What do you think of linking school attendance and driving privileges?
Posted at 5:00 AM on April 20, 2011
by Eric Ringham
(40 Comments)
Filed under: Education, Transportation
Minnesota legislators have proposed a law to deny driver's licenses to high school dropouts. The sponsors say their goal is to give young people one more reason to stay in school. Today's Question: What do you think of linking school attendance and driving privileges?
Comments (40)
Voting as adults has no correlation to high school drop outs. What point are you trying to make, Greg?
Oh .... sure .... let's require that every adult be required to attend to VOTING in order to get their driver's license renewed each year. If you don't VOTE ... you have to retake the driving test ( written and behind the wheel) with a passing score of 90 or higher .
By using the possibly of revoking driver’s licenses, the incentive to stay in school is very prominent. When a student is legally allowed to drop out of high school, they’re also entitled to a car on the open road. The direct impact this bill would encourage attendance, which would lead to higher graduation rates. By achieving a high school diploma, these young adults are more likely to find jobs – a total necessity in this economic recession. The lack of a diploma would make drop outs more susceptible to poverty conditions which would in turn worsen their current conditions. In the long run, the passage of the bill will not just educate those who would have otherwise left but also create a more well-rounded working force of the future generations who are capable of supporting themselves.
Yet the opponents of the bill still present valid arguments – it would lead to class disruptions and some situations specifically call for dropping out of school. The solution to these problems does not lie in a driver’s license; students affected by this condition currently have access to the road and that is not improving their current status. Rather, school programs should be created that would cater to the demographic of students who disrupt regular classes or students who need additional motivation in working toward a proper education. If such school programs are created, the averages for standardized testing would increase, thus bringing in funding to back the programs. In regards to family or medical issues that force students out of school, social welfare programs could be tailored to aiding such families. The impact of keeping students in class will benefit the rest of their lives, which is more effective than allowing them to drop out and drive.
I work with homeless adolescents in downtown Minneapolis. We work with approximately 1500 youth every year, and I can safely say under half of the clients we serve have a GED or high school diploma upon walking through our doors.
After three years of working with this demographic I've met very few who have a driver's license, mostly because they come from family's who are living in poverty and are too poor to pay for driver's ed. I've assisted several youth in accessing scholarships for driver's ed, but many just wait until they are past the age of needing to take the class.
Linking a driver's license to high school graduation would provide little motivation for the clients I work with, who are predominantly black urban youth who grew up in poverty and don't have the financial resources to attend driver's training.
Furthermore, many jobs require having a driver's license, and not allowing youth to have a driver's license may prevent many young people who are FORCED to work from helping to support their families. I think this action would create more barriers than an incentive for young people.
.... or vote.
How about linking civic tests with legislative privileges?
If you can't pass a civics test, you don't get to write laws.
Hmmm, what next? Unless you graduate from college you don't get a license, then you need a masters degree. State legislators say you don't have time for anything but the budget, so get focused. Anyway, legally one can stop going to HS at age 16. ... man...of course there would be exceptions, if you know the right people....
@ louis you're spot on ... pitching still in spring training?
I think there are kids who need to drop out of school for reasons that we can't even begin to know. For example there may be a family financial hardship that requires the kid to work. Perhaps the kid has a health issue, or needs to care for some one else.
I think to just across the board take away a license will potentially make a hard life even harder.
This sounds like punishment and judgement. I think the government should stay out of that business and give equal access to drivers licenses to all.
I think it's a pretty silly idea. There are more pressing issues to talk about.
What do I think about todays question? As a person living here in Wisconsin I actually think the Twins are more relevent than this idiotic plan.
This is a terrible idea on many levels. If keeping kids in school is the problem, the solutions have to be linked directly to the problem - that is in the educational system and family dynamics. This idea assumes many things about teen's lives...only one being that they don't need a car to get to a job to help support their family. This idea is on the punishment platform.......absolutely not what is needed to find a solution to the problem.
Bunch of Bologna: the 2 have nothing to do with each other. It would cause an increase in fear and loathing towards authority. Keep government out of licensing.
Yet another law that would do little to deter anyone from doing anything, but will waste resources enforcing it.
There should be a law that they can’t make any more of these soccer mom laws that do nothing more than make someone not hurting anyone else a criminal for no good reason.
To settle the question Privilege v. Right, It's neither. Driving is a necessity. Naturally the operation of several tons of steel at 65 MPH should be regulated as an activity in of it's self as in traffic laws.
1. This is just another law again to further turn our state into the People's Republic of Minnesota. Why do we continue to roll over and play dead every time our liberties are taken away? For instance, smoking bans, "I don't smoke so it doesn't affect me". Now this law, "I'm an adult, it doesn't affect me". It DOES affect all of us. When one person's liberty is taken away, EVERYONE'S liberty is taken away.
2. I don't think many drop-outs could have the money to legally own and drive a car. That is with license and tab fees, insurance, driver's ed, exam fees. And so if they were responsible, they wouldn't be driving. Now the wrong-headed thinking in St. Paul flows eternal, legislators are ignorant as usual. Does any person of sound mind think this law will prevent drop-outs from driving? Hardly. They will just drive illegally because they simply don't care. I have a nephew who is a drop-out. He was busted for suspended license and weed in the car. Even after getting out of jail and waiting for his license to be re-instated, he drove anyway.
3. If this bill is enacted into law, my advice to all you drop-outs who have the ability to read this and you are otherwise LEGAL to drive. Find a friend or relative who lives out of state. Use their address as a means to get your license in Wisconsin, Illinois, or the Dakotas, etc. Then you will have a valid license and of course current tabs and insurance.
This policy won't work if the truant students in question a) don't have a car, and b) their parents can't afford a car. c) isn't of age to drive, hold a permit, or have a blue slip. Moreover, during my school days (84-88), truant students living in the metropolitan area simply took the bus or hung out a friend's house, or met up in the park.
A better solution: assess fees on the parents.When the parents wind up paying the price, you'll see more students attending school.
Driving privileges should be linked to demonstrated driving skills, nothing more. If you can drive safely, you should be able to get a license to drive. If you have multiple DUIs or accidents for which you are at fault, your driver's license should be suspended. Other life choices should not be linked to driving privileges.
I think the first comment on this board by Alison says it all.
Having a bright, honor student child who I thought would be the last person to drop out of high school, I can say for a fact, not being able to drive would not have been an issue!! His issue was with school not meeting any of his needs. Has anyone really looked at why students are dropping out? My guess is very few of the drop outs worry about their driving privileges being taken away.
It seems the more people say they want a smaller, less intrusive government the more they come up with rules that really infringe on people's lives.
I would be for it in principle, but....
There are those who for religious reasons drop out or because of other reasons.
(Although if Amish, I doubt they have a car....)
Generally I think a cause and effect needs to be looked into. Are those driving more prone to drop out? My impression was that they were not, quite the contrary.
Again, legislators making assumptions rather then a known fact based decision.
We ought to be able to carry more than one thought in our minds at a time--that is, INVEST in programs to PREVENT kids from dropping out--and ALSO: sy that if you drop out you cannot get a driver's license until age 18. The SOCIETAL COST of high school drop-outs (70% of those in prison either dropped out or are functionally illiterate) mean it's in EVERYONE'S interest to keep kids from dropping out in as many ways as we can! No high school diploma means not only NOT going to college but having very verty few job options. Until age 18m one is a minor and one's "rights" are limited in manyways (like drinking, signing contracts, living away from one;s parents/legal guradina, voting etc)
Letting kids know they will not be able to drive if they drop out might make some stick it out to graduation.
There is not enough public transportation in the state of MN to make this a reasonable law. If you don't have a HS diploma, and now you can't drive, it will be hard to get work and get to work.
Kids don't drop out of school so they can spend time driving a car. Why create an incentive system linking the two?
I understand the reasoning, but I'd like to see more effort put into keeping kids in school for the right reasons. This carrot stick approach seems like a cheap way to avoid doing something about the real causes of the problem.
i dont think its a good idea-kids should be motivated by learning to attend not whether or not they can drive!
It seems like a waste of money keeping track of who's in school and who is not. I'd rather the money be spent on working with students before they drop out.
Linking driving privileges with attendance is plain ridicules. 1. Any parent worth their salt is going to take away their kids driving license. 2. Finding out why the child is skipping school & providing resources to that family seems like a better option. 3. As a mom who has a son that didn't want to go to school depriving my son of his license made no difference what so ever. 4. The school sent letters saying if my son skipped school there would be legal repercussions, when I tried to hold them to it they said that was an automated letter and really only enforced for drug dealers & problem children. 5. My son missed so much of his senior year they said his attendance would not allow him to graduate with his class unless his teachers decided he could. My son graduated on time 2009. 6. I dropped out of high school as a matter of survival literally, taking my drivers license would have only hindered my ability to eat. 7. When kids really want to drive they don’t care if they have a license or not.
In short weather the issue is your child is stubborn & just does not want to be in school or there are real barriers to attending school restricting a teens drivers license seems like throwing a towel in an ocean to dry it up.
@Stan
The Republican chair of the Education committee is reported to endorse the bill. It's described aa bipartisan, and it's rubbish.
If someone doesn't want to be in school and only stays so he or she can have a driver's license what is the point? Making someone sit at a desk all day is far different from inspiring someone to learn, motivating them to try, or helping them find out where their passion is so they will want to be there. By forcing education down the throats of kids are we really helping them? Personally I don't think this will help any one. On the other hand I think it would be a good idea to raise the legal driving age to 18 for everyone -- not just dropouts.
Several in this thread have asked who elected these people and are these the same legislators cutting education funding. These rhetorical questions imply that this bill is yet another republican ploy. Well please direct your scorn to Representatives Carlos Mariani (DFL) District: 65B, Linda Slocum (DFL) District 63B, and Sandra Peterson (DFL) District 45A. This is a DFL sponsored bill. Yet another example of big government – brother -- helping us little people make the right decisions. IMHO there is no reasonable connection between school attendance and driver’s licenses. I would rather see a bill banning talking on cell phones while driving, walking, snowmobiling, skiing, boating, shopping, etc.
Yes, if you are a parent and want to do this.
Just another nanny state law trying to have the government replace parents.
Hey folks, we have no money. We can't be finding MORE stuff for the government to do.
I think that this idea has good intentions, but ultimately is counter-productive. If teens choose not to stay in school they are already punished by society in many ways, and life thereafter can often be difficult. Why take away their driving privileges, when driving is often essential to get a job? If these kids can't get jobs, what else can they do? Ultimately it comes down to freedom of choice to me. I have quite a few friends that are highschool drop outs that have grown up and made something of themselves later in life. Because of this I don't think dropping out is always the end of the world and should not be dealt with in this way by the state government.
I see someone is attempting their best imitation of Ayn Rand. The problem with the Randian idea is that it actually describes systems that humans have already tried, and found wanting. It basically describes the feudal system, or variations on political systems founded upon clientage.
Joanie, you're being sarcastic, right? Please tell us you're satirizing the nutty anarchist fringe.
I'm making an educated (so to speak) guess that these are the same legislators who are working to cut any programming that could keep these same kids in school, as well as cutting money for their public transportation.They seem to have punishment as their primary means of legislating - at least for the 96% of the non-rich.
I am a social worker whose primary caseload is the very poorest.Many of them are dropouts, and would not be affected by this bill, as they have no money for a car and have never had a license, and often can't even afford a bus pass. If they did have the money for driving, it would further help them find a job and be off welfare.
Saving money in the future, keeping kids in school, means an investment NOW, in programs to help these kids. Once again, these legislators seem to not have an eye to what these cuts would mean for the future for so many people not as fortunate as themselves.
It's nothing but grandstanding. Supposedly this is a "bipartisan" measure. Are they trying to distract us from the fact that they can't get along on issues that really matter?
Seems rather ironic how these "lawmakers" are cutting funding for education with one hand. And with the other hand, attempt to make laws to "encourage" graduation. Is this not a perfect example of the so called "heavy hand" of the State? What ever happened to less regulation and less government? Who elects these gas bags?
LISTEN UP! Driving is a given right provided at birth - Not a privilege, like the title implies. Look at the title to this story, that is sure to lead most readers to their death. Start jumping you sheeple. Anyone should be able to drive on a public road and not have to pay in any way, shape or form... Don't you get it?!
I can walk in the public street for free, why does the state blackmail drivers into paying for a license to drive a car, license to put on the car, license for this that and everything else, making you wear a seatbelt, do this and that. Wake UP!. It is all control. What happened to freedoms we are born with? You the controllers took them away, enforcing this crap with guns. And those of you that comply, make it worse via mob rule. Driving has nothing to do with schooling. Oh, that is another matter. Public indoctrination centers do not turn out thinking minds, rather they curtail the thought process. Better drivers know how to think and you wont find those persons in high school. They got smart, broke free of the chains and left, pursuing real life. Thank you.
Who the h*ll voted for these legislators? "Focusing on the economy and jobs like a laser" my *ss!
It's a really wrong-headed idea, in my opinion. While I think reducing the school dropout rate is a good goal in general, I'd prefer to see efforts to improve the quality of education and support for students who are at risk of quitting. It does no good to keep students in school if they continue to hate it, or if they're in a situation that makes it difficult for them to succeed.
Sometimes motivation is not the only thing a student lacks - sometimes it's money, time, a home. Imagine a 17 year old single mother without any family support. Denying her a driver's license will make her life harder, but it's not going to make graduating high school any easier or more accessible for her. All this law does is punish kids who, in many cases, really need help more than anything.
It might work, but mostly it sounds like a gimmick designed to make a good headline while avoiding the real causes of the dropout problem. It strikes me that there are probably any number of reasons for such a law to be ineffective in practice.
This reminds me of other efforts like 3 strikes, No Child Left Behind (holding only the schools responsible), or grand plans to end homelessness that never address mental illness or substance abuse. Great
'common sense' headlines that are bark without much bite.
| April 2011 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock