Tying Welfare To Students Grades

[klunderbunker]

http://thegrio.com/2013/04/01/tennessee-bill-welfare-benefits-depend-on-childs-school-performance/

In short, it's exactly what the title says: A Tennessee bill would tie welfare payments to families with children to the grades of those children. If a student doesn't meet a to be determined standard, the welfare payments will be lowered 20%.

Immediately this seems like a bad idea to me. I didn't see an age listed for this but I would assume it's middle and/or high school students. These kids are already having a rough time in their lives and I don't see it being fair to tack on their family's ability to pay the rent or to put food on the table to their performance in a classroom.

The idea is to make sure that families are doing what they can to help students in school. That's all well and good, but what if the student is having trouble in something the parents know nothing about? I was raised by my mom and grandmother for the most part and they know nothing about higher levels of math or science. If I failed say calculus, it wouldn't be their fault as they have no idea how to comprehend it, but if they were on welfare it should be taken away because I and I alone failed?

On top of that, if someone is having trouble in school, is the right idea to take away the little stability they have? If the idea is to help them in school, I would think the last thing you would want to do is give them even more to worry about, like if they're going to be evicted or if they'll go hungry that night.

This doesn't seem like a good idea, either in theory or practicality.

Thoughts on this? Is it a good idea or a bad idea? What would you do differently?

 

[The Butcher]

It's a bad idea. KB is on the money with why it is. Receiving government assistance shouldn't be decided by a child. I totally understand where this bill is coming from, and it's a good place. It isn't intended to be malicious or to put at-risk youths at higher risk, however that is indeed what it would do.

One problem I see with it is that there are so many variables that play into a child's success in school. Most of these kids go to either rural or inner-city schools that probably don't have the best funding, teachers, or learning environments. Like KB pointed out, their home lives are probably unstable, and their parents aren't themselves very educated. There are amendments for children who are diagnosed with learning disabilities, but many go undiagnosed-- especially among the poor. As one representative said in the article, "It’s just one more way to punish families who have fallen on hard times."

I can't say for sure what I'd do differently. The welfare system is what it is, sad to say. We're one of the few countries in the world that gives people money just to exist, and now we've got millions who are generations deep in collecting government money, legally or by hook and crook. It's one of those issues that there is no quick fix for, but I know one thing: don't put it on the shoulders of children and teens.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

It's a stupid bill. If it's meant to provide an incentive to parents who receive TANF but couldn't care less about their children's education, why would you want to incentivize such a situation in the first place? That being said, I think the bill's proposers mean well: some people are not in the right frame of mind to have their kids' best interests at heart.

 

[Slyfox696]

http://thegrio.com/2013/04/01/tennessee-bill-welfare-benefits-depend-on-childs-school-performance/

In short, it's exactly what the title says: A Tennessee bill would tie welfare payments to families with children to the grades of those children. If a student doesn't meet a to be determined standard, the welfare payments will be lowered 20%.

Immediately this seems like a bad idea to me. I didn't see an age listed for this but I would assume it's middle and/or high school students. These kids are already having a rough time in their lives and I don't see it being fair to tack on their family's ability to pay the rent or to put food on the table to their performance in a classroom.

The idea is to make sure that families are doing what they can to help students in school. That's all well and good, but what if the student is having trouble in something the parents know nothing about? I was raised by my mom and grandmother for the most part and they know nothing about higher levels of math or science. If I failed say calculus, it wouldn't be their fault as they have no idea how to comprehend it, but if they were on welfare it should be taken away because I and I alone failed?

On top of that, if someone is having trouble in school, is the right idea to take away the little stability they have? If the idea is to help them in school, I would think the last thing you would want to do is give them even more to worry about, like if they're going to be evicted or if they'll go hungry that night.

This doesn't seem like a good idea, either in theory or practicality.

Thoughts on this? Is it a good idea or a bad idea? What would you do differently?

I don't mind this at all. 20% seems a little harsh, but the fact of the matter is children are receiving an education paid for by the government. These people are also receiving benefits from the government. It seems silly to me to just give money away without making people earn it. In some cases, it's unavoidable, but this is not one of those cases. We need to push students to do better.

But I'd take this one step further, because right now it's unfairly targeted towards poor people. I'd also say that those who are NOT on welfare (and/or make above a certain level of income) should be punished with a fine for their students who do not meet a certain level. This way everyone is punished equally for not making sure their students achieve success in the classroom.

 

[klunderbunker]

I don't mind this at all. 20% seems a little harsh, but the fact of the matter is children are receiving an education paid for by the government. These people are also receiving benefits from the government. It seems silly to me to just give money away without making people earn it. In some cases, it's unavoidable, but this is not one of those cases. We need to push students to do better.

But I'd take this one step further, because right now it's unfairly targeted towards poor people. I'd also say that those who are NOT on welfare (and/or make above a certain level of income) should be punished with a fine for their students who do not meet a certain level. This way everyone is punished equally for not making sure their students achieve success in the classroom.

I get the idea of pushing students to do better. That makes perfect sense and is quite true. However, I don't agree with the idea of taking away benefits to their families if they don't. As you know, it isn't always the student's fault when they do poorly in school. It could be a wide variety of things that could cause a student to do badly, and I don't see how taking money away from their family for reasons that could have nothing to do with the poor performance could help.

As for the inequality aspect, that's something I meant to address earlier because that's absolutely true. This is unfair to poorer students because it's a pressure that the financially secure students don't have to deal with. It gives those students an unfair advantage as they don't have to deal with extra pressure. At the end of the day though, if you have an affluent family, the fine might not be seen as a severe punishment at all.

Overall I definitely agree with the idea of pushing students to do better. I don't however agree with the idea of putting pressure on a family as a whole or on students who could be as young as 13 or 14 to keep their families afloat. That seems to be way too much pressure on them which could be even more harmful to their studies. I don't know about you, but if my performance on a test is going to determine how much I'm allowed to eat that month, I'm not going to do as well as I would otherwise.

 

[Slyfox696]

However, I don't agree with the idea of taking away benefits to their families if they don't.

Who is more responsible for a child's education than the family and student? Teachers/schools across the country are already being held accountable for test scores, why shouldn't the student and parents be held accountable as well?

As you know, it isn't always the student's fault when they do poorly in school. It could be a wide variety of things that could cause a student to do badly, and I don't see how taking money away from their family for reasons that could have nothing to do with the poor performance could help.

Then you should argue for certain exemptions to be built into the bill, not the removal of the bill itself. An exemption for a family tragedy, for example.

As for the inequality aspect, that's something I meant to address earlier because that's absolutely true. This is unfair to poorer students because it's a pressure that the financially secure students don't have to deal with.

Ahh, but if you include my provision, it affects everyone.

Overall I definitely agree with the idea of pushing students to do better. I don't however agree with the idea of putting pressure on a family as a whole or on students who could be as young as 13 or 14 to keep their families afloat.

Why not? You know I fully supporting helping people when they need it. I'll fight for the welfare system as hard as anyone. But money should never be given, it should be earned. This is one way to earn the assistance.

That seems to be way too much pressure on them which could be even more harmful to their studies.

Most students who do not perform well do so for reasons other than pressure. Cut out the extra curricular activities, parents remove video games, etc. and you'll find making good scores isn't nearly so difficult.

I don't know about you, but if my performance on a test is going to determine how much I'm allowed to eat that month, I'm not going to do as well as I would otherwise.

But you'll also be motivated to work harder and study more to prepare for that test, would you not?

Life is all about preparation for performance. Want to go to college? You have to perform well on the ACT/SAT. Want a job? You need to do well in the interview. Wish to start your own business? You better know how to sell to your customers. Everything in life is about preparation and performance. This just becomes one more thing.

 

[klunderbunker]

Who is more responsible for a child's education than the family and student? Teachers/schools across the country are already being held accountable for test scores, why shouldn't the student and parents be held accountable as well?

They should be, but at the same time it isn't fair to families who aren't in a classroom to have their economic stability determined on how their son or daughter does on a math test. Being held accountable is one thing and all parties involved certainly should be. However, these two areas shouldn't be tied together.

Then you should argue for certain exemptions to be built into the bill, not the removal of the bill itself. An exemption for a family tragedy, for example.

Can there be an exemption for students with learning disabilities? For teachers who aren't effective in what they're doing? For students who already aren't for sure where their next meal is coming from and are too hungry to focus properly?

As you can see, my point is that there are way too many factors which could cause a student to do poorly which could make things even worse for them.

Ahh, but if you include my provision, it affects everyone.

Not equally though. There's a difference between paying a fine and not being able to take a vacation as a result and being penalized and not being able to pay rent as a result.

Why not? You know I fully supporting helping people when they need it. I'll fight for the welfare system as hard as anyone. But money should never be given, it should be earned. This is one way to earn the assistance.

Certainly those on welfare should earn their payments. Those adults that is, not the children. Students' only responsibility should be to get an education, not provide for their families. Now if they're not making the grades, take something else away from them. Keep them in detention after school or take away their abilities to participate in various activities.

Most students who do not perform well do so for reasons other than pressure. Cut out the extra curricular activities, parents remove video games, etc. and you'll find making good scores isn't nearly so difficult.

That's likely true, but if these students are on welfare, where are they getting the money for video games? Have that kind of stuff investigated and penalize the parents for stuff like that rather than the students for what happens as a result. That's where the waste comes into play.

But you'll also be motivated to work harder and study more to prepare for that test, would you not?

I would, but at certain ages I should be doing that anyway, not because my family's well being depends on it.

Life is all about preparation for performance. Want to go to college? You have to perform well on the ACT/SAT. Want a job? You need to do well in the interview. Wish to start your own business? You better know how to sell to your customers. Everything in life is about preparation and performance. This just becomes one more thing.

Absolutely true. However, this is school, not the real world. In school you shouldn't have to face that kind of reality head on. If you don't get accepted into college, you can reapply with better scores from taking said tests again. However, if you fail you're not thrown into the street, nor do you have food taken from your table.

Again, the idea of the bill makes sense. The enforcement/penalties of it don't.

 

[Slyfox696]

They should be, but at the same time it isn't fair to families who aren't in a classroom to have their economic stability determined on how their son or daughter does on a math test. Being held accountable is one thing and all parties involved certainly should be. However, these two areas shouldn't be tied together.

What's not fair about it? These families are receiving an education paid for by the government. They are receiving assistance paid for by the government.

What's not fair about wanting to see a return on the investment?

Can there be an exemption for students with learning disabilities?

Many times there already are. They receive benefits in taking the test regular students do not get.

For teachers who aren't effective in what they're doing?

We already have a system which punishes teachers who are not effective. Now we just need a system which encourages more teachers.

For students who already aren't for sure where their next meal is coming from and are too hungry to focus properly?

Their next meal will be an hour, from a school lunch paid for by the federal government. As was their breakfast.

As you can see, my point is that there are way too many factors which could cause a student to do poorly which could make things even worse for them.

As opposed to all the other factors which make things worse for society already?

Not equally though.

Sure it does, as equally as can be.

There's a difference between paying a fine and not being able to take a vacation as a result and being penalized and not being able to pay rent as a result.

What? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this bill doesn't REMOVE welfare, it just lessens it. They'll still be able to eat, they'll just have to tighten the belt a little more.

Certainly those on welfare should earn their payments.

And this is how students earn their payments.

Students' only responsibility should be to get an education

But they are NOT fulfilling that responsibility, that's the point.

not provide for their families.

Why not? Children have been working and providing for their families throughout our nation's history. I don't consider taking advantage of a free education to be that much to ask.

That's likely true, but if these students are on welfare, where are they getting the money for video games?

That is a good question, isn't it?

I would, but at certain ages I should be doing that anyway, not because my family's well being depends on it.

But many of them are not, that's the point and thus the reason for this bill.

Absolutely true. However, this is school, not the real world.

The fact you (and so many others) don't consider school to be the real world is part of the problem. School IS the real world.

In school you shouldn't have to face that kind of reality head on. If you don't get accepted into college, you can reapply with better scores from taking said tests again. However, if you fail you're not thrown into the street, nor do you have food taken from your table.

And that wouldn't happen here, either.

 

[klunderbunker]

What's not fair about it? These families are receiving an education paid for by the government. They are receiving assistance paid for by the government.

What's not fair about wanting to see a return on the investment?

Nothing, but how exactly do these penalties help the student, which is what the bill is supposed to be about? If the funds are taken away and the student's grades still suffer, what do you do then? Take more away?

We already have a system which punishes teachers who are not effective.

Yes, teachers who are adults, not minors.

Their next meal will be an hour, from a school lunch paid for by the federal government. As was their breakfast.

And their parents? Or siblings not yet in school? Those people should lose their government meals because one person does poorly? I can't agree with that idea.

As opposed to all the other factors which make things worse for society already?

Actually not sure what you mean by this.

Sure it does, as equally as can be.

No the most equal it could be would be no penalty involving finances.

What? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this bill doesn't REMOVE welfare, it just lessens it. They'll still be able to eat, they'll just have to tighten the belt a little more.

I don't know if you or your family has ever been on welfare before, but mine has. At that point, a cut of 20 cents would have made a big difference. Twenty percent would have crippled them, and that's with belts tightened as tight as can be asked.

And this is how students earn their payments.

This is where we differ. I'm all for adults earning their payments, but I don't see how a student should be required to earn such payments. Punishing him for not performing is fine, but not in this area.

But they are NOT fulfilling that responsibility, that's the point.

Agreed, but again I don't think the two things should be tied together. it isn't the student's fault for the family being on welfare, so why should it be their responsibility for keeping the family on it?

Why not? Children have been working and providing for their families throughout our nation's history. I don't consider taking advantage of a free education to be that much to ask.

Yes, but just because they have doesn't mean they should be required to do so. Taking advantage of a free education is a great idea, but they shouldn't have the extra weight on their shoulders. If their grades are good enough to pass the classes (I haven't seen any threshold listed), that should be enough.

That is a good question, isn't it?

Indeed, and one that should be answered before we get to this point.

But many of them are not, that's the point and thus the reason for this bill.

I get that, but I don't think it's the right way to go about solving the problem.

The fact you (and so many others) don't consider school to be the real world is part of the problem. School IS the real world.

It shouldn't be. It should be a place to get you ready for the real world, not part of it.

And that wouldn't happen here, either.

If that 20% is all that's keeping you going it could. Even a possibility of it or the thought of a possibility (which is what might be in these students' heads) does exist.

 

[The Crock]

I stand sort of in the middle on this issue. On one hand, it's nice to see welfare tied to something like education, giving families incentive to have their kids educated and be given an opportunity to rise out of poverty eventually. On the other side of the issue, there are many unnecessary pressures tied to putting the amount of money a family will receive in the back of a child's mind. Most of these kids are at-risk kids who are largely struggling with their school work and -- while it is nice to see them (and their parents) given a reason to strive for excellence -- this may simply overwhelm them with some of the other issues they may have to face at home.

20%, though seemingly not a large sum, is quite a chunk of money. If a child does poorly in school, hypothetically, and that family has their welfare payments cut down by that much, their spending power is going to be severely hampered. With spending power decreasing, you could see a decrease in quality of life -- families simply will not be able to afford some of the things they had purchased prior to the cut in funding -- and that could have a negative affect on the child's grades, creating a downward spiral. That may be extreme, but it's certainly something look at.

In the end, it's on the parents' shoulders to work with the school to make sure that their child succeeds. If a school offers a child every opportunity to succeed and those parents don't make an effort to help, they deserve to get their welfare funds cut -- if they're not investing in their child's future, why should the state? It's an absolute must that the state revise the bill and try to work with families with unique needs. I noticed that special needs students and like were already addressed, but they (the state and the schools) would have to meticulously look at the individual cases to see WHY children are falling behind, so as to not, in effect, punish the child and its family for something that may be out of its control.

 

[Slyfox696]

Nothing, but how exactly do these penalties help the student, which is what the bill is supposed to be about?

It's motivation to work harder.

If the funds are taken away and the student's grades still suffer, what do you do then? Take more away?

No, you just don't get the money back.

Yes, teachers who are adults, not minors.

I'm sorry, but that argument doesn't fly. By the time kids are 8 or 9 years old, they can be made to understand the importance of working hard. We already hold them accountable for other grades in school.

And their parents? Or siblings not yet in school? Those people should lose their government meals because one person does poorly? I can't agree with that idea.

Parents: Better motivate your child then
Sibling: If they do well on the test, then the funding for the sibling doesn't change

Actually not sure what you mean by this.

I mean our country as a whole has suffered since the dotcom bubble burst.

No the most equal it could be would be no penalty involving finances.

We're doing that now. It isn't working. Students who belong to families in the lower economic status are far more likely to fare poorly in schools than anyone else (as it is in almost every other country).

I don't know if you or your family has ever been on welfare before, but mine has. At that point, a cut of 20 cents would have made a big difference.

Then it sounds like you would have been extra motivated to do well.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with 20%, but I don't mind the idea of tying performance with pay, when the people affected are the ones who are responsible for the performance.

This is where we differ. I'm all for adults earning their payments, but I don't see how a student should be required to earn such payments. Punishing him for not performing is fine, but not in this area.

Why not? Isn't education about getting children ready for life after school?

Part of the problem we have in this country is we DON'T expect people to earn what they receive (and that goes from the very wealthy to the very poor). We need to be teaching children that hard work pays off. Right now, if a child doesn't do well on the test, who cares? How is the parent or child affected? They are not. A child could sit at a test, answer every question wrong intentionally, and there's no punishment.

What's wrong with holding them accountable? Learning is a student's JOB. If students are not doing their job well, then someone needs to be held accountable.

Agreed, but again I don't think the two things should be tied together. it isn't the student's fault for the family being on welfare, so why should it be their responsibility for keeping the family on it?

And it wasn't my grandfather's fault his family was poor, but that didn't really matter when he quit school after 6 years to go work on the farm. The same for my grandmother after 8 years.

Sometimes life sucks. But if you want other people to help you have a better life, then you need to step up and take some responsibility for it too. Unlike my grandfather, whose leaving school still didn't guarantee he wouldn't go hungry, all we're asking today's children to do is to prepare more for a test.

Yes, but just because they have doesn't mean they should be required to do so. Taking advantage of a free education is a great idea, but they shouldn't have the extra weight on their shoulders. If their grades are good enough to pass the classes (I haven't seen any threshold listed), that should be enough.

I haven't read the bill, so I'm not saying the bill itself isn't flawed, but asking students to be responsible for their education is not. And telling families they don't get government money if they don't earn it in government schools is not flawed.

It shouldn't be. It should be a place to get you ready for the real world, not part of it.

First of all, being in school doesn't exclude you from the real world, that's one of my big pet peeves. I have children who deal with far more than many adults in the "real world".

Second of all, unequivocally false. School SHOULD be considered real world, because you're being granted a free education on everyone else's dime. Students should understand the responsibility which comes with such a privilege.

If that 20% is all that's keeping you going it could. Even a possibility of it or the thought of a possibility (which is what might be in these students' heads) does exist.

First of all, I never said I agreed with the 20%, but rather the idea of withholding some kind of money. I don't know enough about Tennessee to give a percentage.

But witholding money to underachieving students/families is completely fair.

 

[The Butcher]

Sly is making his case very well. I can definitely see both sides of the issue, but it still feels to me that this is tantamount to making the child the de facto bread winner. Now, if a family must be in that situation, then so be it. This isn't a young person going to work on the family farm, though. I don't know. Mandatory military service for drop-outs is starting to sound awfully good. That'd be a start at least. At least this representative is tackling the issue, so kudos for that.

 

[klunderbunker]

It's motivation to work harder.

Yes it is, but if the motivation doesn't work, we're right back where we started and the kid is worse off than he was before.

No, you just don't get the money back.

So what's the incentive then?

I'm sorry, but that argument doesn't fly. By the time kids are 8 or 9 years old, they can be made to understand the importance of working hard. We already hold them accountable for other grades in school.

I'm completely in agreement with holding kids accountable. I'm not in agreement with punishments this harsh, which is what I think this whole thing boils down to. Punishing a kid at a young age by taking away what little financial stability his family may have doesn't come off as fair to me in any circumstance.

Parents: Better motivate your child then
Sibling: If they do well on the test, then the funding for the sibling doesn't change

Going back to my family and I as an example, I took mostly advanced classes in school. My family isn't going to be helpful to me with advanced math and science and the like. They motivated me to study and had me working hard at what I did but I never quite grasped some of the material. Now they've done what they can do to help me, but if I don't pass they all are penalized as a result? Because of something I and I alone failed at?

We're doing that now. It isn't working. Students who belong to families in the lower economic status are far more likely to fare poorly in schools than anyone else (as it is in almost every other country).

....so the solution to students from poor families doing badly is to make the families poorer?

Then it sounds like you would have been extra motivated to do well.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with 20%, but I don't mind the idea of tying performance with pay, when the people affected are the ones who are responsible for the performance.

I (and before I say this, yes I know I'm the minority) was more scared of disappointing my family than anything else.

My problem with this system isn't penalizing the students for doing poorly. It's such wide sweeping consequences which could make the whole family's existing problems that much worse, which in turn compounds the problems the bill is meant to fix.

Why not? Isn't education about getting children ready for life after school?

Getting them ready for it yes. Throwing them into the same real life situations no.

Part of the problem we have in this country is we DON'T expect people to earn what they receive (and that goes from the very wealthy to the very poor). We need to be teaching children that hard work pays off. Right now, if a child doesn't do well on the test, who cares? How is the parent or child affected? They are not. A child could sit at a test, answer every question wrong intentionally, and there's no punishment.

Which goes back to what I said earlier: make them stay after school in detention, make them go to a tutor, take away priviliges. In other words, do something to make them learn more, not make their home life even more difficult.

What's wrong with holding them accountable? Learning is a student's JOB. If students are not doing their job well, then someone needs to be held accountable.

Again, I agree with that idea. I don't agree with this system of holding them accountable.

And it wasn't my grandfather's fault his family was poor, but that didn't really matter when he quit school after 6 years to go work on the farm. The same for my grandmother after 8 years.

Sometimes life sucks. But if you want other people to help you have a better life, then you need to step up and take some responsibility for it too. Unlike my grandfather, whose leaving school still didn't guarantee he wouldn't go hungry, all we're asking today's children to do is to prepare more for a test.

Not disagreeing with any of that as it's definitely true that students don't do as much as they should. However, not all families on welfare aren't trying to make their kids do better. I grew up mostly poor as well and my mom told me every day to study and work hard and did what she could to make that happen. I was lucky enough to have a dad and extended family who are very well educated and I could get the help I needed. If I didn't though, I likely wouldn't have done as well in school as I did, and that would have been no one's fault but my own. Therefore, why should my family be penalized?

I haven't read the bill, so I'm not saying the bill itself isn't flawed, but asking students to be responsible for their education is not.

Completely agree.

And telling families they don't get government money if they don't earn it in government schools is not flawed.

The earning it part is where I question the bill.

First of all, being in school doesn't exclude you from the real world, that's one of my big pet peeves. I have children who deal with far more than many adults in the "real world".

Second of all, unequivocally false. School SHOULD be considered real world, because you're being granted a free education on everyone else's dime. Students should understand the responsibility which comes with such a privilege.

Understanding it is one thing. Being made to literally earn it is quite another and too much of a jump for me.

First of all, I never said I agreed with the 20%, but rather the idea of withholding some kind of money. I don't know enough about Tennessee to give a percentage.

But witholding money to underachieving students/families is completely fair.

I disagree, for reasons already given.

 

[Slyfox696]

Yes it is, but if the motivation doesn't work, we're right back where we started and the kid is worse off than he was before.

But we won't be back where we started. Even if they don't meet whatever standard, they'll at least be closer. And the incentive for raising grades further will still be there.

So what's the incentive then?

....to get the money back after scoring well?

I'm completely in agreement with holding kids accountable. I'm not in agreement with punishments this harsh, which is what I think this whole thing boils down to. Punishing a kid at a young age by taking away what little financial stability his family may have doesn't come off as fair to me in any circumstance.

You're not punishing the kid, you're punishing the family.

Going back to my family and I as an example, I took mostly advanced classes in school. My family isn't going to be helpful to me with advanced math and science and the like.

Was your state test full of questions with advanced math and science questions?

Nevermind, don't answer that. You're from Kentucky, so I already know.

....so the solution to students from poor families doing badly is to make the families poorer?

No, it is to incentivize learning. You skipped a step in your logic there.

My problem with this system isn't penalizing the students for doing poorly. It's such wide sweeping consequences which could make the whole family's existing problems that much worse, which in turn compounds the problems the bill is meant to fix.

But this is the only way to force parents to become part of the process. How else do you make parents become part of the process?

Getting them ready for it yes. Throwing them into the same real life situations no.

We're not throwing them into the same real life, we're putting them in a much more narrowly defined world.

Which goes back to what I said earlier: make them stay after school in detention

Doesn't work.

make them go to a tutor

They're poor, they can't afford one.

take away priviliges.

....uhh, that's what this bill is doing.

Again, I agree with that idea. I don't agree with this system of holding them accountable.

So...we want them to do the job, but don't make them accountable for it...

However, not all families on welfare aren't trying to make their kids do better. I grew up mostly poor as well and my mom told me every day to study and work hard and did what she could to make that happen.

Did you pass your tests?

The earning it part is where I question the bill.

They are not "earning" it, they are keeping it. It's no different than when you get a college scholarship and have to keep a certain GPA to keep the scholarship.

 

[klunderbunker]

But we won't be back where we started. Even if they don't meet whatever standard, they'll at least be closer. And the incentive for raising grades further will still be there.

....to get the money back after scoring well?

The initial loss of which will make that even harder, which even furthers the gap between the good and bad students, thereby making the problem worse.

You're not punishing the kid, you're punishing the family.

Which is unfair in my eyes.

Was your state test full of questions with advanced math and science questions?

Nevermind, don't answer that. You're from Kentucky, so I already know.

True story: I went to a middle school with roughly 700 students. EIGHT of them (myself included) passed our state issued tests at whatever level we were supposed to meet. Things have actually gotten worse since then.

No, it is to incentivize learning. You skipped a step in your logic there.

Incentivizing learning is good. Getting it there by taking away stability isn't the way to go about it.

But this is the only way to force parents to become part of the process. How else do you make parents become part of the process?

That's a very good question and if I knew it, I'd likely be a rich man. This way isn't the right one though, especially if the parents already are involved.

We're not throwing them into the same real life, we're putting them in a much more narrowly defined world.

With consequences which affect a broader world.

Doesn't work.

Better in a school than at a home that isn't doing them any favors no?

They're poor, they can't afford one.

School sponsored one. If the lawmakers are so distressed over how the students are performing, they'd be willing to pay for extra help right? This couldn't possibly be a way to attack welfare in a very conservative state which hates the system could it?

....uhh, that's what this bill is doing.

I don't consider access to food a privilege.

So...we want them to do the job, but don't make them accountable for it...

Not this accountable at such a young age, no.

Did you pass your tests?

Most of them. The ones I didn't were from a lack of studying on my part, not the part of my family.

They are not "earning" it, they are keeping it. It's no different than when you get a college scholarship and have to keep a certain GPA to keep the scholarship.

Again, the same situation: college isn't required to survive. That 20% being taken away very well may be.

 

[Slyfox696]

The initial loss of which will make that even harder, which even furthers the gap between the good and bad students, thereby making the problem worse.

How does losing part of welfare make it harder to do well on tests?

That logic doesn't make sense.

Which is unfair in my eyes.

Which makes perfect sense in my eyes, considering the amount of money we spend in both welfare and education.

True story: I went to a middle school with roughly 700 students. EIGHT of them (myself included) passed our state issued tests at whatever level we were supposed to meet. Things have actually gotten worse since then.

Then something tells me your state test is ridiculously hard. Which is a completely separate problem.

Incentivizing learning is good. Getting it there by taking away stability isn't the way to go about it.

You're not taking away stability, you're merely reducing the funds.

That's a very good question and if I knew it, I'd likely be a rich man. This way isn't the right one though, especially if the parents already are involved.

I'd be willing to bet that, on a fair test, children whose parents are involved are not the problem.

With consequences which affect a broader world.

Not really.

Better in a school than at a home that isn't doing them any favors no?

No. If you require parents to take part in their child's learning, then sending them home will give parents more reason to help their children.

School sponsored one. If the lawmakers are so distressed over how the students are performing, they'd be willing to pay for extra help right? This couldn't possibly be a way to attack welfare in a very conservative state which hates the system could it?

The money isn't there. Revenues are down all across the country. Even in our state, where we have a governor who REALLY supports education, funding has been cut.

The money isn't there.

I don't consider access to food a privilege.

But access to a free education is.

Not this accountable at such a young age, no.

It's not a young age. You're underestimating what children can do.

Most of them. The ones I didn't were from a lack of studying on my part, not the part of my family.

....that's kind of my point.

Again, the same situation: college isn't required to survive. That 20% being taken away very well may be.

Quit using 20%, I never agreed to that. We're discussing the concept, not the percentage.

 

[klunderbunker]

How does losing part of welfare make it harder to do well on tests?

That logic doesn't make sense.

It is my experience that when you don't worry where your meal is coming from that night, you might think better when trying to remember a bit more about history and science.

Which makes perfect sense in my eyes, considering the amount of money we spend in both welfare and education.

Both places where money should be spent, moreso in the latter if it's possible.

Then something tells me your state test is ridiculously hard. Which is a completely separate problem.

We were one of the lowest in the country. The rest of the schools in the city were fine if I remember right (which i very well may not be).

You're not taking away stability, you're merely reducing the funds.

Funds which very well may be keeping the family stable.

I'd be willing to bet that, on a fair test, children whose parents are involved are not the problem.

I would agree with you for the majority, but this law would affect many that don't fit that category.

Not really.

No. If you require parents to take part in their child's learning, then sending them home will give parents more reason to help their children.

And if the parents don't change a thing?

The money isn't there. Revenues are down all across the country. Even in our state, where we have a governor who REALLY supports education, funding has been cut.

As said earlier, if we actually fixed welfare to stop people on it from having Xboxes and cell phones and HDTV, we might have the money to spend that on.

But access to a free education is.

Yes it is, as it should be. Much like support if a family has fallen on hard times.

It's not a young age. You're underestimating what children can do.

I know they can do it. I'm saying they shouldn't be required to because of a situation they had little control over.

Quit using 20%, I never agreed to that. We're discussing the concept, not the percentage.

We're discussing the bill in question, where the number is 20%.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Ooh this is an interesting one. I at first agreed 100% with KB's opening post, but then he and Sly started debating and I agreed with each one in turn.

In reality though, I just don't see how it's fair. For example, my brother and I had the same upbringing, my mother taught us to work hard, she made sure we went to school every day and did our homework on a night; helping where she could. I was in the Top classes in High School and left with A* - B grades, my brother failed most of his classes and didn't get higher than a C.

Now my mum has a job that she works hard at, but she's one of those pesky low-paid workers who doesn't earn enough to live on, so she gets a little extra from the government. My brother is/was a dick who does not care about that. She didn't treat him any differently, and made us both sit down and do homework, but whereas I did this happily, enjoyed lessons and did well, he whined, did poorly and ultimately failed - she took away things he liked doing for his attitude but it didn't make a large difference. I don't think it's overly fair that myself and my mum should be punished for that, because of how he behaved. 20% is a lot of money to someone who doesn't earn a lot anyway, and counts on every last penny to buy things they need.

Also - the class I struggled with the most was Chemistry. Why was that? Because for 3 years; the final 3 years of my High School life, I was taught by a fucking idiot. I was in the top set at school so it wasn't a class full of huge troublemakers, but he could not keep the class under control. He was the dullest man I've ever set eyes on, could make explosions seem dull, and spent most of the class going off on tangents he would finish with by saying 'But that won't be on the exam'. I complained to the head of science, my mum and a friends mum complained to my Head of Year, but the only option given was to be moved down a set - with maybe a better teacher but where they were not being taught to such a high level of Chemistry and there were A LOT of troublemakers, so a lot of disruptions. I ended up staying with the bad teacher, but seeing an old teacher after school a few times a week and doing extra work - neither myself nor the other teacher should really have to be doing that.

At the same time, I understand that there are parents who don't care about their childrens education and find it 'a waste of time' - I saw it with my own eyes. But I don't think it's fair to penalise everyone the same; there are too many external factors. And that's not even thinking about the quality of teachers in poorer schools, in general compared to the quality of those in more 'high-end' schools. I do think families should be responsible for earning their benefits, especially those with no job - and I do think they should be pushing their children to work hard but I don't like telling a 11 year old that if they don't pass math their family loses a certain amount of meals.

 

[Loveless]

Given that grades tend to be worse for poorer and more deprived children, this sounds like a bloody awful idea that will do more damage than good. These families need extra help, not punishment.
As Becca points out, it's not always the child's fault anyway. Some kids simply aren't that smart, some are disabled, some are taught by fucking useless teachers. In my case I was an A-grade pupil until a serious illness aged 12 and was struck by a serious depression afterwards that left me unable to give a single fuck about my education. Nothing could have been done about that and no financial incentive would do a thing. Whats more, it's unfair to put the weight of financial responsibility on a child. Surely any developed society should be protecting kids from having to earn their living?

 

[jmt225]

Given that grades tend to be worse for poorer and more deprived children, this sounds like a bloody awful idea that will do more damage than good. These families need extra help, not punishment.

If someone has children that they're not prepared to raise, they deserved to be rewarded? I don't agree with that at all.

I'm so sick and tired of "poor" people being let off the hook for having babies they shouldn't have ever had in the first place. These people are so irresponsible and we only enable the behavior these days. I just don't understand it. And I know it's not the child's fault and that they shouldn't be punished for their parents behavior, but man these parents infuriate me.

I know I'm coming across as a bit of a conservative dick here, but this just drives me crazy. Not every "poor" person deserves help from the government. And if we do decide to help them, let's make sure they use it to truly benefit the child, not to buy the newest iphone or hottest pair of sneakers.

Anyways, I'm all for this. It sends out a good message... either set your child on the right track, or you get as little help as possible. Simple as that. And it doesn't have to be all about great grades; get reports from the teachers about the children's behavior. Like Becca said, not every student can make great grades, but every student could be well behaved and not disruptive to his or her class. That should count in their favor as well.

 

[Loveless]

either set your child on the right track, or you get as little help as possible. Simple as that.

As if it's that simple. There's no magic formula for being a good parent or fixing a troubled child.

 

[Fire Marshall Bill]

Now I have not read everyone's post on here, so forgive me if this was already brought up, but what about a system that didn't just penalize, but also rewarded?

Theoretical example:

Start the base welfare off of an average grade of a B (or equivalent GPA).
Raise or lower welfare a certain percentage based off that students distance from a B.
So if a students average grade is a B+ then the family gets a certain percentage increase relative to that B+.
The same would apply for the decrease a B- would provide, and all other grades.

It's not perfect. Personally, I think 20% is an enormous percentage for any penalty as proposed in the original bill. And, as mine is an example, the base grade or GPA is completely debatable. I just feel this would promote a system less based on strictly punishment, and more on the merits of the family.

There's obvious exceptions. This should in no way be applied to students who are mentally handicapped.

But I still feel the bill has some merit. Same as how welfare recipients should be drug tested.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Welfare is money that goes to families who need additional financial assistance in order to meet a minimum standard of life - it's not money given to families so that their children do better in school. Slyfox has not shown why withholding money from a family that needs it will result in better grades from the child. If you study motivational, child, family, and reward/punishment psychology, there is no way to say that X will result in Y - which in this example would be, withholding welfare will result in better grades for the child.

So if withholding welfare isn't going to result in better grades, this isn't about correcting a problem, it would be about punishing a family for having a child who does poorly in school.

 

[Slyfox696]

Welfare is money that goes to families who need additional financial assistance in order to meet a minimum standard of life - it's not money given to families so that their children do better in school. Slyfox has not shown why withholding money from a family that needs it will result in better grades from the child.

Nor have I attempted to, because we have had no chance to determine this in practice.

What I'm using is a simple logical concept...if you use money to motivate to success, you're likely to achieve better results than if there was no motivation at all.

If you study motivational, child, family, and reward/punishment psychology, there is no way to say that X will result in Y - which in this example would be, withholding welfare will result in better grades for the child.

Let me see if I understand you correctly...are you saying there is no evidence that external reinforcement can shape behavior?

So if withholding welfare isn't going to result in better grades

But it COULD result in increase motivation which will likely result in better grades/scores. That's the logic.

this isn't about correcting a problem, it would be about punishing a family for having a child who does poorly in school.

If we knew all children of all families gave 100% effort and placed extreme importance on education, I would be right there with everyone else against this bill. But we don't have that, and you know this. We have families who use public education as a free babysitting service, who actively teach their children to not obey educators for one reason or another.

This law, at its noblest (I'm advocating the concept, I don't know why it's being introduced in this case), works to motivate students and their families to work harder in school and perform better on the tests. And I feel this is a perfectly acceptable concept.

 

[Tastycles]

This is fucking stupid for a whole host of reasons, but to illustrate how totally unfair it is, picture some scenarios.

A family is struggling on welfare, but they get by, the child is average at school. One day, the dad dies in a car crash. The child's grades tank, the welfare is cut, the family get a double whammy.

What do you do if a family has one kid that excels, one that is average and one that's tanking. The fact this scenario even exists kind of points to the fact that it's not that simple.

The fact is that the parents who are not invested in their children's education now, are probably the one's that are least equipped to do so. Most parents do the best by their children. If they cannot speak English, are themselves poorly educated or don't value a formal education for whatever reason, they are unlikely to be able to improve the situation, and all you'll do is instigate a downward spiral.