Tennesee legislators propose new bill which ties welfare to children's school performance

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by jimmyx

 

I live in Tennessee, i worked maintenance at a low income housing apt building for a few months. I heard people brag about their free housing and $4k a month checks. If the amount has gone down in the last 4 years it is because more people are abusing it and the money just isn't there. I have a niece who was on it for a long time. She and her kids and my sister got a free weeks stay at Disneyland along with cash to spend. I am living right on top of all this crap. I see it firsthand on a daily basis.

What a blatant lie.

You've got a nerve posting this plutocratic piece of garbage without any proof whatsoever. Earlier in the thread (page 1) you started with the classic rightwing talking point of "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps", now with the "wealfare queen" scenerio. Purely calculated, inhumane rubbish. Hell, when called on it, you stomp your feet, huff and basically go, "Im unashamedly spouting propaganda, so there". Very gutsy, arent you? Look at you spouting rhetoric against society's most vulnerable class, using even lies to achieve your cruel agenda. Interestingly enough, we can count how many of your fellow bullies crawl on this thread by counting the stars your post got.

Tldr: Prove what you quoted above is true if you got the marbles.

If used correctly I think it would be a good Idea to get parents or relatives more involved with their childs education. And as far as I know, if parents are too busy and what not, most schools offer after school programs help so there should be few genuine excuses for poor grades other than mental illness.
And I don't buy into "poor" areas. The school district I went to was one of the top 5 poorest districts in the entire state of Pennsylvania and it had an above %80 graduation rate. Also, as having two close friends as teachers, parenting, or lack there of, is a major contributor in a childs behavior and education as cited by them. This conclusion was drawn by each of them (they do not know each other) from numerous parent teacher conferences throughout their careers.

@ThreeBears: Bringing race into this is absolutely inappropriate, childish and unacceptable. People that spout rhetoric such as you did are a huge problem to what is going on with our children's education. Talk like that only breeds negativity and resentment. And you don't think that doesn't rub off onto the children? Talk like that is pretty much telling kids if they are poor, or in the case you stated non-white, they have little or no chance of succeeding or getting good grades in school. Responsibility for ones actions/behaviors. Practice it and pass it on to your children.

You should be ashamed of yourself for such blind accusations.

reply to post by ButterCookie


This is stupid. There are things your not considering like the child's mental and physical health.

1) What if the child does poorly in school because he or she isn't getting proper nutrition - because that welfare money doesn't afford the high quality food. f you penalize the homes income based on the child and give them less, that kid will even have worse nutrition.

2) Some kids may have legit learning disorders and you will be taking away needed funds the parents could use to treat that child.

I think it's wrong to assume that in all cases the kids do poorly because they have bad parents and hence, doesn't deserve the full monty of government assistance they otherwise would be allowed.

That's stereotyping. Now ButterCookie, you're not going to tell me you believe in stereotyping now are you?

Have you researched this well.. do you know for a fact all kids do poorly because they have bad parents? I don't think you can say that.

How does requiring children to maintain at least D average grades constitute 'punishment'? How??

Sorry, but it sounds like more liberal rhetoric of 'victimization-of-everything' and low expectation. Even if welfare benefits were not apart of the issue, shouldn't parents be held on some level of accountability for poor performing children? I saw a few responses that stated the government has no right to mandate that parents be involved in children's education. Then that, essentially is child abuse.

Child abuse because adults are being allowed to have children that they do not have to care for, with no say in what's in the child' best interest.

Let's go ahead and get to the root: If parents do not have the time to participate in the child's education (whether its because they work too much, drug abuse, etc..) , then should that adult be having children in the first place?

Some say that the government should not infringe on the parent's 'rights" to be lazy parents. SOMEONE should have that say. Otherwise, you get what we have now; an out-of-order society.

Parenting should be regulated anyway.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

This is stupid. There are things your not considering like the child's mental and physical health.

1) What if the child does poorly in school because he or she isn't getting proper nutrition - because that welfare money doesn't afford the high quality food. f you penalize the homes income based on the child and give them less, that kid will even have worse nutrition.

2) Some kids may have legit learning disorders and you will be taking away needed funds the parents could use to treat that child.

I think it's wrong to assume that in all cases the kids do poorly because they have bad parents and hence, doesn't deserve the full monty of government assistance they otherwise would be allowed.

That's stereotyping. Now ButterCookie, you're not going to tell me you believe in stereotyping now are you?

Have you researched this well.. do you know for a fact all kids do poorly because they have bad parents? I don't think you can say that.

Once you read the entire text of the proposed legislation, you find that this EXCLUDES situations involving medical disabilities/ handicaps/ learning disorders.

Also, if a parent is getting TANF (welfare checks), they are more than likely eligible for the state health care and could treat the child's disorder at no cost.

No excuses here.

reply to post by cenpuppie


Again, those with learning disabilities would not be affected by this legislation.

And for the "parents who 'have enough on their plate' (that they can't ensure a healthy productive life for their child)" should not be having children in the first place.

This is the number one reason I'd support Regulated Parenting. That way, these kinds of things are carefully evaluated before reproduction, so as to not set any child up for failure.

reply to post by Snoopy1978


How convenient that you believe there is no abuse of government funds. You ever leave the rock you live under?

reply to post by ButterCookie


Personally, I think this is one of the dumbest ideas I've heard in a long time! On the other hand, it seems that this type of legislation is quickly becoming the norm for the GOP. The very same people who are constantly ranting about having too much government intrusion into their lives, go figure!

If you want to eliminate those who would cheat the welfare system, go after the cheats and not those who are actually in need of the help. If these kids are the cheats, it's quite obvious (based on their failing grades) that they're not very good cheats and I doubt that they are the root cause the state's welfare woes.

I think that providing good jobs and mandating that employers pay a "living wage," would go a lot further towards reducing the number of welfare recipients in TN.. Just saying.

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

Personally, I think this is one of the dumbest ideas I've heard in a long time! On the other hand, it seems that this type of legislation is quickly becoming the norm for the GOP. The very same people who are constantly ranting about having too much government intrusion into their lives, go figure!

If you want to eliminate those who would cheat the welfare system, go after the cheats and not those who are actually in need of the help. If these kids are the cheats, it's quite obvious (based on their failing grades) that they're not very good cheats and I doubt that they are the root cause the state's welfare woes.

I think that providing good jobs and mandating that employers pay a "living wage," would go a lot further towards reducing the number of welfare recipients in TN.. Just saying.

Well, doesn't having children that are not performing well in school ( due to low attendance, bad behavior, no parental involvement) constitute a 'cheat'? If you are not working, for example, and receiving long term benefits from the state, how is it that you do not have enough time to ensure better education for your child?

reply to post by ButterCookie


No, IMO those parents are not necessarily welfare cheats. It may be that they too, (the parents in question) are under-educated, (quite possibly from being raised under the same conditions) and are unable to be of much help with their child's homework, etc...

If you want to know what a welfare cheat actually looks like, look no further than this new thread;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Store owner arrested for using food stamps to stock shelves,

or you can go directly to the source link for the full story here;

washingtonexaminer.com...

reply to post by ButterCookie


Great even more pressure on kids as if they need this, believe me this will fall right in the shoulders of children in poverty, you can bet that! This is another scam to implement tax dollars! Wake up!

reply to post by ButterCookie

Again, those with learning disabilities would not be affected by this legislation.

That's good.

And for the "parents who 'have enough on their plate' (that they can't ensure a healthy productive life for their child)" should not be having children in the first place.

True, but about those parents that have someone else take care of their kids like nannies? Those with the disposable income don't have to worry about their kids performance while those poor folk now do. They don't even have to interact with their kid, just hire a tutor and the problem is taken care of. It's about money. If those parents were at a regular 8-5 job, making a good wage then they probably would have the time to help their kid. This is just a strike against the working poor, the folks that aren't making enough money at their job so they can help their kids with their schoolwork.

Whenever I hear "people who have too much on their plate shouldn't be having kids in the first place" I know I am dealing with a tiny imagination.

It is possible, for example, to start a family in the 90's when finances are strong, then suffer through a series of lay-offs and or lose a spouse, or have one become seriously ill or disabled, long before the kids you had when you were doing "well" are grown.

I mean, whoa.

reply to post by cenpuppie


Money or lack of is an excuse for poor grades. I'll refer you to my first post in this thread where I state I went to, and live in, one of the poorest districts in the entire state. The graduation rate is over %80. Excuses, excuses. It's people not holding themselves accountable and others making excuses for them and what that is doing is enabling. The way kids act in school also play a large role in how they do academically; figure out why/how come the child acts up and you'll get closer to solving the problem.

And I'll tell you what, the inner city kids have it better (financially;size of home, healthcare, food, etc.) than the trailor park kids around here for the most part, yet these people still manage to get better grades and what not than those in the inner city, which gets more money than the district I live in. What you have to do is find the differences of the two groups in regards of parenting/activity in the childs education and there you'll find the base of the problem. In most cases. Note: I say most cases. I didn't say all, I say most. And to think the school district I live in would be an exception would be absolutely false.

I was listening to a radio documentary the other day where they were talking about something similar. Basically we have a huge problem with children on disability in the US. Parents are getting there children put on disability for things such as depression, or mental illness. Then these kids are put into special education classes where there grades are monitored and as long as it still looks like they are struggling with there grades they are rewarded with disability checks. There were many cases where on the broadcast they interviewed parents and they said they told there children to do poorly in school or they would loose the money they were using to "survive". The one interview that stuck out the most to me was a young adult who was on disability for depression. she went out and got a job as a tutor and loved it, she even said it helped her with her depression, she said it gave her a feeling of self worth. But when her disability check came in she noticed several hundred dollars had been subtracted from her check due to her new job. So she immediately quit in fear of not having that money even though she was making it through her job. After this she regressed in her depression and ended up having to live in a home because she became very violent and could not function. The interview was done while she was in the home and she said she wanted so badly to get back out, but the fear had debilitated he so greatly.
The program was on NPR i think can't remember but i think it was "This American Life". basically to me our government is making people depend on them in my opinion. whether in good or bad intentions I can't completely say. I don't completely agree with Obama's pro socialist views but i'm not entirely sure the guy is "evil" I truly think he and other liberals are doing all of the things they do to try and better the country. whether there right or wrong.

People shouldn't take other people's remarks at face value. If you say you support this bill, I suggest you read the formal documentation so you understand the legalities, the same way you would if you were entering into a contract with someone.

I personally wouldn't support the bill. The stick itself is not an effective measure to ensure parents get more involved in their children's education, especially when the education system in the US is so weak. Increasing funding to public schools and reforming the educational system is the only way to really improve students marks. Unfortunately the educational system is constantly under attack, receiving regular funding cuts and bombardment on what should and should not be taught (i.e. religious education should be taught as a science alongside evolution - which is so stupid I can't even comprehend it).

reply to post by ButterCookie


O.k. then - How does one determine that the child is doing poorly in school due to the parent not trying to bee a good role model in encouraging the child, helping the child with his work, providing a good environment for the child to study etc..

What is the criteria that determines these things?

~~~~~~~~~~

After reading the article I find legislation like this is not even needed - and it looks like a way the state can gain more federal money - since Tenn is way above the national average

they would already be getting more federal money than most states. :

According to the Tennessee Department of Education, the state had a 87.2 percent high school graduation rate in 2012, up from 85.5 percent in 2011. The state’s rate is well above the national average of 78.2 percent.

It is estimated that if Tennessee can up its graduation rate to 90 percent, the state could see a $90 million increase in annual earnings and could enjoy $16 million more in additional tax revenues, according to a March 20, 2012 article in the Chattanooga Times-Free Press.

You asked me to read the entire text of the bill but you didn't post a link to that bill.
~~~~~~~~~~~

I found this but didn't find the bill yet

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A House committee on Wednesday approved a measure linking a family's welfare benefits to student performance a day after Gov. Bill Haslam expressed serious reservations about the measure.

The House Health Committee on voted 10-8 to advance the bill sponsored by Republican Rep. Vance Dennis of Savannah. The companion bill sponsored by Sen. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville, was scheduled for a floor vote in the Senate on Thursday.

The measure would cut monthly benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program if a child fails to "maintain satisfactory academic progress."

Supporters noted that those cuts could be avoided if parents attend conferences with teachers, take parenting classes or enroll their children in tutoring programs or summer school.

www.knoxnews.com...

So this doesn't determine the parents ability to help school the child or reflect on the parents ability to be a proper parent - this forces parents to be involved in state approved programs - which the state still has to pay for. Which of the 3 above do they have to do.. one or all 3 the article isn't clear. When will this stop? Whats next?

So this first bill passed the House.. lets see if Campfield's bill passes the senate tomorrow. I don't understand how these two bills are not the same bill.

This is ...interesting.
For those concerned about government interference - the reality is that the government was invented in via the parent's need/request for welfare.

For those worried about students who try but have actual learning issues -- there are plenty of systems in place, which cost a lot of money, to identify and provide adequate compensation for those students. Some parents step to the plate and some of those students become the kind of shining success that makes that effort and expense feel worthwhile. Others use the paperwork as an excuse, do very little to support, motivate, or raise their child and then sue the school district (costing the rest of the taxpayers money) saying that their student must not have received sufficient support from the school. Even when districts when, it costs money to defend these lawsuits. The lawsuits have given some kids a license to disrupt the environment and the learning of others.

I will really have to think about it, but yeah...it is very interesting.

So the slow learners are going to be a Slum people.
no one will give them jobs.
no one lets them live any ware.
the police will move them on.

reply to post by ButterCookie

Also, if a parent is getting TANF (welfare checks), they are more than likely eligible for the state health care and could treat the child's disorder at no cost. No excuses here.

Not all health issues are curable. Sometimes the cure is harder on the child than the illness. What if the dr.s can't figure out what is wrong with the child? State medical care is usually very poor to begin with.