Skip School, Skip Welfare!

[Jimaz]

... Life in Detroit is full of ridiculousness....

That would make such a great slogan on a T-shirt!

[313WX]

I'm on the fence with this one.

On one hand, the fear of losing welfare benefits will force some families to get their bad ass kids back into school [[money is a powerful motivator).

On the other hand, I do fear the slippery slope Detroitnerd has pointed out.

Really, there has to be a better way to improve the truancy problems we have.

[313WX]

That's a really good question. And that gets right to the heart of things. Even if the family is decent and trying to get a kid to go to school, they're going to get the stick. This is one of those "tough shit" laws drawn up by people who haven't thought through all the possible ways this could go horribly wrong.

For some reason, Michigan always loves to take the "Ok, let's half-way do this now, then we'll tape up any holes as they appear" approach. instead of doing it right the first time.

[Det_ard]

That's a really good question. And that gets right to the heart of things. Even if the family is decent and trying to get a kid to go to school, they're going to get the stick. This is one of those "tough shit" laws drawn up by people who haven't thought through all the possible ways this could go horribly wrong.

And apparently you haven't thought much about the way the current situation results in things gone horribly wrong, and that this new approach, which will adversely impact some innocents, will also encourage some of the guilty parents to get their kids to school.

You've made the assumption, unsupported by data, that the harm outweighs the benefit. Others have concluded the benefit outweighs the harm, also unsupported by hard data. Those behind the bill may actually have more real information, from talking to those in the school system and social services, than you do. Yet you call the support illegitimate, and stand proudly as a defender of the weak, despite operating under similarly unresearched preconceptions as those you criticize. Whatever the merits of the new policy [[cost>benefit or benefit>cost), what's clear is that you once again operate from a need to see yourself in a hero role.

[Detroitnerd]

And apparently you haven't thought much about the way the current situation results in things gone horribly wrong, and that this new approach, which will adversely impact some innocents, will also encourage some of the guilty parents to get their kids to school.

You've made the assumption, unsupported by data, that the harm outweighs the benefit. Others have concluded the benefit outweighs the harm, also unsupported by hard data. Those behind the bill may actually have more real information, from talking to those in the school system and social services, than you do. Yet you call the support illegitimate, and stand proudly as a defender of the weak, despite operating under similarly unresearched preconceptions as those you criticize. Whatever the merits of the new policy [[cost>benefit or benefit>cost), what's clear is that you once again operate from a need to see yourself in a hero role.

The question is not whether the harm done innocents outweighs any perceived "good." Anything that harms innocents is wrong. Isn't our system built on the proposition that it is better to let 10 criminals go free than to imprison one man falsely?

Anyway, human beings are not to be looked at through the cold, calculating eyes of some accountant or risk estimator seeking a cost-benefit ratio. They're human beings, and they have a right to a baseline of food, warmth, shelter and productive work, and when the private enterprise system doesn't supply that, yes, government has to step in to try to ensure that baseline is reached. If they've met the criteria for welfare, they're Americans, and they're entitled to it. It's still very hard to support a family on welfare, and especially hard in one of the poorest cities in the richest country in the world. If somebody has a kid who's determined to not go to school, would you be in favor of taking that family's benefits away? Is it OK if somebody suffers an injustice as a result of this?

And what's with trying to turn this into something about me? Or are you just put out with me because I'm like that one guy gonna hang your jury? Almost everybody on this board seems to agree with you. Is the dissent of one person so irritating to you that you have to try to psychoanalyze me?

[bailey]

And apparently you haven't thought much about the way the current situation results in things gone horribly wrong, and that this new approach, which will adversely impact some innocents, will also encourage some of the guilty parents to get their kids to school.

.....

Whatever the merits of the new policy [[cost>benefit or benefit>cost), what's clear is that you once again operate from a need to see yourself in a hero role.

Regardless of who is operating from where... it remains to be seen if predicating the receipt of benefits on the behavior of others is fair or going to get any results. Look, I'm all about incentivising the recipient's behavior, but you can't control third parties [[14 yr olds who are determined to be truant) by holding the recipient parent's assistance hostage.

Frankly, i'd rather just remove the truancy issue from the equation. Don't want to go to class? fine, more resources for those who want to [[or who's parents make them) be there. But you're ineligible for any benefits come adulthood if you don't have a GED or High School Diploma.

At some point we need to stop demanding society conform itself to serve the lowest common denominator. At some point we need to say there is a base level of participation, you're free to ignore it, but you're on your own if you do.

[mwilbert]

Anything that harms innocents is wrong.

This provides inadequate guidance for public policy. I would think that many innocent children are harmed when their parents don't make sure they get to school. Frankly, innocent children are probably harmed any time their parents are punished for something that doesn't directly involve them, but we lock them up anyway.

The question in my mind is whether the disadvantages of such a policy would outweigh the advantages. I think this is an empirical question; it could be tried and we could see what happens. My personal suspicion, without data, is that it would probably be a net positive if applied to parents of small children, and probably a net loss if applied to parents of teenagers.

[Detroitnerd]

This provides inadequate guidance for public policy. I would think that many innocent children are harmed when their parents don't make sure they get to school.

Sophistry. You know that harming a family by taking away their means to eke out SURVIVAL -- and to do so based on something that may well be beyond their control -- is unjust. Injustice for one person is injustice for the people at large. I think it's neat some of you have developed an interest in helping inner-city kids. But if you want to start wielding a legislative scalpel, first you have to take the Hippocratic oath: Do no harm.

Funny, because, see, I thought justice was the goal of a political system, not net gains and cost-benefit ratios. Perhaps this is another example of why the mentality of the business manager is ill-equipped for democratic governance.

And, frankly, I am wondering when y'all started getting so bang-up about urban schools, right? Seems to me a lot of y'all were bustin' on urban schools as illiteracy mills, worthless, corrupt dens of slack-jawed "teachers" just baby-sitting tomorrow's criminals. But when it looks like some "welfare mothers" could get it on the nose, y'all's just CRAZY to get them kids in school.

It's just so ... transparent.

[gazhekwe]

Dealing with parental irresponsibility is difficult, there are so many causes for it. In many cases, parents had bad experiences in school, even grandparents, and a habit of resistance was born and passed down, and will continue until someone finds a way to recognize and deal with it.

[Detroitnerd]

So, I guess since we're talking about pulling welfare for parents of truants, that means we already prosecuted all the bankers who wrecked the economy, put them in jail and have instituted strict laws to ensure it never happens again?

Oh, that's right. None of that happened. The Fed can't print enough money to save those banks for the criminals who trashed our economy.

Whatever. Makes sense to go after penny-ante poor families' benefits. Clearly they're the source of our problems today.

[Goose]

Funny, because, see, I thought justice was the goal of a political system, not net gains and cost-benefit ratios. Perhaps this is another example of why the mentality of the business manager is ill-equipped for democratic governance.

wow, you are in for a major letdown once Obamacare is fully implemented....

[GUSHI]

How does a kid miss 10 days of school already, it's freaking october 1st.

[GUSHI]

I like the idea, they kids need to be in school,they want the cash they gotta attend class,

[firstandten]

I can see both sides of this issue. This policy if implemented will have so many unintended consequences it won't be funny. The money the state will save by cutting folks off welfare will be lost once we factor in increased case load for the case workers, and there will be the strain on the foster care system because kids will need to be pulled out of homes because the caregiver can no longer support them.

This kind of policy will need to be implemented on a case-by-case basis. which could over load the system.

As a result this could have over time the opposite effect of what we want and thats keeping kids in school and the parents making them responsible for it.

On the other hand todays truant is tomorrows carjacker/drug dealer/B & E artist you name it who will affect the neighborhoods that we live in ways that we don't realize and I'm talking in a negative sense.

This policy if implemented should be reserved for the most blatant parents not doing what they are supposed to do. Otherwise the state will be responsible for raising a lot of children.

[Wesley Mouch]

That's a really good question. And that gets right to the heart of things. Even if the family is decent and trying to get a kid to go to school, they're going to get the stick. This is one of those "tough shit" laws drawn up by people who haven't thought through all the possible ways this could go horribly wrong.

Oh, the melodrama.

All this back and forth without any information on the details here. I don't immediately assume that the law is 'horribly' flawed.

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. I'm glad that someone is trying to improve things. I hope this effort succeeds. And I also expect that those writing the laws are willing to let the law evolve.

[rex]

I agree with this legislation if for no other reason education [[or more particularly the lack thereof) can make or break a person.
However, There needs to be an appeals process and a safety net. If the parent isn't responsible enough to keep a kid in school & to keep the welfare check the kid is probably better off in a more stable environment. I would happily pay taxes into that. Give parent visitation but the kids stay in an orphanage, make sure they are fed, off the streets, and in school. Mom stops getting welfare checks and its paid to the kids instead. Perhaps even set up scholarship funds. I hate to sound insensitive but Im far less concerned for the parent.

[mwilbert]

Sophistry. You know that harming a family by taking away their means to eke out SURVIVAL -- and to do so based on something that may well be beyond their control -- is unjust. Injustice for one person is injustice for the people at large. I think it's neat some of you have developed an interest in helping inner-city kids. But if you want to start wielding a legislative scalpel, first you have to take the Hippocratic oath: Do no harm.

Funny, because, see, I thought justice was the goal of a political system, not net gains and cost-benefit ratios. Perhaps this is another example of why the mentality of the business manager is ill-equipped for democratic governance.

And, frankly, I am wondering when y'all started getting so bang-up about urban schools, right? Seems to me a lot of y'all were bustin' on urban schools as illiteracy mills, worthless, corrupt dens of slack-jawed "teachers" just baby-sitting tomorrow's criminals. But when it looks like some "welfare mothers" could get it on the nose, y'all's just CRAZY to get them kids in school.

It's just so ... transparent.

One man's analysis may be the next man's sophistry I guess, but I rarely find issues to be so clearcut as you seem to.

It is an interesting question to ask what is just under these circumstances. Certainly our society doesn't treat the poor justly in general, so I'm with you there. However, the safety net that does exist for the poor is primarily focused on families with children. If those families abdicate their responsibilities in raising those children, such as making sure those children get to school, I'm not at all sure it is unjust to remove some of those benefits--why is it just for a neglectful parent get more aid than a poor non-parent? I'm not sure about that. And it would seem to me to be relevant if it happened that the threat of removing the benefits was rarely carried out because in general parents were able to get their children to school with that extra motivation.

And maybe I missed it, but though I see lots of people criticizing schools, I haven't seen many suggesting that people should not send their kids to some school, unless they were advocating homeschooling. I'm not sure your take on that is sophistry, but it is certainly a straw man.

[Wesley Mouch]

Sophistry. You know that harming a family by taking away their means to eke out SURVIVAL -- and to do so based on something that may well be beyond their control -- is unjust. .snip....

Think again about the word 'justice'. Perhaps you mean 'compassionate'?

There are certainly those for whom social welfare is just. But there are also certainly those for whom social welfare is not just nor justified.

I agree that social welfare is compassionate and necessary.

[Detroitnerd]

Think again about the word 'justice'. Perhaps you mean 'compassionate'?

There are certainly those for whom social welfare is just. But there are also certainly those for whom social welfare is not just nor justified.

I agree that social welfare is compassionate and necessary.

I think that's the main rub is what the point of welfare is. Is it a program to ameliorate poverty, make poverty livable, or to use government aid as a stick and carrot to engage in social engineering?

On a purely logical level, it's not just compassionate and necessary, but pragmatic. Urban dwellers with a modest safety net do not rebel or organize hunger marches. The safety net keeps a lid on urban unrest.

But on a human rights level, all people are entitled to a certain standard of living, whether they're parents of fuck-ups or not. It's all spelled out in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." It doesn't say, "Unless they can't keep their kids in school."

So, that's the thing. It's a right. And therefore to deprive poor people of what's due them for any specious reason is unjust.

I know I'm in the minority, and that probably the majority of the people on this board think the UDHR is just a piece of paper, and that people who fail in our system deserve what they get, and because they accept welfare, they should obey all laws, submit to drug-testing, keep their kids in school, etc. The law is the law, right? Why should we fund them if they break the law.

Well, maybe that's a good argument. Maybe I could get behind that. I think I'd get behind it a lot quicker if the corrupt bankers we've printed trillions of dollars for had strict oversight, had to face prosecution for crimes committed, and bankers who got bonuses had to undergo daily testing for powdered cocaine...

[Wesley Mouch]

I think that's the main rub is what the point of welfare is. Is it a program to ameliorate poverty, make poverty livable, or to use government aid as a stick and carrot to engage in social engineering?

On a purely logical level, it's not just compassionate and necessary, but pragmatic. Urban dwellers with a modest safety net do not rebel or organize hunger marches. The safety net keeps a lid on urban unrest.

But on a human rights level, all people are entitled to a certain standard of living, whether they're parents of fuck-ups or not. It's all spelled out in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." It doesn't say, "Unless they can't keep their kids in school."

So, that's the thing. It's a right. And therefore to deprive poor people of what's due them for any specious reason is unjust.

I know I'm in the minority, and that probably the majority of the people on this board think the UDHR is just a piece of paper, and that people who fail in our system deserve what they get, and because they accept welfare, they should obey all laws, submit to drug-testing, keep their kids in school, etc. The law is the law, right? Why should we fund them if they break the law.

Well, maybe that's a good argument. Maybe I could get behind that. I think I'd get behind it a lot quicker if the corrupt bankers we've printed trillions of dollars for had strict oversight, had to face prosecution for crimes committed, and bankers who got bonuses had to undergo daily testing for powdered cocaine...

Thanks, oh Nerdly. I was not aware of the UDHR. Its a pretty good document.

I couldn't find much on whether its binding on the U.S. Clearly the U.N. thinks it is. And no doubt the U.S. uses it in arguments against evil states. That's doesn't make it legally binding however. More on this would be appreciated.

Clearly, we'd all agree that no one should die of starvation in the U.S. And it seems that this has been accomplished. So I think we can check off the 'food' item. Maybe you won't get 'food stamps' [[or equivalent), but the Capuchin's won't turn you away before you die.

But some of the rest of the list is absurd. Reasonable health care. Pretty much everyone agrees on this. Even Mitt Romney before he needed to align himself with some fools in the tea party. But 'necessary social services'? To put such a subjective phrase in a 'legal' docuument is clearly absurd.

As to bankers -- you have it right. 100%.

[DetroitTeacher]

I have gotten new kids in my class as late as today. Not new to the school, just new to attending. They've been on my roster since day 1. I ask them where they were and they reply, "at home." I ask what they were doing at home. They reply, "chillin, I didn't have any uniform pants." I look at their shoes, which are brand new and cost more than my entire wardrobe. I just shake my head and tell them they are 5 weeks behind and they best shake their tail feathers to get caught up and that I was not reteaching them or explaining much of anything to them. I also have kids who have missed 10 days already, who enrolled on day 1 but just don't want to attend. They come in once a week. I ask where they were and they usually tell me that their mom didn't have anyone to watch their little brother or sister [[who should also be in school). I call BS on them and shake my head and tell them they are behind and they need to shake their tail feathers to get caught up and I wasn't reteaching anything. It's the only choice I have.

How does a kid miss 10 days of school already, it's freaking october 1st.

[jerrytimes]

Seems like a simple rule to follow. No more than ten [[10) unexcused absences. Break the cycle.

It makes sense to me. You want a bridge card, send your kid to school. Just because you need assistance doesn't mean that you can't get your kid to school.