Teachers, bus drivers being fingerprinted for background check?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Potter75

I think that it should be an obvious for teachers or daycare workers or anyone in a position of authority who has the potential to have alone time with a student ~ I'm actually surprised that that isn't a mandate there already, it is here.

I have to be honest and say that I would be annoyed if I had to be fingerprinted and background checked and pay for it to volunteer in my childrens school ~ and say that it having parents have to do so would not give me an increased sense of safety. In fact, it would make me upset because I would think that it would decrease parent/grandparent participation in the school. For instance, for my sons birthday I have my Dad set up to be a "mystery reader" in my sons classroom as a surprise for my son. He would have to be fingerprinted and background checked to go to the school and volunteer? No way! So annoying and invasive! there are 475 kids his elementary school and we have a 70% parental participation rate in the PTO, and that doesn't even count the number of occasional volunteers like my Dad or other grandparents/aunts/uncles who pop in for occasional visits/participation. I would think that that number would go WAY down if people had to be vetted and fingerprinted, and that would be a huge loss for the kids. I don't think that that sort of thing provides any additional safety for the kids, when these volunteers are never alone with the kids and are not really a threat to be in a "predatory" role.

---

Here all parent volunteers have to have background checks so that they can be alone with the kids. If it was just a guest reader situation though, where they would never be alone with the kids, you could probably get around it for one day. I know I have taught in classes where the parent hasnt got their check back yet, and they just cant leave my sight with any kids.

Because the fingerprint proves that you are background checking the person that they say they are. Not a different person. Without the two, anyone could be anyone, via identity theft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Potter75

Because the fingerprint proves that you are background checking the person that they say they are. Not a different person. Without the two, anyone could be anyone, via identity theft.

---

But does it prove that? How many people actually have their fingerprints in any database?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blather

How in the world does fingerprinting stop people from doing any of this? I am confused.

---

When someone commits a major crime such as child molestation there is record of that. Finger printing is a way to make that show up. An example of that would be a situation that happened last year at our church. A very heart breaking thing happened. It was found out that one of Alyssa's little friends' father had been raping her. He went to prison for the next 30 years. Throughout the investigation we learned that the mother had a record of abuse. No one at the church knew, and she had been a church nursery worker. It hurts my heart to know that she was alone with my children. New policies have been put in place and now all church workers must submit to a background check and fingerprint before working in the nursery. It is a way to keep criminals from another State from moving to a new State and doing the same thing again to new person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftmom

But does it prove that? How many people actually have their fingerprints in any database?

---

Anyone who was convicted of a crime?!?!?!

It doesn't necessarily stop a future event but if the person has a background in any state it will come up in the database.

Right now, Cori checks are put in place but that only checks Mass. We live very close to Rhode Island and many people move from there to here so that alone misses a lot of potential past crimes. Never mind people moving from any other state.

I don't see a problem with it. If you don't want a background check don't apply for that job. I have had background checks before and just had to go through another one because the company I work for sold software to Miami-Dade Corrections and they require background checks even though I don't work directly for them just because I might have contact with their employee data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftmom

But does it prove that? How many people actually have their fingerprints in any database?

---

Way, way,way back in the day i was fingerprinted for a job.... a bunch of us went to the police station to have it done. It was more for if anything happened to us then the people we were working with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Potter75

Anyone who was convicted of a crime?!?!?!

---

Yes, so they are not actually confirming that it is you, just that it is not a criminal who has their fingerprints in that particular data base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftmom

I dont get this either. I dont have a problem with a background check and it is required here, and I wouldnt have a problem with fingerprinting if someone could explain to me how it protects the kids.

---

It keeps known abusers/molesters from going from state to state (or even district to district) and being able to do it again and again. I was doing research on it lastnight and it's amazing that some states don't even require a background check for teachers.