Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Columns

No simple answers for sex offenders in school

By GREG HAMILTON, Editor of Editorials
Published February 25, 2007

Two years after the abduction and murder of Jessica Lunsford, the ripple effects of her tragic ordeal continue to be felt. On Tuesday, while jury selection continues in a Miami courtroom for the man accused of taking her innocence and then her life, the Citrus County School Board will take up the thorny issue of when and how a sex offender can be allowed onto a school campus.

At first blush, the answer might be quick and obvious: Never. But authorities have discovered as they have implemented the new law named for Jessica that aims to build a stronger barrier between children and those who would prey on them not much is black and white.

Fingerprinting every adult who steps on campus and checking that information against sex offender lists seemed an easy step at first, only to be tripped up by "what ifs" involving vendors, referees and other occasional visitors.

Districts struggled with the cost, complexity and pace of hundreds of criminal background checks. Reality conflicted with the best of intentions.

Now, another unanticipated wrinkle has emerged. How should the district deal with adults who are registered sex offenders but who also have children attending schools? Parents cannot be denied access to their own children, but other parents have every reason to expect that the district will keep known sex offenders away from their children.

While not a regular occurrence, this circumstance has already popped up at Citrus schools, signaling the need for a district policy. The School Board and the administration this week will try to craft one.

This issue is part of a larger effort to streamline the ways in which varying categories of visitors are screened for access to campuses. The draft plan to be shown to the board addresses how to handle regular visitors, guests to a daytime assembly, volunteers, School Board employees, vendors and contractors and reporters.

But the most controversial aspect deals with sex offenders. How to distinguish between a sex offender and a sexual predator? How to deal with the person who was 19 and had sex with a 17-year-old many years ago, but who now has a child, and still carries the stamp of sex offender? How to balance that person's rights with the over-arching mandate to keep children safe?

The district has been using the Raptor system to screen driver's licenses and compare the visitor to sex offender registries in 45 states. Steps have also been established for frequent visitors to the school.

But there are practical concerns to conquer. When dozens of parents flock to an elementary school for a daytime student production, each must be scanned. Even with the new equipment, this takes time, which could lead to a logjam and angry parents and grandparents.

What if the screening turns up a sex offender? Should the school risk causing a ruckus, or humiliating the child, by calling out the parent or denying them access?

Visitors for daytime events are now screened, but why not evening activities? What about sporting events; Should each fan be screened? If not, why not? Are they not entering school property, coming in close proximity to children?

What about access to non-instructional school facilities? The district recently tried screening visitors to the administration meeting, including people attending a School Board meeting, but that experiment has been abandoned.

Despite tougher security measures to keep sexual offenders out of schools, there is no law banning parents convicted of sex crimes from visiting schools their children attend. They can visit classrooms and attend most activities if they have visitation or custodial rights, the conditions of their release allow it, or they're no longer on probation

Part of the problem is that, while not all sex offenders are the same, the law, and the electronic screenings, make no distinctions. State Sen. Nancy Argenziano is leading a committee looking into ways to clarify this but until any legislation emerges, the district needs a clear policy and direction.

Now, a school employee escorts the sex offender parent when that person is on school grounds. But this ties up a valuable worker and signals to everyone, including the children, that there is something different about the parent.

Superintendent Sandra "Sam" Himmel told the Times last week that the district has no way to know why a person has been designated a sex offender and the primary concern must be with the safety of the children. She favors allowing schools to handle these instances on a case-by-case basis. However, this invites inconsistency and confusion. A districtwide policy is preferable.

Parents who know that they will be flagged by Raptor once they step on campus share the responsibility. They must communicate with the school and make arrangements for screenings that will not interfere with the school's functions or embarrass themselves or their child.

The solution, however, is not in assigning escorts or special badges to the offenders but in enhancing the existing system of vigilance and notification.

Parents arriving for daytime group functions such as performances or lunch periods now are screened. If a sex offender is identified, the system uses e-mails and phone messages to alert school officials and the school resource officer or another law enforcement representative.

The system allows the school to be aware of who is on campus and to monitor the offender, and every other parent, in a secure group setting. Steps already are in place for sex offenders who must enter a school for parent/teacher conferences or any other individual meeting.

Screening improvements, such as more detailed information about the nature of the sex offense, will help. So, too, will increasing the level of awareness among school authorities whenever a sex offender is on campus.

There is a delicate balance between protecting the rights of all parents and the safety of students. With some common sense, the district can accomplish both goals.

The trial in Miami will show the worst that can happen when society lets down its guard. As testimony soon will remind us, John Couey was not just a registered sex offender, he was also a construction worker at the Homosassa Elementary School.

That is the same school that 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford attended.

[Last modified February 25, 2007, 07:02:50]