Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is equired in Baltimore City schools even for people who volunteer in the classroom. You must be fingerprinted at district headquarters. I am surprised it isn't required elsewhere.

So if you want to do something like chaperone a field trip, you have to go get fingerprinted at police district headquarters?

What problem are we trying to solve here, exactly?

This is required for everyone apparently including parents. Have you ever looked at the sex offenders' registry? There are some parents on it at the school where I work. I wouldn't want a person coming into my child's school to volunteer who has a record. Would you? How else would the school know if they didn't send that person for a background check?

I think it's important to note that fingerprinting and background checks are only one part of a comprehensive plan for keeping kids safe. I also think they can be a barrier to parent participation.

My preferences would be as follows:

Paid Staff: Fingerprints, background checks and a variety of other steps taken to protect children including

-- a rigorous interview process
-- reference checks
-- mandatory classes on recognizing the signs of abuse and what to do
-- mandated reporting
-- school policies about open doors, and teacher/student contact outside of school
-- supervisory practices that include regular check ins,
-- etc . .

Unpaid staff who are in positions where they have access to children alone, such as student teachers, coaches, unpaid afterschool class teachers, or tutors/mentors: The same as above.

[b]Informal volunteers:[b] (e.g. Parents volunteering within their own child's school or on fieldwork, students such as high school students "interning" in elementary classes, or peer tutors, one time volunteers such as someone who comes in on career day, a senior citizen who comes in to work on the flower garden etc . . . ) No fingerprints or background checks, but requirements that they are never alone with students other than their own child, don't help in the bathroom, and other similar rules. Plus volunteers wear ID that clearly identifies them as such so that staff members know to maintain supervision.

Anonymous wrote:This is equired in Baltimore City schools even for people who volunteer in the classroom. You must be fingerprinted at district headquarters. I am surprised it isn't required elsewhere.

So if you want to do something like chaperone a field trip, you have to go get fingerprinted at police district headquarters?

What problem are we trying to solve here, exactly?

This is equired in Baltimore City schools even for people who volunteer in the classroom. You must be fingerprinted at district headquarters. I am surprised it isn't required elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course! Anyone who might be unsupervised with children should be criminal checked and finger-checked. Don't care "who" they are.

Why shouldn't they???

Because

1. it will discourage parent participation
2. it will be another layer of bureaucracy in MCPS
3. there is no evidence that there is a problem

I agree with this. Yes, do background checks for employees, but it's ridiculous to do it for parent volunteers.

Anonymous wrote:Of course! Anyone who might be unsupervised with children should be criminal checked and finger-checked. Don't care "who" they are.

Why shouldn't they???

Because

1. it will discourage parent participation
2. it will be another layer of bureaucracy in MCPS
3. there is no evidence that there is a problem

Of course! Anyone who might be unsupervised with children should be criminal checked and finger-checked. Don't care "who" they are.

Why shouldn't they???

Anonymous wrote:I don't think that is correct because after school programs are often run by volunteer parents and teachers are not necessarily present.

The after school programs which are not run by MCPS do not have to abide by their regulations.

There is more security now in that parents need to have a license swiped. It will show up if you are a registered sex offender. I realize this is hardly the level of security we would like in our schools, but it is more than it used to be.

To the earlier posting about students not being alone with volunteers, that is a policy. I don't think it's followed as much as it should be.

I do worry about field trips also. I think about when students go to places where they don't all stay together as a group (pumpkin patch, zoo, ...). I've seen parents who clearly are not providing the level of supervision they should be in public places.

Yes, the PTA members.

Anonymous wrote:In FCPS parents are not required to be fingerprinted for background checks. Why? Because the message would be that they're not welcome in their own child's school. Also it would be a barrier to many of our low-income families who would have to travel a distance to our main administrative building for this. We want parents engaged in what's happening at school. The assumption is that they are at school because they care about being involved.

For all other volunteers--anyone who is not a parent--they must be fingerprinted and a background check must be done. A volunteer badge is issued.

With ALL volunteers, whether a parent or outsider who has a badge, the rule is that none are left alone with any students. They cannot go into an empty room. They always need to be within view of teaching staff. So sitting in the hallway to read is fine. Going into an office with a child is not.

Really? That is not the case at our at our school where parents take a group of kids for reading enrichment.

I think the reforms Starr was calling for include background checks for parents.

Securing schools would be easier if parents and other visitors actually followed the rules and checked in to get passes, but some are just too privileged for that. They're in a hurry, after all, and the rules don't apply to them! LOL

Yes. They are in Catholic schools (including coaches).

Have there been any actual problems, or do you want to institute this big intrusive bureaucratic procedure for just in case?

Absolutely