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.
And you'll be running full criminal background checks on every friend, neighbor and relative your child spends the night with, goes to the park with and dates correct? All of those people are more likely to have more opportunity to do harm to your child than the parent who sits in a tiny chair in the first grade classroom listening to children sound out letters, with the teacher and 25 or more students present.
I believe basic background checks should be ran on all volunteers in schools that have an opportunity to be alone with a child but I also agree with this. We do get a silly and go overboard with this stuff. You shouldn't need a background check just to read a book to a class with a teacher in the room the entire time. Next thing you know schools will require background checks just to be able to go into the school to pick them up your child for a doctor's appointment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
Why do some people here take this so personally? Sorry if that's not what you're doing, but it seems like such a touchy subject for some. Anyhow, the difference between all the people you mention vs the parent in the classroom is that you have the opportunity to make that decision if you like. If you want to run a check on the parents of where your kid will be spending the night you can. You know that person and are able to make a decision. If you want your child hanging with your neighbor or not hanging with your neighbor, that's your decision to make. You know that person and decide from there. You don't have that choice with the parent in the classroom because you don't know that person (right?).
Background checks won't stop a nasty, snarly parent who might hurt your child's feeling or one who gives your child the wrong information from being in the class, you just trust the teacher to see that doesn't happen. You use that teacher as a de facto parent in that sense. A rule that a parent without a background check can't be alone with a child should be enough in most cases to counter the argument you have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
I'm not sure what dating has to do with first graders. I don't think this topic involves dating teens.
Background checks, if required, are also required for those working with high school students. Truthfully, if you stop to think about it, they are at more at risk of being harmed by an adult volunteer than a 1st grader.
I don't know, maybe because a 15 year old conviction for something irrelevant to kids shouldn't prevent them from doing a good thing?
My husband has a very old conviction for carrying a concealed deadly weapon. He got stopped many years ago in Hollywood with a small pocket knife with a flip blade, apparently against the law. He's a carpenter and always carries a pocket knife. You think that's a good reason to exclude him?
Also, just telling teachers that someone failed a background check runs the risk of completely besmirching someone's reputation. If they've been convicted then they've paid whatever price.
As to sex offenders, there's a separate registry for them.
Teachers are not told anything about the background checks. They are given a list of those who want to volunteer who have passed and generally assume that anyone else did not want to volunteer which is often true. Teachers do not get lists of people who submitted their information and did not pass.
I believe basic background checks should be ran on all volunteers in schools that have an opportunity to be alone with a child but I also agree with this. We do get a silly and go overboard with this stuff. You shouldn't need a background check just to read a book to a class with a teacher in the room the entire time. Next thing you know schools will require background checks just to be able to go into the school to pick them up your child for a doctor's appointment.
NO volunteers here have any opportunity to be alone with a child. They are always working in a room where there are other parents or teachers.
Yes, all volunteers (even those who are going to work in the teacher workroom) get background checks run on them.
I had to have a background check to work with girl scouts even just as a driver.
Teachers are not told anything about the background checks. They are given a list of those who want to volunteer who have passed and generally assume that anyone else did not want to volunteer which is often true. Teachers do not get lists of people who submitted their information and did not pass.
Yes, you are correct, thanks for giving the right info.
You'd think that people who find it "vitally important" for parents to pass the same background checks as staff would actually have some knowledge of what that entails.
Anyhow, the difference between all the people you mention vs the parent in the classroom is that you have the opportunity to make that decision if you like. If you want to run a check on the parents of where your kid will be spending the night you can. You know that person and are able to make a decision. If you want your child hanging with your neighbor or not hanging with your neighbor, that's your decision to make. You know that person and decide from there. You don't have that choice with the parent in the classroom because you don't know that person (right?).
And this is really the crux of the issue. If one parent is cool with someone with a 10 year old felony hanging out with their child, that's their business. They as the parent (within reason) have the right to determine what is and isn't a threat. What we're talking about with background checks for volunteers is other people deciding who can be given access to your child without your knowledge.
Quote:
Daycare providers, teachers and coaches and the like I completely agree with. Someone sitting in an empty classroom stuffy folders or planning and supervising a classroom party I feel is over the top. I also think it can give a false sense of security.
If you feel daycare providers, teachers and coaches should have to pass background checks to be around kids (which I agree with), are classroom volunteers that much different? You feel there is a false sense of security in volunteers being "cleared." I agree. Most molesters are family members or other people allowed access to a child in the home. Of course, no one wants to consider their husband, older child or brother as the culprit. But I also feel there is a false security in thinking just because there happens to be a teacher or other kids in the room, nothing can happen. As hard as teachers work to monitor the classroom, they cannot have their eyes on 25 different kids all at the same time. If they need to glance down at a math sheet for a few seconds to see the problem a student is struggling with, how long do you think it takes for a volunteer to sneak a kid out into the hallway? If it's a person with bad intentions, it's quite possible to find a way to make that happen. The volunteer walks from the office through the halls to the classroom, passing kids who are walking alone on their way to the bathroom. There is opportunity there, which is why the school needs to be very careful about who is allowed in.
Performing a check on adults being given access to other people's children is not a perfect solution. There is no perfect solution. But it's a reasonable precautionary measure to reduce risk.
The difference is classroom volunteers as I described are not spending 1-1 time with children. Many do not come into direct contact with children at all. The lack of opportunity is protection...probably better protection than a background check.
The difference is classroom volunteers as I described are not spending 1-1 time with children. Many do not come into direct contact with children at all.
And probably none of them are predators. And the school gets this. But if someone with bad intentions wanted to, they could gain access to kids through having access to the school. Kids have to walk to the bathroom alone once they're past kindergarten and have in-classroom bathrooms. A predator could just as easily be on their way to the workroom and encounter a kid alone in the hall.
Nothing removes all risk. Background checks, I feel, reduce the risk.
Just because I disagree, does not mean I'm taking it personally . I have no dog in this issue. My kids are grown, I do not have anything that would cause an issue for me with any background check, I do not work or currently volunteer in schools.
Ok, that's why I noted that it may not be the case. Perhaps I'm grouping the opposing views in this issue as one voice, where some have gotten annoyed, but not all. It reads to me like an impassioned topic.
Quote:
I'm simply pointing out, that there is a huge inconsistency here. Parents who feel that anyone who comes in contact with their kids, even if they are never alone or unsupervised, need to have a criminal background check should be assessing those same criteria for contact their kids have with adults outside of school. Especially those types of relationships and situations which are historically and clearly more risk laden.
To reiterate, you are not acknowledging a significant difference. You are comparing a stranger to someone a person may know for years and years. You are also not acknowledging the choice component here. I think those two things makes the analogy moot.
Quote:
And if you are doing that, when do you stop? At what age can people have contact with your kids who don't have to pass a background check? Daycare providers, teachers and coaches and the like I completely agree with. Someone sitting in an empty classroom stuffy folders or planning and supervising a classroom party I feel is over the top. I also think it can give a false sense of security. You indicated you'd feel safer with friends and family because you "know" them. Do you? I'd venture to say many people who turn out to have sordid backgrounds seem fine to their family, friends and neighbors.
I indicated that the choice would be mine to make. That's all and that's what's important here. Personally, how I will approach this issue when the time comes will depend on a lot of things. I don't think I will be relying on public education, so I don't even know if this issue will come up. Private schools in MA are very expensive and as I said in another thread, I cannot imagine why such a school would be needy of that kind of volunteer. But, if there are parents in the school serving some function how I feel about it will depend on if I know them, how they interact with me when we meet, whether or not they have interactions with the kids, etc. With all that said, I think it would be a good idea to have back round checks on all people that spends their days in the school (paid or not).
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.
. I have no dog in this issue. My kids are grown, I do not have anything that would cause an issue for me with any background check, I do not work or currently volunteer in schools.
