FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Teaching Suspicions

by DAVID PRICE

At a PTA meeting two weeks ago I learned that all parent-volunteers at my daughter’s primary school are now required to submit to a criminal background check which includes a (thus far) “voluntary” request for the parent’s thumbprint. My school district in Olympia, Washington is not alone in adopting such measures, other school districts in the state and across the county have recently adopted similar policies, and other districts are considering similar procedures in the name of increasing “school safety”–this despite a lack of evidence that such measures will make our children any safer.

As a civil libertarian who has been an active classroom volunteer for the past seven years, I object to my school district’s demand that I subject myself to a criminal background check and to “voluntarily” submit my thumbprint so that I can accompany my child on a fieldtrip or help with classroom chores. It is a minor thing, but I have long been disappointed that my children will never be taught by even one teacher in the public schools who is the type of civil libertarian that would refuse to submit to being fingerprinted as a condition of employment. These new policies now guarantee that school children will not have classroom contact with civil libertarian parents or other citizens who will not submit to such invasive background checks. While this might make John Ashcroft breath easier, this doesn’t make me feel better about the safety of school children.

But my worries about these new policies reach beyond my civil liberty concerns (and because school districts care little about civil liberties and are not likely to be moved by such arguments, it makes sense for parents and concerned citizens to focus their protests in another direction): I am worried about the predictable negative impact of this policy on the academic development of children already at risk of academic failure. It is surprising to find our standardized-test-obsessed-schools not worrying about the significant but unintended negative consequence of these policies as they stand to further alienate low-income parents who will become even more frightened of meaningfully entering their children’s schools.

I know from my years working with families participating in a low-income family literacy program on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula (a region with extraordinarily high poverty rates due to declines in the timber industry) that just asking parents for fingerprints and permission for a police background check will frighten away many low-income parents with records for nonviolent offences from any participation–regardless of the fact that these forms state that such past infringements will not disqualify a parent from volunteering. These parents are already fearful of the schools, and because they do not want to risk revealing their past legal problems they will bypass opportunities to be active supportive educational partners. Several years ago I interviewed a father who told me that he had planed to attend a Cub Scout camping trip with his son’s troop, but when he had been asked to submit to a criminal history background check authorization form he quietly withdrew as he did not want anyone to know about a long-previous non-violent clash with the law (a not uncommon experience for Americans living in poverty). I told this father that his past troubles would likely not matter to the Scouts and I encouraged him to reconsider his decision, but he did not want his past investigated so he did not attend the outing and an important opportunity for a supportive father-son experience was lost. This was not an isolated incident and other impoverished parents I interviewed recounted similar fears.

School policy makers know there is a vast literature on early childhood education establishing that visible parental involvement in classroom education significantly strengthens young students’ academic interests, commitments and outcomes. In fact, parental support and interest in school work is one of the strongest predictors of later academic success. These new policies authorizing police background checks stand to alienate an entire class of parents-arguably the class of parents whose presence as volunteers could make the most significant impact.

Some state PTA’s have opposed policies mandating police background checks of parents for just these reasons. 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.

There will no doubt be legal challenges to this new affront to civil liberties, as schools place parents in a double-bind wherein their children are required by law to attend schools that parents may not meaningfully enter unless they surrender their privacy rights. Perhaps the courts will need to remind schools (to paraphrase Justice Brennan) that children are not the only ones who do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the school house door. But we all know that the current chill on civil liberties creates a climate in which fear trumps rational concerns. As civil rights are increasingly seen as “civil privileges,” our hopes for the courts to defend our rights are likewise reduced.

Parents and non-parents alike need to speak-out to their school boards, local and state PTAs and state Education Departments to challenge this affront to civil liberties and to demand that schools take responsibility for further alienating families with students at risk.

DAVID PRICE is an Associate Professor of anthropology at St. Martin’s College. He is a card carrying member of the PTA, his book Threatening Anthropology: McCarthyism and the FBI’s Surveillance of Activist Anthropologists will be published this spring by Duke University Press. He can be reached at: dprice@stmartin.edu

 

David Price a professor of anthropology at Saint Martin’s University in Lacey, Washington. He is the author of Weaponizing Anthropology: Social Science in Service of the Militarized State published by CounterPunch Books.

Weekend Edition
February 12-14, 2016
Andrew Levine
What Next in the War on Clintonism?
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Comedy of Terrors: When in Doubt, Bomb Syria
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh – Anthony A. Gabb
Financial Oligarchy vs. Feudal Aristocracy
Paul Street
When Plan A Meets Plan B: Talking Politics and Revolution with the Green Party’s Jill Stein
Rob Urie
The (Political) Season of Our Discontent
Pepe Escobar
It Takes a Greek to Save Europa
Gerald Sussman
Why Hillary Clinton Spells Democratic Party Defeat
Carol Norris
What Do Hillary’s Women Want? A Psychologist on the Clinton Campaign’s Women’s Club Strategy
Robert Fantina
The U.S. Election: Any Good News for Palestine?
Linda Pentz Gunter
Radioactive Handouts: the Nuclear Subsidies Buried Inside Obama’s “Clean” Energy Budget
Michael Welton
Lenin, Putin and Me
Manuel García, Jr.
Fire in the Hole: Bernie and the Cracks in the Neo-Liberal Lid
Thomas Stephens
The Flint River Lead Poisoning Catastrophe in Historical Perspective
David Rosen
When Trump Confronted a Transgender Beauty
Will Parrish
Cap and Clear-Cut
Victor Grossman
Coming Cutthroats and Parting Pirates
Ben Terrall
Raw Deals: Challenging the Sharing Economy
David Yearsley
Beyoncé’s Super Bowl Formation: Form-Fitting Uniforms of Revolution and Commerce
David Mattson
Divvying Up the Dead: Grizzly Bears in a Post-ESA World
Matthew Stevenson
Confessions of a Primary Insider
Jeff Mackler
Friedrichs v. U.S. Public Employee Unions
Franklin Lamb
Notes From Tehran: Trump, the Iranian Elections and the End of Sanctions
Pete Dolack
More Unemployment and Less Security
Christopher Brauchli
The Cruzifiction of Michael Wayne Haley
Bill Quigley
Law on the Margins: a Profile of Social Justice Lawyer Chaumtoli Huq
Uri Avnery
A Lady With a Smile
Katja Kipping
The Opposite of Transparency: What I Didn’t Read in the TIPP Reading Room
B. R. Gowani
Hellish Woman: ISIS’s Granny Endorses Hillary
Kent Paterson
The Futures of Whales and Humans in Mexico
James Heddle
Why the Current Nuclear Showdown in California Should Matter to You
Michael Howard
Hollywood’s Grotesque Animal Abuse
Steven Gorelick
Branding Tradition: a Bittersweet Tale of Capitalism at Work
Nozomi Hayase
Assange’s UN Victory and Redemption of the West
Patrick Bond
World Bank Punches South Africa’s Poor, by Ignoring the Rich
Mel Gurtov
Is US-Russia Engagement Still Possible?
Dan Bacher
Governor Jerry Brown Receives Cold, Dead Fish Award Four Years In A Row
Wolfgang Lieberknecht
Fighting and Protecting Refugees
Jennifer Matsui
Doglegs, An Unforgettable Film
Soud Sharabani
Israeli Myths: An Interview with Ramzy Baroud
Terry Simons
Bernie? Why Not?
Missy Comley Beattie
When Thoughtful People Think Illogically
Christy Rodgers
Everywhere is War: Luke Mogelson’s These Heroic, Happy Dead: Stories
Ron Jacobs
Springsteen: Rockin’ the House in Albany, NY
Barbara Nimri Aziz
“The Martian”: This Heroism is for Chinese Viewers Too
Charles R. Larson
No Brainers: When Hitler Took Cocaine and Lenin Lost His Brain
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail