volunteer background check that included a drug test. Could you please provide a link of any place where that is a requirement?
If you are suggesting that volunteers with old drug convictions should be drug tested, and regularly, then I am much more okay with them volunteering in the school.
Quote:
3. Lists? Who would keep lists and why? I expect common sense and discretion to be used. Someone does the hiring, there's no universal "list" for anyone to have.
So now, the human resources personnels time has to be spent on a background check, drug test, etc. just so felons with drug convictions should have access to other people's children? Why is that? Shouldn't the expense be on the person with the conviction instead of the school district? Maybe they can pay the police to do that level of background check and drug testing.
Quote:
That "someone" should be able to look at an applicant's history, and if there is a conviction, be able to determine if it has any bearing on the applicant's life now or the position they are applying for.
Uh, maybe you are unaware but people with those types of drug convictions are barred from holding licenses like teaching ones in most states. The people who do the hiring in a public school do not have the discretion to supercede the department of education in a state and therefore have no training on who should or should not be allowed to volunteer in the classroom with such a felony.
Quote:
Common sense should be able to determine that ONE conviction from several years ago doesn't mean that this person is STILL trouble and children aren't safe around them.
Says your version of "common sense". You don't seem to get it. Many other parents would find it common sense to keep felons out of the classroom. In fact the majority of them.
Quote:
I'm not lobbying for "felons" in the classroom, I'm lobbying for the best and most dedicated people to be in the classroom.
You realize we are talking about "volunteers" right? People who hand out crepes and read books while the TEACHER does the TEACHING. I hate to burst your bubble but there is no one volunteer who is NECESSARY to the school, let alone the 8% who are felons.
If that 8% can't volunteer IN the classroom, there is a line of people behind them who can.
Quote:
I expect administration to have enough brains to determine who those people are, even if they happen to have an old conviction on their record.
Given that you think administrators are making judgements about hiring employees with felony drug convictions when they are NOT, maybe you should re-think that. And given that those self same administrators are the ones who have instituted those no felons allowed policies, why are they not then qualified to just say, no felons allowed. You do realize it is administrators who enact these volunteer guidelines right?
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.
