Should welfare payments be made conditional on a good school attendance record of the recipients’ children?

  • Children need to get to school to have a chance in succeeding in life

    They should be taking their children to school, if they aren't then they need an incentive to do so.
    There is no real excuse in not getting your children to school on a regular basis.
    It isn't hard to change your behaviour if you income is depending on it, so just get them to school

  • Welfare payments need to be made conditional on good school attendance record.

    Parents need to be held accountable for their actions. In cases where parents receive payments and their child doesn't come to school, or keeps on coming hungry and doesn't receive any support at home shows that those parents are not putting the welfare of the child as a priority. I think it shouldn't be just attendance, but school meals as well as educational support at home should be incorporated into the picture. If parents are receiving money and their children are not receving care well they shouldn't receive it.

  • Welfare payments should be made conditional on a good school attendance record because the family needs to work to earn the money.

    Not only should the parents have to work, but the kids should be doing something to improve their lives. Educating the children can help to stop poverty in the future. Hopefully those kids would become educated enough to receive a job and they wouldn't have to receive welfare from the government. If the family is poor and does not bother sending their kids to school, it would be a chain of poverty. The cycle would just continue to repeat itself over and over again. Each generation would be depending on the government for money when in reality they should work themselves to earn this money.

  • "There needs to be accountability in exchange for assistance."

    "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." The least one can do when receiving these benefits (which are privileges the citizens of this country have rather than rights), is give back by committing to assure that the children of today get a good education, which will lead to a better future, not only for the children but for society as a whole.

  • Yes, I think welfare payments should be made conditional on a good school attendance record of the recipients because, if they are receiving welfare, they should be trying to better their lives, which includes going to school.

    I think that, if people are going to be receiving welfare, either themselves, or their children, need to be going to school, and doing the things that it takes to better their life. This includes going to school, and looking for a job, if they are old enough. This would make it fair to everyone receiving benefits.

    Posted by: SeriousNestor34
  • I believe that if people are being given money to survive, that they had better do something to enhance themselves and prove the money is not just going to waste.

    It has been shown that if you give people things that they don't have to work for and they don't have to do anything to keep, they generally don't do anything. When they do nothing, it is a complete waste of welfare money. That money is supposed to be used to help people advance themselves, and if they have to do something that will lead to their advancement to get their checks, it's a win win situation.

    Posted by: ReaganB
  • Welfare payments should definitely be made conditional on school attendance by the children because there needs to be accountability in exchange for assistance.

    The receiving of welfare payments should not be an absolute right. As with most everything else, there needs to be an expectation of responsibility. Parents are supposed to see that their children are attending school, and there should be a reckoning of some sort for parents who do not obey this law. In the case of those receiving welfare, a perfectly appropriate penalty for failing to be a responsible parent would be you remove benefits and put the children in foster care.

    Posted by: OnfBIeak
  • Welfare payments should be made conditional on a good school attendance record of the recipients children.

    Education is important in this country. Generally, the more education someone is able to acquire, the more earnings that person will have over his or her lifetime. If parents or guardians do not care enough to send their children to school, the risk in started for generational poverty. Education can help to break the cycle of poverty.

    Posted by: Purf3ctRenc
  • No, welfare payments should not be made conditional based on the school attendance record of the children because that would give the teachers, substitutes, and even student TA's who take attendance in power over the families income.

    The concept of forcing people receiving welfare to do their best to attend school is a nice thought but there are legitimate reasons why to miss school to begin with, reasons that would not be improved by suddenly finding themselves without money for food or rent. The second and most important problem with the idea is the school system is hardly that professional when it comes to taking attendance, often teachers foist the job off to a student and only glance over it later on. A lot more accountability, checks and balances would have to go into the school attendance system before it is used for something as important as the income of a family.

    Posted by: H_Baird
  • Welfare payments should not be contingent upon the school attendance of recipients children, because if the children are very young and are not being provided with any form of schooling, then there is likely a greater underlying issue.

    If the children are very young and are not being taken to school or home-schooled, then there is a deeper underlying issues that needs to addressed. Years of sociological and physiological studies tell us that symptoms do not appear in isolation, and there is no effect without a cause. If we are looking at a lasting solution, and if we want to support healthy self-sufficient families, then we need to provide access to programs, services, and information which will address the well-being of each member of the family, instead of simply denying a service or services to people who may not necessarily even know another way of being.

    Posted by: WakeboardFrank
  • Welfare payments are only given because of the children, therefore they are the ones who would be punished and they aren't responsible for their attendance.

    The idea of taking away benefits because of drug use, history of selling drugs, or any other reason that doesn't remove the children from the home should not be used as grounds for denying any benefits. Parents aren't perfect, but as long as they feed their children with the benefits, and can maintain their children to a legal degree, they should not be at risk of losing benefits that keep them alive.

    Posted by: daveyxh
  • No; it will hurt children more

    Contrary to popular belief, most people on welfare or other public assistance are not bad people. If their children are not making it to school, it could be for a variety of reasons - sickness that the parents can't afford to treat; unsafe travel conditions, etc. Why would we punish these children even further by taking away their income?

  • Welfare payments should not have strings attached because, otherwise, the helping hand becomes a noose.

    Welfare payments are supposed to be a helping hand to those in need, and yet politicians continually want to strangle the recipients with burdens and restrictions, making their already hard lives even more intolerable. Welfare payments are not free money handed out to the lazy and undeserving, but an investment in the stability of America. When we help the least among us, we strengthen the nation that we all enjoy.

    Posted by: FlakyHerb64
  • I oppose making welfare payment contingent upon the behavior of the children; rather the direct recipient should be held accountable.

    Welfare recipients should not be judged based on the students' school performance. A better approach would be to hold the recipient accountable for his or her own actions. Examples of mandatory criteria for recipients to continue to receive payments include: actively searching for employment, abstaining from drug use, having a clean criminal record, and/ or attending some personal (career, parenting) enrichment classes.

    Posted by: ChildlikeLamar56
  • Welfare payments should not be made conditional on good school attendance, because there are too many extenuating circumstances that could legitimately affect attendance.

    There are far too many reasons why a child might miss school. One of which could be parental abuse. It could be that a parent takes no initiative to ensure that a child attends school. This is not necessarily the choice of the child. However, it would be to the detriment of the child if the parent were to lose welfare payments that most likely provide food and shelter for the child. It is not just to neglect a child for the fault of the parent.

    Posted by: J Lamb 43
  • Taking away welfare payments will only harm the children.

    Small children depend on their parents to make them get up, get ready and get out the door for school. Although I think there should be some sort of "punishment" for the parents who aren't parenting, I don't think it should come in the form of monetary loss. I would hate to think a child isn't going to get dinner because their parents lack common sense, motivation or simply don't care about the education of their kids. I think we should find a way to make the adults suffer the consequences in a way that won't take away from the youth. Besides, these are also probably the parents who would spend what little money they received first on themselves when faced with a welfare budget crisis.

    Posted by: 5h4bbyHaIey

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
deacc says2017-05-12T10:11:19.217
Neither. Welfare should not exists.