LG, a longtime reader, wrote a letter to Senator Stacey Campfield (R) in Tennessee, who sponsored the legislation to cut the welfare benefits of poor families by as much as 30% if their children don’t raise their test scores. The legislation is inherently discriminatory, she writes, because it singles out poor families for punishment.
This raises interesting questions. How about increasing taxes on wealthy families whose children don’t raise their test scores? Senator Campfield would get way more letters from them! And people would begin asking who made the tests so important. And whether they should be used to mete out punishments and rewards. That would be a boon for the anti-testing movement.
LG writes:
Dear Senator Campfield,
Thank you for your reply.
This is a radical solution for a very important issue. How can anyone reconcile this same targeting strategy for middle and higher income families whose children are in the same academic position?
What is proposed in this bill is discriminatory in that it does not solve academic performance issues by making some rules for some of the people to follow while leaving the others to continually fail in schools. Where is the incentive for middle or upper level income families?
A large concern is for the children at lower income levels who have not yet been identified as having learning disabilities. As you said, no system is 100% perfect, including child study services. Some children may not be identified as learning disabled for years–should their families be punished by this?
I would think a better bill would target the inequality in our economic infrastructure. Apply more oversight to the assistance programs to help people get out of situations of poverty. Provide opportunities for employment, and offer health care for families who struggle. Stop discriminating against the poor and provide solutions to aid in their upward mobility.
If this is about holding parents accountable, why hasn’t this bill been piggy-backed with parental accountability for all income levels? To make any solution about money on all levels is also flawed because people with access to money may try to “buy” results or intimidate those reporting grades. The poor do not have the luxury of “buying” their way out of anything. What your bill proposes is segregating the population into haves and have-nots and then creating different rules for the have-nots. This solves nothing in the way of making positive changes in academic progress.
Instead, hold parents accountable for communicating with schools or attending parent sessions by other means. If a parent is abusive toward a child, there are laws protecting the child. It is difficult to prove if a parent is uninterested in the academic well-being of a child, but perhaps there could be requirements for ALL parents of academically-struggling children by law that do not involve financial burdens.
This bill is anti-American, and should not be pursued. As a public servant, it is your responsibility to find another way to reach these students. Singling out low income families is discrimination, no matter how good the intentions behind the act.
Poverty and poor test scores seem to have an inherent correlation; so to raise the test scores, make the poverty worse? That would seem to be an inverse relationship. Not only is the logic faulty there, it’s faulty at the base. The purpose given for imposing NCLB and all the tests was to equalize education and reformers are calling education a civil rights issue. You cannot have civil rights without human rights. How can anyone care about these kids civil rights without caring about their basic needs and human rights. I thought that poverty was being overlooked because it is too hard to tackle or these people are simple, but I am reconsidering that.
AMEN, Dayamonay. So many people who are NOT poor, think the poor DESERVE to be poor. After all, isn’t this the land of opportunity? NOPE…we USED to be the country of opportunity. Now we are a country run by big money and their lobbyist in collusion with the politicians. This is how the laws made benefit the rich.
They have been using the same faulty logic for years. Reward (high income) successful districts and punish districts that do not make AYP. Reward teachers whose students do well on standardized tests; punish teachers who students do not rank well. Stress out/ punish students with weeks of test prep; eliminate stress relievers: music, art, phys ed,… Now go for the jugular. Punish poor families if their kids don’t test well.
I don’t like this idea, but at its roots it could be looked at as fair given the effects of teachers and parents. We know that parents have a far greater effect on student outcomes than teachers.
If the reformers wants to fire me because of my test scores, and relinquish my ability to feed my kids, then we ought to find ways to hit parents who do not take education seriously.
Plus, maybe finally parents will realize that test scores are a sad way of guaging student learning. They would fight – they would opt out.
Overall, I do not support the idea because I believe this would compound our issues with poverty, but it does appeal to me because then finally maybe parents will see what it feels like and get on board.
I guarantee you this – could you imagine the opt out rates after such legislation was passed? Could you imagine the demonstrations? Can you imagine the mass dissaproval. This could bring attention to where it belongs.
“I guarantee you this – could you imagine the opt out rates after such legislation was passed? Could you imagine the demonstrations?”
Not really, because this would impact those least able to organize and speak up, and it would impact them in a way that would make them even less able to speak up.
The fact that this evil has been bestowed upon you in no way makes it right to bestow it on parents as well, especially not the poorest of the poor parents.
Frankly, you sound sort of like the private sector people grumbling about tenure “well, I don’t have any guaranteed job protection, why should teachers?” Maybe the problem isn’t that teachers have tenure, maybe the problem is that private sector workers don’t. Similarly with your situation, the problem is not that parents aren’t punished for children’s “low performance” (based solely on tests), the problem is that teachers are.
I hate to agree, but I do. Many of my students who are poor performing are from poverty and they don’t care about their education because no one at home does. We’ve actually been told by parents their children are our problem from 8 to 3; they aren’t going to come to school and deal with the issues. If my job depends on their test scores; then I want there to be consequences for the parents who aren’t doing their part.
Trish:
“Many of my students who are poor performing are from poverty and they don’t care about their education because no one at home does. ”
I’m not sure that punishing them by reducing their welfare benefits is going to make them care more. If that was true, then take it to the extreme – take away all of their welfare benefits so that would maximize how much they care?
Why do you say they don’t care?
I’m not sure I fully agree with your analogy with tenure, but I agree with you that this is not a good idea overall.
I would also propose this – rather than using this punitively, why not also impose sanctions on middle and upper class families? Why not apply testing outcomes and VAM outcomes to parents and make them a higher percent on their property tax?
I still think that since parents have way more influence over student outcomes than teachers or schools that we ought to investigate ways to hold them responsible.
And I understand your point about not foisting an erroneous process on parents, but hey, it has been foisted on us and many of those parents don’t support us. If we hold them financially responsible for testing outcomes, maybe they will wake up?
I totally agree with you, Dienne. It is morally offensive. I lost my job in part over deformer generated idiocy ( the rest, budget). I would never wish this idiocy on those least able to defend themselves.
Wow, this is utterly absurd – I hadn’t heard about this before. It’s baffling how some of these folks get and stay elected. Thanks for posting.
Who can we call, write , or email?
The premise is ridiculous, there are many reasons why a student can not pass those tests.
But I think the real question is , why choose monetary consequences for one group of people?
Tennessee legislators, you are bullies Just like the bullies in the playground, you know who to pick on. Imagine if there had been a whiff of this idea floating around for middle and/or upper income households. The idea would have been dead before you could identify the flavor.
As an educator , I suggest you get rid of standardized testing, and save your money that way.
Except you are probably afraid that the people who bully you, test lobbyists. “Ed reformers”, etc…
Oldschoolteach: The contact information is available in Diane’s March 31st post, “E-mail the Health Committee of the Tennessee Legislature.”
Thanks!
Decreasing $s given out in entitlement programs makes tons of sense – and this is at least an interesting idea on how to drive some good from a needed cut. Do people think this is better than just wholesale decreasing welfare benefits?
If by “entitlement programs” you mean corporate welfare, then we are in complete agreement.
Who are the OPPORTUNISTS using poor grades as rational for cutting benefits to students? The people at the top have caused all the money issues and learning obstacles. Cutback there! A child’s first choice is to understand and succeed. Punitive strategies DO NOT WORK. All they do is give a sense of satisfaction to the disciplinarian. Where are the genuine problem solvers?So far, all that is suggested saves money, or puts money in greedy places. Focus on the top, not on the defenseless.
I signed a petition the other day in response to this legislation. This was the response I received from the Senator, and my reply, (in inverse order).
Dear Sen. Campfield,
Thank you for your prompt response to my petition, I am pleased to read of your commitment to child well-fare. However, this “hit ’em where it hurts” approach only serves to reinforce the obstacles of the down trodden. If you want to lift people out of poverty support legislation that empowers impoverished families. It is well documented by cognitive psychologists that incentives and rewards are much more effective tools for behavior modification than punishments and humiliations.
Ask your constituents, what would encourage them to strive to improve levels of participation in school? Would music lessons encourage participation? Sports? Field trips to public spaces? Internships?
Thank you again for your consideration,
From: Stacey Campfield
To: K-12 News Network
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: Stop Punishing Children: No School Progress Conditions on TANF Benefits!
NOTHING in this bill would touch food stamps, SNAP, WIC, school lunches, housing credits or any of the over 70 charities that give out free food in Knox county alone. This program would only cover a small portion of a straight cash payment.
I think we can both agree 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 two legs of the stool, 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 for results based scoring of the student performance (teachers and schools) 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, learning disabled,etc.) then the state is going to start giving the parents some simple options.
They can enter their child in a FREE tutoring class OR they can begin to tutor the child on their own OR they can enter a FREE parenting class OR they can attend FREE parent teacher conferences OR they can provide proof they have been attending the FREE parent teacher conferences. If the parent refuses to do ANY of these simple and FREE things to help their child get an education so they can break the cycle of poverty then, yes, the state will hold back a portion of the parents cash payment and give that money to a parent who will do those things who can not get on the program now.
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. Any money saved by the state will go back into the program to provide services for those who are taking the steps to improve their situation. I, nor anyone, can assure a perfect 100% solution where everyone gets everything and no one ever loses benefits. but if we can pull 99% out of the cycle of poverty I will take that step.
We know the “just give them a fish a day for the rest of their life” system is not working. Linking benefits to a parent doing some absolute minimum things to help their child’s performance in school is showing incredible results in over 40 countries. I think it’s worth a shot here.
Yours in service,
Sen. Stacey Campfield
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 2, 2013, at 2:55 PM, “K-12 News Network” wrote:
> Dear Tennessee State Lawmakers,
>
> News reports that you plan to cut Temporary Assistance to Needy Families by 30% have reached voters across Tennessee and the United States, and we’re shocked and disgusted at your stunt to punish children in need.(1)
>
> You make exceptions to learning disabled and other special needs children, but pegging money for food to how well a child does in school is just plain wrong. If that child struggles due to a “wealth gap” that puts her/him behind the starting line to begin with, how do you ever think that child will be able to keep up when benefits the entire family needs — for food, rent, heat, transportation & other necessities — rests on that child’s shoulders?(2) Make sure they’re well-fed, safe kids in stable homes first. Drop this punitive legislation and work on laws to lift unemployment in Tennessee.
>
>
> (1) http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/01/1802811/tennessee-advances-legislation-that-would-tie-welfare-to-childrens-grades/
> (2) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/28/tennessee-wants-to-tie-welfare-benefits-to-good-grades/
> http://openstates.org/tn/bills/108/HB261/
> http://openstates.org/tn/bills/108/SB132/
Depriving anyone of Maslow’s hieracrchy of basic needs is perverse, deviant, immoral, heinous, unjust, inequitable, unfair, and just plain evil.
There are better ways to motivate the poor to buy into the culture of education, and stressing them further by taking away vital aid is reprehensible and will not work.
The Tennessee legislature, which I daresay is not too replete with critical thinkers, obviously has not yet looked at all possibilities nor has it been innovative.
It has simply mistaken cruelty for wisdom.
Circle the wagons and fire inward! We Americans seem to have a penchant for doing the worst possible thing in an attempt to solve our problems. I believe ignorance is a self sustaining reaction. People want someone to blame for the inequity and the loss of the American dream, but they won’t follow the money. It’s not the poor it’s the 1%. But, how can we hate those that we wish to become? Better to find a more fitting scapegoat. Instead of seeing poverty as the cause of poor attitudes at school, we intend to solve a poverty induced problem by threatening deeper poverty. It boggles the mind.
AMEN!!!
Can we amend the law to raise the taxes by 30% of wealthy parents with underperforming offspring?
Or is this just another sleazy attack by plutocratic hatchet-men on poor kids?
“Can we amend the law to raise the taxes by 30% of wealthy parents with underperforming offspring?”
The spirit of your commentary seems to have been derived from the right place, but what’s to stop the “haves” from trying to buy their way out of failing grades?
Money goes hand-in-hand with intimidation, especially on those high enough in the food chain to have a lot to lose by ruffling the feathers of the wealthier constituency. My first teaching job in this state was in a wealthy community where the principal had no backbone and the parents and students did whatever they wished with no repercussions. Case in point: Eighth grade students arrived at the school dance drunk, and the principal looked the other way. Did anyone do anything about it? No.
Another example of intimidation: In my current district, an art teacher once admitted to me that the principal raised a student’s grade on the report card because a parent complained. The teacher said that the student did not earn the higher grade, but apparently it did not matter. The parent was an attorney.
Creating an incentive system for higher grades that is tied to money is never a good idea. Grades can be bought with power and influence no matter how much we’d like to think it isn’t true.
Diane Ravitch, I foolishly posted a comment that included my name and email address. Is it possible for you to delete it? Sorry for the inconvenience!
tskware: Done.
Thank you!
“The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” -Lincoln
These uninvolved parents, who already resent schools and the establishment system/hierarchy of schools will not be motivated by this. This will only anger them further, and possibly provoke them to violence. I was scared of some of the parents I had at an inner-city school. They resented me, even though they were only meeting me for the first time. I represented something they hate, so they hated, or at least disliked, me right off the bat.
This bill scares me for the kids who might go without, as well as for the teachers these parents will blame! It will be another example of how “the man” is sticking it to them.