July, 1994

Going Too Far

School Employment of Individuals with Criminal Convictions

By Diana M. Fessler

Should ex-cons be hired to work in public schools? That is a question to be decided by the Ohio State Board of Education.

A proposal allowing schools to hire individuals with a history of antisocial criminal behavior is expected to get an affirmative vote on June 14, 1994 from the Ohio State Board of Education.

Proposed standards list the circumstances in which ex-convicts can be responsible for the care, custody, or control of children in pre-schools, chartered public, or non-public schools.

Categories of employment include, but are not limited to, bus drivers, janitorial workers, and food service workers. Opponents fear that children will be exposed to ax-convicts in an environment that historically has been a safe-haven for children, current violence by school students notwithstanding. To observers, importing ex-cons into the schools seems foolhardy.

What initiated these new standards? In July of 1993, Governor Voinovich signed Senate Bill 38. This law directed the Ohio Department of Education and other agencies to establish standards for employment of individuals with previous criminal convictions.

Which crimes are "permissible" in this context? Listed misdemeanors include voyeurism [obtaining sexual gratification from seeing sex organs, and sexual acts]. The list also includes, assault, child enticement, corruption of a minor, sexual imposition, public indecency, procuring, prostitution, pandering obscenities, pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor, illegal use of a minor in nudity oriented material or performance, endangering children, contributing to the unruliness or delinquency of a child, domestic violence, placing harmful objects in food or confection, and carrying a concealed weapon, among other things.

One so-called safeguard is that ax-convicts would only be hired if their victims had been over eighteen but under sixty, not physically or mentally impaired, not mentally ill, retarded, nor developmentally disabled.

Although these qualifiers may reduce the number of potential applicants, opponents see a problem with categorizing victims based on their age and health. Is a crime less repugnant when perpetrated on a healthy thirty-year-old person who supposedly should have been able to fend for himself? If the victim was twenty instead of seventeen does that mean the perpetrator is unlikely to target a younger person, and therefore the ex-con is eligible for school-based employment?

Another safeguard offered by proponents would require that lawbreakers be hired only if the health, safety, or welfare of the children or program will not be jeopardized.

Accordingly, the Ohio State Board of Education is developing a rehabilitation checklist of mitigating circumstances for schools to use when a person with a criminal record applies for employment. The checklist includes what was going on in the criminal's life at the time of the crime, the criminal's age, the nature and seriousness of the crime, the circumstances under which the crime was committed, the level of participation in the crime; the time since discharge from prison, probation, and parole; the likelihood of a repeat offense; and whether the position applied for provides an opportunity for future offense.

Opponents maintain that meeting the requirements of a checklist does not equal rehabilitation. In addition, this procedure suggests that some factors were overlooked or not fully comprehended by the judge and jury and that, all things considered, public indecency, voyeurism, and other crimes really aren't all that bad.

Those in favor of hiring ex-cons to work in schools reason that ex-cons have paid their debt to society in prison and that society should let bygones be bygones. Opponents say that ex-convicts should not be barred from gainful employment, but that working with children is a sacred trust, a trust that ex-cons violated when they committed their crimes. They also question the wisdom of asking local school officials to judge whether ex-cons have indeed been rehabilitated. Accordingly, they believe that any board hiring ex-cons should not only increase security measures, but also be prepared for the wrath of parents should any child suffer harm.

While ex-cons have some latitude in seeking employment in Ohio schools or elsewhere, children - due to compulsory attendance laws - have little choice; they can't come and go as they please. Meanwhile, parents presume that a criminal records check ensures that school employees will be of good moral conduct. Ohio State School Board member Judi Hahn, who is opposed to this measure said, "Children deserve protection from unsavory individuals, especially when the crime was a moral offense."

Some opponents question why the checklist includes crimes that clearly involve children, particularly since the offenders who victimized children are supposedly excluded from being hired. They consider it logical to eliminate all misdemeanors that are child-centered and ask, "Why has this not been done?"

In a letter to all school superintendents, Dr. Ted Sanders, Superintendent of Public Instruction said, "The Board would like to see stronger language regarding the assurance that the criminal records check be completed prior to reporting for work." Phil Burress, President of Citizens for Community Values asks, "What good is a records check if criminals are going to be hired anyway." Burress also questions how the Board can ignore the fact that the law requiring a records check on potential school employees is the same law enabling ex-cons to be hired to work in the schools.

In many cases a criminal may have committed a felony, a far more serious offense, but because of plea bargaining, have been convicted of only a misdemeanor. The result is that criminals who have committed felonies are eligible for employment in Ohio schools, as are individuals who have pled guilty to an offense although they may not have been convicted.

The majority of the State School Board members appear quite ready and willing to adopt these standards. Perhaps they believe that parents will accept the excuse that they were merely following a legislative directive. Opponents say board members should rise to the occasion and direct some indignation toward the legislators that created the possibility of hiring criminals to work in Ohio schools. Currently, Ohio law says that anyone who has been convicted or pled guilty to any misdemeanor or felony cannot be employed as a teacher or teacher's aide. Surely, such simple wording could be adopted to include all school employees, thereby barring ex-cons from working in Ohio schools.

It is unthinkable to put the employment needs of ex-cons above the security of innocent children.