However, the added security comes with a price tag.
The Texas Legislature expanded fingerprint background checks to include all district employees, not just teachers and professionals, and left the schools with the bill.
The new law calls for all new employees hired in 2008 to have their fingerprints digitally recorded and put on file. Current employees have until Sept. 1, 2011, to undergo fingerprinting.
The goal is to keep people with criminal records from getting jobs near children under assumed identities. The fingerprints will be uploaded to an FBI database which will reveal if an employee has committed any offenses anywhere in the nation.
Since 2003, all districts have had to conduct a name-only background check through the Texas Department of Public Safety. The districts have been conducting mandatory fingerprinting of teachers and certified employees for months, but it was only the passage of Senate Bill 9 by the 80th Legislature that fingerprinting of all employees was required.
Districts are attempting to find the most cost-effective way to fingerprint more than half a million people by 2011. A similar fingerprinting procedure and FBI background check by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services costs around $45.
“(This law) is really just expanding what we are already doing,” said Michael Tuttle, executive director of administration for the Temple school district said. “The state already requires fingerprints for teachers and certified employees. The bigger districts are planning on contracting with certain vendors to get the prints taken by the DPS or third-party vendors. We’re still figuring out (what to do).”
Anne MacEwan, director of human resources for the Belton school district, said the state had promised to help defer the cost of fingerprinting the teachers and certified employees.
The way fingerprinting works is the employee must go to a DPS location or other organization with a digital fingerprint scanner. The scan is then uploaded to an authorized third-party service which transfers the print to the DPS and it is checked against FBI records. Then the TEA and the school district receive a copy of the results of the background check.
Howell Wright, superintendent of the Rosebud-Lott school district, said the fingerprinting process can be a hassle.
“When teachers had to go through the fingerprinting, the process itself is difficult because not all the teachers used the same fingerprint company. A lot of time fingerprints weren’t picked up (by the digital fingerprint reader) and had to be redone. And that causes a lot of stress for new teachers trying to get acclimated to a new district or teaching in general.”
With the previous name-only checks, odds are good that some area school districts have hired employees with criminal records. Tuttle said they are as thorough as possible, but the system is not foolproof.
“We ask for multiple forms of identification,” Tuttle said. “Is it possible there could be someone with a fake ID in the district? (Yes) obviously it could happen anywhere but it’s not a problem that has reared its head since I’ve been here.”
Wright said with smaller districts the problem will be minimal.
“I think in some form or fashion there’s going to be some problems but I don’t think it’s going to be to the extent as in Dallas ISD,” Wright said. “With the current checks . . . in most districts, it’s difficult to know everything about every person that you hire especially if you come from out of state.”
Another issue districts are struggling with is how strict each is going to be once the truth is out about their employees. Sex offenders are out by law, as well as those convicted of violent crimes, but what about misdemeanors and other minor offenses? Is something like a DWI or writing a hot check enough cause for termination? Then there is the issue of how much time has elapsed since the offense.
“That’s going to be one of those things where we have to look back at our district policy, and how far do you go back,” Wright said. “Some issues may be dated.”
In the end, administrators say, the inconvenience is worth it to make schools safer.
“I think fingerprinting is a positive step to protect our students,” said Ms. MacEwan. “Our only question is how we are going to pay for it.”
“You never want to say enough about being safe in today’s world,” Wright said. “I really think this is something that will obviously assist us in making sure districts have appropriate personnel. I don’t think there is any way you can say this is not a good idea.“
kchandler@temple-telegram.com
