First off, the author states and links to their source right at the start of paragraph 2. Let me save you a little time Authors boycott schools over sex-offence register - Education News, Education - The Independent There is a mandatory background check done by the Police for anyone working at the school. Ridiculous statement is ridiculous. Firstly it's paedophile or pedophile. Secondly the government is asking these people to pay money to be put on this register, which is adding insult to injury already. And for what reason? Because a school janitor murdered two young girls. Someone who had complete access to an entire school without any suspicion or fanfare. A janitor. Not a visitor. These visitors are always under supervision during their visits. So yes, it is ridiculous and yet again it's kids who suffer. There are better ways to protect our children from these literary predators. This is not the way.
Yes. Yes there is. I think people are unaware of this because the expectation of anyone working with kids to have a background check is already there. Part of a Background check is fingerprinting and having your prints run through the FBI database (or whatever they do in the UK) Teachers have to pay for thier own background check and fingerprinting... It is part of employment. And for those wanting security clearance, many times people have to pay for that stuff themselves too. If you want the Government's coin, you do the governments bidding. Or find another industry. And we are not talking about visitors to a school, we are talking about regulars who perform at school assemblies and make thier livelihood off going to schools for whatever reason. This is already done and by no means a stretch or a massive leap. It is a minor shift in an established, existing policy. I am surprised support service were not already forced to have background checks because that is pretty common. If you are going to come to my child's school to 'sell' your wares and frequent schools regularly, then I have no problem the schools expecting you to have the same level of background checks as everyone else who WORKS there. It takes minimal effort and is just cost of doing business.
Boy that's backwards thinking if ever I've seen one, up here in Canada my dad is a Janitor in a school and I don't think he had to pay for any of those tests or checks or whatever they're called. It was a free service. Why in the world should the Governmnt make you pay for a test that helps determine who is fit to work with children? If that's the case any rich offender who hasn't been caught yet with a school teaching degree or what have you can just waltz right in and pass that test by throwing a little green around. HMMMM in retrospect I think that was an idiotic thing to say. Taking a background check is one thing Nklesch, but from what I understand these children's authors are being asked to be put on a list of 'Possible risk of offending/molesting your child'. That is just plain stupid,those lists are designed to educate parents on viable threats to their children's safety. Not to be used to bandy about, oh he could do it if given half a chance or she's definitely going to kidnap your little boy and you'll find his dead body years later, but only if she crosses that line kind of things. I'm all for logcal and practical methods like background checks or what have you, but making up some ridiculous list and then lumping every single Children's Author in existence on it just because takes away from the practical and necessary reasons for why lists of offenders exist in the first place.
Teaching in PA: Federal Background checks 2. The applicant will pay a fee of $36.00 for the fingerprint service and the CHRI. http://www.teaching.state.pa.us/teaching/cwp/view.asp?a=13&Q=32413&teachingNav=|93|88| This section shall apply to all prospective employes of public and private schools, intermediate units and area vocational-technical schools, including independent contractors and their employes, except those employes and independent contractors and their employes who have no direct contact with children. If JK rowling came to the state of Pennsylvania or a majority of other US states, she would need to submit to federal fingerprinting. Many even require volunteers. MCPS Office of Human Resources: Employment Opportunities: Supporting Services Background Check If you are offered employment by MCPS, you are required before beginning your assignment, to obtain a background check (at your expense of $54.00 or $36.00 for Volunteers) by the State of Maryland and FBI. The background check can only be obtained through fingerprinting (by appointment only) with Greg Jones, Office of Human Resources, 301-279-3276. Hours for appointment scheduling are from 8:00 am to 10:00 am. This is already common. You can check almost every state in the US as it is the federal laws that require it. There are HUNDREDS of school district pages with the exact same requirement for the FBI fingerprinting Database. And guess what? You pay for it yourself. You are opting in to the FBI's fingerprint bank by working with kids. Your fingerprints are in the database with millions of convicted felons. It doesn't mean you are a felon, but it does mean if you do something, your prints will show up and the schools will know ASAP. This is already common for Teachers, Support staff and Volunteers at public schools in most of the US and other countries have similar systems. I have yet to see a description that they are being registered as sex offenders. All I have seen is opting in to fingerprint/background checks for schools and that thier prints and identity will be in the governments database which does contain criminals. You are opting in to having your fingerprints on file the same way a criminal who commits a crime and is booked does. You know if they could, they would have every citizen on file. Since they can't do that, they have to have private citizens opt-in. If you take the kings coin, you do the kings bidding. If you don't like it, don't work for or around government. It is already a requirement for teachers. They are exaggerating, and if they don't like it they can choose not to do it. If they want to make money off of children in schools, then register. We already lump Teachers and Support staff and Volunteers into the FBI criminal database. Being in the database is not proof of being a criminal or something wrong, it just means that if you do something they can attach physical evidence of your actions to your identity immediately. If you don't like it... Then don't do it and find another line of work. Don't pretend this is something new or outrageous as it has been going on for years.
Why are you comparing the US system to the ones mentioned in the article? Yes, I understand its your frame of reference but, you know, America is not the template from which the rest of the world is cut.
Because people think that this is absurd when it is already law probably where they live... And the UK has a similar system to the US FBI criminal background checks. If anything comes up on your background check only then do you get put on a list where it is illegal to attempt to gain employment with children. They have a law that says seeking employment with children is illegal if you are known to be convicted of certain crimes. You can check out their system here: http://www.crb.gov.uk/about_crb.aspx To work with kids you have to be registered. Doesn't mean you are a criminal, but if you are found out to have a criminal record in certian areas, you become flagged and where upon it is a crime to seek employment with kids. This is nothing spectacularly different than the US who has that law ins ome states. The act of criminal background check and opting into fingerprint databases is common and expected world over. If you want to make money off of children in a public school, then pay the fee and be fingerprinted/background checked. Otherwise, work elsewhere. There is a lot of outrage over nothing.
Right, you had to be informed that there was a similar system in place. And again, these are supervised visitors, the entire system that has seemingly popped up to protect British children from these damned savages is completely pointless and somewhat moot given their limited and supervised interaction. It's not like they're letting Gary Glitter run around in a thong during recess. Either way, I'm done with this thread now. Enjoy.
It's the knee jerk stupidity that annoys me. A janitor molest children. This is a bad thing, there should be procedures in place to stop this. I just don't see how stopping JK Rowling from entering a school falls under this heading. Do school staff usually leave visiting experts alone with the children? I don't remember it working that way when I was at school, but it was a long time ago, so maybe things have changed? Makes me think of my local bus station. A few years ago, one of the bus drivers was run over and killed by a reversing bus. As a result, a load of barriers were put up so people could only walk across the two bus lanes at one crossing point. The only people who ignore this are the bus drivers, even though the only person who ever got run over in the station was a bus driver. What's this got to do with the paedo thing? Well, it's the same mentality: a total overreaction that causes inconvenience for people who weren't in any way a problem to start with.
We already expect teachers, administrators, support staff, bus drivers, and volunteers to register world over and no one seemed to have a problem with it. But when famous people who make money off of these school performances are asked to register it is this grand invasion of privacy and horrible over-reaction? No... Just seems like snobby people who think they are too famous for laws to apply to them. And if you don't like the law, then don't work in schools with children and write your representative. It really isn't a big deal and I think people are simply unaware that this has been the law in most of these countries for decades now. Edit: from what I have read, these people would have been forced to do it reagardless and lax enforcement got them by, looks like and angry parent citing a situation is forcing school systems to close gaps and actually enforce things. I know lots of schools are lax about volunteers, doesn't mean it still isn't the law.
But what's the point? Of course we expect teachers, janitors, etc to be checked. These are people who can easily be left alone with a child. How is this going to be an issue if JK Rowling comes in to talk to the class about writing?
Technically Janitors are not legally allowed to be left alone with a child. Neither are uncertified teachers assistants or a majority of support staff. Only teachers and administrators that are certified or positions that require certification like counselors and specialists. Being alone with a child isn't the issue, it is contact with the child. And if the law applies to one person, it applies to every person. If you make it situational then the law has no impact. If you require it of all people working in schools with direct contact with children you are covered. And if you don't like it, then don't work in schools with children. The thing that gets me is it is already common and expected. Volunteers who have much less access to children than a guest author are required to do it simply because it is the law.
So, with this law would people who work at toy stores, amusement parks, etc. have to pay this fee and be a potential pedophile as well?
No, it still doesn't make sense. The issue is unsupervised access. The school janitor has plenty of oppurtunity for unsupervised access to children in school. A visiting author doesn't if the staff do their job properly.
1st off, why do you need a persons fingerprint to start with if they're looking for employment. I know banks, in the US do this all the time so I just put that Bank on a strike list and move my money into another bank. Should they do the same thing I'd take my funds and go to another bank or at the least keep my funds out of the banking system. And for consumers, who don't question the why's of needing to fork over you're prints like a criminal I feel sorry for you because u are little more than sheep. [Probably not the best example of this law but I thought I'd take a stab at it]
I think kids should be able to vote on whether or not they're okay with their teacher sexually molesting them. Some of them teachers be hot, yo.
Not all jobs do, but depending on the background check, you need fingerprints, so if it's a job that involves any kind of background check, you need fingerprinted. With all due respect, if you don't want the person who handles your finances (bank employees) verifired before coming in contact with your account information, then you haven't really thought that through very well...