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.
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.
I definitely have all the first time parent fears and then some. Last night I had a nightmare that I lost my daughter in a blizzard. Completely freaking myself out.
I definitely have all the first time parent fears and then some. Last night I had a nightmare that I lost my daughter in a blizzard. Completely freaking myself out.
Oh you poor thing. Yeah that never goes completely away. I was also worried that I wouldn't be able to relate at all to other parents, having never had or been around children much. It turns out that for the most part it's just fine.
I couldn't sleep while my daughter was sleeping for the first 6 months, I kept waking up and checking she was still breathing. It's good to be vigilant, but keeping the fear factor to a minimum will help both you and her if you can manage it. Completely sympathize though.
And this is why this is ridiculous, here you've judged and juried my husband who's never hurt a fly and is a good man and a great father.
What I'm saying here is that as usual, there's no common sense application of this rule.
You've proved my point entirely.
He did commit a crime.... if he didn't, he wouldn't have a criminal record and this wouldn't be an issue.
There has to be a line somewhere, and the line is a felony (therefore I'm assuming those convicted of misdemeanors are on the other side of the line.) Just because you believe your husband is not a danger to the children doesn't make any difference. What about the guy convicted of domestic violence for putting his wife in the hospital.... he only hurt his wife, as long as she's not in the classroom, isn't here really no danger? Or embezzlement, as long as he's not working as the PTA treasurer, is that ok? Who's common sense do you think should be making all these individual judgments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
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.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
It's not like a bunch of strangers, your kid is going to be hanging out with the children of these parents.
It is a bunch of strangers, my children do not hang out with the parents of all the kids in their class. We make a decision as to what homes our children can go to, based on our own personal judgment, and sometimes are restricted for something far less than a felony. I expect the school to have procedures in place they follow, and would be outraged if they allowed a felon in.
Like someone said, if you loose your rights to vote or carry a firearm, certainly volunteering shouldn't be far fetched. Yes, I'm sure that there will be some perfectly great volunteers being prevented from helping in their child's school because some error in our system, for the greater good of not giving bad people access to our children. But we execute innocent people erroneously because of errors in our system, is not being able to go on a field trip really such a big deal to whine about?
He did commit a crime.... if he didn't, he wouldn't have a criminal record and this wouldn't be an issue.
There has to be a line somewhere, and the line is a felony (therefore I'm assuming those convicted of misdemeanors are on the other side of the line.) Just because you believe your husband is not a danger to the children doesn't make any difference. What about the guy convicted of domestic violence for putting his wife in the hospital.... he only hurt his wife, as long as she's not in the classroom, isn't here really no danger? Or embezzlement, as long as he's not working as the PTA treasurer, is that ok? Who's common sense do you think should be making all these individual judgments?
I agree.
It is a bunch of strangers, my children do not hang out with the parents of all the kids in their class. We make a decision as to what homes our children can go to, based on our own personal judgment, and sometimes are restricted for something far less than a felony. I expect the school to have procedures in place they follow, and would be outraged if they allowed a felon in.
Like someone said, if you loose your rights to vote or carry a firearm, certainly volunteering shouldn't be far fetched. Yes, I'm sure that there will be some perfectly great volunteers being prevented from helping in their child's school because some error in our system, for the greater good of not giving bad people access to our children. But we execute innocent people erroneously because of errors in our system, is not being able to go on a field trip really such a big deal to whine about?
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.
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.
I get randomly drug tested every year, about twice a year, as part of my job. I think that is unique to my school and our program. I am not sure as to whether or not other teachers are subject to that same rule.
Now lets compare some apples to apples. I have never been arrested let alone convicted of a crime (despite the fact that I do carry a pocket knife EVERYDAY). I have a clean background check. So the school has no factual knowledge that I have ever been a drug user (which I have not), additionally I am randomly drug tested anyway. This is completely different than the school allowing a KNOWN drug user in the classroom and assuming that risk for other people's children. The fact that you are so blinded by your bias that all felons are teddy bears that you cannot even admit the problems with allowing known drug users whose current drug use status cannot be verified access to other people's children is sad.
I got fingerprinted as part of my employment. Also, why would I need to be fingerprinted again, they do not change, maybe you mean they would run a background check again?
Again, ignorance is not a good thing, in the vast majority of states teachers licenses are revoked if they are convicted of felonies even if they occur after employment. So if a teacher is convicted of a felony, like a drug orweapon charge, and even many misdemeanors, their license would be revoked without the need for a background check.
And yes, teachers pay for their own background checks.
I don't remember needing to do anything as a volunteer but I did have to fill out a form with some info so who knows what they did with that. Volunteering never put me alone with a child I was always in a classroom cleaning up or stuffing envelopes or sitting with a group or off doing a project (fundraising, organizing, etc.) away from school. This was 20 years ago.
As a part time employee I did have to have a criminal check of some sort with the local police department and a TB test. I can't remember if I was fingerprinted but I know they do that now.
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.
"Failure to clear the criminal history record check as per District policy may disqualify you to serve as a volunteer or contract provider in the District."
An example of a school that will not do tiers of clearance anymore.
"The policy has not changed; the complexity of monitoring the tier information led to inconsistent application of the background check for field trips and similar activities. Back- ground checks have always been a requirement for field trips to ensure student safety."
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.
Sorry, but just because it is public school does not mean parents do not have the right to expect the school to limit access of criminals to students in the classroom. Actually quite the opposite. More and more schools, districts, towns, and even states, are requiring volunteers to be background checked.
Nice for you that your school hasn't caught up but I wouldn't count on it for much longer. Already PA has laws requiring background checks (federal no less) for volunteers in charter schools, and allows districts to require them for public and private schools.
Actually all public schools in Philadelphia require that background check.
"All volunteers will need to have an PA Child Abuse History Clearance and Criminal Reference Check completed."
I get randomly drug tested every year, about twice a year, as part of my job. I think that is unique to my school and our program. I am not sure as to whether or not other teachers are subject to that same rule.
Now lets compare some apples to apples. I have never been arrested let alone convicted of a crime (despite the fact that I do carry a pocket knife EVERYDAY). I have a clean background check. So the school has no factual knowledge that I have ever been a drug user (which I have not), additionally I am randomly drug tested anyway. This is completely different than the school allowing a KNOWN drug user in the classroom and assuming that risk for other people's children. The fact that you are so blinded by your bias that all felons are teddy bears that you cannot even admit the problems with allowing known drug users whose current drug use status cannot be verified access to other people's children is sad.
I got fingerprinted as part of my employment. Also, why would I need to be fingerprinted again, they do not change, maybe you mean they would run a background check again?
Again, ignorance is not a good thing, in the vast majority of states teachers licenses are revoked if they are convicted of felonies even if they occur after employment. So if a teacher is convicted of a felony, like a drug orweapon charge, and even many misdemeanors, their license would be revoked without the need for a background check.
And yes, teachers pay for their own background checks.
Happy yet?
Yes I'm glad you go through all that. Because - and no offense to the wonderful teachers here - the large majority of crimes against children in schools are committed by teachers and paid staff, regardless of background checks, and not parent volunteers - who aren't checked in every instance by every school. Really, you'd think there would be an awful lot of incidents if it was so imperative.
Please point out where I said all felons are teddy bears.
If a person is stupid enough to go the school on drugs to read a story or file some books, throw em out and call the cops, and don't let them come back.
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.
I believe this is one of the things schools do to cover their arse. I don't think it has much to do with actual student safety. Which is understandable, but I am entitled to my opinion that it's pretty much a worthless panacea as you are yours.
Yes I'm glad you go through all that. Because - and no offense to the wonderful teachers here - the large majority of crimes against children in schools are committed by teachers and paid staff, regardless of background checks, and not parent volunteers - who aren't checked in every instance by every school. Really, you'd think there would be an awful lot of incidents if it was so imperative.
Please point out where I said all felons are teddy bears.
If a person is stupid enough to go the school on drugs to read a story or file some books, throw em out and call the cops, and don't let them come back.
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.
I believe this is one of the things schools do to cover their arse. I don't think it has much to do with actual student safety. Which is understandable, but I am entitled to my opinion that it's pretty much a worthless panacea as you are yours.
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.
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.)
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.
My kids attend an expensive private school which requires not only background checks but also hours-long training courses. We are at an international school with a majority expat population and while the school (thus ultimately the parents themselves) cover the cost, the cost can be hundreds of dollars for individuals from foreign countries (not to mention they can take up to two months!) and the training courses have to be translated into several languages and provided at multiple, convenient times... While we have many parents happy to simply hand out crepes or slices of galettes or whatnot for the celebration du jour, they are barred from doing so unless they complete the cumbersome and expensive requirements. It is inane. And so, even at our privileged school we desperately rely on the same volunteers for every single event.
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.
Completely freaking myself out.
Yeah that never goes completely away. I was also worried that I wouldn't be able to relate at all to other parents, having never had or been around children much. It turns out that for the most part it's just fine. 
