Is this a a good idea or not? If you have kids that are kind of slow or intellectually lazy do you starve to death?
Bill tying student performance to welfare benefits advancing in Legislature
Way to fuck up a kid for life. ‘Sorry, little Bobby, you got a D in Maths so Mommy can’t eat this week.’
The responsibility for a family’s welfare shouldn’t be on the kids.
The recent Planet Money/This American Life show about the rise of the number of people on disability touched on this idea. Basically, if kids are disabled (learning disabilities, etc) then their parents can get an SSDI check. In the case of learning disabled kids, the families have an incentive for the kids to do poorly at school. If their grades are too good, then they’re “cured” and they get their benefits yanked. That seems like a real problem.
But SSDI is not TANF, and on the face of it, this bill punishes less-capable students by withholding food. That seems the wrong way to go about motivating people.
Don’t make the payments less, make them more for academic performance. Take your kids down to the welfare office and they’ll give out the standard amount. Take your kids down to the welfare office and if they can read give out more.
This really, really pisses me off, being a Tennessee mother on TANF. I have a lovely, bright daughter with a learning disability (auditory processing disorder and autism) who usually makes top grades but this is just so fucking insulting. I can almost understand the idea of drug testing and I’d stand up for it if required, and you’d better damn well believe I’ll pass too, but this is just SO insulting. So poor people will have to pay if their child doesn’t do well? Will wealthy people also have to pay when their child doesn’t quite make the mark or is it okay if those children occasionally fail? And how much money will this cost to implement? As little as I make a month (142 dollars) how much will we be made to suffer for a D? This is just another way to vilify and demonize the poor when we are just barely getting by doing the best we can.
If the point of this were to improve academic performance, that would be somewhat more appropriate, though it would still bring its own issues. I’m pretty sure it’s irrelevant, though.
Not that I’m for this, however it seems like you’d be exempt.
StG
I have often thought some system of postive reinforcement would be the most successful way way to break the cycle of poverty some people get trapped in. I use a rewards system on my nephews and nieces to ensure they pay attention in school. And while some of them have not yet made the connection between obtaining an education for the sake of having a decent future, they all have grasped the concept of doing well in school to get spending money, movie tickets, and other desirable goodes.
This is another effort to punish the poor for being poor.
They tried to tie public assistance to drug testing, but it turns out it was a failure in Florida and cost the state money. So naturally, they had to find another way to humiliate and fuck over the people they hold in contempt for not being rich enough.
I’d be interested to hear other ways to interpret this sort of thing, because I can’t think of any.
I can imagine kids getting beaten by their parents because their grades aren’t good enough for the family to get good benefits. How fucked up 
Yip. Poor people make worse grades, so this gives them another out to pretend like it’s not about them being poor.
Not even most “personal responsibility” types think that literal children should be given responsibility for their parents’ welfare.
Yeah that was my first thought too. Another reason for drunk dad to beat the kid who is doing poorly in school because his dad is drunk. Whee!
It’s never about helping someone to improve themselves with these sponsors. It’s completely about not helping anyone at all, while making it seem they are starving for just being unmotivated.
I can see tying welfare benefits to school attendance, assuming that health issues are allowed for. A lot of times, when a kid isn’t making good grades, it’s because s/he’s slacking off, or at least that’s the way it was when I was going to school. But some kids can work and work and work, and they just aren’t going to master the material.
I think that it would cost far more to monitor this in a fair manner than it would to just pay up regardless of the kids’ performance. IOW, I don’t think that this is a cost-saving issue, but an attempt to bully poor people.
Going to school hungry isn’t the best way to improve your attention span and motivation at school. This is bullshittery of the highest order.
What happens if you have more than one kid, and only one of them’s doing poorly? Do they average their grades or just tie it to the performance of the dumbest one, therefore screwing both the parent and the other siblings? What if your kid’s 17 and not doing so well, do you just tell him to drop out of school instead of possibly getting held back for another semester of failing? This is going to be a pain to implement and probably not going to encourage any kids to do better, and will probably cost the state money in the long run.
The best way to break the cycle of poverty is to not subsidize it.
No one is punishing them. If they’re getting a check from the government, it means other people are working on their behalf. It’s a gift based on the generosity of the taxpayers, and they do not have an inalienable right to receive such benefits.
Chronically poor people make poor decisions. If they don’t want to be poor anymore, then they need to stop doing the things that are making them poor.
Most, if not all, kids on TANF probably qualify for free breakfast and lunch at school. Attending school reduced the amount a family has to spend on food, because those are the meals a child is assured of having.
StG
I think you have mixed up “charity” with something else. Welfare is not a “gift.” It’s something we decided as a society to implement to help our countrymen through desperate times. We don’t get to make them dance and jump hoops for us as their generous benefactor.
Most recipients are not “chronically poor.” Most are families that hit a rough spot, and use it for a short time until they re-enter the workforce. There have been very strict time limits for a long time.
The rule is a dumb “dance monkey, dance” thing designed to further humiliate people already in a bad spot.