>>Valley Patriot>> Ralph carrero ralph carerro |
The Senate version of the overall welfare reform package did not include this measure, according to State Senator Steve Baddour, (D) Methuen. Baddour said that the House bill was a much stronger welfare reform package and that he voted against the Senate version because “it just wasn’t tough enough.” Baddour says that he hopes the final bill will include the attendance amendment when it goes to the governor’s office for approval later this month. If Governor Romney vetoes the measure, the House is poised to override that veto, but Baddour says that, given the choice between the House and Senate versions of the bill, he believes the governor will support the house version which includes the attendance amendment. Either way, the Legislature has enough votes to override any veto by the governor. Valley legislators say the measure will encourage more children to stay in school and hold parents accountable for their children’s education. Methuen Representative Arthur Broadhurst, Haverhill Representative Brian Dempsey, Andover Representative Barry Feingold, and Andover Representative Barbara L’Italien all voted in favor of the welfare restriction amendment. Haverhill Representative Harriet Stanley and David Torrisi of North Andover did not vote on the bill. Lawrence State Representative Willie Lantigua was the only Valley lawmaker who opposed the measure, and he refused to comment to The Valley Patriot about his stand on supporting welfare parents keeping their children home from school. State Representative Arthur Broadhurst, (D) Methuen, said he supported the bill because too many children of welfare parents continue the cycle of poverty and government dependence. He said educating the children of these welfare recipients was the key to breaking the welfare cycle. “Statistics show that many families are dependant on welfare and have kids and grandchildren also on welfare. We hope that this bill will be an incentive to keep kids in school, become educated and get them off of the welfare system,” he explained. “This bill will force children to stay in school, and if parents do not keep track of their children, then they risk losing welfare money,” he continued. Lawrence
Superintendent Wilfredo Laboy said he also supports the
welfare restriction bill. “The whole concept of public assistance or welfare is to help people get back on a normal course in life. Children must be in school if they are going to achieve. I have served in other states where a child’s attendance is connected to welfare benefits. If the child doesn’t attend school, the parents are penalized by losing their benefits, so it gives them a financial incentive to bring their children to school.” “It is a very effective tool for us to keep kids in school,” Laboy continued. “This forces families to be more diligent in making sure their children receive the education they deserve. If that is the intent of the bill, then I fully support it. Education is the only way to break the cycle of poverty.” Lawrence Mayor Michael Sullivan, who is chairman of the Lawrence School Committee, said he supports the measure as well. “This is another way to help educators keep kids in school longer and hopefully set them on a path of success instead of continuing the cycle of poverty.” “The fact is, we cannot educate these children if they are not sitting in a classroom. It’s that simple. And if their parents are getting taxpayer’s money, we should absolutely tie receiving those benefits to their kid’s school attendance. It is certainly going to help the kids and I think that is what it’s really all about.” Under the bill, school districts would be required to notify state agencies when a student has more than eight unexcused absences, setting in motion a process by which parents would stop receiving their state-funded paychecks. Haverhill School Committeeman Scott Wood says he supports Representative Brian Dempsey’s vote in favor of the new welfare restrictions. He said he is looking forward to working with Dempsey to make sure that the Haverhill School System provides information to the state to implement the new program. “Hopefully, keeping children in school longer will keep them off the welfare rolls in the future. I think it’s critical to hold parents accountable to ensure that kids are in school.” Many other states have similar statutes also tying welfare benefits to school attendance. New York, Florida and Wisconsin all have programs called “Learnfare,” which mandates termination of welfare benefits for unexcused school absences. New York’s pilot program was modeled after Wisconsin’s “Learnfare” program of 1988. Indiana’s program is called the Personal Responsibility Agreement. New Mexico has a similar measure. Welfare reform activists are waiting to see if Governor Romney and the bill’s supporters can convince the rest of the Legislature to go along with the House version of this important welfare reform measure.” *Send your questions
comments to ValleyPatriot@aol.com |
By a vote of 99-53, the
Massachusetts House of Representatives approved an
amendment to House Bill 4367 (Welfare Reform), allowing
the state to take away welfare benefits from families
with children 16 and under who accumulate eight or more
unexcused school absences per quarter. 