We already do this, it's called a scholarship, and they're not just for those who can dunk a basketball.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, I see the OP’s point. Why incentivize welfare?
OP - I think the person to whom you were speaking needs a bit of an education herself. From what I have read, white people get more in terms of aid than blacks.

OP here Exactly. and when I tried to mention that point to her, she came up with all these stats. I understand statistics, but that still does not change how I feel toward the subject. My parents were never rich, but they always told me they wanted more for me than what they ever had, education wise and beyond. They did it not because they got a state / govt check, but because they wanted the best for me, as most parents want for their children. So WHY in Hell's name am I going to pay a person to "care" and "invest" in their own child? Either you have the drive or you don't. No matter what your socioeconomic status may be.

Not that I am endorsing the idea proposed in the OP. But the reason you do is not out of fairness of the disinterested parent, but for the sake of the child who has potential and is stuck in a bad situation that is not of their making.

but you have some individuals who have had the world handed to them, and also had many resources and opportunities in life and still turn out not to be shit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, I see the OP’s point. Why incentivize welfare?
OP - I think the person to whom you were speaking needs a bit of an education herself. From what I have read, white people get more in terms of aid than blacks.

OP here Exactly. and when I tried to mention that point to her, she came up with all these stats. I understand statistics, but that still does not change how I feel toward the subject. My parents were never rich, but they always told me they wanted more for me than what they ever had, education wise and beyond. They did it not because they got a state / govt check, but because they wanted the best for me, as most parents want for their children. So WHY in Hell's name am I going to pay a person to "care" and "invest" in their own child? Either you have the drive or you don't. No matter what your socioeconomic status may be.

Not that I am endorsing the idea proposed in the OP. But the reason you do is not out of fairness of the disinterested parent, but for the sake of the child who has potential and is stuck in a bad situation that is not of their making.

Anonymous wrote:I'm very pro-welfare, pro-safety net in general. I've seen how coordinated programs that provide supports across the spectrum of needs -- housing, education, health care, etc., help people become much more productive members of society.

But this particular plan likely won't do any good. Parents who are not as involved as we'd like them to be generally face myriad challenges like mental health, domestic violence, illiteracy, language barriers. frequent periods of homelessness and food insecurity, chronic health issues. The list goes on. Giving them a token amount of money for their kids' good grades doesn't address any of the real underlying issues.

This is what I think. It would make for a good sound bite, but I have strong doubts that it would really provide any way to incentivize parents in a way that is productive.

I'm very pro-welfare, pro-safety net in general. I've seen how coordinated programs that provide supports across the spectrum of needs -- housing, education, health care, etc., help people become much more productive members of society.

But this particular plan likely won't do any good. Parents who are not as involved as we'd like them to be generally face myriad challenges like mental health, domestic violence, illiteracy, language barriers. frequent periods of homelessness and food insecurity, chronic health issues. The list goes on. Giving them a token amount of money for their kids' good grades doesn't address any of the real underlying issues.

Frankly, I am not against the concept. However, I see all sorts of problems with the roll out--fraud; kids taking classes that are not challenging; etc. I just don't think it is practical.

How about welfare parents be paid to stop having kids. Give them free depo. That would save taxpayers even more.

I don't mind if they get extra $ if their kids do really well in school, but not if the school is really easy. Also, add to this the requirement that unemployed welfare parents of children older than toddlers be required to "work" for their welfare, like clean up the streets, graffiti, etc... Have them contribute to their community in other ways.

I think your opinion is your opinion and hers is hers and that's pretty much the gist of it.
Nothing to get all bent out of shape over - people have disagreements all the time but until such a proposal makes its way into the form of a bill drafted by some Congressman in the interest of actually implementing it I see no need to prove or disprove either of your respective opinions.

I'm a teacher. It requires more than motivated parents to end up on the Honor Roll. I also know quite a few bright, hardworking, poor kids who ended up getting 4.0s without any family supports.
There are many ways to incentivize parent involvement in education rather than tying it to grades, if that's the route someone in policy wants to go.

Anonymous wrote:And, I see the OP’s point. Why incentivize welfare?
OP - I think the person to whom you were speaking needs a bit of an education herself. From what I have read, white people get more in terms of aid than blacks.

OP here Exactly. and when I tried to mention that point to her, she came up with all these stats. I understand statistics, but that still does not change how I feel toward the subject. My parents were never rich, but they always told me they wanted more for me than what they ever had, education wise and beyond. They did it not because they got a state / govt check, but because they wanted the best for me, as most parents want for their children. So WHY in Hell's name am I going to pay a person to "care" and "invest" in their own child? Either you have the drive or you don't. No matter what your socioeconomic status may be.

And, I see the OP’s point. Why incentivize welfare?
OP - I think the person to whom you were speaking needs a bit of an education herself. From what I have read, white people get more in terms of aid than blacks.

It's a complicated problem and no obvious simple solution.

I can see her point - motivating parents to be more involved, but I don't think it's that simple.

A woman I know from my high school days has suggested that welfare mothers (her words not mine as far as only mothers being on welfare) be given EXTRA benefits for their kids being on the honor roll. Her idea is that since it is a fact that some recipients of welfare are not as involved in their children's education, making sure that they excel, maybe an extra monetary incentive will help the parent become more involved, and end the cycle of failure and poverty amongst children whose parents were welfare recipients...

So to that I stated my OPINION that it was absolutely ludicrous to pay a welfare recipient even MORE money than they are already getting, just for doing what a parent is SUPPOSED to do in the first place. The idea is to get off of welfare, not perpetuate it with "incentives." She went on to call me selfish and say that she thought that I, as a black woman, would feel differently. WTF does race have to do with any of that?

Do you all think that my opinion is selfish?