Should Illegal Immigrant Students Be Allowed to Receive Scholarship Funding for Higher Education? by Elizabeth Gutierrez

Should Illegal Immigrant Students be allowed to Receive Scholarship Funding for Higher Education? Tim Ferree posted for Elizabeth Gutierrez Feb 2, 2012 11:44 PM There is a great controversy when it comes to immigration itself. But when it’s concentrated on public funding in this case scholarships, it becomes even more problematic. The Urban estimates that 65,000 undocumented students that is, children born abroad who are not U.S. citizens or legal residents graduate from U.S. high schools each year. These children are guaranteed an education in U.S. public schools through grade 12, but may face legal and financial barriers to higher education. Should illegal immigrant students be allowed to receive scholarship funding for higher education? In the past several years, an act has been proposed to the U.S. Senate. This legislation would allow alien minors from ages 12 to 35 to become permanent residents after meeting certain requirements during a six year period. This proposed act is called the D.R.E.A.M act, or Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors. This act has been proposed in several versions to the Senate, in hopes of allowing many undocumented students the option of attending college or joining the military in order to become permanent residents. The recently proposed bill would allow those of good moral character that have arrived to the United States prior to the age of 16, (proof is necessary), and have graduated from high school and obtained a diploma or a GED, to start a path to residency, which may lead to citizenship. In order to obtain these privileges, applicants must meet certain requirements such as attending and completing two years of higher education or joining and serving in a military branch for two years during a six year period in which their legal status will be "conditional." Upon completion of these six years and requirements, applicants are granted permanent residency. However, during those six years, applicants must have no criminal record and MUST meet the terms and conditions of the bill. In the event that the student or applicant does not complete or meet the standards of this legislation, they are subject to possible deportation. Although this bill seems promising and reasonable, it has been a challenge to pass in the Senate. Since 2001, when its original version was proposed, this legislation has been turned down, even until this past proposal on September of 2010. There seems to be a lot of controversy when it comes to enacting the DREAM act, from pros and cons and worries of jeopardizing the quality of American citizens. Many who are against it claim that it is unjust to give all these privileges to 'criminals' when “out-of-state US citizens and law- abiding foreign students have to pay the full cost of their education"("Arguments against the Dream Act." 28 November 2010). But the fact is that many of these undocumented students have been brought here not by choice, but by their parents' choice as young children. Most have lived here their entire lives and have known no other place. Is it not unjust to penalize these young people for the choices of their parents? They have committed no crime themselves that should deprive them, and America, from expanding their knowledge and potentially contributing to this powerful country as much as any other person. "Some of them do not even speak other languages, or remember their native countries. They want to stay here. They want to be productive members of the American society, “said Humberto Cruz, a Senior Political Science major and the Vice President of the LULAC chapter at the University of Texas at El Paso (De Frank, 2010). This act would allow many undocumented young people to move on with their lives here in the United States, many of whom have lived here all their lives, with little to no memory of their birth country (Dream on, 5). The passing of this act would mean the world to many people. Many of the people affected by this came into this country when they were very young, with little to no memory of their country of origin. These young people consider themselves American, because all they have ever known is this nation and its history. Is it fair to penalize them if all they have ever seen is the American way of life? "Arguments against the Dream Act." 28 November 2010 f. DeFrank, John."Immigrant High school graduates seek a path way to citizenship." Borderzine. November 2010. \ “Dream on”. America .19 July 2010. p5. Student Edition web. Kingsbury High School. Memphis Tn.(14November2010) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

Nutrition within Shelby County Schools & Memphis City Schools

In most recent years major strides were made in the pursuit of healthier children with the state mandate replacing unhealthy snacks in vending machines with healthier options, as well as the federal mandate requiring free and reduced lunches to meet certain nutritional guidelines. Since then, the Memphis City Schools (MCS) system, in conjunction with community collaborators such as the Healthy Memphis Common Table, has put together a more focused health and activity curriculum. The primary goal of the K-6 health curriculum, as outlined on the MCS Web site, is to introduce and review basic information necessary to lead a healthy lifestyle. The MCS philosophy holds that health education should be a process providing learning experiences that supply information, change attitudes and influence behavior. While national standards of education don't consider health part of the core curriculum, mandates from the state of Tennessee compel the MCS system to go beyond federal suggestions and incorporate increased focus on health education. Specific topics of focus include individual responsibility for health, respect for the medical community, knowledge of health fads and adopting healthy behaviors. This content can be taught as a separate area or can be integrated into other core subjects. Physical education and recess has been cut across the country, but Tennessee handed down mandates to increase physical activity. Nationally, only 30 minutes of physical education is required per child, per week. Tennessee mandated 90 minutes and MCS upped it to 100. Memphis City Schools are making major moves in improving the nutrition, but Shelby County schools have been on the ball for quite some time. Shelby County schools are working harder to help students and staff eat healthier, and people in high places are taking notice. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has awarded 20 Shelby County schools with the Gold Medal of Distinction through the Healthier US School Challenge program. The schools recognize include all Shelby County elementary and intermediate schools. The school system has a central wellness policy, as well as wellness coordinators at each school. There is also a core menu implemented in every school, and a nutritional database to provide analysis of each meal served. The database is linked to the Shelby County Schools website. Feeding school children is big business; the federally funded National School Lunch Program provides free or reduced-cost lunches to 30m children across America each day. But the recession means that a growing number of children are eligible for subsidized meals; and healthy food, alas, can cost more than the salt-, fat- and sugar-laden variety. So in March the Senate Agriculture Committee unveiled the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, a bipartisan-backed bill that provides $4.5 billion for children’s nutrition, including more money for school lunches, over the next ten years. This legislation will allow more poor children to enroll in the lunch program and will make the lunches healthier with less pizza and more salads. The new bill is expected to help meet Barack Obama’s pledge to end childhood hunger by 2015.One in three American children is overweight or obese. Obesity is even affecting national security: a recent report estimates that 27% of Americans of recruitment age are “too fat to fight”. The new bill would mean more fresh fruit and vegetable purchases, a boost for Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign against obesity. http://www.economist.com/node/16274517 http://www.shelbycountyreporter.com/2010/09/01/county-schools-earn-gold-medal-for-nutrition-program/ http://memphismedicalnews.com/memphis-city-schools-take-active-role-in-promoting-healthy-behaviors-cms-1039

Sanitation Fee Hits Home by Courtney Jaudon

Sanitation Fee Hits Home by Courtney Jaudon

Dickson County residents cringe when the bill from Dickson Electric Systems arrive. It is with a sense of dread that each individual opens the statement to see not only one bill, but two. The two bills are the current months electric bill and a sanitation fee officially passed by county commissioners on March 21,2011. The county citizens have never had the opportunity to vote down the fee.

The sanitation fee , also called solid waste fee, is only ten dollars a month. Ten dollars is not much to many people, but to the elderly citizens who live on fixed incomes it’s a big blow to the check book. The amount for a year is one hundred and twenty dollars. One hundred twenty in a year to senior citizens could be the difference between a medication, food, or paying a fee that they had no say to decline. There is a possibility for individuals to have the fee reduced to five dollars. To be reduced into half one would have to be over the age of 65, or disabled. To get rid of the fee, one needs to not live on the property, the property is uninhabitable, no dwelling on the land, or the land is not inhabited for over thirty days a year (Resolution). Even though the fee is reduced and the impact is only half of what it could be, it is still a hit in the wallet.

The hit in the residents wallets, is nothing compared to what the county debt is. The debt has been caused by a battle over illegal dumping and the effects to residents in the Eno Road area where the landfill is located. Plaintiff’s in the case, which began in 2003, have become sick from drinking water contaminated with trichloroethylene. Many of these people have had some form of cancer. Dickson County is not solely responsible for the illegal dumping. The company that dumped the chemicals was ordered to pay Dickson four hundred thousand dollars in stead of the four million they asked for. The four hundred thousand has only helped pay for part of the problem ( Channel 5). Almost ten years of legal fees and settlement cost, has left a more than one billion dollar deficit for the citizens to pay for. It kind of fall along the lines that things roll down hill. So like the county has to clean up the mess from the company that dumped illegally, a generation that is barely able to know what this lawsuit was about must pay to clean up the financial mess left behind.

This would not be as much as an issue and the electric system clerks would not have to field repetitive calls regarding this problem if the people could’ve had a vote regarding this. I personally understand this discontent from my neighbors because it’s not fun to open the bill and pull out two bills only to find out your normal eighty five dollar electric bill is now ninety-five and then to be reminded this on a monthly basis. As a “broke college student”, I know that one hundred and twenty dollars is unfortunately a text book for me or 4 tanks of gas. This is the first time, I remember not being able to vote on a fee for the county. As a kid, I recall going with my mom to vote and she would have to vote on county fees such as raising the wheel tax, or land taxes. On the other hand I do understand the revenue that this is generating for the county and I would hope once the lawsuit is paid for then there will be no more fee. In just the first five months of collecting this, ninety percent of recipients are estimated to be paying the waste fee. It has generated over one million dollars already (WDKN). Giving hope to resolve the problem sooner than later.

After nearly seven months of receiving these two bills in the same envelope, one would think the sting of the two bills would subdue, but the complaints and discomfort continue. Unfortunately, for Dickson County administrators a Public Relations nightmare that began decades ago still continues into another generation constantly being met with unhappiness and resistance.

Sources:

http://www.tennessean.com/assets/pdf/DN172132324.PDF
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=13032429
http://wdkn.com/solid-waste-fee-on-target-to-produce-2-49-million-in-first-fiscal-year

Courtney Jaudon
Public Administration (R51-S12C)

Child Support in Tennessee

The Child Support Problem in Tennessee

Venecia Patterson

The child support issue is a thorny question for many people.  The State of Tennessee has provided a means by which children who live with one of their parents, but not the other to be supported.  The laws of Tennessee require that the non custodial parent of a child support the child through the custodial parent. To begin the child support process paternity must be proven by either a voluntary admission of paternity, or a genetic test.  Once paternity has been established the custodial court petitions the court for a child support order based on the income of the parents.   Once that child support order has been established the enforcement of the order becomes the primary goal of the Tennessee Department of Human Services, who provide child support services in Tennessee. 

            Child support enforcement is the most difficult part of the child support process. The state has a number of different avenues to collect child support.  The non custodial parent is required to pay the child support to either the custodial parent directly, or the state of Tennessee. If the parent does not do so he or she can risk having their paycheck garnished, federal tax refund confiscated, their driver’s license suspended or even revoked, and can even go to jail.  A lien can even be filed against any settlements that the non custodial parent is entitled to.   Despite all of these avenues of collection there are many non custodial parents that are into the thousands of dollars worth of arrearages on their child support orders.

            There are a few reasons for this. For one some of the consequences for not paying child support serve to make it harder to earn money to pay child support.  In example, a person whose driver’s license is suspended or revoked has a hard time maintain a job legally because one, many employers require a valid driver’s license and two they cannot transport themselves to work legally.  And a jailed person has no way to make money to pay child support at all, not to mention they might lose their job due to their imprisonment. The other provisions also serve to deter the non custodial parents from working a job with a regular paycheck and filing their federal taxes. Many people who owe large amounts of child support go into business for themselves and do not pay taxes on their income to bypass these possibilities.

However, I do not believe that making more avenues of collecting child support will actually be beneficial to the problem of unpaid child support. The unpaid child support is simply a symptom of a greater problem, the problem of irresponsibility. Most of the non custodial parents, not all, but most of them are fathers. They refuse to take responsibility for their own progeny. Women, even when they are the custodial parents are irresponsible in choosing men to have children with that are immature and irresponsible.  If a man already has three children on child support that are not paid for it is not reasonable or logical for another woman to have a child by that man and then think that he will provide for her and her child .

                I think that until public policy changes to require that people be responsible for their own decisions and stop making it easy to be irresponsible we will always have issues with uncollected child support. People will never stop being irresponsible if each new fatherless child gets them a little bit more in welfare and public assistance. I also believe that the provisions we have of collecting child support needs to be revised because each time another man is trapped n the cycle of being unable to pay the child support because of a lack of employment and being unable to find work because of the punishments of not paying child support there is another child that the government is forced to be responsible for.

Till death do us part: DNA as evidence for the death penalty! By Jerry Gardner

Till death do us part: DNA as evidence for the death penalty! By Jerry Gardner

Cock your guns….. Load your syringes….. Crank your generators…..  Folks, today we are putting a man/woman to death that has been judged by a jury of his/her peers.  I have 2 hands, you have 2 hands.  We all have an angel on 1 shoulder, and the devil on the other.  On 1 hand, I say the death penalty is good and on the other, I say that it’s not.  Who believes in the death penalty? Every year that I grow older, I flip flop back and forth; do I believe in the death penalty or not?  Could you pull the trigger? Could you shoot someone full of drugs?  Could you flip that switch?  Let’s take the time to contemplate….DNA as evidence for the death penalty.  You be the judge!

Every 4 years we have an election, and we vote on a new president (or re-elect the old one.) He is always asked “where do you stand on the death penalty?”  I am bringing this topic up to see if anyone can help me get off the fence, should I be for or against the death penalty?

OK, I AM, for the death penalty!  I look at my kids (6 little girls) and say, what if something happened to one of them? What if someone raped them, even murdered them? GOD FORBID!!!!

OK, I AM NOT, for the death penalty!  I just read about another innocent man exonerated in the United States due to DNA evidence and he is released from jail after sitting on death row for 30….29……28…..27 years.  Who am I to judge?  Who are we to judge? What if we electrocuted someone, put someone to sleep and they were innocent? GOD FORBID!!!!!!!

Look at some numbers:

DNA profiling was developed in 1984 and first used in forensic science to convict a man in 1988.  In 1988 we had 2,124 people on death row.  As of April 2011 there were 3,222 people on death row. There were a total of 37 executions in the US last year, the fourth highest national total. Four people were released from death row in the US last year after being found to be innocent, taking to 130 the number of people on death row who have been exonerated since 1973. That is 10% of the people executed.

FINANCIAL FACTS ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY

The California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life. Taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each of the state’s executions. (L.A. Times, March 6, 2005)

In Kansas, the costs of capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-capital cases, including the costs of incarceration. (Kansas Performance Audit Report, December 2003).

In Maryland, an average death penalty case resulting in a death sentence costs approximately $3 million. The eventual costs to

Maryland taxpayers for cases pursued 1978-1999 will be $186 million. Five executions have resulted. (Urban Institute 2008).

The most comprehensive study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of sentencing murderers to life imprisonment. The majority of those costs occur at the trial level. (Duke University, May 1993).

Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole. Florida carried out 44 executions since 1976, that amounts to a cost of $24 million for each execution. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000).

In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).

Why spend all this money on killing someone? Are we that desperate to put someone to death just for the sake of punishing that person? The main reason for the death penalty is to curb crime. Statistics show that the death penalty has not helped curb crime nor has it made crime go up. The money we use to execute someone with is taken from taxpayers.  This is the money taxpayers have paid the government to keep our highways safe,  build jobs, even help people through the financial crisis.  This money is used to put someone to death and cuts are made in the public sector to cover the cost, and innocent people (honest hard working people) are hurt again.

As I sit here tonight, I know that there are over 3000 people on death row!  I know that some are guilty as hell, but I also know that looking at the numbers, 10% of them are probably innocent.  Where do you stand?  Can you live with the fact that you pulled the trigger on someone that was actually innocent?  It cost us so much money to put someone to death, is it wrong to give them life in prison if no DNA evidence exist? I am for the death penalty when it comes to DNA as evidence.  If there is NO DNA, prosecutors must seek life in prison. That’s what I am for.  Am I wrong? GOD FORBID!!!

Sources:

http://www.enotes.com/does-capital-article

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/24/capital-punishment-research-amnesty-international

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row-inmates-state-and-size-death-row-year

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php

Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigration is a widely controversial hot topic between the state and federal government. While on the state level some are adopting harsher laws than others and on the federal level the upcoming presidential election has sparked increasing debate on how to resolve the problem. In Tennessee, the state requires city and county jails to report any inmate to U.S immigration who may be in violation. During my internship with the Public Defender’s office this semester, most of the time I put in is in the court room and I have witnessed firsthand the amount of inmates that are released to immigration. The numbers were shocking for the relatively small town that I live in. Recently, Tennessee passed a law that requires that all employers check the status of citizenship of their newly hired employees through a system called E-Verify. There is no cost for a business to use this system but there are potentially severe consequences if they don’t. The first two times a business is caught violating the law it will result in increasing fines but the third time will result in the loss of their business licenses. They are hoping to see a decrease in crime similar to the decrease other states have experienced by not welcoming illegal immigrants.  I recently got the new E-Verify system at my place of employment and if I choose to hire a new employee I must wait until their citizenship status comes back before I can actually make the offer to hire them.

Additionally, there is important issue of high unemployment rates in a tough economy and the huge deficit that continues to grow at an exponential rate. Is it fair that we have legal citizens who cannot find work while companies and individuals are hiring illegal immigrants who may not even pay taxes to help curtail the expansive deficit?  It seems that many of the menial jobs that illegal immigrants are taking are the blue collar or “dirty”  jobs that legal citizens are not necessarily lining up to apply for. There is always the issue of illegal immigrants receiving state benefits such as free public schooling and medical services, while some states are on the verge of bankruptcy. On the other hand, what actions should states take when illegal immigrants have lived here and paid taxes for over twenty years? Should states give them a chance to apply for citizenship or just deport them back to their country of citizenship? If they have lived in this country and have supported the economy and abided by the law, in my opinion they should be given an opportunity to apply for citizenship.

Illegal immigration can be a “Catch 22” for some states. For instance, the recent controversy in the state of Alabama has left some laws to question if they are worth the ending results of the harsh laws. There has been an uprising of complaints from the farmers of the state claiming that their crops are rotting on the vine due to the lack of legal workers that are willing to endure the uncomfortable elements and working conditions involved in harvesting the crops. The state has lashed back at the farmers stating that they are insulting the people of Alabama. The state assumed that since unemployment was high, the farmers should not have trouble finding workers that were willing to do any job for money. However, the majority of the farmers found that it took five times the amount of American workers to get a day’s job completed versus the previously employed illegal immigrants. In return, the current workers made about twenty dollars a day for their work at a standard “pay per piece” rate and did not return for a second or third day of work in the fields. The farmers of Alabama claimed that the American workers were not in good physical shape and could not endure the long hours. One of the negative factors of this law in Alabama resulted in thousands of crops dying in the fields while far too many children and families in America go hungry and have no food to eat on a regular basis.

  

I believe that illegal immigration laws should be left entirely up to each state for deciding how they should react to this controversial issue. Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona went as far as suing the Obama administration for claims of failure to enforce immigration laws and protecting the state’s borders from Mexico. However, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit. I believe that some states should have harsher immigration laws than other others based on the fact that some states have to deal with more difficult situations than others like being located on the Mexican border. What do you think?

Protecting the Healthcare Benefits of Individuals with Cystic Fibrosis (CF) and Other Life Threatening Diseases: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (by: Debra Turner)

Imagine that you are breathing through a straw with every breath you take. For every day of your life, you have a persistent cough and wheezing. You develop repeated lung and sinus infections requiring strong antibiotics and experimental drugs. With every meal and snack you eat, you take a handful of pills to make your body absorb the fats and nutrients from the food you eat. Two, sometimes three times a day for 30-45 minutes, you strap on a vest that shakes and vibrates you, along with a mask that delivers medicine in the form of a vapor as a breathing treatment. These are a few of the symptoms and a normal course of therapy, medication and treatment options in the daily life of individuals who suffer with Cystic Fibrosis.

Cystic fibrosis is a rare and fatal genetic disease affecting about 30,000 people in the United States and 70,000 people worldwide. The inherited disease causes the body to produce thick mucus that clogs the lungs and leads to constant respiratory infections and premature death. CF also obstructs the pancreas and interferes with the absorption of food and normal growth. The predicted median age of survival is the mid-30s.

Before April 20, 2010, I had only heard of cystic fibrosis, but that day, my grandson was diagnosed with CF at the age of 3 weeks. Fortunately for Skyler, he has always had insurance coverage. The company has never denied him coverage, although many times it is required that the physicians and family bear the responsibility of proof to the insurance company that the treatment is deemed necessary in order for them to pay. Most of his medicine and supplies are covered for now. When he turns 3 years old, his coverage will change. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CFF) will no longer provide his pancreatic enzyme replacement medicine for free.  The insurance company will have to pick up the tab for it. His ‘vest’ machine (Airway Clearance Vest) alone is valued at $20,000.  One of the antibiotics prescribed for 6 months (Tobramycin), costs $1700 each month. The respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) shot he was prescribed once a month for 5 months was $700 each shot. Health care for a CF patient costs $64,000 per year on average, 15 times more than that of the average person.

What happens to those who are not so fortunate to have health insurance? What about the young adult who is no longer covered through their parents benefits? Or the 35 year old who is losing their job due to frequent absences because of the effects of the disease and will soon lose their coverage. 

The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CFF) is the world’s leader and advocate in the search for a cure. The CFF funds more research than any other organization and supports policies that ensure people with CF have access to the care and treatment they need to help them live longer and healthier lives. This organization makes recommendation for policy change through several venues.

One policy change is to improve and protect access to Medicaid, the program of last resort for many with cystic fibrosis who are struggling to get health care coverage. They support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which has the potential to benefit people with chronic, life-threatening diseases and oppose legislation to repeal the Act. Following the passage of the ACT, the CFF promotes lobbyist in Washington who articulate its position on the needs of CF patients as the law is implemented.

Another way to promote change is to increase awareness of the disease by educating communities around you. Encourage members of Congress to join the Congressional Cystic Fibrosis Caucus, which serves as a voice for the cystic fibrosis community in the U.S. House of Representatives. Supporting the Caucus’s efforts to increase awareness of cystic fibrosis will help find ways to improve the quality of life and life expectancy for those suffering with cystic fibrosis.

It is always important to become informed and stay involved in your own healthcare. Review your health insurance plan each year. You can obtain a copy of your coverage and plan description from your employee benefits office. Carefully read and highlight all sections pertaining to chronic illnesses and any information regarding cystic fibrosis.

Individuals living with cystic fibrosis have a daily regimen of care that is significant to their continual health status and cannot tolerate an interruption of insurance coverage.

The main source of information for this blog post was found on or through links from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation website: http://www.cff.org/GetInvolved/Advocate/Briefings/

Minor Abortion: Parental Notification or Consent?

Minor Abortion: Parental Notification or Consent?
Holly Seymour, Public Administration (R51-S12C)
When it comes to our children, we want to know; no, we have the right to know, what happens to them. This holds true especially when speaking of medical procedures. Abortion is quite an intrusive medical procedure, wouldn’t you say?

The dispute here lies with the laws governing parental notification of minors’ abortions, not so much with the parental permission of these abortions. Currently, there are 37 states that have requirements for at least one parent’s involvement when a minor is seeking an abortion. Of these 37 states, 11 require only notification; the other 26 states require notification of one, or both, parents plus parental consent. (Guttmacher Institute, 2012) So what of the remaining 13 states? They have no policies in effect, thus allowing these children to proceed with an abortion with the parents possibly never knowing.  Two variations here are Delaware and South Carolina.   While Delaware is a notification only state, this only applies to minors under the age of 16.  South Carolina, a consent requirement state, makes this requirement only of minors under the age of 17.

Often times, minors seeking abortion have been threatened by their parents or fear the repercussions that their parents may impose.  A young person faced with these threats and fears may not know that there are other options available to them.  Imagine being a young, pregnant teenager, that has been threatened with being thrown out of the only home ever known. Believing there is nowhere else to go and knowing that there will be a baby to take care of too.  Is there another option?  Some parents threaten their pregnant children with violence or even death.  These types of scenarios, as unbelievable as they may be, are why 36 states have judicial bypass provisions in effect.  Still 6 other states make allowances for another adult relative to weigh in on the decision.

Some minors living in states that require parental consent feel that they are left with no other choice than to travel to another state close by that allows minors’ abortions to be performed without parental involvement of any kind.  The Senate passed a bill in 2006 making it a crime for anyone to transport a minor over state lines to have an abortion.  Democrats opposed the bill, suggesting that these minors may have no other recourse than to rely on someone, other than a parent, to provide them with assistance; these people may be discouraged to help out of fear of the legal ramifications.  The Republicans countered, indicating that the judicial bypass procedures would provide a “work around” for situations where the minor cannot obtain parental consent.

There are steps that can be implemented, beginning at a very early age that may assist in curbing the pregnancy rates amongst minors.  Government agencies may provide parents with methods and education on how to discuss sex education with their children at age appropriate levels.  Sex education has been taught in schools since 1981, but with a foundation of abstinence.  Although abstinence is the only 100% effective method of preventing pregnancy, it is not practical to focus on it solely.  Children should be taught about the physical and emotional traumas that child birth and abortion can cause.  Realistic scenarios should be presented to children depicting the difficulties that can be experienced; children having children should not be glorified.  Sex education should not be looked at as a condoning gesture but as a preventative practice. 

Government is faced with the most trying duty; to enact the laws and policies expected to address the parental involvement topic.  Government must have the ability to acknowledge the rights of the pregnant minors while not infringing on the rights of the parents of these minors.  While every person should maintain the right to make decisions that will affect their lives, parents hold a responsibility to guide their children and sometimes make decisions for them.  There does come an age of understanding though; a time when a person can make life decisions for oneself.  The final decision should rest with the person carrying the child, the one whose life will be affected most by the decision made.  However, that person, still being a child too, has parents that have a responsibility and their rights as such should also be respected. 

Reference Links:

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PIMA.pdf

http://parentingteens.about.com/od/teenpregfact/a/abortion_laws.htm

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/04/1/gr040109.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14021863/ns/politics/t/senate-passes-minors-abortion-bill/

Race to the Top Drives Creative Thinking to the Bottom

The American education system is currently undergoing extensive reforms as a result of the Race to the Top program created by the Obama administration.  This program encourages states to compete against one another for federal grant money in an effort to elevate education standards nationally.  The $4.35 billion competition is funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a federal stimulus bill intended to respond to the recessionary conditions of the economy.  The program awards points to individual states for meeting specific educational criteria, including the adoption of policies such as merit-based performance reviews for teachers, standardized curricula, and the promotion of charter schools.  48 states have installed standards for grades K-12, some lifting restrictions on charter schools, and many states have increased performance reviews of their teachers and principals as a result of this program.

As is often the case with wide-sweeping federal reforms, there are many criticisms of Race to the Top.  Perhaps the most criticized reform is the merit-based assessment of teachers and principals.  The value of performance evaluation techniques promoted by the competition is highly subjective.  Particularly for teachers working in schools in impoverished neighborhoods, perpetually low test scores present an enormous obstacle.  In such areas, children often live in broken homes, perhaps with one or both of their parents in prison.  Yet, teachers in these school systems are still expected to adhere to value-added assessment techniques.  These requirements force teachers to exhibit similar ratios of success and improvement to teachers in wealthier school systems.  Race to the top applies one-size-fits-all policies to an eternally complex problem such as teacher evaluation.  Many teachers are not simply working in defective schools.  They are teaching in defective neighborhoods.  It is simply unfair to thrust the rigid responsibility of ever-increasing test scores upon the teachers of America’s poor.

Furthermore, the promotion of restrictive standards in curriculum and testing provide illusory measures of success for students.  Standardized testing does little to prove that students are gaining the ability to think critically.  Rather, such tests often incentivize students to temporarily memorize facts only to be forgotten by the following school year.  Standardized test that are easily scanned and scored by computers or machines are simply incapable of compelling students to engage in creative thinking and the formation of new knowledge.  Rather, it compels teachers to present test material reiteratively whether it is widely applicable to the students’ daily lives or not.  Furthermore, standards in education are often designed in part by government bureaucrats with limited experience in education.  Reliance on such requirements takes power away from teachers to explore topics that may encourage critical thinking and hypothesizing for fear of wasting time on material not deemed necessary for passing state examinations. 

Children are far more capable of intellectualism than standards would have you believe.  It is necessary for schools to return to promoting creative thinking.  Many school systems are cutting courses in the arts in favor of courses geared toward state standards.  Meanwhile, quality teachers are given less and less incentive to teach in poorer areas due to the unfair merit-based assessments imposed upon them.  This results in high turnover in the schools and less stability for poor students.  If you want to make education appealing to kids, teachers must be incentivized to engage in thought-provoking activities and empowered by their own educational expertise to account for the diversity of their students.  Race to the top is a reactive program that encourages school systems to fight for money needed to prevent layoffs in an education system wounded by the recession.  Schools should be concerned with producing inventive young minds capable of adapting to an ever-changing world, not mass-producing memorization machines capable of briefly storing data before inevitably discarding it. 
A letter to President Obama from a fifth grade teacher
Primer for Ed Reformers (or, It’s the Curriculum, Stupid!)

Marcellus drilling

TN Child Support Enforcment

 

In the United States the primary responsibility of enforcing child support rest on the separate states, although the federal government does provide financial support and various services concerning child support. States can turn to the Federal Parent Locator Service for help in locating parents across state lines, with access to data from the Social Security Administration, the IRS, and the Selective Service System, among various other sources.

 In Tennessee the Department of Human Services is responsible for administering the child support program.  These programs provide services that allow custodial parents to establish paternity of the child, establishing child support orders, and carrying out those child support orders. DHS also provides services to help locate absent parents, establish orders for medical support, and administer spousal support orders if child support is involved. There are numerous responsibilities and beneficial services that DHS provides for Tennessee families. The ability to enforce the court’s child support orders is a crucial component of the Tennessee Department of Human Services.

 The first step that needs to be taken in a child support case is to locate the alternate residential parent. The alternate residential parent as described by the DHS handbook is the parent that the child resides with less than 50% of the time. If the custodial parent has no information about the location of the alternate residential parent the state can use other sources to help in the location process. Various statewide resources like driver’s license records, motor vehicle registration records, and wage records are automatically by the Tennessee Child Support Enforcement System. DHS can locate absent military parents by contacting them through the appropriate branch of the military.

In the state of Tennessee until the child turns eighteen or if the child is 18 and still in high school then the order persists until the child’s graduation. If the alternate residential parent does not pay as ordered then DHS can assist in enforcing the order.  A variety of legal actions may be taken by the child support agency including:

1.       Issuing an income withholding order- if arrears are owed, payment to reduce the past due balance is included.

2.       Intercepting tax refunds- even if the parent are currently paying for arrears the tax refund can still be intercepted and used to pay the balance

3.       Placement of property liens

4.       Denial of obtaining a passport

5.       Seizure of bank accounts

6.       Revocation of licenses

7.       Reports made to credit bureaus

If the alternate residential parent is unemployed or receiving unemployment benefits child support must still be paid. The child support agency can withhold a portion of unemployment benefits to ensure that the order is being enforced. In the case of an interstate case, that being a case where the alternate residential parent resides in another state, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act makes it easier to enforce established orders without having to go through multiple states court systems.

Unfortunately for many custodial parents proper enforcement of child support services can become an issue.  Studies have shown that less than half parents awarded child support ever sees payment in full. Many noncustodial parents try to shirk child support responsibilities any way possible. This not only affects the families but has an indirect impact on the society who must finance poverty programs to assist those in need. With ever growing percentages of single parent families present in the U.S. and budgetary problems the responsibility of enforcing child support for many agencies can be a daunting task.