The title is fairly self-explanatory. The idea has been
tossed around that if your child does not attend proper school and you are a
welfare recipient, then the welfare should be denied. So why is this idea
being tossed around?
Opinion on why: I believe the reason this idea is
being floated around is due to the fact that many parents on welfare have
children who generally do not attend school (thus wasting any welfare meant
toward their child's education and putting these recipients under threat to
reduce the amount of possible abuse of the system). As such, they wanted
to force parents who are on welfare to actually enforce their children's education
rather than the school or other government entity. It is in my opinion a
good idea, but with a potential for abuse.
Abuse potential: I fear that this enforcement will
leave out the option of homeschooling for these parents who feel that public (government
run) schooling is inadequate. Also, I fear that parents on welfare who
receive vouchers may not be able to send their children to private or other
forms of schools if the laws are poorly written and thus excludes them.
So this is my fear.
Conclusion: By using welfare parents to enforce
their children going to school it saves money and time by schools and police.
It gets kids off the street and in school so that these kids can
potentially get a proper education rather than resort to crime due to a lack of
ability and skills due to a lack of schooling. However, the law must be
properly written or else it can cause problems and block access to a welfare
parents choices when it comes to their child’s education. So we must be
cautious in the way the law is written and thus also enforced.
No comments:
Post a Comment