Load Gun. Point at Foot.
I spent all of last week back in Tennessee, where this story was beginning to get some statewide attention. As of today, it's national, with Fox News joining in on the coverage:
A Tennessee lawmaker is pushing a controversial new bill that would tie welfare benefits to students' performance in school.
Republican state Sen. Stacey Campfield introduced the legislation last week, calling for the state to cut welfare benefits to parents whose kids don't do well in class.
He says it will force parents to take a more active role in their children’s education. Critics, though, are panning the proposal as unfair, and one that could hurt children in the end.
Currently, parents of children who receive welfare benefits through the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program can see their benefits cut by 20 percent if their child doesn't show up for school. Campfield's proposal goes a step further and requires students make "satisfactory academic progress."
Now, let's stipulate that Tennessee does have a real welfare problem. It has the fifth highest number of per-capita recipients in the nation. There are serious pockets of both rural (Appalachia) and urban (inner-city Memphis, for example) poverty.
That being said, there's got to be a better way to skin this cat. We too often forget that the federal welfare reform of the mid 90s was actually sold as an instrument for empowering welfare recipients. This effort, by contrast, is going to be hard to portray as anything other than punitive.
Tying benefits to attendance makes sense. If a welfare recipient's child is a perpetual truant, we can draw a direct line between absenteeism and the vigilance of the parent. But there are far more factors than go into a child's academic performance. If the size of anyone's check is on the line, it probably makes more sense to start with schools and teachers (and even then, it's an exceedingly blunt instrument).
For those of us (the Kemp Caucus) who'd like conservatism to (A) actively aid and (B) actually have some appeal to the underclass, this is the worst of both worlds: a policy proposal that likely won't have the intended effects and that can easily be characterized as heartless.
If we want these people to like us, it'd help for us to start by not seeming like we're out to get them.
- Comment (51)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (16)
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: Load Gun. Point at Foot.
I have a feeling that the data shows a correlation between poverty and academic performance, that is, poor kids tend to have low grades. I also imagine it's unclear which way the causality goes. Either way, I don't think this is going to help. Is this supposed to alleviate poverty or improve students' grades? There definitely are other factors to consider, like the parents income and their level of education, for starters.
Jan '11
Re: Load Gun. Point at Foot.
Cut ALL benefits by 25%. Then give, say, a 10% premium to those benefit recipients whose children reach a certain performance threshold.
Now we're giving a reward!
Sep '10
Re: Load Gun. Point at Foot.
The only way it would help is if the parents' and have unfettered access to charter, parochial and experimental schools, a voucher system or targeted subsidy to help them afford it. This legislation assumes the school and peer influences are s a non existent factor in the student's performance.
Aug '11
Re: Load Gun. Point at Foot.
Is Troy advocating gun violence? For shame ;)
I think Troy is right-- this won't play well politically, and it isn't likely to actually improve the situation, it may indeed make a bad situation worse. Few teachers want to fail students, and they'll definitely not want to go to sleep thinking they are responsible for someone's food stamps being reduced, and many teachers will take that into account-- tie the welfare to grades, you'll probably see an increase in cheating and very "soft" grading. Suddenly, everyone will be an A or B student, and all the tests will be "write a two page paper" where the grading is subjective and the A is for effort, and on scantron and fill in the blank tests, teachers will most likely just change the answers, Atlanta style.
Edited on January 28, 2013 at 8:01pmJun '10
Re: Load Gun. Point at Foot.
"Hi...I'm from the government and I am here to help."
May '10
Re: Load Gun. Point at Foot.
Here is a conundrum:
Which is why, "Because I'm the daddy (or Mommy) is the best comeback ever. But you can't get away with tough love in politics. Can you?
Edited on January 28, 2013 at 8:15pmNov '10
Re: Load Gun. Point at Foot.
On all the other forums if you agree and have nothing more to add you are supposed to type +1.
+1
Mar '11
Re: Load Gun. Point at Foot.
Pseudodionysius
The only way it would help is if the parents' and have unfettered access to charter, parochial and experimental schools, a voucher system or targeted subsidy to help them afford it. This legislation assumes the school and peer influences are s a non existent factor in the student's performance. · 4 minutes ago
Exactly. This misguided measure is counter-productive. It is vindictive and doesn't address other root problems. Even worse, it takes an issue that has broad appeal (school reform), and squanders it on a crusade against the already-poor, instead of focusing on enabling greater mobility for the kids who have a far better chance of breaking out of poverty.
Nov '11
Re: Load Gun. Point at Foot.
This. Is. A. Very. Bad. Idea.
Where to start?
This assumes that these parents will spend more time working with and helping their children, in the interest of their own pocketbook. That's idealistic. Some of them, yes. But some of these parents have no idea how to help their kids (and aren't going to get much help from the school district). In more than a few cases, the most likely result is that they get mad at their kids.
Honestly, the possible implications of this for some children appall me. The end result will be to put a responsibility on the kids' shoulders that shouldn't be there. I can even see it making potentially abusive cases worse.
You're discriminating against students with genuinely less academic ability. And against parents with a weaker educational background. And no attempt to measure "satisfactory academic progress" can ever be even-handed.
I'm OK with tying it to absenteeism, too. But we should be trying to get people off benefits who don't need them -- not trying to use benefits to accomplish social engineering.
Re: Load Gun. Point at Foot.
That last one is key. This is being marketed as a way to ensure parents spend more time with their children on schoolwork. The implicit assumption there -- that these parents would be a net positive in that task -- is an enormous one.
May '12
Re: Load Gun. Point at Foot.
If we want them to like us?
Huh? Supporting them involuntatily isn't enough? I am supposed to be worried if they like me?
Now we want to hold them accountable for not raising future welfare receipients? This is bad how?
My apologies for bruising their sensitivity. The last thing I would want is to be disliked by someone receiving welfare. Perhaps we can just end every form of welfare and then we can all just get along.
When welfare is so awful and onerous that nobody wants to even contend applying with it, let a lone complying with that will be a darn good start.
Please use the Quote button below and insert 'you heartless right wing Tea Party scum.... '
Re: Load Gun. Point at Foot.
Goldgeller: Is Troy advocating gun violence? For shame ;)
I think Troy is right-- this won't play well politically, and it isn't likely to actually improve the situation, it may indeed make a bad situation worse. Few teachers want to fail students, and they'll definitely not want to go to sleep thinking they are responsible for someone's food stamps being reduced, and many teachers will take that into account-- tie the welfare to grades, you'll probably see an increase in cheating and very "soft" grading. Suddenly, everyone will be an A or B student, and all the tests will be "write a two page paper" where the grading is subjective and the A is for effort, and on scantron and fill in the blank tests, teachers will most likely just change the answers, Atlanta style. · 24 minutes ago
Edited 23 minutes ago
Precisely. One of the factors that people who get caught up in education metrics tend not to factor in is how few of them are truly objective.
Aug '11
Re: Load Gun. Point at Foot.
My first thought was "Why should welfare be tied to school performance?" Why assume that it's always the parents' fault if a kid is a poor student? I mean, I suppose it often is.
But I grow increasingly concerned about schools becoming more about social services than about education. And as they become more about social services, they also become more about butting into your family and home life.
Last week some Missouri legislator proposed a bill that would require everyone to inform their school districts if they had guns in their home. Can someone tell me what business it is of the school if I have a gun?
On one hand, I have sympathy with the view that schools are often good at helping identify families with needs who might not otherwise seek help.
On the other hand, stop being a buttinsky and leave us alone.
So really . . . as to this topic -- why, again, should we be getting the schools involved, and isn't that just another bit of evidence that schools are less about education these days and more about social engineering?
Re: Load Gun. Point at Foot.
Crow's Nest
This misguided measure is counter-productive. It is vindictive and doesn't address other root problems. Even worse, it takes an issue that has broad appeal (school reform), and squanders it on a crusade against the already-poor, instead of focusing on enabling greater mobility for the kids who have a far better chance of breaking out of poverty. · 18 minutes ago
Couldn't agree more. It's better politics and better policy to be the opportunity people. There's simply nothing to be gained from seeing how you can nickel and dime welfare recipients -- particularly for something that's not entirely in their control.
Aug '11
Re: Load Gun. Point at Foot.
Leigh:
Honestly, the possible implications of this for some children appall me. The end result will be to put a responsibility on the kids' shoulders that shouldn't be there. I can even see it making potentially abusive cases worse.
You're discriminating against students with genuinely less academic ability. And against parents with a weaker educational background. And no attempt to measure "satisfactory academic progress" can ever be even-handed.
On the internet, when we agree with something we say "THIS!"
Nov '11
Re: Load Gun. Point at Foot.
BrentB67:If we want them to like us?
Huh? Supporting them involuntatily isn't enough? I am supposed to be worried if they like me?
Now we want to hold them accountable for not raising future welfare receipients? This is bad how?
We want them to recognize that we actually have their best interests at heart, so that they will respond to efforts to provide them with opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty.
Do you think any government bureaucracy is going to reasonably determine which of these parents are doing their best by their kids? Me neither.
So this proposal doesn't really hold them accountable.
Edited on January 28, 2013 at 8:38pmJul '12
Re: Load Gun. Point at Foot.
I agree with you Troy. This is just the type of proposal that gets the GOP tarred as mean-spirited granny-killers that eat children. It seems doubtful that this would actually result in better educated students. The more likely outcome is teachers giving out sham grades so that kids on assistance don't lose benefits. Galactically dumb proposal.
Edited on January 28, 2013 at 8:48pmOct '10
Re: Load Gun. Point at Foot.
Troy Senik, Ed.
That last one is key. This is being marketed as a way to ensure parents spend more time with their children on schoolwork. The implicit assumption there -- that these parents would be a net positive in that task -- is an enormous one.
Yes, and we're not even considering what improvements can be made in the schools themselves. I imagine the benefit wanes as the child gets older.
I'm reminded of a grad student I know here who did her Econ project on test scores. She found that decreasing class sizes had a negative effect on test scores because more teachers meant teachers with less quality. My point is that it's really hard to improve academic performance and there's only so much the govt can do. So much can change if students just make the right choices and work hard but there's no policy prescription for that.
Re: Load Gun. Point at Foot.
Leigh
BrentB67:If we want them to like us?
Huh? Supporting them involuntatily isn't enough? I am supposed to be worried if they like me?
Now we want to hold them accountable for not raising future welfare receipients? This is bad how?
We want them to recognize that we actually have their best interests at heart, so that they will respond to efforts to provide them with opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty.
Leigh beat me to the punch, but I'd say much the same.
That being said, I do understand where Brent's coming from. We ought to acknowledge that there is a segment of the population of welfare recipients (how large it is, I have no way of knowing) who are utterly satisfied with life on the dole and will never see things our way. I'm happy to concede those folks to the Democrats. I'd desperately like, however, to do more to appeal to those who really would like to improve their station in life with as little taxpayer help as possible.
Re: Load Gun. Point at Foot.
I agree completely with Troy. Truancy is one thing but performance is quite another.
I know that small anecdotal samples don't prove anything but I'll give you mine anyway.
I'm raising four teenagers: Same parents, same household, same love, same support. Yet they couldn't be more different than one another, including in academic performance.
When it comes to the nature/nurture argument, it's nature hands down.
If you are going to judge me on one of my 4 kids, at least let me pick which one!