Keeping Felons out of Schools

The editorial from the Denver Post that I read was called Keeping felons out of schools. This article supports the HB 1121 bill “which would keep convicted felons from working in Colorado schools.” House Bill 1121 would prohibit Colorado schools to employing support staff such as lunch workers or custodians who have felony convictions of child abuse, unlawful sexual behavior, violence, indecent exposure, and drug crimes. All of these besides drug crimes are already in place for teachers. This bill would then prohibit the hiring of teachers with previous drug convictions and allow the firing of current teachers with old drug convictions. The only problem the author sees with allowing the firing of staff with previous drug convictions is because there are many different circumstances that the person could have been under. They may have been convicted of a felony drug crime ten to fifteen years ago, but now they may be completely clean and perfectly capable of holding a support staff position or even a teaching position. Because of this grey area, the author thinks that the felony drug convictions could prohibit the potential of employment rather than it definitely prohibiting an individual of a position. Also, another reason the author thinks the bill shouldn’t be as strict and straight forward is because it will put another burden on the Colorado Department of Education who is already conducting many background checks on those who are applying for teaching licenses. With a little tweaking in some areas the author is hoping the bill will eventually pass through legislation and in the long run ensure the safety of our children.

The editorial has a very calm and collected flow to it, although the editor still creates a sense of urgency about editing the drug conviction aspect. The Post assumes that most of their readers will be on board with their idea that “people who have committed crimes such as child abuse or indecent exposure have no business working in schools.” The Post says, “Prohibiting convicted felons from working in Colorado schools seems like a pretty easy notion to support.” Through this first statement it is easy to see that the editor is appealing to those who agree that convicted felons should not be working in schools. This first sentence works well for the editor because they are pulling in the reader’s attention by talking about a topic a lot of people would be interested in, felons in the school system. This makes the reader want to read on. Another sentence that works well for the editor is this one, “To be sure, a felony drug conviction is a serious matter. However, we can envision a circumstance in which someone embarking upon a second career as a teacher might have an old drug conviction from days when drug laws were more harsh.” By first stating the obvious and beginning with a statement that most people would agree with; “drug conviction is a serious matter” the editor is not discriminating against those who feel very strong against drug convictions. The Post is then able to go on and say that there are certain circumstances where drug convictions may not be as serious as they once were.

The Post makes themselves very creditable in this editorial by giving a decent amount of background on House Bill 1121. The editor uses about five sentences to explain what HB 1121 is saying, “House Bill 1121 would prohibit Colorado school districts from employing support staff, such as custodians and lunch workers, who have felony convictions for child abuse, crimes of violence, unlawful sexual behavior, indecent exposure and drug crimes.” By providing this background it is easier for the editor to explain what he/she believes should be edited to the bill. The Post also uses quotes from Jane Urschel who is the deputy director of the Colorado Association of School Boards. Urschel told the Post that the CASB supports HB 1121. Jane Urschel makes a good point by saying, “she did not see the bill setting off a "witch hunt," but rather would give districts a way to get rid of individuals with serious criminal backgrounds who may have slipped through checks.” This quote gives the reader an idea of what the bill will achieve in the end. Another strong statement the editor makes is, “With those caveats, we think the bill is another tool districts could use to ensure the safety of children.” This statement really pulls in sentimental value within the argument and there are not too many readers who could deny the safety of children.

As far as wording goes a great way the editor explains what he/she believes should be done to the bill was with this statement, “At the very least, legislators should consider making an old drug conviction — one that happened 10 or 20 years ago — to be a condition that could prohibit employment, not shall prohibit.” By clearly saying that the wording should be changed from could to shall it gives the reader a clear idea of what the editor wants to achieve through their editorial.

This editorial does a great job in persuading the reader that House Bill 1121 should be edited and tweaked a bit.