Tennessee Advances Legislation That Would Tie Welfare To Children’s Grades
Two Tennessee lawmakers introduced legislation that would tie welfare assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to the educational performance of students who benefit from it, and the legislation was approved by committees in both the state House and Senate last week.
Under the legislation brought by two Republicans, a student who doesn’t not make “satisfactory progress” in school would cost his or her family up to 30 percent of its welfare assistance, the Knoxville News and Sentinel reported:
The bill is sponsored by Sen. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville, and Rep. Vance Dennis, R-Savannah. It calls for a 30 percent reduction in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits to parents whose children are not making satisfactory progress in school.
As amended, it would not apply when a child has a handicap or learning disability or when the parent takes steps to try improving the youngster’s school performance — such as signing up for a “parenting class,” arranging a tutoring program or attending a parent-teacher conference.
When Campfield introduced the legislation in January, he said parents have “gotten away with doing absolutely nothing to help their children” in school. “That’s child abuse to me,” he added. Tennessee already ties welfare to education by mandating a 20 percent cut in benefits if students do not meet attendance standards, but this change would place the burden of maintaining benefits squarely on children, who would face costing their family much-needed assistance if they don’t keep up in school.
TANF, meanwhile, is failing students and their families. It serves fewer impoverished families and children than its predecessor did before the 1996 welfare reform law was instituted, and it especially failed during the Great Recession, when the rate of families served fell in 35 states despite increases in both poverty and unemployment. And Tennessee’s welfare program is hardly robust — the maximum benefit is $185 a month and hasn’t changed since 1996. Given that low-income students already struggle to keep up in school, further reducing the already-modest benefits they receive from TANF isn’t likely to improve educational outcomes. It could instead make them worse.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||04/03/2013|
Another Klan rally in TN.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||04/01/2013|
Let's give everyone who supports the legislation an IQ test. Or even a basic GED test.
I bet that would be fucking hilarious.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||04/02/2013|
So TN wants to punish the entire family if the children aren't doing well in school. FL punishes the unemployed by requiring mandatory drug testing; and North Dakota thinks a 6 week old clump of cells is a person.
The United States can not move forward when we continue to have states that have the mentality of the 20th Century.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||04/02/2013|
This country has really gone to hell.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||04/02/2013|
I think it is an excellent idea.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||04/02/2013|
That's because you're a savage, R7.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||04/02/2013|
The Republican ego needs at least one group under its thumb. Republicans = (insecure) bullies
|by Anonymous||reply 10||04/02/2013|
Obviously, the 1 percenters should be the only ones allowed to birth children.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||04/02/2013|
r11, ever watched the first few minutes of Idiocracy?
|by Anonymous||reply 12||04/02/2013|
Any 'yes' vote on this legislation must be accompanied by the grade reports of all the children of the person voting 'yes'.
That, and giving the actual legislators an IQ and/or GED test as suggested above, should be endlessly entertaining and oh so informative to the nation as a whole.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||04/02/2013|
Way to go to put these poor kids under even more pressure and hardship.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||04/02/2013|
And drug addicted parents are sure to make their children study harder, and not say, beat the crap out of them for losing assistance, eh genius @ r16?
|by Anonymous||reply 17||04/02/2013|
R16= Fat fuck, Rush Limbaugh
|by Anonymous||reply 18||04/02/2013|
It's draconian pure and simple.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||04/02/2013|
That's an undue burden to place on someone who is not legally old enough to financially support him/herself. If argued this way, I can't see how this law would be legal. A child is not old / wise / capable enough to sign a binding contract or self-sustain. So how can you directly tie a child's ability to survive on school performance?
|by Anonymous||reply 21||04/02/2013|
R16, I do work with poor kids and I can safely say you're an idiot nonpareil. You think little kids who are likely raising themselves and other siblings, who are sleep deprived because they don't have a proper bedroom or because mom got evicted again and they're crashed in a minivan for the week, and who rely on free/reduced lunch or the weekend handouts from the one charity interested in partnering with school-aged kids are going to be able to find time and support outside of school to study and maintain the GOP-acceptable grade level?
God, I hope you're a troll. If you aren't, I hope you shoot yourself while you're polishing your gun collection.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||04/02/2013|
Children have a natural tendency to blame themselves whenever something goes wrong for the family. If there's a bitter divorce, a child will typically think "Daddy is gone because I was bad", or something irrational. It's how the child brain copes with random disaster, it's a way of feeling that the child has some control over events.
If the family benefits are cut because of this law, the children are going to feel responsible for all the bad things that happen to the entire family, even if the parents spend the rent money on drugs. This law will hurt the children much more than the parents it's aimed at.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||04/02/2013|
Forget bombing North Korea back to the stone age. We have a few states here we could lose easily.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||04/02/2013|
Maybe they can get Todd Akin and Michelle Bachman to teach science.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||04/02/2013|
Sarah Palin can teach geography and birth control, which would be a first in her family.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||04/02/2013|
Stacey Campfield is the same tool who sponsored the "Don't Say Gay" bill. God, I wish somebody would dig up some dirt on this smug fuckface.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||04/02/2013|
of course it's in the south....
|by Anonymous||reply 28||04/02/2013|
They should also eliminate the mortgage and child deductions for any parents whose children receive averages below a C.
I am SICK TO DEATH of supporting those lazy deadbeats with my taxes, and if they're not going to do their jobs as parents then they shouldn't get those benefits.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||04/02/2013|
It's all about penalizing the poor (and poor children) because the economy sucks and the 1% are having a great time.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||04/02/2013|
"They should also eliminate the mortgage and child deductions for any parents whose children receive averages below a C."
Helicopter parents are already harassing teachers and principals whenever Junior gets poor grades, imagine if they had a financial incentive?
Seriously, can you imagine how terrible life would be for teachers, if this idiotic law were ever passed? Sure, they fantasize about penalizing the parents when a student doesn't do well, but imagine the reality. Not just entitled helicopter parents, but imagine knowing your grade would be responsible for driving the poor deeper into poverty, or for pissing off someone desperate and unstable.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||04/02/2013|
When I was on internship, a social worker with Chicago Public schools told me that the worst days for social workers in the system was the day after report card day in some areas. Kids would return to school with visible bruises and welts they received as punishment for receiving what the parents considered unsatisfactory grades. The social workers would have to spend most of their time that day reporting suspected cases of abuse to DCFS. The families' livelihood wasn't in any way tied to their children's academic performance.
I hope that some clever Democrat attaches a rider to the bill stipulating funding for the anticipated increase to the caseload.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||04/02/2013|
This, like drug testing, is all to punish the poor. They've wanted to revoke voting rights for those on welfare too.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||04/02/2013|
What's ironic is a large segment of the people who vote for the Republican party are on welfare!
|by Anonymous||reply 36||04/02/2013|
Given the gun enthusiasm in TN, I can only imagine that teachers will be threatened with gun violence from parents who lose their benefits because of the grades the teachers give.
I'd be very scared to be a teacher in Tennessee knowing that I had the power to take someone's access to food away.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||04/02/2013|
While we are at it, let's base our politician's salary on a sliding scale too.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||04/02/2013|
The Governor of Tennessee also refused anything pertaining to Medicaid expansion at all. Many rural hospitals in Tennessee might close because of that. A friend of mine told me that. And Stephen Colbert made fun of it on his show rather well.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||04/02/2013|
I wouldn't tie payment to their grads, but I'd sure as hell tie it to attendance
|by Anonymous||reply 41||04/03/2013|
TN receives $1.27 from the Feds for ever dollar it pays in through taxes. So is TN trying to gyp (oh, pardon the un-politically correct term) the rest of us law-abiding tax-payers elsewhere in the country in this whole shenanigan? TN needs to tell us what it's going to do with the proceeds it pockets from scamming poor children.
Why can't y'all contribute even-Steven and stop relying on the other states to carry your load? And which states might those be? Hmm? Yes! The BLUE ones.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||04/03/2013|
R33 is on to something. Can one of our Tennessee DLers email that post to your Democratic state reps?
And BTW, thanks again, Tommy "Falseface" Thompson and Bill Clinton. This welfare "reform" has worked out quite well for us, hasn't it?
|by Anonymous||reply 43||04/03/2013|