Tennessee state senator: Reduce welfare payments to families if children don’t do well in school
A Tennessee state senator has come up with what I believe is a first: Republican State Sen. Stacey Campfield of Knoxville proposes to cut welfare benefits to parents whose children don’t make “satisfactory academic progress” in school.
Campfield believes that his bill would compel parents to work harder to ensure their kids excel in school. As you might imagine, his Senate Bill 1312 is triggering a lot of comment.
(If you want to read about another odd law, here is a story about an Arizona legislator who wants all public high-school seniors to recite an oath supporting the U.S. Constitution to be able to graduate.)
Here is a news article from the Knoxville News Sentinel:
While the Knoxville Republican says SB132 is a step toward “breaking the cycle of poverty,” Linda O’Neal, executive director of the Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, says it could make life more difficult for parents and children who are already struggling.
Campfield said in an interview that the best way to “break the cycle of poverty” is through education and a child’s success in schooling rests on a “three-legged stool” — teachers, schools and parents.
He said Tennessee has already embarked on education reforms designed to improve the quality of teachers and the quality of schools. There should also be a focus on the “third leg,” parents, he said. “We’ve set the tone (through legislation) to push and improve teachers and schools,” Campfield said. “Now is the time to push those parents. This bill is giving them motivation to do more to help their children learn in school.”
“If the family doesn’t care if the child goes to school or does well in school, the odds of that child getting out of poverty are pretty low,” the senator said.
The bill applies to the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. Current law says parents or guardians of children who are receiving benefits can lose 20 percent of those benefits if a child does not attend school. Campfield’s bill adds a new requirement that the child make “satisfactory academic progress” as well and raises the penalty to 30 percent of benefits.
“The maximum benefit for a mother with two children is $185 a month,” O’Neal said in an interview. “That’s already low. If you take $60 plus dollars away, you’re just further limiting people who already have extremely few resources… It’s just piling on.”
The bill defines “satisfactory academic progress” as advancing from one grade to the next and “receiving a score of proficient or advanced on required state examinations in the subject areas of mathematics and reading/language arts.” Those who fail to meet “competency” standards on end-of-course exams could also be deemed fall short of “satisfactory academic progress.”
On his own blog, Campfield explains his bill:
One of the top tickets to break the chain of poverty is education. To achieve a quality education is like a three legged stool. The state has put a lot of responsibility on schools and teachers to improve student performance. If the children don’t produce, it could impact the pay of the teacher and the standing of the school with the state. We have pushed two of the three legs of the student performance (teachers and schools) to improve, and they are.
While those two legs are important, one other leg has proven to be more important. The third leg has shown to have a greater impact on the children performance than the school, than the teacher, than race of the child, than the income of the parent, than the location of the student. The third leg of the stool (probably the most important leg) is the parents. We have done little to hold them accountable for their child’s performance. What my bill would do is put some responsibility on parents for their child’s performance.
If your child is failing their classes, if your child is not showing up to school, if your child has quit school. That is unacceptable. It is highly unlikely that child will ever escape poverty. The state can not continue to support the generational cycle of poverty. Just because parents may have quit school does not mean it is acceptable if their child does. Parents are responsible to make sure their kids are ready for school and that they get an education. If parents are not holding up their leg of the job (and your kids are not special needs) then the state is going to start holding back a portion of that parents government benefits.
The goal is not to punish anyone. No one will necessarily or instantly lose benefits because of this bills passage. The goal is to encourage parents to do what they should already be doing. We have to start breaking the cycle of generational poverty. I, nor anyone can assure a perfect 100% solution where everyone gets everything and no one loses benefits. but if we can pull 99% out of the cycle of poverty I will take that step.
–From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
159 comments Add your comment
Ghetto Kid
January 27th, 2013
2:52 am
oh please.. the idiot in the white house would never let this happen.. hell we are all going to be on welfare before he gets out of office…
James Jordan
January 27th, 2013
3:11 am
Sounds like a good plan to me, pretty soon there will be a whole lot of people off of welfare.
"Increase the Dole"
January 27th, 2013
4:49 am
U liberals make me laff….”oh no, not the children”….,. Okay smart guys/gals, the hand-me-something-for-free thinkers come up with a better solution. I understand the idea for this law. the senator is trying to get the parents ENGAGED in their childrens upbringing, rather than be spawning factories like so many rats and cockroaches that the rest of society has to deal with. Maybe this lazy country needs a far swing to the right to get its priorities back on track. The founding fathers didnt break away from England so they could sit down. And sit down and say “hand me this or that” is what too many ppl here now are saying.
"Increase the Dole"
January 27th, 2013
4:53 am
@point/counterpoint…..lol. u miss the point. Ur point is tangental.
Reality
January 27th, 2013
5:54 am
Sounds like another way Government Schools are becoming nothing more than free baby sitting services. It’s bad enough that these schools are poorly educating the children, but you put the responsibility on a teacher as to wether or not someone gets welfare, they’ll start passing out passing grades like it’s candy (wait, they are already doing that). Look for Tennessee to skyrocket in the national standings on education, because grade inflation is going to skyrocket.
Up On My Soapbox
January 27th, 2013
6:34 am
So the kid has a learning disability and you cut his family’s benefits back so he goes to bed hungry at night. Yessireee, that sounds like a perfect solution to me.
Beverly Fraud
January 27th, 2013
6:36 am
We ask teachers to “accept no excuses” when they are being held “accountable” (often for factors completely outside their control as evidence by the fact that a teacher can be downgraded on an evaluation for merely speaking to a child in order to redirect them to stay focused-yes this is part of the actual evaluation framework)
So by the same token let’s “accept no excuses” in holding parents accountable. Want to change some parent behaviors without “taking food out of the babies mouths”? The following would do so, though rights activists would howl (And by all rights, at the risk of sounding redundant, they would have every right to howl.)
Let’s say, instead of cutting benefits, we were to remove televisions. No baby “loses food” and there is precious little evidence that would suggest, unlike food, removing the television from the home would have a detrimental effect is there?
Heck, why leave it to those receiving assistance…let’s apply it to everybody!
You don’t think some parents wouldn’t be suddenly motivated to promote better behavior among their children if they couldn’t watch American Idol? You don’t think the removing the TV in and of itself might not have a benefit, if for no other reason children reading out of sheer boredom?
No the above isn’t the perfect or even feasible solution, but one thing is right about the Sen. It is a three legged stool and we need all three legs on board, because right now we are doing the equivalent of asking teachers to enter a butt kicking contest on one leg then blaming them when they get their @sses kicked.
doctor
January 27th, 2013
6:45 am
While this could work for some it is definitely not for all. For sure this article is another divisive ploy it does show how the impoverished keep paving their own path. The big problem I see with implementing it is depending on teachers to be the backbone and allowing them to give the grades. With how we see other teacher led things being handled
ie: Atlanta, how can we trust that they will fairly grade students. Look at the HOPE and how many unqualified students have walked out with free money only to do nothing with it.
cletis
January 27th, 2013
7:04 am
big ma ma you is wrong ! this ole boy just wants to get the message across that these folks on welfare have more time on there hands doing nothing for the Benji’s and should not be crack in,hooking ,robing and killing and spending more time with there children and keeping there little faces off milk cartons they made them and usually more than there share knowing they cannot support so the least they can do is see they don’t grow up like them this message is not for all on welfare but you know who they are !
Carl
January 27th, 2013
7:08 am
This will not work, the parents could care less about the education of their children just as long as they get their EBT cards. They will just have more kids to compensate the loss of their income. This country has created a moucher class that will not change unless you reduce the benefits they receive. obama will not allow that reduction. obama wants his low informatin voter moucher to keep the democrats in power. Tie the benefits received to drug testing and some basic work that they must do ever month to continue to receive the stollen money from us workers.
SouthernGal
January 27th, 2013
7:10 am
The only way to stop generational poverty is to end reproduction. Require all receipients to be on BC. If a parent proves to be incompetent…emotionally and/or financially…allow these children to be adopted.
Having babies does not make you a parent.
Mike Browden
January 27th, 2013
7:30 am
Mentally challenged people tend to be poor … or politicians.
ML
January 27th, 2013
7:47 am
Good Lord. Given the absurdity of this mind-bogglingly ridiculous proposal, I knew that it came out of a Republican’s mouth and mind before I even read the article. It’s almost as if some of these Republican politicians are devolving. Where do they dredge these people up from, and who in their right (sic) minds elects them into office?
Broken system is broken
January 27th, 2013
7:51 am
So the solution that some propose is….spend more money to TRAIN PARENTS?? Gawd, we are doomed!
Liberal Pariah
January 27th, 2013
7:58 am
I am not sure Sen. Campfield’s proposal is the way to go but what’s wrong with asking for some accountability? These kids are more likely to continue on govt assistance as adults if they don’t break this cycle. Of course, Liberals won’t support any program if it involves accountability. Remember, those on government assistance are ENTITLED to it
Mrs. Teacher
January 27th, 2013
8:01 am
What penalties will parents that are not receiving “benefits” get if their child is not making progress?
Michael
January 27th, 2013
8:05 am
Conservatives live in a make-believe world and then impose their misshapen social programs on the rest of us through legislation. The 1950’s were great for white men but that’s about it. I guess that’s why they call it the good old days.
TeacherMom4
January 27th, 2013
8:05 am
The biggest problem I have with this idea is that so much of what makes these kids lag happens before they even hit kindergarten. If a kid starts out behind, they often stay behind. Holding a child accountable for whether or not they were read to, talked to, lived in a stimulating environment, and attended some form of preschool seems to put pressure in the wrong place. I would love to see parenting classes required from birth in order to receive assistance. Kids who begin with the right foundations, with parents who nurture their academic growth from the beginning, are much more successful in school. I would also rather see the money tied to job training or volunteer service on the part of the parent-make them work for the money. I’d also hate to see kids abused by their parents because of bad grades. The parents clearly don’t know how to support their children’s education to begin with, so I fear there would be a lot of reactive rather than proactive behavior regarding grades and school performance.
Michael
January 27th, 2013
8:09 am
Once again, the poor are the reason this country’s ills. Yet bankers roam free.
teacher&mom
January 27th, 2013
8:11 am
I teach at the high school level. While parental support is appreciated, I’ve learned to not depend on it. Lack of parental support has many dimensions. Poor parenting has little to do with income status.
If I don’t have parental support it does make my job harder, however, it doesn’t make my job impossible.
Has the senator considered the increase in paperwork/red tape this will create?
What is the timeline for improving grades? What is the timeline for cutting off or reestablishing benefits? If a child’s benefits are cut off after a semester of high school, does he/she have to wait an entire semester for the benefits to be reestablished?
Does anyone in politics ever look at the entire picture? Or, do they simply enjoy handing out simplistic “fixes” that appeal to a certain segment of the voting population?
Wait….I already know the answers….silly me. What was I thinking!
If the stool fits.........sit on it!
January 27th, 2013
8:11 am
Am I the only one who kept having the same thought as I read the article? There is a fourth leg to this stool and that is the child/student. Based on age appropriateness we have to set some expectations of them also. Paint the dream, attempt to plant the seed, water it and pray it grows. Without a return to discipline in our schools our society is doomed, though. We have swung too far in the other direction and now schools are barely organized chaos is many places. God help us that we come to our senses. Of course that would require us coming to God and quit using our own devices. Well, by now you can see plenty that the world will disagree with in my comments. Look around and check the results before you do.
Michael
January 27th, 2013
8:13 am
I have a JD and cannot begin to teach, let’s say math, to a child. I took those classes 30 years ago and have no reason to re-learn those skills. Yet you want the poor to have these skills with some sort of incentive pay. And for what it’s worth, Georgia has gotten rid of most of welfare payments already so we will likely latch onto any idea that can rid welfare of the remaining recipients.
You Have Got To Be Kidding
January 27th, 2013
8:14 am
I certainly have no problem with parents who receive welfare being required to contribute in some way for those benefits, but taking food from a family’s mouths because the children don’t do well in school is not the way to do it.
This fool Campfield must be related to our own Paul Broun, another renowned maniac. I’m just waiting for the day one of these filthy republican dirtbags tries to put through legislation to have all welfare parents and children euthanized if they don’t follow one of their insane ideas.
Blue Gum
January 27th, 2013
8:16 am
Great idea! Anything anyone can do to get these blood suckers off of the proverbial government teet. I say drug test all welfare recipients, make them show proof of actually going out and looking for a job (signed applications etc), do random check ups to see if their free government money is being spent on the light bill and food and not 40 oz, dime bags and lotto tickets. You can’t take money from the people who create jobs and give it to the lazy self entitled moocher welfare class forever, eventually the well is gonna run dry.
teacher&mom
January 27th, 2013
8:19 am
I teach in a rural district. We have our fair share of generational poverty. To those that think someone living on welfare has an “easy” life, you are stupid.
I have students who sleep every night on the floor. They may or may not have heat. Their diet is poor….think canned ravioli and spaghetti. They live under constant stress.
If you ever talk to these students and realize what their lives are like outside the classroom walls, you will be humbled and amazed they function as well as they do.
Beastwhistle
January 27th, 2013
8:19 am
I wonder if Campfield and his privileged colleagues would support a bill requiring high-income families to pay 30 percent more taxes if their kids don’t make satisfactory academic progress?
bob
January 27th, 2013
8:20 am
It figures leftist would whine about this idea. Welfare was supposed to be a bridge, a way for someone between jobs to cope. Now it is a way of life for millions and growing. Parents of failing kids should be punished and if taking some section 8 money or welfare payments is an option then go for it.
Johnny Robinson
January 27th, 2013
8:29 am
I don’t think this measure is totally the right approach. It does have some merit in the regard that the parents should be held accountable for ensuring their children are attending school. Making the parent accountable for ensuring their children;s grades improve is really pushing the limit. First of all, the parent may not have an adequate education themselves. I think there should be some incentive for parents to be educated. When parents are educated, then they will place a greater value on education for their children.
I think the place to start is to ensure that all parents who are receiving this aid are given the opportunity to get educated themselves first.
Rob
January 27th, 2013
8:36 am
My concern with this idea is that it could make a bad situation worse, but we do need to find a way to make the third leg accountable. We already know that the vast majority of the accountability issue rests on the teachers back as their salary is tied to their job, and we know the students accountability is checked by their grades and in some cases attendance is tied to driving privileges, but how do you hold a parent accountable short of getting DFACS involved for abuse or neglect.
The real issue here is the fact that welfare has become a lifestyle for some that is draining the paychecks of the working class and the coffers of the government. Just because some people actually go out and work for a living doesn’t mean that others should be able to “sit around” and collect a portion of those that work salary. Many of us already have children we don’t need to support others. Welfare should be workfare if you collect you should be required to report to a company or government agency and be required to do some kind of job or receive some kind of training that will eventually lead to you leaving the welfare roll.
Welfare = Workfare = Temporary
woodrow
January 27th, 2013
8:47 am
So, basically, punish poor people for being poor. Cute. Kind of reminds me of the lottery, which I call the poor man’s tax, or tricking poor people out of their grocery money.
sissyuga
January 27th, 2013
8:47 am
Someone is finally trying to help balance the responsibilties of educating the masses from the teacher alone to the family. One of my students who is eager to learn told me that she told her mother she wants to go back to the public library. Her mother responded by saying, “I don’t want to go.” I assure you they have transporation. This is a child who will most likely repeat third grade and who is on a first-second grade reading level. This was communicated at conferences. I am doing my part. .I am sending home literacy bags for my students (she included). She receives intensive reading/language arts instruction everyday. I can’t “fix” her by myself.
sissyuga
January 27th, 2013
8:50 am
sorry- transportation
Walter Little
January 27th, 2013
9:04 am
Another example of taking away from the little man to further line the pockets of the politicians. I agree with the comments saying it’s unfair to put such a heavy burden on a young child. it’s one thing to ask them to get good grades – and I fully support that concept – but to basically add “on your family could starve”, is putting an unnecessary burden on them. I think this needs to be shelved under “an idea before it’s time”.
Tim
January 27th, 2013
9:10 am
I think this is a WONDERFUL idea, my younger siblings 9 of them all dropped out. Why because it was allowed by the parental units who have a made a living off of the Federal Government. Now of that 9 , three have gone on to improve themselves get their education in some cases even go to college and become business owner. Please understand this was with little or no encouragement from the parental units. Had a bill such as this been in place maybe all of them would have obtained at least their HS diploma and not be drawing unemployment,social security,welfare et al. The problem is they grew up thinking this is the norm,now as 42-53 year old adults they are teaching their children my nieces and nephews that this is okay,this is how the real world works.
Name (required)
January 27th, 2013
9:11 am
How about fixing the problem BEFORE it happens? I’d be all for funding free access to birth control, sterilization, condoms, abortions, etc if it prevented children from being unfairly born into families that can’t support them.
You Have Got To Be Kidding
January 27th, 2013
9:17 am
Oh Bob, when the republicans bring back the debtor’s prisons and then concentration camps for those they consider “undesirables”, I’m sure you’ll be right there looking for a job as an administrator. You sound like you’d be great at stoking the ovens.
Pride and Joy
January 27th, 2013
9:22 am
Lee, I agree with you about unsupported kids but you have to look at how sexist your comment is.
You said “six kids by five different fathers…” You are putting the blame solely on the woman.
The MEN have six different kids by five different mothers…is also true. What’s more, the MAN abandons the kids and leaves the woman without income and a child to care for.
Your gender, men…YOU need to MAN UP. If you make a baby, you need to pay for the baby and stop abandoning them for the rest of we taxpayers to pay for.
Fled
January 27th, 2013
9:27 am
More proof (as if we need any more) that the only infinite force in the universe is republican stupidity.
Pride and Joy
January 27th, 2013
9:28 am
What’s fair is fair.
The Senator said “to “break the cycle of poverty” is through education and a child’s success in schooling rests on a “three-legged stool” — teachers, schools and parents.”
Then all three legs need to lose income, not just the parents: teachers and schools need to lose their income too.
For a stool to work, ALL THREE legs must be the same. Teachers and schools must also lose money for failing to teach the kids.
I Teach Writing
January 27th, 2013
11:14 am
The prevalence of eugenical discourse in this thread is deeply disturbing. The idea that poverty is somehow genetic, which is the implicit claim underlying all of the “Sterilize the poor people!” posts, isn’t just unscientific, it’s un-American. That whole “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” bit of the Declaration makes plain our national tenets on socio-economic mobility. Sure, it took us a while to get around to acknowledging in law that “all men are created equal” actually meant all men, not just white guys with property. Then we figured out that maybe women were fully human, too. But the foundational principle was clear from the get-go.
I’m going to avoid being “that guy” in this discussion — the one who confirms Godwin’s Law — but in this case it’s pretty difficult not to see the parallel.
Abe Froman
January 27th, 2013
2:34 pm
What’s really wrong with this idea? Is it ok for parents to teach their kids how to live on welfare or to allow their kids to become educated enough to support themselves? Let’s be honest – if there isn’t an incentive to get off of welfare, why would you? If there isn’t an incentive to perform in free public schools, why would you?
Beverly Fraud
January 27th, 2013
3:05 pm
Smash the guy’s idea if you want; rightfully so even. But on the macro level, you can’t get away from the fact that the three legged stool works better than the two legged stool.
What we have now is a bunch of educrats calling loose stool sound educational policy, then blaming the teacher when it fails.
Jim Wooten used to say the single best educational reform we could come up with is stabilizing the 2 parent family. Didn’t agree on a lot from him, but on this one it’s hard to find an argument-again, individual exceptions apply, but on the macro level I think he was spot on.
Blue Gum
January 28th, 2013
12:34 am
Folks, it’s not taking away from poor. The poor are already receiving money from hat isn’t theirs through welfare. You can’t take away something from someone if they didn’t do anything to deserve it in the first place.
Catlady
January 28th, 2013
8:09 am
How about let’s link ALL parents’ ability to claim a deduction for their child on whether the kid behaves in school, whether the parents come to meetings, etc. THAT would help everyone!
Big Mama
January 28th, 2013
8:31 am
Bug and Cletis-
You both need to improve your reading skills. Or, did you respond without reading all my postings? In addition to my previous postings, I would add that I would like to see the return of a WPA-type program to provide an income to those who are struggling while also benefitting society (those who provide that income). Our parks and infrastructure could use the additional investment. This would give another opportunity for welfare recipients to be “contributers” rather than “takers”. See, I used words you could understand!
Heika
January 28th, 2013
11:03 am
I have no faith in humanity on the Internet to read the comments on this story. Just wanted to put that out there. Bye, folks.
Ole Guy
January 28th, 2013
12:19 pm
With no (unwarranted) disrespect to the senator, the good senator, like so many of his counterparts (both in state and federal governments) resides on a planet completely devoid of common sense, and of anything reality on terra firma.
But let’s back up to point I have advovated in previous remarks: EVERYONE, regardless of socio economic background, should/MUST be held to exactly the same standards. The kid of affluent means and the kid from “the other side of the tracks” are all (in the larger global perspective) competing for the same “chair” on the totum pole of society. Why (based simply on the kid’s socio economic status of his parents) should the kid not come to expect the same opportunities as his “well-dressed counterpart on the shiny red bicycle? By the very same token, why should the “poor” kid’s difficulties in school be addressed differently from those of that “rich” kid?
Let’s just do away with references to the rich vs poor thing…kids, under the right (not always fun) motivation WILL eventually rise to expectations…IF those expectations are expressed as a not-an-option demand. Try it, teachers…if you’re not too afraid.
catmom
January 28th, 2013
12:20 pm
Sounds good in theory, but if put in place it would just lead to more cheating.
Gary Weber
January 28th, 2013
1:45 pm
From Illinois – I think you have a good Idea. For those who think children will be deprived, here is how it works in Peoria,Ill. People receive welfare for living expenses, which includes food. However, those children now receive breakfast and lunch at school and many have supper at a local food pantry or church. Perhaps schools could begin teaching basic living skills again!
Catlady
January 28th, 2013
6:22 pm
I think there are more than 3 legs to the stool: Parents, teachers, students, schools and their systems, AND STATE LEGISLATORS and federal entities, such as Congress. And the Department of Ed. We might throw on local taxpayers also. Each of thse helps stabilize the stool.