Tying Welfare To Students Grades

[SalvIsWin]

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.

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

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


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.

I don't understand how you feel that withholding money from families that need it will help improve a child's grades. I made the point that if you study psychology you will understand that motivation is very complex and sometimes what you would think with 'common sense' isn't always valid - in fact it oftentimes isn't. So unless you can show some evidence for the claim that withholding money from families will result in a positive change in a child's grades, it's irresponsible to enact legislation like this.

As it stands, I hope all parties could agree that welfare, although not perfect, serves a purpose and is a good idea. I would also hope all parties would agree that there are flaws within the welfare system and if they can be fixed, they should be fixed. My problem with your position is that you're basing it off of no evidence, you just simply think that the financial incentive will be motivation for the children - as a graduate of psychology I am telling you that you're wrong, motivation isn't that simple for one, and for two, motivation works different for children than it does for adults.

If you are interested I can link you studies on the subject detailing how motivation (especially child motivation) is a very misunderstood topic. Perhaps LSN, who is a graduate of psychology as well can confirm what I have said.

 

[LSN80]

I'm not a teacher, but if I was, I would personally abhor the thought of this bill. One of the things it seemingly fails to take into account is the student/teacher relationship. In a perfect world, people would take responsibility for their own actions, parents and students alike. However, in reality, the student is going to look at the teacher with animosity and contempt if this bill goes into effect, taking food or other necessities(and wants as well) off of the proverbial table. It sets the stage for more behavioral problems, acting out, and confrontations between students and teachers if a students family loses money because 11th grade Mikey fails Mr. Smith's English literature class. I understand it's not the teacher's fault, or even their responsibility to be their students' "friend." However, it is in the best interest of creating an environment of learning and co-operation, and this bill seems antithetical to that.

It seems to me that the motivation is more to take aim at parents then it is at students. From experience working with low-income, proverbial "at risk" kids and their families, nothing seemingly motivates them more then having their money taken away. But there are some parents who push their children hard, and with every motivating factor on the line, the child still fails for whatever reason. Sometimes, there is too much pressure on a child to succeed. What does this scenario create? More pressure.

I came from a 2 parent, 3 child home. If I didn't get passing grades in all subjects, I was grounded the next grading period from playing outside. Harsh? I thought and still think so. This bill would, in effect, have "grounded" my sisters as well for my low marks. Of what sense is that?

From the bill:

Further amendments also provide four ways the reduction can be restored once it is applied to a family’s payments. Attending two parent teacher conferences, eight hours of parenting classes, enrolling the child in a tutoring program, or enrolling the child in summer school are the available options.

I could understand and even support the bill possibly if this was the standard that was set along with the student's grades. Such as, if the student doesn't pass, and the parent fails to do the following listed above, then funds are taken away. But the above is for getting payment restored to those familes after it's been taken away. Possible parental intervention beforehand be damned, and despite Representative Vance Davis saying this:

"The measure applies to parents who do nothing."

The onus is still being placed around the neck of the child firsthand. Further, not only would it cause divisiveness within the classroom, it will in the home as well. Who do you think the parents/siblings of the child who fails are going to take this out on?

Show me a bill where the upper class is taxed more when their children fail, then submit this one again. Until then, I'm completely against this.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

It's a bad idea in my opinion. I understand doing something to make a family earn their welfare, that seems fair but to put that burden on a kid isn't right. Make the parent (the person who is the reason their family is on welfare whether it was avoidable or not) do something, make them do a day of work for the government, make them pick up trash on the highway but don't put it on the kids shoulders to get their family its full payment.

20% for anyone let alone a family on welfare is a large amount of money, if you're welfare 20% will mean a lot more than to lets say myself. It's nice that it will give the parents more incentive to make sure their kids do better in school but as pointed out the parents can only do so much. I'm just saying not every parent is gonna be able to grasp a subject such as Physics or Chemistry. I know its just math and language arts but the theory is the same.

Other things to think of is what if the kid has a learning disability? What if the kid has a difficult time grasping a certain subject? For example in school I killed it in math and science but wasn't very good when it came to Language Arts. Of course I could read a book and remember what happened but most of my L.A. mark was based on interpreting a certain poem or something, not my strong suit I gotta say. Long story short although I was great in most subjects LA brought my average down significantly.

All in all I understand the idea of it but its a bad idea. Although poor progress often points to parents do you think the parents see it that way? A lot will but a lot won't. The kid is living in a family that's barely scraping by and because he gets low grades (even if he tries his best) he is now subjected to possible abuse from the parents. Although the idea in theory makes sense it's gonna turn out badly for a lot of families and kids.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Sounds like another shot at poor people. I know we hear stories about little Johnny out hustlin' at age 8 so that his family could eat and I've read The Hunger Games but having our children responsible for a family's well being is not exactly a value that I want for our youth. I don't always hate some good ol' fashioned discrimination but this sure sounds like something that isn't really fair when you have people without kids or without school age kids on welfar (maybe that's covered in the bill, I don't know).

In the end I don't know much about welfare, psychology, or education but I did sit through Precious: based on the novel Push by Sapphire so I think I am right in saying this is a bad idea and just another way for legislators to please their angry base that hates resource suckers.

 

[Loveless]

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

Who is it meant to motivate exactly? Kids don't care about money, especially if they're never going to see it. It might motivate the better parents to try a bit harder or it might lead to parents blaming and gettting angry with the child. In neither situation is there any guarantee of improvement and in the second case it could actually be damaging to have parents pushing this responsibility on their children.
This is a terrible idea that is full of holes and as I've said, there is a very clear correlation between students from poorer families not doing so well. With that in mind, it's perfectly logical to suggest that cutting money from them further would only make the situation worse.

 

[Ultra Awesome]

So. Motivation is the purpose for this action. But if the motivation is a forcefull motivation is it really a good motivation at all? Youre forcing poors (mainly) to do better or else get fucked over. Yet, the poors suffer way more than people give them credit for. go to Lancaster, California and point out the dime-a-dozen bulls that go around shooting everyone just because they got beef with woop-deewoop clan.

Kids in this extreme wont do good in school, parents of these kids wont push their kids. Instead, negativity will overcome their lives and thus get the family ultimately deppressed. And in a world like the one we live in now, you bet your motherfucking ass this "extreme" can be carried of to the minorities and so and so. Most dont care about education the way it's being proclaimed. not only that, but they lack one typical bodily essence: Hope. Hope to do good in school and achieve great success.

Because of this, someone without typical hope wont do good in school; and having a bill like this, will, like the former, make the said person much LESS motivated to succeed. Simple reason is because this forcefull motivation will only build pressure on the young adult trying to succeed. And again. in a world where depression runs high, a depressed kid being motivated forcefully in a pressurefull manner, will have a reversed-psychological affect of what the bill is tryna do.

...If our country was founded on Socialism, then this plan would work because that's saying there's a master plan to this government and it's being followed through behind the scenes somewhere correctly. Force people to do good in school. Rev up the education system to actually teach wisdom rather than knowledge. Teach kids how to have FUN and what fun really is.... add in some imagination to a kid's life, fix the television so creativity shines high, divert a youth's attention to things they should be caring about like toys and playing outside... plus etc....

Then. Then is it, that this bill is masterfull.

 

[Slyfox696]

I don't understand how you feel that withholding money from families that need it will help improve a child's grades.

And I don't understand how the concept of motivating parents to take greater interest in a student's studies, leading to improved scores, is so foreign to you.

I made the point that if you study psychology you will understand that motivation is very complex and sometimes what you would think with 'common sense' isn't always valid - in fact it oftentimes isn't.

Negative reinforcement has been shown to shape behavior. In this case, taking away X% of money from a family will make the family focus more on the student's studies.

So unless you can show some evidence for the claim that withholding money from families will result in a positive change in a child's grades, it's irresponsible to enact legislation like this.

You can keep saying this all you want, but you know as well as I do it is a pointless comment for you to make, and quite frankly, is a logical fallacy. You're arguing it won't work because it's never worked and so we should never try to make it work. There is PLENTY of evidence which shows a monetary incentive encourages certain desired behaviors. You know this. Do we have evidence taking welfare will improve grades? No, because it hasn't been done. I could just as easily ask for your evidence where taking welfare money DOESN'T improve scores and it would be no more honest than this statement you've made twice now.

As it stands, I hope all parties could agree that welfare, although not perfect, serves a purpose and is a good idea. I would also hope all parties would agree that there are flaws within the welfare system and if they can be fixed, they should be fixed.

I think everyone in this debate would agree with that.

My problem with your position is that you're basing it off of no evidence, you just simply think that the financial incentive will be motivation for the children - as a graduate of psychology I am telling you that you're wrong, motivation isn't that simple for one, and for two, motivation works different for children than it does for adults.

But the motivation is not just for the students, that is the point I've been making from the beginning. The motivation hits the parents and the parents, in turn, motivate the children.

I'm not a teacher, but if I was, I would personally abhor the thought of this bill.

If you were a teacher, you'd see children who come to school every day and do nothing but waste people's time and money because they have no interest or desire to be there. More often than not, these children from homes who receive some sort of financial assistance.

One of the things it seemingly fails to take into account is the student/teacher relationship. In a perfect world, people would take responsibility for their own actions, parents and students alike. However, in reality, the student is going to look at the teacher with animosity and contempt if this bill goes into effect, taking food or other necessities(and wants as well) off of the proverbial table.

I'm confused by this...why would they?

My understanding is this law would address test scores from a state given standardized test.

It sets the stage for more behavioral problems, acting out, and confrontations between students and teachers if a students family loses money because 11th grade Mikey fails Mr. Smith's English literature class.

Not really...here is the actual wording of the bill:

For purposes of this bill, maintenance of satisfactory academic progress in school will be demonstrated by complying with school attendance requirements and receiving a score of proficient or advanced on required state examinations in the subject areas of mathematics and reading or language arts, demonstrating competency as determined by the state board of education on two end of course examinations, or maintaining a grade point average that is sufficient to ascend to the next grade. A student may attend a summer school course in the subject area in which the student has failed or has scored below proficient or failed to demonstrate competency.

All a student has to do is show up to class and "pass" in one of three other areas. If I come to school every day and score proficient on the state test, it wouldn't matter if Mr. Smith fails me, the way I understand it.

It seems to me that the motivation is more to take aim at parents

Of course it is.

But there are some parents who push their children hard, and with every motivating factor on the line, the child still fails for whatever reason.

Rarely, and in those cases, the condition of the teacher and school needs to be looked at and addressed.

I came from a 2 parent, 3 child home. If I didn't get passing grades in all subjects, I was grounded the next grading period from playing outside. Harsh? I thought and still think so. This bill would, in effect, have "grounded" my sisters as well for my low marks. Of what sense is that?

I'll admit I'm rather ignorant in how welfare is distributed, but I've always thought that more children meant more money. If this is the case, then how would your poor marks affect your sister?

From the bill:

I could understand and even support the bill possibly if this was the standard that was set along with the student's grades. Such as, if the student doesn't pass, and the parent fails to do the following listed above, then funds are taken away. But the above is for getting payment restored to those familes after it's been taken away. Possible parental intervention beforehand be damned

Uhh...parental intervention is possible NOW, before the test.

Show me a bill where the upper class is taxed more when their children fail, then submit this one again. Until then, I'm completely against this.

And I agree completely with this, there needs to be a punishment for ALL students who fail, not just those on government assistance.

It's a bad idea in my opinion. I understand doing something to make a family earn their welfare, that seems fair but to put that burden on a kid isn't right. Make the parent (the person who is the reason their family is on welfare whether it was avoidable or not) do something, make them do a day of work for the government, make them pick up trash on the highway

We should already be doing this. If you want government money, you owe the government work.

Other things to think of is what if the kid has a learning disability?

Then they would not be affected.

The requirements of this bill relative to competency on required state examinations or grade point averages shall not apply to students who have Individualized Educational Placements and who are not academically talented or gifted.

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.aspx?BillNumber=HB0261&ga=108

Who is it meant to motivate exactly?

The family. It motivates the parents to take a more active role in their child's education, which will then motivate the child to do better in class.

So. Motivation is the purpose for this action. But if the motivation is a forcefull motivation is it really a good motivation at all?

Is it ideal? No. But it beats what we have now in far too many students.

Kids in this extreme wont do good in school, parents of these kids wont push their kids.

They already don't, that's the point.

 

[SalvIsWin]

And I don't understand how the concept of motivating parents to take greater interest in a student's studies, leading to improved scores, is so foreign to you.

I have already said that I don't think there's any reason to think that withholding welfare payments from a family that needs it will result in a positive change in a child's grades. The concept isn't foreign to me, I don't agree with it.

Negative reinforcement has been shown to shape behavior. In this case, taking away X% of money from a family will make the family focus more on the student's studies.

With all due respect Sly, this quote shows that you're out of your element and you don't know what you're talking about.

This proposed idea of taking away welfare money if a child does not perform is not an example of negative reinforcement, it's an example of negative punishment - two very different concepts in psychology. Negative reinforcement is the removal of an negative stimuli, whereas negative punishment is the removal of a positive stimuli. In this case, welfare is a positive thing that is being taken away in order to induce changes in a child's behaviour.

I don't maintain that negative or positive punishment cannot be effective, my argument is that the way in which these two concepts work is highly complex and ultimately I don't feel that they would be effective in this case.

You can keep saying this all you want, but you know as well as I do it is a pointless comment for you to make, and quite frankly, is a logical fallacy. You're arguing it won't work because it's never worked and so we should never try to make it work. There is PLENTY of evidence which shows a monetary incentive encourages certain desired behaviors. You know this. Do we have evidence taking welfare will improve grades? No, because it hasn't been done. I could just as easily ask for your evidence where taking welfare money DOESN'T improve scores and it would be no more honest than this statement you've made twice now.

When I said that there is no evidence to suggest that the idea of withholding welfare money would increase a child's grades, I did not mean that there is no research showing this exact relationship. My point is that research on motivation and reinforcement does not lead us to believe that negative punishment would be an effective method.

Monetary incentive can be effective, but that is irrelevant because it isn't the same thing as the legislation we're discussing. Monetary incentive is positive reinforcement, you would introduce a positive stimuli (more money) in exchange for a desired behaviour. A more apt comparison would be if a business reduced wages by 20% if a salesman did not perform - these concepts are wholly different in psychology.

But the motivation is not just for the students, that is the point I've been making from the beginning. The motivation hits the parents and the parents, in turn, motivate the children.

This makes two assumptions:

• Negative punishment would affect the parents motivation in the desired way.
• The parents are capable of motivating their children.

Neither of those two assumptions have been established, and while I would agree that the parents would be motivated to have their children do better in school, I think the more likely outcome would be increased stress on the family, and poorer performance - not increased performance.

 

[Slyfox696]

I have already said that I don't think there's any reason to think that withholding welfare payments from a family that needs it will result in a positive change in a child's grades. The concept isn't foreign to me, I don't agree with it.

Fair enough, but I disagree with you.

With all due respect Sly, this quote shows that you're out of your element and you don't know what you're talking about. This proposed idea of taking away welfare money if a child does not perform is not an example of negative reinforcement, it's an example of negative punishment

You're right about this, I mixed up my terms. I do know the difference, but simply posted the more common usage (even if it was the wrong term). By the way, and I mean this with respect as well, this was taught, if I'm not mistaken, in Psychology 101 (or maybe it was a 200 level class...either way, it was low), so it's not as if it's a difficult concept. I tell you this only to explain it is something I know and did simply mix up.

When I said that there is no evidence to suggest that the idea of withholding welfare money would increase a child's grades, I did not mean that there is no research showing this exact relationship. My point is that research on motivation and reinforcement does not lead us to believe that negative punishment would be an effective method.

Monetary incentive can be effective, but that is irrelevant because it isn't the same thing as the legislation we're discussing. Monetary incentive is positive reinforcement, you would introduce a positive stimuli (more money) in exchange for a desired behaviour. A more apt comparison would be if a business reduced wages by 20% if a salesman did not perform - these concepts are wholly different in psychology.

I fully understand what you're saying here. Here's what I know...

If a school wishes to continue receiving their federal aid, they have to do certain paperwork they don't want to do and was not previously required. If they do not do the paperwork, they lose federal funding. When I was a child, I was grounded from things from time to time, and it was effective in helping me not do the wrong things again. Heck, I'd love to just stay at home all day, but if I did, I'd lose my job or, at the very least, part of my paycheck.

Obviously those are loose examples, but they are examples which show people are willing to fight for what they have. If you tell families that they will lose money if their child doesn't meet a certain standard, that family will work harder to ensure their child meets the standards.

This makes two assumptions:

• Negative punishment would affect the parents motivation in the desired way.
• The parents are capable of motivating their children.

Neither of those two assumptions have been established

You are 100% correct on this. But it cannot be determined until it's put into action. But BOTH those assumptions are very logical and reasonable assumptions.

And when we're talking about free government education and government welfare, I see nothing wrong with wanting those who are taking these benefits and making something of them.

and while I would agree that the parents would be motivated to have their children do better in school, I think the more likely outcome would be increased stress on the family, and poorer performance - not increased performance.

For a lot of kids, it would be impossible to have a poorer performance. For many of the kids who simply do not care, they are already scoring Below Basic on their exams and failing their classes. How can you do worse than what you are already doing?

I'm not saying this piece of legislation is perfect, I've already given a couple of suggestions I'd like to see changed. But I'm talking about the basic concept behind it, which is to motivate those who are taking from society and motivating them to make something of what they are taking. I don't mind my taxes going to children or families in need. I've long supported the concept of helping those in need. But if you're going to take my money, then you need to do something with it. I don't see anything wrong with setting requirements which punishes those who are not appreciative of what they are receiving.

 

[SalvIsWin]

And when we're talking about free government education and government welfare, I see nothing wrong with wanting those who are taking these benefits and making something of them.

I agree. Children who came from a financially poor home are more likely to be poor themselves when they're adults, so I think it's an excellent idea to try to break that trend and ensure that a cycle does not continue.

For a lot of kids, it would be impossible to have a poorer performance. For many of the kids who simply do not care, they are already scoring Below Basic on their exams and failing their classes. How can you do worse than what you are already doing?

My largest concern with the idea of withholding welfare money from families if their children are performing poorly is that the parents will not respond well to this. It's wholly possible that some parents will be motivated by this and spend more time checking their child's work, explaining to them why it's important they do well in school, etc.

At the same time, I can see cases in which a child performs poorly at school because they have parents who don't care about their child's work, they don't care about their child's future, and they're not very compassionate parents. I worry for that child, who does poorly at school because he/she has terrible, ignorant parents. I don't trust those parents to be able to motivate their child in any positive way. There are already cases of child abuse from parents, I suspect that in some cases this behaviour would be worse if the parents blame the child for their lack of income. I feel a lot of empathy for children in those situations, and maybe I overestimate the amount of cases like that, but even one bothers me - as I'm sure it would you.

I can't support a piece of legislation like this with the latter in mind, but if this was recognized and there were provisions in place to try to curb this, then I would be more open to support efforts - we agree in theory about something being done to help these families/children break out of a cycle of inability.

 

[LSN80]

If you were a teacher, you'd see children who come to school every day and do nothing but waste people's time and money because they have no interest or desire to be there. More often than not, these children from homes who receive some sort of financial assistance.

You're a teacher, correct? Being so, I'll defer to you here. Coming from a family of several generations of teachers(Im the only male on my dad's side anywhere that's not one), I know through what they've told me that this is largely correct. And that attitude so pervasive amongst those receiving assistance is one generally passed from the parent, which is what I've experienced on the other side as a family therapist.

I'm confused by this...why would they? My understanding is this law would address test scores from a state given standardized test.

Hold animosity toward the teacher, you mean?

Because they're the ones administering the tests, are they not? As I said earlier, it should be a matter of personal responsibility. Students, parents, and teachers alike in their role in the academic process. But is that how things generally work?

From what I've seen, it's a blame game. Parents blame their kids, who in turn blame their teacher.

Now compound this with taking a percentage of welfare away, which could reach 30% according to the bill:

Failure to comply with attendance requirements, or to receive a proficient or advanced score or a grade point average sufficient to ascend to the next grade, will be a failure to comply with the personal responsibility plan required by this bill and will result in a 30 percent reduction with regard to the temporary assistance payment until such time as compliance occurs.

I understand the spirit, and it's a good one. But when that money starts affecting the child's family financially and the blame game starts, where do you think their anger is going to be directed?

The person who failed to give them a "proficient" score, their teacher.

All a student has to do is show up to class and "pass" in one of three other areas. If I come to school every day and score proficient on the state test, it wouldn't matter if Mr. Smith fails me, the way I understand it.

Perhaps we're reading it two different ways, and in that case, I again trust your first-hand experience. But it seemed like an "either or" to me, in that the child had to maintain a certain GPA, or pass certain tests. With GPA being the weight of all classes, it would only make sense in the passing-of-blame society for the student to blame the teacher whose class dragged their GPA below requirements to pass to the next grade.

Of course it is.

As it should be.

Rarely, and in those cases, the condition of the teacher and school needs to be looked at and addressed.

I've seen it, or else parents who are darn good at faking it. And in rarer cases, both the parent, school, and teacher are all working together, with the child simply not invested whatsoever, regardless of motivation.

This bill could possibly affect an entire family, as I understand it, as it would be 20-30% from their entire check, would it not?

I'll admit I'm rather ignorant in how welfare is distributed, but I've always thought that more children meant more money. If this is the case, then how would your poor marks affect your sister?

It varies state to state, and where I live, in Western Pennsylvania, cash benefits have been completely done away with. Food stamps and medical benefits are still given, and the former is based on the size of the family, correct. But it's my understanding the money would be subtracted from the entire family's welfare if one child fails.

Using that logic, had I come from a low income family, and I had failed, losing a % of my family's benefits, how would it not affect my sister?

Uhh...parental intervention is possible NOW, before the test.

I'm aware. Which is why, if I were to support the bill whatsoever, I would make it contingent on both the performance of both student and parent, not just student.

And I agree completely with this, there needs to be a punishment for ALL students who fail, not just those on government assistance.

Anything else to me is singling out a class, regardless of how accurate or slanted the figures are. Even if it's 99% low-income that fail, that 1% should receive some punishment equal to their low-income counterparts.

We should already be doing this. If you want government money, you owe the government work.

So, in essence, welfare should be a debt to be repaid in some fashion? I can see both pros and cons in this.

The family. It motivates the parents to take a more active role in their child's education, which will then motivate the child to do better in class.

But motivation is often an inner drive to act in a certain manner. If a child hasn't been conditioned towards motivation for years, and suddenly their parent takes a more active role, there's no guarantee what's been engrained in a child for years will suddenly change that conditioning.

That, I suppose, is why I believe it's only if both parents make no changes and the child continues to fail should the consideration of funds be taken away.

 

[Loveless]

All this talk of motivation and reinforcement would be fine if this was a direct 2-way relationship between the state and the parents. In reality, this idea is undermined by the simple fact that the children are a 3rd party, whose results are relied on but who are not offered or aware of any motivation themselves.
What's more, it's fundamentally wrong to make a child responsible for financial matters. It's not hard to see the damage that could be done by desperate parents pressuring their children to do better. Let's not even get started on the variable children or situations that can derail or hinder children from advancing.
For every child this would help, it'd leave 3 far worse off financially and emotionally. This "Win at all costs" attitude disturbs me, where does it end if we start putting $ signs on kids? What happened to letting kids be kids and protecting them from all the shit that comes in later life?
Speaking personally and as a prospective parent, I'd rather have my kids outside playing with their friends and take the potential financial hit, than have them come home after 7 hours in school and have to spend more time sat at a desk doing extra work.

Hang on a second, why the hell are parents getting the blame put on them anyway? Isn't educating our children the responsibility of the teachers? They're the ones who are trained, they're the ones who spend 35 hours a week with the kids, why isn't this their failure?

 

[LSN80]

So. Motivation is the purpose for this action. But if the motivation is a forcefull motivation is it really a good motivation at all?

We have motivation for any and all actions. I want paid, to continue to live a certain way, so I work. That's forceful motivation, is it not?

Kids in this extreme wont do good in school, parents of these kids wont push their kids.

And if you combine both of these, both the failure of the kid to "do good", and the parent to push their child, then I can understand, somewhat, the idea behind the bill. It's flawed in execution, but the motivation for it is understandable.

Instead, negativity will overcome their lives and thus get the family ultimately deppressed.

Or it will motivate them to overcome their current situation. I'm ultimately against this, but sometimes, there's nothing like a kick in the ass to motivate someone to act a certain way.

I can understand why this could cause depression, but unless the school and teacher are also dropping the ball, the parent is. Why shouldn't there be consequences for that?

And in a world like the one we live in now, you bet your motherfucking ass this "extreme" can be carried of to the minorities and so and so. Most dont care about education the way it's being proclaimed. not only that, but they lack one typical bodily essence: Hope. Hope to do good in school and achieve great success.

And that's where I find it the school's responsibility to help inspire hope in a child. To show them that they can become something with the right amount of work. Wishful thinking, but a nice addition to this bill would be a positive consequence for the student who brings failing grades up to a certain marker.

Enough positive motivation in life, achieved, inspires hope.

 

[Slyfox696]

I agree. Children who came from a financially poor home are more likely to be poor themselves when they're adults, so I think it's an excellent idea to try to break that trend and ensure that a cycle does not continue.

I think we pretty well agree on almost everything in this thread, except whether or not it will work.

My largest concern with the idea of withholding welfare money from families if their children are performing poorly is that the parents will not respond well to this.

And certainly that's understandable. And while it'd be easy for me to say "well, if it doesn't work, we'll scrap it and try something else", but that doesn't help those who lost financial assistance during that time.

At the same time, I can see cases in which a child performs poorly at school because they have parents who don't care about their child's work, they don't care about their child's future, and they're not very compassionate parents. I worry for that child, who does poorly at school because he/she has terrible, ignorant parents. I don't trust those parents to be able to motivate their child in any positive way. There are already cases of child abuse from parents, I suspect that in some cases this behaviour would be worse if the parents blame the child for their lack of income.

I cannot state this to any degree of fact, but I would imagine a parent who is willing to abuse their children will do it regardless of scores.

I feel a lot of empathy for children in those situations, and maybe I overestimate the amount of cases like that, but even one bothers me - as I'm sure it would you.

Of course. And I've thought of this as well. But we then get into whose really to blame for the abuse of the child, and while we should always protect children, at the end of the day, we cannot be everywhere. And I don't think it's too illogical to think a child who is beaten will be beaten regardless of test scores.

I can't support a piece of legislation like this with the latter in mind, but if this was recognized and there were provisions in place to try to curb this, then I would be more open to support efforts - we agree in theory about something being done to help these families/children break out of a cycle of inability.

I like your thinking, but how do you legislate against a possible increase in child abuse?

You're a teacher, correct?

Yes.

Hold animosity toward the teacher, you mean?

Because they're the ones administering the tests, are they not?

Yes and no. First of all, those who administer tests vary between state and school. But even when the teacher is the one handing out the test, students know it's a state test and not a teacher/school test.

From what I've seen, it's a blame game. Parents blame their kids, who in turn blame their teacher.

But when that money starts affecting the child's family financially and the blame game starts, where do you think their anger is going to be directed?

Well, it's already being directed towards the schools and teachers, as you've noted. Perhaps it'll go towards the state or, better yet, those who were responsible for the low scores.

The person who failed to give them a "proficient" score, their teacher.

The teacher does not grade the standardized state test, at least not in Missouri. I would assume it'd be the same everywhere, since much of this use of testing came from NCLB.

Perhaps we're reading it two different ways, and in that case, I again trust your first-hand experience. But it seemed like an "either or" to me, in that the child had to maintain a certain GPA, or pass certain tests. With GPA being the weight of all classes, it would only make sense in the passing-of-blame society for the student to blame the teacher whose class dragged their GPA below requirements to pass to the next grade.

It is an "or", not a "both". First, they have to attend school (which, by the way, should provide a bump in scores in the first place, as they have at my school who has instituted strict attendance policies within the last couple of years). After meeting the attendance requirement, students then have to meet only one of the three other factors.

I've seen it, or else parents who are darn good at faking it. And in rarer cases, both the parent, school, and teacher are all working together, with the child simply not invested whatsoever, regardless of motivation.

This bill could possibly affect an entire family, as I understand it, as it would be 20-30% from their entire check, would it not?

As I've said, I'm not agreeing with the percentage, rather the concept.

It varies state to state, and where I live, in Western Pennsylvania, cash benefits have been completely done away with. Food stamps and medical benefits are still given, and the former is based on the size of the family, correct. But it's my understanding the money would be subtracted from the entire family's welfare if one child fails.

Using that logic, had I come from a low income family, and I had failed, losing a % of my family's benefits, how would it not affect my sister?

Because, theoretically, your sister is still making her portion of the money.

Using small numbers, if the state gives $5 for every child, then this theoretically is the amount necessary to support that child, in addition to whatever else you earn. So if I earn $5 and you earn $5, when my money is taken away, yours is still there.

Now you could argue the parent would redistribute your $5 to help cover my costs, and it's a reasonable argument, but that would then depend upon how the parent wished to use the money they still had.

I'm aware. Which is why, if I were to support the bill whatsoever, I would make it contingent on both the performance of both student and parent, not just student.

I have no problem with making the parent earn the money also.

Anything else to me is singling out a class, regardless of how accurate or slanted the figures are. Even if it's 99% low-income that fail, that 1% should receive some punishment equal to their low-income counterparts.

I agree completely and I've been arguing this for years. My argument has always been it's ridiculous to hold teacher's accountable for children's scores, when you're not holding the student or parent accountable as well. To combat this, I've proposed a fine of X amount of dollars to force these parents into working with their child to get the best education.

So, in essence, welfare should be a debt to be repaid in some fashion?

I GUESS you could say it like that. I prefer to call it an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. There are so many things in this world that need to be done. It seems silly to simply give money to people, with the only promise made in return that they'll try to find a job.

I don't care if work to earn welfare is done over the weekends or overnight. I don't care if it's done by the male or the female. I don't know what happens to the children, haven't put that thought into it. But the fact of the matter is if we're helping people to survive, they should be willing to repay our kindness with something which benefits others.

Plus, if you require work for the money, I bet you'd also see fewer people abusing the welfare system.

But motivation is often an inner drive to act in a certain manner. If a child hasn't been conditioned towards motivation for years, and suddenly their parent takes a more active role, there's no guarantee what's been engrained in a child for years will suddenly change that conditioning.

But we KNOW that if the parent never takes a more active role, then the motivation will likely never change.

What's more, it's fundamentally wrong to make a child responsible for financial matters.

The child is not responsible for financial matters. The child is responsible for getting a good education.

For every child this would help, it'd leave 3 far worse off financially and emotionally. This "Win at all costs" attitude disturbs me, where does it end if we start putting $ signs on kids? What happened to letting kids be kids and protecting them from all the shit that comes in later life?

I find this part of your post perplexing.

First of all, the families affected by this DON'T have a win at all costs attitude. They have a "I don't appreciate the opportunity I've been given" attitude. As far as protecting them from what happens later in life, what better protection is there than a good education?

Speaking personally and as a prospective parent, I'd rather have my kids outside playing with their friends and take the potential financial hit, than have them come home after 7 hours in school and have to spend more time sat at a desk doing extra work.

So you don't advocate the use of homework ever? Will your kids never do schoolwork at home?

Hang on a second, why the hell are parents getting the blame put on them anyway? Isn't educating our children the responsibility of the teachers? They're the ones who are trained, they're the ones who spend 35 hours a week with the kids, why isn't this their failure?

Because we don't spend 35 hours a week with the kids. A regular math teacher will spend FIVE hours a week with the kids. There are 24 hours in a day, subtract 8 hours for schooling, and a parent is responsible for a child 16 hours a day. Even if we allow 8 hours for sleep, a parent is responsible for their child 8 hours a day, for a total of 40 hours a week, compared to the 5 hours a teacher has with the kid.

Furthermore, a teacher can't MAKE a child learn. A teacher's job is to present the information, to give a child the tools necessary to learn. It's the responsibility of the student to learn and the responsibility of the parent to motivate the child to learn.

Education requires not just a teacher, but students and parents being involved as well. The best teacher in the world still cannot educate a child who does not want to learn.

 

[Loveless]

First of all, the families affected by this DON'T have a win at all costs attitude. They have a "I don't appreciate the opportunity I've been given" attitude. As far as protecting them from what happens later in life, what better protection is there than a good education?

I wasn't talking about the family attitude, I'm talking about the governmental attitude of getting results at all costs, even to the detriment of childhood development.
As for protection, an education isn't everything. Yes it's a high priority but it shouldn't be held above everything else. Children need to be allowed to be children instead of trying to turn them into mini-adults before they're ready.

So you don't advocate the use of homework ever? Will your kids never do schoolwork at home?

I'd like to avoid it as much as possible. I'm not against doing a little work at home but I think it's healthier that home life is all about family and not burying your children under paperwork. As I said, they spend 7 hours a day in school, that should pretty much be enough. I think there is a benefit in letting the kids have a break, else you risk crushing their motivation and turning going to school into a chore.

Because we don't spend 35 hours a week with the kids. A regular math teacher will spend FIVE hours a week with the kids. There are 24 hours in a day, subtract 8 hours for schooling, and a parent is responsible for a child 16 hours a day. Even if we allow 8 hours for sleep, a parent is responsible for their child 8 hours a day, for a total of 40 hours a week, compared to the 5 hours a teacher has with the kid.

You're talking about individual teachers, I'm talking on the whole. A typical day would be

Up at 8am
In school by 9am
Pick the kids up at 4pm

By the time you've got them home and fed, it's 6pm and you've got 2-3 hours to spend with them before bed. With that in mind I'd say they spend more time with teachers than with family during the week.

Furthermore, a teacher can't MAKE a child learn. A teacher's job is to present the information, to give a child the tools necessary to learn. It's the responsibility of the student to learn and the responsibility of the parent to motivate the child to learn.

If a trained teacher cant make a child learn, how can an untrained parent? And it is very much the responsibility of teachers to motivate a child, as well as the parents but if the child isn't that way in inclined, either through lack of intelligence or any other reason, there's nothing that can be done.
There have been numerous examples mentioned in this discussion where a 1-Size-Fits-All approach to judging a child is shown to be deeply flawed and unfair.
I gave my own personal example earlier on & in that case, my family would have lost 20-30% of our income because I was undiagnosed while my test scores were falling through the floor. Not only would that financial loss be unfairly on my shoulders, it would be detrimental to my entire family and do nothing to help.

Education requires not just a teacher, but students and parents being involved as well. The best teacher in the world still cannot educate a child who does not want to learn.

While that is true, who is it that's being punished? Equal responsibility should go hand in hand with equal consequence but that's not what would happen here.
A good kid can be failed by poor parents or teachers and it's the family that suffers. The best parents in the world could be stuck with a difficult child or one with undiagnosed issues, once again its the family that suffers. Not only is that unfair but it's damaging because (and I hate repeating myself) there is a clear evidence that the more financially deprived a family is, the worse the child does in education. By creating a state of deprivation you don't end the cycle, it only becomes more engrained. You may increase motivation to dig yourself out of a hole but you take away a necessary tool to do so.

 

[Slyfox696]

I wasn't talking about the family attitude, I'm talking about the governmental attitude of getting results at all costs, even to the detriment of childhood development.

Withholding money they are not entitled to in the first place is hardly "results at all costs". We CHOOSE to help those in need. And it's a worthy cause. But people are not owed this government money.

As for protection, an education isn't everything. Yes it's a high priority but it shouldn't be held above everything else.

It should be held in the highest regard. Education is the number one weapon to combat economic status.

Children need to be allowed to be children instead of trying to turn them into mini-adults before they're ready.

How is asking unmotivated children to work as hard as other children turning them into mini-adults?

I'd like to avoid it as much as possible. I'm not against doing a little work at home but I think it's healthier that home life is all about family and not burying your children under paperwork. As I said, they spend 7 hours a day in school, that should pretty much be enough. I think there is a benefit in letting the kids have a break, else you risk crushing their motivation and turning going to school into a chore.

I'm not a fan of homework either, but it is necessary. There simply is not enough time in the school day for students to get the proper amount of learning.

You're talking about individual teachers, I'm talking on the whole.

Then you're speaking ignorantly and your point is rendered irrelevant.

A typical day would be

Up at 8am
In school by 9am
Pick the kids up at 4pm

By the time you've got them home and fed, it's 6pm and you've got 2-3 hours to spend with them before bed. With that in mind I'd say they spend more time with teachers than with family during the week.

But I don't teach math. And neither do 6 of the children's 7 teachers. They get math for only one hour.

Your position is not based on realism. I see my kids one hour a day (actually, I only see mine 1 hour a week, but I'm a more unique situation). You, as the parent, are responsible for your child for 16 hours a day. Children spend FAR more time in your care than mine.

If a trained teacher cant make a child learn, how can an untrained parent?

I'm not asking the untrained parent to teach, I'm asking the untrained parent to impress upon the child the importance of learning and studying.

And it is very much the responsibility of teachers to motivate a child

No, it isn't. This is one of the biggest myths about teaching. A teacher's job should NEVER be to motivate children. A teacher's job should be about teaching, about presenting information in a way a child can learn it.

Attitudes like yours are part of the problem in education.

but if the child isn't that way in inclined, either through lack of intelligence or any other reason, there's nothing that can be done.

This is asinine and really, demonstrates a rather distressing view of parenting.

While that is true, who is it that's being punished?

The family. And if several students are failing, then the school/teacher. I don't mind holding teachers accountable for scores, as long as the children and parents are being held equally accountable.

A good kid can be failed by poor parents or teachers and it's the family that suffers.

If a good kid is failed by poor parents, then it is the parent's fault. That's kind of the point.

The best parents in the world could be stuck with a difficult child or one with undiagnosed issues

A difficult child is different than one with "issues". And if there are "issues", then it seems as if the parent should be more proactive in figuring out the issues.

Not only is that unfair but it's damaging because (and I hate repeating myself) there is a clear evidence that the more financially deprived a family is, the worse the child does in education.

But these students are already doing poorly. That's the point.

 

[Ultra Awesome]

We have motivation for any and all actions. I want paid, to continue to live a certain way, so I work. That's forceful motivation, is it not?

You started at 0, and want +40. This is motivation from drive to have virtue. The bill starts you at -35, but if you do good, then you could get to 0. Which is where you should have started from the beginning. Hopefully, tho. You can get to +10 with it tho. Hopefully.

And if you combine both of these, both the failure of the kid to "do good", and the parent to push their child, then I can understand, somewhat, the idea behind the bill. It's flawed in execution, but the motivation for it is understandable.

It does push a typical person with good enough sense of direction; but to the average joe, you can sure a fuck bet it will do more harm to them than good. This is not saying this bill wouldn’t work. It will, obviously. It’s just not as good as it could be, or justfull at all.

Or it will motivate them to overcome their current situation. I'm ultimately against this, but sometimes, there's nothing like a kick in the ass to motivate someone to act a certain way.

I can understand why this could cause depression, but unless the school and teacher are also dropping the ball, the parent is. Why shouldn't there be consequences for that?

Teachers have many students, not just 25. For them to uniquely pay attention to every last one of them is virtually impossible. Plus that, when a student is really out of grip, is the teacher supposed to be on his case the entire time? No. A teacher will do their job and the best they can; not carry the entire load.

When it comes to parents, I throw you divorces and say a lot of children are of divorced parents. Highly hard for divorced parents, who themselves, are undoubtedly immature past the point of pushing a kid to high potential. Money being involved, the push will be more, on all sides: true. However, let’s factor in the negativity that already surrounds the average person’s life, can they take more pressure? Trully the strong will survive and the weak shall perish. Too bad most have a weak mind. As a psychologist, do you say weak minds can take negativity like that to the point where the majority is willing to push through even tho all is against them… Or is it more likely for them to drown in the negative energy and collapse.

And that's where I find it the school's responsibility to help inspire hope in a child. To show them that they can become something with the right amount of work. Wishful thinking, but a nice addition to this bill would be a positive consequence for the student who brings failing grades up to a certain marker.

Enough positive motivation in life, achieved, inspires hope.

You said it there. Positive. Any motivation, for it to be truly effective, must be positive. If it’s negative, then a lack of confidence may surround the individual on an affecting diameter of 1 thru 10 depending on the weak mind. But. Show this kid motivation thru courageous measures, and for sure this kid will be hopefull enough to do the slightest bit better.

Do you kno why? Cuz he was encouraged, not scolded.