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

New Tennessee welfare bill is aimed at 'parents who nothing' by reducing the amount of welfare benefits they receive by 30%.

A Tennessee lawmaker is pushing a controversial new bill that would tie welfare benefits to students' performance in school. Republican state Sen. Stacey Campfield last week introduced the legislation, which calls for the state to cut welfare benefits to parents whose kids don't do well in class. Critics are already panning the proposal as unfair, and one that could hurt students in the end -- but Campfield is defending his idea, which he says would force parents to take a more active role in their children’s education “We’re not asking children to re-write the Magna Carta,” Campfield told FoxNews.com Monday. “A D-minus gets you through.” Read more: www.foxnews.com...

“Nothing motivates people like money,” Campfield said. “We have done very little to hold parents accountable for their child’s performance. It’s unacceptable to have this generational cycle of poverty continue.” Read more: www.foxnews.com...

“For a long time parents have gotten away with doing absolutely nothing to help their children,” Campfield said. “That’s child abuse to me.” Read more: www.foxnews.com...

I fully support this legislation, as I whole-heartedly agree with Senator Campfield. Too long have many welfare recipients gotten away with collecting benefits while their children are delinquent and cannot functionally read or write. Of course this does not describe ALL welfare recipients' situations.

It would, however, force more recipients to become more responsible for their children which in the end is beneficial for the child, the parents, and society as a whole.

Comments?

reply to post by ButterCookie


I like the idea, and if I lived in Tennessee I would support it.

But the argument could also be made that, many parents should definitely not be involved in their children's education. Or even have children for that matter. But that's a different discussion all together.

I think it's one of those things where there is no silver bullet, but if implemented properly this plan could be a step in the right direction.

All welfare needs to be done away with.

This does not address the larger problem of propping up a society.

reply to post by watchitburn


Thank you, and I mainly support it because of what Campfield says. Parents SHOULD be involved with their child's behavior and educational performance. That's the problem; too many aren't. And also stated, "its not like we are asking them to rewrite the Magna Carta:. They do not have to be honors students; just at least get a 'D'.

Alos, it helps break the generational poverty cycle, which is most important. If a child performs well and have few tono behavior issues, they are more likely to go on to higher education and not become criminals, leading to a generation of more productive citizens.

Plus, this does not affect food stamps, so the families will still eat.

The fear of being poor would do more to decrease the number of poor drastically. That is the way it used to be until the government got involved and morphed it into a huge voting block.

Whilst I can see the logic in this I can also see that it could hurt an already struggling family just because the child is not so smart or as fast at picking up what is going on in class as the other students. Could be some sort of communication problem or dyslexia which has gone undiagnosed. Could be the parent/s work in very low paid jobs and struggle for energy to help the child/children with extra homework and study when they get home. Could also add more pressure on the child and make them feel like it is all their fault because they can't make the grade that their family is now going to not have enough money for food or heating now. This could lead to kids being beaten up by bad parents because they will also see it as the child's fault (rather than thinking they could try helping the child pass the tests). Not all parents are smart enought to be able to help their children with homework.
I can see way more negative issues with a system like this that positive ones.
Maybe there should be extra incentive going to the kids for improving their grades rather than what amounts to a punishment for failing. Even something as little as perhaps a weekly or monthly itunes card or equivalent type of thing for the child. Get Apple on board to say give out basic ipods if the child does not have one already, they can put it against tax as a charitable gift or promotion and some itunes gift cards for rewards or something. Or if Bill Gates has something similar, since he is all for 'helping people' these days.

Yes money is a motivator, but more carrot and less stick is also a good motivator.

reply to post by ButterCookie


I would have to disagree.
The government does not have the right to step in and use carrot or stick in lieu of parental responsibility for their childrens grades.

It is just another form of government dictating a standard.

Welfare should be dealt with on a level separate from education.

Just my humble opinion.

I can hear it now....tennesee parents: you got a "D" in that English class, so we can't pay the electric bill this month". ass-whipping insues, child protective services comes out with the sheriff, and arrests father, and takes away the child. mom has to live in the dark for the rest of the month, and burn wood for heat and cooking. FAMILY VALUES AT WORK

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

I would have to disagree.
The government does not have the right to step in and use carrot or stick in lieu of parental responsibility for their childrens grades.

It is just another form of government dictating a standard.

Welfare should be dealt with on a level separate from education.

Just my humble opinion.

You and I both admire Dr. Ben Carson, and regarding the bill closely, these are his main principles.

reply to post by ButterCookie

I have the greatest respect for Dr. Carson, but what I have a problem with, is the government dictating a standard and using money as a punishment for poor results.

What are we teaching children then?

Do good for stuff.
Do good for rewards.

Not, do good to better yourself.
Not, do good so you can provide for your future.

That's why I have issue.

reply to post by beezzer


While i can see good and bad in this legislation, it does address the serious issue of the dumbing down of America. I would prefer that government buttout, at the same time i can see this helping America in the long run. If i had a vote i would vote no on it for the reasons you describe. The problem needs to be addressed in some way however. Education reform would be my choice. Abolishing public unions would help.

So let me get this right.... If the kids are stuck with a crappy school and/or crappy teachers ...their parents may or may not make ends meet or pay the bills? What if the kid is legitimately stupid? The P.C. garbage aside, there are honest to God stupid people in this world. I know a couple and it takes true effort to adapt to the fact they aren't just being difficult or obstinate when I go help on their computers or other things ..they REALLY don't have the mental horsepower to do better than they do. Not their fault ..and in some things, they are probably far better than I am.


Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. The whole assumption here would be that everyone is 100% precisely equal with equal potential, without exception or question. That's so absurd and stupid to suggest, I wonder how this guy got into office? He reminds me of Todd Akin in Missouri. Stupidity or Ignorance? That IS the question with some lawmakers these days.

* to folks who say welfare needs to end, I agree! The period our nation has double digit unemployment in many areas and over 7% for the best national average number they can cough up probably isn't the BEST time to start doing it though. Time and place for everything right?

Originally posted by jimmiec
The fear of being poor would do more to decrease the number of poor drastically. That is the way it used to be until the government got involved and morphed it into a huge voting block.

what?...you don't think people on welfare are already poor? "the way it us to be" is that people stayed poor...the fear comes from living on the streets or in tents in the woods. how dare those people live in poverty, and use up tax dollars.

I'm not a fan of this. There are to many others factors that play into a child not performing in well in school. So, let's just heap it all on the parents and blame them.

I can see why and understand the motivation but typically how things are handled nowadays, done in the wrong way. Most important factor imo, is the actual school and teachers. It's hard to motivate children to learn when the teacher doesn't really care. I wonder how well these schools are performing with these underachieving children. So much for No Child Left Behind. Now it's; Kids Hungry Forever.

Not to mention that the majority of those on federal aid are the working poor, so those parents have something else heaped onto their plates. And the factor of learning disabilities that have a tendency to get overlooked. Yes, not a good idea to me.

Not to mention it's a D-! If the child fails a class pretty much, your benefits are cut. Still not a recipe for success. So if the kid gets an A, then it's an extra $50 to spend on food for a week?

“How does Sen. Campfield expect a child to do his homework when there is no food on the dinner table?” he said

Good question. Your going to have some "I can do this overtime, earn needed extra money at my low paying job and cut my food budget or i can help my kids, have more money for food but not enough to pay some bills". It's always bad when they target the poor. Hell, what about the ones that don't have kids, like the elderly! They will gloss it over.

The basic idea is good, trying to promote more parental interaction in the schooling of your kid but not like this.

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by beezzer

 

While i can see good and bad in this legislation, it does address the serious issue of the dumbing down of America. I would prefer that government buttout, at the same time i can see this helping America in the long run. If i had a vote i would vote no on it for the reasons you describe. The problem needs to be addressed in some way however. Education reform would be my choice. Abolishing public unions would help.

hey, me! me! (waving hand)...how about tennesee legislators spend the welfare money in the form of paychecks to do needed infrastructure jobs around the state. and as far as unions, look up why they were formed in the first place...answer?....because businesses paid slave wages before there were unions

reply to post by jimmyx


Actually poor people feared being poor so much that they generally pulled themselves up by their boot straps and worked their way out of it. There were also private organizations that a family could give $2.00 a week or so to take care of medical bills, food, unemployment etc that worked very well. The people that ran them were not out to make a buck. They were run by volunteers. If you had no money you could volunteer and get into the system.

It is better to be poor today than a king in 1600.

I find this attitude that all poor people are welfare cheats very mean spirited. Why the need for conservatives to demonize the poor and completely ignore Corporate welfare.

www.newyorker.com...

Keep up this scapegoating of the poor and the GOP will continue to be losers because there are far more Americans struggling economically than Rush L devotees.

Originally posted by olaru12

I find this attitude that all poor people are welfare cheats very mean spirited. Why the need for conservatives to demonize the poor and completely ignore Corporate welfare.

www.newyorker.com...

Keep up this scapegoating of the poor and the GOP will continue to be losers because there are far more Americans struggling economically than Rush L devotees.

edit on 2-4-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

Get rid of corporate welfare at the same time.

No reason for either.

reply to post by CthulhuMythos

I agree with your points. More bad than good on this bill. Plus the ipod/gift card/charitable donations idea is a good idea. The government could set this up as a tax write-off for the corporations who participate.

I really don't think that this is fair to the children. A lot of these kids are already suffering, why make it worse? What if they have a learning disability or severe behavioral issues?

The government already has their noses in too many places in our lives. Why let them dig in even deeper?