Contempo Magazine Blog

Should we pay students for good grades? Is paying them in effect a bribe to make good grades or is it a reasonable motivator to teach them the benefit of working for a distant goal? Republican Texas House Representative Joe Deschotel has sponsored a bill to use some of the federal stimulus money coming to Texas to create a program to pay students at low-performing schools who receive good grades in core subjects.

House Bill No. 3449 would be a pilot program for students enrolled in academically unacceptable campuses. The school would have to apply to the Texas Commissioner of Education for designation.

Only the ninth grade level will participate. In addition to being paid for good grades the school district will need to provide college and career counseling including encouragement to prepare for college entrance exam courses. The payment schedule would be $50 for “A”, $35 for “B”, and $20 for “C”.

According to a report in USA Today by Greg Toppo there are now 12 states currently experimenting or planning to develop programs that pay students for good grades. Typically the programs usually involve middle schoolers or high school freshmen. The Principals Partnership Project says the funds paid can range from $110 to over $500 dollars per semester. In Atlanta an $8 per hour program is planned.

The practice has raised a controversy as to whether paying a student will take away or diminish their internal sense of satisfaction. According to a report in Money, some psychologists believe that “praise and encouragement” are as important to give students while “paying for grades is a bad idea because it substitutes an external reward — money — for an internal sense of satisfaction and therefore interferes with developing a work ethic.” Gary Buffone a psychologist , parent, and book author of Choking on the Silver Spoon told Money that paying his daughters for good grades in high school got them focused and able to work towards a long term goal.

So far the effectiveness of these programs has been reported as promising by some. An academic study carried out by Johns Hopkins University found the effect was most positive for very “disadvantaged” students. In New York City there have been “mixed results” as reported by the New York Times. Roland G. Fryer, now the Department of Education’s equality officer and Harvard Economist, received national media attention when he created a private funded program to pay students $50 for passing tests.

Some teachers groups like the Ysleta Teachers Association think the money would be “better spent on other programs like after school programs”. They are concerned that students will come to expect money for grades as a standard and see it as giving the wrong message of a government entitlement.

The current drop out rate of students in Texas and the nation is unacceptable. The goal of our society is to teach students self reliance and productivity allowing them to function in our economic system. The cost of paying students as a reward for good grades may end up being cheaper in reality than paying for other types of interventional programs. Our culture already “pays” students with scholarships for college or private school for high academic achievement. Many poor students grow up in homes where there is a legacy of dependence on government programs and no family experience of regular employment. This may offer these students important lessons on how to get ahead in the world.

We need to test new ideas to deal with this intractable plague upon our youth. I do not see this concept as teaching students to look for entitlements but instead see it as teaching them the value of “work”. The state of Texas should proceed with a pilot project as proposed by Representative Deschotel and carefully evaluate the results. The Rio Grande Valley suffers nearly a 50% drop out rate and should definitely be included in the project.

Thanks for reading Contempo Magazine blog which discusses issues for McAllen, the Rio Grande Valley, and America from a conservative Hispanic point of view. Tony Magaña grew up in McAllen Texas, attended Texas A&M University, served as an officer in Army Reserve, and holds a doctorate from Harvard University. The co-founder of Contempo Magazine has participated in Valley business for over 20 years. He is a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and also writes for the American Daily Revew

Is Texas making the right decision to pass on $ 556 million in extra funds for unemployment insurance that would most likely cause permanent changes in the state system? Academic studies of the actual benefit and iniquity done by unemployment insurance in the past overwhelming support a limited unemployment plan and bolster Republican Governor Rick Perry’s opinion to refuse the federal stimulus aid from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The recent economic crisis has resulted in millions of job losses that do affect the lives of families. Wanting to help those in need is appropriate and moral but what is best method? The concept of unemployment insurance as a method to bridge the gap for families between losing a job and finding a new one as well as a tool to stabilize the economy at first seems a logical and reasonable government program. However, we must remember that governments have limited resources and have to act in a manner that will be the most deft use of those limited resources and will serve most aptly the long term interests of the people the government serves. It is essential that government act responsibly based upon reasonable measures of economic principle  and scientific study rather than on emotion.

Unemployment insurance was conceived in the 1960s as an economic instrument the government could use to stabilize the economy in times of recession. According to James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation, however, subsequent research on the true effect of unemployment insurance during the 1970s showed that it had little effect on “stabilizing the economy”. This finding has been confirmed when looking at nation wide or just state wide applications. He recommended that unemployment insurance should be limited.

Numerous studies done from the 1970s to this decade in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan under the auspices of universities like Harvard have repeatedly shown that unemployment insurance will encourage workers to “stay unemployed and companies to delay rehiring laid-off workers”. This creates a paradoxical effect because the number of full time workers in the society as a whole is reduced. Full time workers receiving full pay not just unemployment benefit are better able to increase consumption. The limited income and lack of certainty in future income that occurs with unemployment insurance means these families only have a modest effect on stimulating the economy.

To qualify for the federal package Texas would have to increase the current  unemployment insurance program to cover out of work part-time workers. Clearly this would have no substantial effect to improve the economy if full time coverage does not. Other changes that would have to made include increasing benefits for those with dependents, in job training programs, and giving greatest credit to more recent pay data. Although Democratic supporters agree that such changes will increase the cost of insurance that is borne by employers they say that this could be temporary. Opponents note that is historically difficult to reduce entitlement program funding levels once they are established and that increasing the cost of employees to business will not foster more employment during the recession.

Governor Rick Perry of Texas was right on target when according to the Dallas Morning News he said “”People living in Texas are a heck of a lot better off than the vast majority of the other ones,” and continued “”My instinct is they’d whole lot rather have a good-paying job than they would unemployment insurance.”

President Obama has said that we have to rely on science and not sentiment. Here is a prime example where science shows that in the long run unemployment insurance will do more harm then good if it is overused.

Thanks for reading Contempo Magazine blog which discusses issues for McAllen, the Rio Grande Valley, and America from a conservative Hispanic point of view. Tony Magaña grew up in McAllen Texas, attended Texas A&M University, served as an officer in Army Reserve, and holds a doctorate from Harvard University. The co-founder of Contempo Magazine has participated in Valley business for over 20 years. He is a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and also writes for the American Daily Revew

The Texas Legislature has been involved in long sessions and heated debate under a Texas Senate bill backed by Republicans that would require voters to show either a single photo identification (ID) or two non-photo IDs. Many Democrats say the measure will discriminate against the elderly, the disabled, the poor and point out that there is no current evidence of significant voter fraud in the state. Is the photo ID requirement really an anti-Hispanic measure or is there more to the story? Should we apply some common sense to this situation instead of outdated rhetoric?

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law says that studies have shown that across the nation about 12% of eligible voters cannot vote because of a lack of photo ID. They state that getting the “underlying documentation” for those discriminated groups mentioned above is difficult to obtain which is prerequisite to getting a photo ID. However the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 to uphold Indiana’s requirement for voters to present a photo ID at the time of voting saying that such a requirement was not unconstitutional. The Court further declared that there was a “valid interest” in deterring voter fraud and improving election procedures. The Indiana law allows those without photo ID at the time of voting to cast a provisional ballot with the understanding that they must present a valid photo ID within ten days following their vote. The statue contains an exception for persons living and voting in a state-licensed facility such as a nursing home

The image below shows the current status of photo ID requirements for voting in the various states

Senate Bill No. 362 was voted for by all Texas Republican State Senators and opposed by the Democratic State Senators. The bill provides for provisional balloting should there be inconsistencies in the voter registration list by omission or wrong precinct. A viable photo ID is defined by a lengthy list of federal, state, and local documents including a local library card. There is no provision for nursing home residents as is found in the Indiana law. According to the Dallas Morning News, Republican Rep. Todd Smith who is the Chairman of the Texas House Elections Committee, indicated there will likely be a further clarification that a voter registration would count as one of the two non-photo IDs that can be used in place of a photo ID when the measure is taken up in the House.

Many local Hispanic leaders but not all are making this a voter’s rights case that they say perpetuates discrimination against Latinos. At the same time there is a growing controversy in the South Texas town of Progresso where there is a Hispanic vs. Hispanic fight over alleged improprieties in the school board election of 2008. At least a dozen affidavits were officially submitted from both voters and official election observers of wrong doing but so far there has been no conclusive action taken. The Dallas Morning News reports that Advocacy Inc., an Austin based advocacy group for the disabled that supports the Help America Vote Program, has reported that these affidavits were sequestered until recently while some of those against the photo ID measure like Rep. Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) say that was staged to help promote the new law.

I have no doubt that are potentially a significant number of elderly and/or disabled Hispanics who have difficulty documenting their status. These American citizens do deserve their Constitutionally guaranteed right to vote as much as anyone else. At the same time, now more than ever, all Americans must be able to trust the results of an election. Most of the poor and elderly exist in federal and state databases where they are receiving services such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Our election registration process is too passive about relying on potential voters to volunteer for registration. Our election officials should be given the tools and resources to make sure that every American who is eligible to vote is registered using these databases. We spend too much time worrying about voter registration during elections and not enough time getting voter registration done thoroughly in the lapse between elections.

These databases would be easily cross referenced with photo identification databases so that a photo ID would be available to elections officials. Instead of voters having to produce a photo ID and having the election official determine it’s authenticity , the preferable modern technological answer would be to have the photo ID image available electronically right there at the check-in for voting. To prepare for this initiative the elections officials would specifically contact those individuals who show up in the databases who appear to be eligible voters but have no photo ID. If someone is disabled or has difficulty with transportation a designated official from the elections office or whomever the state designates such as DMV would go to the voter and collect a photograph.

Many Hispanics are sensitive to the past of Anglo paternalism when things like the poll tax and English language proficiency requirements were the rule. Whether we like to admit it or not, everyone in South Texas knows that time required the development of strong political machines to help us get our voices heard. It is time to turn the page on the “Border Boss” concept because the contemporary fight is not Anglo vs. Hispanic but Hispanic vs. Hispanic. Those that try to claim Hispanic rights are being crushed in a thinly obscured measure really meant to help the “Border Bosses” have missed the whole point of our struggle.

Thanks for reading Contempo Magazine blog which discusses issues for McAllen, the Rio Grande Valley, and America from a conservative Hispanic point of view. Tony Magaña grew up in McAllen Texas, attended Texas A&M University, served as an officer in Army Reserve, and holds a doctorate from Harvard University. The co-founder of Contempo Magazine has participated in Valley business for over 20 years. He is a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and also writes for the American Daily Review