To the Editor,
The Jan. 21 edition of the Warren County Record featured local legislators’ sponsored bills for 2021 including HB247 (sponsored by Representative Porter) proposing reducing …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active subscription, or you are a print subscriber who had access to our previous wesbite, then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you have not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
If you are a current print subscriber and did not have a user account on our previous website, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
To the Editor,
The Jan. 21 edition of the Warren County Record featured local legislators’ sponsored bills for 2021 including HB247 (sponsored by Representative Porter) proposing reducing public assistance for individuals whose children do not meet certain school attendance requirements.
As an educator working with families who would be affected, I had many questions and concerns about this proposed bill. I attended a town hall featuring Representative Porter to try and further understand the reasoning behind this idea. To my disappointment, Porter was unable to answer questions about this legislation with any detail, and was also unaware that the bill text was in error. The current bill text reads that public benefits would be reduced “by 65%” for families whose children have an (unexcused) attendance rate of less than 90%.
When sharing information about this bill, Porter stated that these benefits should be reduced “by 35%.” When directly questioned about the numbers, he was seemingly unaware of this discrepancy, and said that would “have to be changed.” It is concerning that the sole sponsor of a bill would not examine bill text to ensure accuracy before filing.
Another concern was Representative Porter’s lack of knowledge regarding potential impacts of this bill. Porter was unable to provide adequate answers to specific questions, such as which public benefit recipients (TANF? Food stamps? MOHealthNet?) would be subject to the requirements set forth by this bill. When asked how many children in Missouri this bill would affect, Porter responded that when you file a bill “all these people come to you [with information like that],” indicating he did not research potential effects on his constituents.
If Representative Porter had done his due diligence to research this issue before penning this bill he would have discovered, as I did, that DSS keeps detailed records of the number of families receiving public assistance. He also would have discovered that DESE maintains highly detailed attendance records, including data showing that this bill is likely to disproportionately affect black families across the state as well as information proving that this bill singles out and provides unfair additional consequences for families of lower income when compared to attendance rates of families who do not receive public assistance.
When asked whether there is evidence to support the idea that withholding public benefits will make parents more likely to ensure their students consistently attend school, Porter responded by stating he does not think this bill will pass, but that he just wants to “start the conversation.” I find it concerning that an elected legislator is willing to flippantly toss around legislation simply to start a conversation.
This can be done more effectively in local public forums: actual problems and solutions can be discussed rather than proposing another layer of government regulation that intrudes into matters our local districts should be equipped to handle in a manner that builds a bridge of trust between our schools and our families.
