MyFox
 

Day2's Blog

by Day2 from Rowlett, Texas

Last Post 292 days, 16 hours Ago


As a legal custodial guardian and natural parent with three children attending the Garland Independent School District, I am now required to undergo an invasive background check to attend any in-school or extra-curricular activity. The district claims this is in the "best interest and safety" of the student body.

Let me make it very clear, I am capable of passing a background screening. My primary concern is that extreme flaws in the background process is subjecting my child to unnecessary dangers and is a clear violation of my parental rights and invasion of privacy. I feel that many parents and legal guardians involved in G.I.S.D. share this common concern, but little attention has been brought to the matter.

Did you know the background application does not require any proof of identification? You can complete the application using any name you want! Yes, most of us law-abiding citizens would not lie on a background form, but child predators will go to any lengths to surround themselves with un-suspecting victims. Did you also know that when I witnessed the "sign in" process at the school's front desk, that there is no identification required to prove that you are who you say you are. Yes, this means any person can walk into the school office, give any name they want, and as long as it appears on the list, you are granted full access to the school body! Imagine "DAD" being approved and "BAD UNCLE BOB" giving "DAD's" name when he walks in and nobody's checking him out to make sure that he's "DAD". BAMB...you have just submitted my child and all of the student body to extreme danger because of a flawed process.

Most informed citizens know that child predators are not caught until numerous crimes have occurred, or in some cases never caught. The background form simply asks what 5 counties have you previously lived in. Does GISD seriously think a convicted child predator will voluntarily provide this information if they are convicted in another state or county?

Either GISD is wearing blinders or they truly believe they are doing a good deed. I agree that protecting our children is every person's responsibility. It is also the responsibility as a parent and not just a right to be an active participant in my child's education and safety without the invasion of privacy used by the district for their "band-aide" fix in an attempt to gain a better image in this day of increased concern.

Imagine for a moment, you as a legal guardian are denied access to be with your child during school hours when he/she is required by law to be there, all the while the outsmarted district is allowing predators to literally walk in off the streets and gain access to all kids!

Is it not the courts that can take away my right to supervise my child at any given time? Since when did a local school or staff member obtain this power to deny me access to my child? Would I be a legal guardian if I had committed a grave crime against my child? Obviously, no! I would not be able to be anywhere near my child. This would be made sure by the court, not a school district.

I strongly encourage GISD to review, test and change this policy. Either fix it or abolish it. It is nothing but a waste of valuable tax-dollars and resources in the context of its existence today.

Since I am not willing to lie on a background form and because of fear of criminal prosecution if I tried to "test" this system and prove it is insufficient, I would dearly appreciate anyone who has the means to help change this policy.

I was taught growing up that it does no good just to complain. If you want to make a difference, then you need to offer a solution. If you are interested in this read and taking the time to review my offered solution, I greatly admire you as a caring individual.

The Background Check as it is today:

Fill out the form. Use any name you want. Yes, you will be held accountable to swearing the information is true! But does a convicted child predator really care?

Go to the school's front office - give them any name or use the bogus or real name from the background form you completed. If you were approved with the information you gave, you will be given a "official seal of approval" and granted access to the student body. NO identification will be checked to ensure you are who you say you are. You are free to roam about the building.

The Background Check I hope for:

You go straight to the front school's office. You are required to provide proper photo identification. You give your child's name or the child you are visiting (in case you're a grandparent). If you come up as the child's legal guardian - a right given by the courts and giving birth - then you are granted full access to your child without undergoing any invasive background screening. A screening won't be necessary because you will not be listed as the "legal guardian" if you are indeed a very bad person. The COURT not a GISD staff member would have taken this away.

If you are NOT a legal guardian, then you must complete a background form in front of a GISD staff member, sworn as an affidavit, and provide a copy of your photo identification. If you are approved, then you will be added to that child's "safe list."

Is this a fix all solution? No, obviously every staff member must maintain heightened supervision when "outsiders" are present. We all know that no background check is fool proof. But this will help deter the bad guys from outsmarting a blind district. If one is required to give their photo identification at the time of checking in, they may think twice about giving up their real identity in fear of being caught!

I hope this is not coming across as simply an opportunity to rant and rave. I truly fear my parental rights have been compromised, my invasion of privacy intruded upon, and a truly flawed system is creating an environment for the "bad people" to access an entire student body because of a poorly designed system.

I know this can be easily corrected. But you can't fix something that the District won't admit is broke. I truly hope that those involved with this matter will swallow their pride and take the action necessary to create a safe learning environment for all children while preserving every parent's right and privacy.

This is do-able!!

17 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 17
Page 1 of 1
TexasTruBlu read my blog view my photos
Feb 9, 2008 | 9:13 PM

So what would you have happen instead? Most districts use the standard form that records known offenders in the same way criminal enforcement does-by name, drivers license numbers and addresses. Those are the sectors in the database. And now they are requiring fingerprinting, which I have absolutely no problem with, especially if they use the FBI database for verification. What I wonder is if you understand that the questions asked are less invasive than the questions asked to get a car loan or rent an apartment? Frankly, I would rather at least make an attempt to control access than to pick and choose based on gut instinct. Quite often predators will appear harmless and that's not something gut instinct will cover.

Day2 read my blog
Feb 9, 2008 | 9:26 PM

The solution is simple: require visitors to provide photo identification to prove they are the individual that provided the background application and was approved. At this time, no ID is required to verify you are who you say you are. Further, legal guardians should not have to undergo any background scrutiny. You would not be a legal guardian if you have been convicted of a child predator crime. This is an invastion of personal privacy and and a violation of parental rights to be with my child at any given time. Only outside visitors that are not legal custodial parents should undergo this background scrutiny. All legal parents should always have access to their child period. this should never be determined by a school district staff member, but a matter that is left to the court.

Day2 read my blog
Feb 9, 2008 | 9:30 PM

I would like to add that the attitude "something is better than nothing" is a lazy excuse that helped create this flawed system. This was done at the expense of every parent's right and at the cost of every parent's privacy. There are remedies but again, the district must admit it is broke before they can fix it.

Orphan
Feb 9, 2008 | 11:22 PM

Actually, it isn't to keep you from your child, but from any other children should you not pass a background check. A school can most certainly keep you from entering a classroom where other students are located. You can most certainly be required to wait while your child is brought to you. You do not have the right to walk willy nilly through a school. ANY person that will be around children in the care of a public school, can be made to submit to a background check or they can decide to just not be around other children.

Visitors should always be asked to show identification to the office, parent or no parent. On our district's background check a DL is required.

By the way their are people out there that have been convicted of sexual crimes that are around children.

Day2 read my blog
Feb 9, 2008 | 11:48 PM

Orpah, thank you for your comments. Let me make it clear, it is not that I disagree that all visitors should undergo a background check. But the background check in and of itself is a joke and flawed. Unlike your district, there is NO identification required. Since I chose not to subject myself to this intrusive background check, I was denied access while any nilly-willy could walk back there.

Do you seriously think I would be listed as a legal guardian for my child if i was a convicted malicious child offender? NO! Not only would I be barred from seeing or visiting my child in the outside world but I would be absolutely banned in the school setting. As a legal guardian I do not NEED to undergo a background scrutiny. I inherit the implied fact that I am a fit mother or I would not be a legal guardian. It is a nonsense policy. Only OUTSIDERS that are not legal guardians should undergo this background check...not me and other legal guardians. WE never should be denied access to our children period. If so, this is to be determined by a court, no a G.I.S.D. staff member. Thank you for your comments. I feel very passionately about this and am taking a stance to protect all parental rights and right to privacy. The district should not abuse it's power under the cover of "protecting the children" when they don't even check identification for the background check. They simply contradict themselves and are only giving an "impression of safety". This terrifies me!!!!

Orphan
Feb 10, 2008 | 12:28 AM

"Do you seriously think I would be listed as a legal guardian for my child if i was a convicted malicious child offender? NO! Not only would I be barred from seeing or visiting my child in the outside"

Actually, child offenders are not always barred from being a guardian to children...you may thing they should be, but that is not always the case. There are step-parents that molest the step-kids but never lay a hand on their own. Therefore they could still retain custody of their own kids, but not of the step. I have known of this exact situation. Until the trial this person was still the legal guardian of his children, but was kept from the others. He was never a threat to his own children, just ones he was not biologcally related to.

Day2 read my blog
Feb 10, 2008 | 1:00 AM

I'm sure this has happened, regretably. I am only looking out for the "best interest of children". Mind you, there is no sure-fire way of preventing every child offender access to children and this is unfortunate. As I point out, lots of child offenders are not brought to justice until 50+ offences or in some cases ever caught! I'm well aware of this. this doesn't include the fact that the background check is so limited that it only relies on the applicant's voluntary input of the last 5 counties they lived in. Seriously, do you think a child predator is going to own up to this information? I think you and I can both agree that child predators will have access to our children no matter how hard we try. I think we disagree on the process for "labeling and screening" individuals to best protect our children.

Because the defendant you elude to in your post was NOT YET CONVICTED, they were still allowed access to children that were not their own. What about after the conviction? Now this person has a record. They would have been denied access to the school body. This is just a matter of timing relating to the process. Not a fundamental viewpoint on the matter that legal custodial parents should be viewed as "safe" and rights to our children should be retained as a parental right not one designated at the discretion of a G.I.S.D. staff member, but that of a court. No one has the right to take away this parental right period but that of the court AFTER lawful prosecution. If you are a legal guardian, you should be deemed safe to accompany your child no matter w

scottbee1948 read my blog view my photos
Feb 10, 2008 | 9:49 AM

I can't understand if you don't have anything to hide (don't mean you do} why you should care if a background check is run.

It seems like it would be easier to go along with the rule then fight it.

Anything to protect our children should be welcomed.

UCantHandleThisTruth read my blog
Feb 10, 2008 | 12:45 PM

scottb

If Americans thought that way there would be no America.
Its not about "if you have nothing to hide" its about principle.

Illegal immigrants are ALLOWED IN NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
HOW IS THAT KEEPING THE SCHOOLS SAFE!?

terrellmom read my blog view my photos
Feb 11, 2008 | 5:56 AM

i'm with scottbee, those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing. anyway to keep the kids safe is fine by me. i have a background check every school year done and i've never thought it was a bad thing.

day2 it sounds like you hate your school district..i'd suggest changing it then. your kids would benefit from not hearing you gripe at every turn about what their school is doing

Day2 read my blog
Feb 11, 2008 | 7:44 AM

Terrellmom:
"day2 it sounds like you hate your school district"

Hate the school district? a little harsh don't you think. I take it you are offended because you work or volunteer for a school district. i can understand that's why you are upset. try re-reading what I wrote. I point out the FLAW in the background check. There is NO ID required. You should be appalled if you truly think that keeping the kids safe is important.

Secondly, try reading what i wrote about how it is now and how it should be. what i propose is much, much tougher.

If I had something to hide? this is a shallow excuse and typical for getting people to conform to this policy. Child molesters have their pictures on a public website for all to see. do you think I would be able to hide? Do you think I would expose myself to this site if this were the case?

Common sense Terrellmom...a little common sense, please!

terrellmom read my blog view my photos
Feb 11, 2008 | 7:49 AM

lol i said that you must hate your school district because you've devoted 3 out of 4 of your blogs to gripe about them. so keep pointing out all their flaws and accusing me of having no common sense. if you don't want to conform, then don't conform but expect your children to follow your lead. remember as you say...they are sponges.

yes i volunteer at two schools because i have kids in both of them and i'm devoted to my kids.

scottbee1948 read my blog view my photos
Feb 11, 2008 | 9:03 AM

I can see why terrellmom would think you didn't like the school district, because of all the negative things you were blogging about.
I am with you (and I think tm is too) in requiring a picture ID.
We all love and want to protect our kids from harms way and we all would be the first to stand up for what we believe.

I now even have great grandkids in school. Thank goodness we still have moms like you and tm fighting to keep our kids safe. Thank you.

Day2 read my blog
Feb 11, 2008 | 9:09 AM

Hi everyone. I know i gave a negative impression by having 3 out of 4 posts depicting a negative image about GISD school district. I removed one since it was a repeat of what I already wrote just in a different context. I took it off. This leaves only 2 posts. I guess I should level this out with all the great things they do do every single day. We do have great staff and volunteers that dedicate their lives and money to making sure kids are given every opportunity. I hope to blog on this more and "even out the score" so to speak.

terrellmom read my blog view my photos
Feb 11, 2008 | 9:12 AM

scottb thank you for reminding me that she and i both want what is best for the kids involved. you are always such a calming presence on these blogs.

typed words are often misunderstood because there are no facial features to see...none of the other things that relay a msg..just words are sometimes to flat.

Day2 read my blog
Feb 11, 2008 | 4:58 PM

An interesting stance by a least one school district:

The Nevada PTA took an official stance opposing the police background checks of parents; it instead advocates the commonsense practice of adopting policies for supervising parent volunteers. The Nevada PTA views parental background checks as being antithetical to their mission of getting parents more involved in student classroom activities. Nevada PTA President D.J. Stutz argues that "In Nevada, there has not yet been a reported incident of a volunteer molesting or assaulting a child at school, while teachers, who are required to be fingerprinted and do have to have background checks, cannot make the same claim." Indeed, in my own community this past week a former teacher who passed a thorough police background check has been charged with murder and child rape.

Day2 read my blog
Feb 11, 2008 | 7:39 PM

At least the spokesman from the Baltimore School District catches my drift. This is beginning to bring some relief to me bc i now know i'm not the only one who's thinking like this....

''If you're a parent coming into your kid's class, that's one thing, but if you're an outsider we're going to ask more questions,'' said a spokesman for the Baltimore County Schools, where community members, but not parents, are asked to provide three personal references.

Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




Day2

I am an inspired individual who enjoys sharing ideas to promote a safer and better community in the best interest of all citizens. I am a mother of 3 children, I work full-time (love what I do) and believe that you have to take a stance and express your viewpoint sometimes even when it's not popular. This is a gr8 venue for expressing these viewpoints. I enjoying sharing thoughts with you all on FOX4! Thank you FOX4 for making this possible!

Member Since: 2/9/2008