parents, because it gives them access to their kids and their pictures. i get it. you have superior court decisions that hand string you all the time and bind your hands behind your back and you have to automatically not disqualify people from having certain jobs. i don t understand how this applies to teachers. you can t have possessed pornographic material or induced sex from a minor and be a teacher. where am i missing something? i think massachusetts is trying to draw the line somewhere. you don t want to exclude anyone with any criminal conviction for the rest of their lives. if they have a 30-year-old marijuana conviction. since then, they have led a good productive life. that s different than inducing sex with a minor. ashleigh, nobody can defend anybody with a sex conviction regarding a minor as a teacher or a foster parent. i have been a foster parent. it is a tough job. i also want to say, we shouldn t