Leonard Ney
Superintendent of Schools, M.S.A.D. 64
FINGERPRINTING WILL HAVE LIMITED RESULTS
David Trahan's editorial in the March 4, 2000
Bangor Daily News provides reason
for thought, particularly with respect to the notion of a resulting false sense
of security being created with the mandated fingerprinting of teachers. Having
raised two children who were very active in school, recreation, church and
scouting activities, I am well acquainted with the potential opportunities that
a would-be child perpetrator could have in serving in a mentoring role for
one or more of these groups of children.
Mr. Trahan is correct in expressing concern that fingerprinting will accomplish
little more than to lull the public into a false sense of security. Certainly,
the fingerprinting requirement will be no substitute for strict adherence to
rigorous employment screening practices by school officials. Nor will it allow
school officials to slack off in conducting immedite and comprehensive
investigations of any and all complaints and/or rumors of inappropriate verbal or
physical conduct of employees. The law doesn't provide the resources
necessary for school systems to develop comprehensive legal and procedural
training for school administrators in investigating and documenting complaints.
Most importantly, it does not provide the resources for schools to develop programs
that teach children to recognize unsafe situations and to help them develop
strategies to protect themselves from perpetrators, which should be our first
priority. A child who is empowered with knowledge can better protect him or
herself.
Simply put, there is no fail-safe procedure that will protect against hiring a person who may be
a potential child perpetrator. Prudence and throughness in our hiring, vigilance
in our practices, and an openness to hear the subtle calls for help from our
students will yield a greater level of safety.