Get Schooled

By SET

May 23, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

Great Idea. Should be used. One more way for the schools to let the kids know who is boss.

It’s interesting that Atlanta refuses to participate in the Driver’s License revocation scheme. Now go back to the Mission Statement of the schools - not the one that say they have, but what their actions show their real mission statement is.

By Jennifer

May 23, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

It’s not like the kids and their parents didn’t now this law existed and if their kids repeatedly get into trouble then they have to learn there are consequences for their actions, which it seems a lot of kids don’t know this.

Heck, I’m happy there will be 11,000 inexperienced drivers off the roads. What ever happened to real Driver’s Ed? Have you seen the way these kid’s parents drive? Why leave teaching driving up to those idiots? They can’t even figure out what to do at an intersection with a flashing yellow light in one direction and flashing red light in the other. And forget about four-way stops. That’s way over their heads.

By James Bryden

May 23, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

No license should be given to anyone under 18.

By mytake

May 23, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

I think this is a fantastic idea. It’s time kids have a reason to be good!

By Taxpayer

May 23, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

I don’t think this will change anything. Plenty of adults drive without licenses, so what’s to stop the kids? If these little gems are chronic truants, they probably aren’t exactly receiving a lot of parental attention anyway. Who’s going to keep them from driving, their lazy parents? If they get caught, they’ll get a ticket, maybe do some jail time, but then they’re right back out on the street. I appreciate the intention of this law, but it won’t cure truancy.

By Sgt. Friday

May 23, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

ALL mid-teen licenses should be revoked immediately if not sooner. The age should be raised to 18. This would remove some of these spectacularly incompetent drivers from the road. And save some innocent drivers (not to mention passengers in the ‘murder’ vehicles).

By ACG

May 23, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

Bad Idea.Some circumstances may come up where the student may miss ten or more days during the semester.I think that is not even enough days. They should rise it up to fifteen.I dont think its fair that you get your license revoked after a number of days it should be taken from the children who skip school or cut a class.Its unfair and some students who miss ten or more days they still dont get their license taken from them.The lawmakers need to buckle down on the counties to make sure that all students get the same treatment.

By Vicki Mullis

May 23, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

When I was is school my parents judeged whether my behavior and grades were of a standard that allowed me to drive. I did the same for my children. Today parents have abdicated that responsibility because they don’t want to hurt their babies “feelings” or they just don’t want to bother with discipline, so once again it is left up to the State to do the parents job. If the parents won’t stand up and do it someone has to teach responsibility, it’s just too bad it isn’t the person(s) that gave birth to them.

By ToughMom

May 23, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

Unfortunatly, the state was put into a position of disicplining kids with a law that may or may not be used by the schools systems of GA. If parents would parent, and realize that kids need some tough love occasionly then the state would not need to waste time, money and effort to pass such a law in the first place. Tough love does include placing a teen on driving restriction when he or she shows a lack of responsibility in school! This law is a good idea. If it is truely used. There are kids in my county still driving that shouldn’t be according to this law.

By Laurie

May 23, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

I disagree. We all earn driving privledges by passing a driving test and keeping a good driving record. School is separate and if parents decide one way to reinforce disciple at home for what happens at school is by taking away their child’s right to drive is one thing. I want our schools to focus on teahcing our children how to read, write and think. As parents we need to disciple our children without asking the schools to do it for us. Having schools have the right to take away driving privledges is outside the boundaries and they have enough to do without extra responsibilities. Consequences to our actions need to follow what the behavior was. Therefore, only bad driving equals the state’s right to take away the driving license not lack of attendance.

By E. Lewis

May 23, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

Driving is a privilege NOT a right.

By Robin

May 23, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

I believe that is the right thing to do. Especially in today’s world, where a care is such a means of life. If you can not get it right, then you need to pay.

By V for Vendetta

May 23, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

Wow, an actual example of following through with something! Fantastic! It’s about time the kids have something to fear. If the administrators at schools are not going to enforce proper penalties for misbehavior, then I guess we have to leave it up to the State to crack down on punks.

I think this WILL have a positive impact on schools. Imagine parents having to deal with their own kids because they are skipping or getting in trouble at school. Imagine parents having to do something about their OWN kids. Some of these chronic problems will end up dropping out because of it. Good I say. The quicker we can get them out of school, and into jail, the better. Strange as it may sound, some kids actually come to school to learn.

By Renee

May 23, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this

James, I agree!

Maybe this will curtail some of the behavior by these spoiled kids driving the BMW’s given by mommy and daddy regardless of how their little rugrats are acting.

As far as the heavy skippers who aren’t driving, they shouldn’t be. Bottom line, kids should not be driving. It should be a privilege coupled with adulthood.

By Jaeson

May 23, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

I was in the first wave of students this applied to. This law is perfect. Kids which are not at school are not at home either. Nine out of ten are at, or on their way to, someplace they shouldn’t be. And one must assume kids who have been arrested for some reason, don’t have the best judgment anyway. That year also marked a great law which suspends permits of those under 18 who have been caught going over 24mph over the speed limit.

By V for Vendetta

May 23, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Oh, and I agree with what others have said, the driving age needs to be raised. If we as a country are going to make it so freaking easy to get a drivers license, then we need to make sure they are mature enough to handle it. Unless we are going to impose a more difficult system like Germany…

By trumpvine

May 23, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

I just saw the Sonny ad speaking of his help w/ discipline, and was wondering about what he was talking…this tells me! Obviously, I didn’t know b/c I teach w/ APS…the district that forgot about this b/c of an oversight!! Another APS disaster…..

Now I want to know what he’s going to do to help us deal w/ the younger kids!

I do believe this is a great idea, as long as APS stops ‘forgetting’ about this program… I wonder if they even get embarrassed anymore.

By Elane

May 23, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

ACG,

Although there are cases where kids are out sick and the school disregards a doctor’s note, most of the time the type of circumstances you cite fall under the heading of excused absence. The law here covers unexcused absences — like kids just laying out of school because they know mom and dad aren’t checking up.

But I’m curious…is this law applicable in any way to home schooled kids?

By Peter Hoover

May 23, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

I agree with SET. This lets the kids know who’s boss. As a former teacher, I have long felt that students just do not have a desire to accumulate a body of knowledge. And even more so than when i was a teen, kids just have this air of invulnerability about them…consequences of their poor choices will never have to be paid. This does the trick.

But let’s go one step further…how about drafting truants into the armed forces? That’ll really let them know who’s boss!

By easy

May 23, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Great job Georgia! Teens, GO TO SCHOOL, LEARN and STAY OUT OF TROUBLE!

By Jaeson

May 23, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

I was in the first wave of students this applied to. This law is perfect. Kids which are not at school are not at home either. Nine out of ten are at, or on their way to, someplace they shouldn’t be. And one must assume kids who have been arrested for some reason, don’t have the best judgment anyway. That year also marked a great law which suspends permits of those under 18 who have been caught going over 24mph over the speed limit.

By diver

May 23, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

ACG, the key term is un excused absense not excused… I believe the situation you describe would fall under that. However it is my view that a Drivers License is a “Privilege” and not a right. And even though it may not effect all. Those who are effected by it will learn that with privileges come responsibility and consequences.

By D

May 23, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

excellent! it’s sad that the state had to step in, but today it seems necessary, this is actually the parent’s job, but if they aren’t stepping up to the plate, somebody needs to, the parents I see today take twice as much credit for being a parent, and do half as much work as my parents did.

By jerry

May 23, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

totally agree. children are without remorse and or penalty. if this is the rule that is in place then follow it fully. children need to learn responsability for their actions.

By patricia

May 23, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

Good! There are consequences to all actions in this world. Kids need to learn that early (before 16). And who cares if they and their parents did or did not know about the law. It’s irrelevant. They need to go to school and behave. Period.

By Hekyl&Jekyl

May 23, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

I don’t really know what to say b/c I’m pretty far removed from teenagers and their lives. However, I definitely don’t think no one under 18 should be licensed. I get the impression most are good, responsible and very nice kids. But it makes me feel safer to know that at least some who are not will not be behind the wheel of a car threatening the public safety. However, the ACLU will probably get it declared unconstitutional because it gets in the way of our right to do whatever we want including endangering others. Sigh…

By V for Vendetta

May 23, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

trumpvine- two words for the younger kids… “cattle prods”. :-)

By jim d

May 23, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

I think we should remember that this may work for some, however as Patti pointed out in the article the kids who were the most hard-core school skippers did not drive. So let’s ask ourselves if this is a fare law in that it can not be evenly administered?

By hello

May 23, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

Good start. Now let’s crack down on everyone who is driving with no license and insurance. You know they’re out there. At least that will clear the roads of some excess traffic. In fact, things would be a lot better all around if we copied Europe and made driving testing harder and more expensive.

By Homeschool Mom

May 23, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

I think that this is a great idea! I homeschool my 2 sons and they already know that they won’t be allowed to drive until they are 18 anyway. Of course they don’t like it but that tough! I’d rather have them mad at me and think that I’m overprotective than be involved in a fatal accident.

By Ron

May 23, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

To all the ones worried about inexperienced 16 year olds on the road and wanting to raise the driving age to 18. Don’t you think an inexperienced 18 year old will be just as bad a driver?

I think this is GREAT news. I think the PRIVILEGE of driving should be EARNED. Earned by driving correctly for more than just a year with an adult. It is proven children with better grades make better drivers, hence the insurance discount.

Lets have total driver reform. A student with all A’s could get their license sooner than a student with marginal grades. Lets have the learners permit last for more than just a year.

Lets clean up the roads and the schools.. WOO HOO.

By Peter Hoover

May 23, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

Good grief Laurie!!! Are you one of those bleeding heart liberals that thinks that saying “NO” to a child is child abuse? Are you a parent who has come to rely on your teen doing errands for you or driving younger siblings around instead of you? Driving is a PRIVILAGE earned by passing a test, but that is not the standard for keeping that license. Driving is not a right. A privilage can be revoked. Rights can not be revoked. Teens, like any other legally licensed driver can break any number of laws and have the license revoked. Kids plain and simply are not entitled drive; they earn that privilage and when they break the law, they lose. Period

By V for Vendetta

May 23, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

Thank you Hello, I’ve been saying that for years! As a car enthusiast and someone who enjoys driving, I would love to have clear roads that were not quite as dangerous as those we are currently subjected to.

But I digress…

Jim, who cares if this is a fair law? Anything to decrease the population of punks is a good thing. Period.

By Caryn

May 23, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

I think it is a great law to take away driver’s license for youth who are not attending school. Something needs to be done!

By Eric Tushim

May 23, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

I would rather hurt the feeling of these kids, and them learn some responsibility, before they get behind the wheel of something that can go 85mph and get themselfs killed and someone else killed or hurt! Moms and Dads need to look at themselfs as well, your “babies” see how you drive! And they do what you do, not say!!

By Peter Hoover

May 23, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

V for Vandetta….right on!

By ugh

May 23, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

I disagree with this law. Schools shouldn’t be the disciplinarians. If a kid is found with a lighter at a school football game, or one is found in his car, that shouldn’t necessitate a driver’s license suspension. Second, regarding the no license for dropouts law, I totally disagree. If a kid drops out to support his pregnant teenage girlfriend, parental permission should allow him to keep his license. When they decided to not allow parental permission, it went way too far.

I take issue when the state trumps parents say. The laws give too much control to the overburdened schools in today’s zero tolerance climate. Schools that can’t take the time to determine the real issue. Finally, an arrest is just an arrest. Does the law distinguish against teens that are arrested then cleared of all charges?

It’s too much. I send my child to school for an education. I’m in control whether he drives or not, period. Kids will be kids and will sometimes get in trouble at school or school activities. I find the arrest piece to be way too broad since lighters are lumped in with drug paraphenelia. Surely being arrested would have it’s own consequences alone, if guilty.

Adults are treated more fairly than this. Unless found guilty while driving, a drug/alcohol/weapons arrest doesn’t automatically lose your license does it? A violent crime also has it’s own legal consequences. And, the absences should be dealt with through DFCS.

By J. Young

May 23, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

It is a shame that the parenting of today in some cases has evolved to the point that the state government has to pass such a law and enforce it to encourage students to study in school.

By Peter Hoover

May 23, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

Hey UGH! Are you crazy? Since when do parents have rights over the state when their children are breaking the law? Don’t you get it???? THE STUDENTS ARE BREAKING THE LAW. THATS WHY THEY ARE HAVING THEIR LICESNSES REVOKED!!!!!! Sheesh!

By Judy

May 23, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

I agree with Peter… driving is a privilage… not a right! Take away the license! I wish there was more that could be done to be honest… parents need to take control back!

I don’t think they should get their license back until they graduate! Maybe that would help with other issues besides truancy!

By Ron

May 23, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

UGH, What is DFCS going to do? If they can’t arrest the child, can’t take their license, what else can be done? Law basicly forbid the spanking of a child so what CAN BE DONE?

This is not a zero tolerance law, this is 10 UNexcused absenses….TEN…not one TEN. What consequences should there be? What alternatives do you propose?

ACTIONS NEED CONSEQUENCES and the kids of today need to learn it.

By Nunya

May 23, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

Good idea! I’m all for it. Now I can drive a little more comfortably.

By jim d

May 23, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

Peter, if they break a law put them in jail, if they break a school policy give them detention or expel them, but only revoke their driving license if they violate driving laws. If you want these kids to learn responsibility and act as adults you gotta treat them as adults.

By steve smithfield

May 23, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

Driving is a privilege and not a right. When I was fifteen, I counted the days until I could get my drivers license. Kids need to respect the right to drive…not demand it. But who’s going to cut the bureaucratic tape in enforcing the law?

By Peter Hoover

May 23, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

Thank you Judy!!!!! :-)

By judge

May 23, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

“Students in Georgia can lose their licenses if they rack up 10 or more unexcused absences in a semester, commit a violent crime or are arrested for drug, alcohol or weapons possession”

OK, I can see punishing teen’s for ‘committing a violent crime’, but arrested? for drug, alcohol or weapons possession? Come on! Since when are you ‘guilty until proven innocent’??? The Law’s of the Land should read ‘Guilty until proven innocent’ because this is truly the direction our society is going. And as long as the kids have an ‘A’ or ‘B’ average I don’t think it matters how many days they miss.

By judy

May 23, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

Hey Jim… not trying to be rude… but if they were acting like adults they would be treated as adults! They obviously not making the right decisions so…. there are adults helping them. Hopefully… they will learn that with bad choices/decisions there are consequences! Just my take on it… everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion and I respect that.

By judy

May 23, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

Hey Jim… not trying to be rude… but if they were acting like adults they would be treated as adults! They obviously are not making the right decisions so…. there are adults helping them. Hopefully… they will learn that with bad choices/decisions there are consequences! Just my take on it… everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion and I respect that.

By judy

May 23, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

Hey Jim… not trying to be rude… but if they were acting like adults they would be treated as adults! They obviously are not making the right decisions so…. there are adults helping them. Hopefully… they will learn that with bad choices/decisions there are consequences! Just my take on it… everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion and I respect that.

By ugh

May 23, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

Also, the driving age should be raised to 18. Absolutely. And, yes, they may be just as inexperienced, but they will have had more learners license time (hopefully) to counteract that. Plus, they’ll have more reason to behave on the road and keep that license. Licenses should be tied to your behavior on the road, period.

Some here said the kids don’t recognize schools are the boss. I guess that depends on your definitions, but I don’t believe the shools are “the boss”. Nor do I believe they should be. Coming from a parent that has seen teachers ask her kid to lick their shoes (seriously), lock kids in storage closet as punishment, and write on a kid’s eyeglasses, the schools are not perfect. The schools are there to teach, the students should respect the schools as teaching institutions. They’re not the police, not judges, and not my kid’s disciplinarian. They are not The Boss.

By Peter Hoover

May 23, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

Jim D. - thats the problem…..the kids AREN’T adults. They do not vote, and they do not have the maturity to understand the consequences of their actions. So your answer is to expel them? Well, in case you didn’t notice, they are truant. They want to be out of school. And if they are not in school, detention is a joke. I will say, that if a child has run out of excused absences because of illness etc, I might be convinc ed, but a note from the Dr. would not be enought. They would have to waive their HIPPA rights and get detailed infrom from the doctor as to diagnoses, prognoses and treatment. But this law is intended for those who are truant, not ill. And it is a law.
What would you say to a parent who refuses to pay child support? Their licenses are revoked and that doesn’t involve any traffic laws.

By Teacher

May 23, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

I had a student who lost his license so he started to come to school and cause trouble. He said he didn’t have anything else to do. Students who cause problems should not be allowed to come to school.

By PARENT

May 23, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

I think that is great !! now who will enforce it? Whose responsibility is it to send the information to the state? I personally know of a teenager that parents just gave her a new Acura RSX, she hasn’t been to school since that day (nor was she going prior to that day) she would go one day out of every 2 or 3 weeks, but yet she still has her license and car.. even after she wrecked the car 3 weeks after she received it and received a new one.. but guess what ??? she is in North Fulton school district… so my question again, who will enforce this???

By Robert

May 23, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

Great idea! I would take it one step farther…. only students with overall gpa of 3.0 or higher get the priviledge!!!

By Mshell

May 23, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

I agree 100%. I have 3 teenagers and it is a shame that the State has to take action to revoke driving priveleges for these reasons. If it were my children, the state would not have to step in and do my job. I would take the licenses myself.

If they can’t act like they are supposed to and they can’t attend school regularly, they should not be allowed to drive.

By arwen

May 23, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

i think this is wonderful idea and no child should get a license if they can not be responsible. if we were harder in our laws with teens maybe more lives would be saved.

By Robert

May 23, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

PARENT

It is an easy thing to implement. First, the State requires the list of students not meeting the requirements (x number of days absent, etc.). Then, the State downloads this file into the DMV computer and “flags” those students.

Easy.

By Something's Phishy

May 23, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

My 17-year-old Hispanic neighbor — I’ll call him “Juan” — dropped out of school last year, at age 16. Yet he drives every day. I see him here, there and everywhere. He has been tooling around our neighborhood in one hoopty or another since he was 13 — with no license and no insurance.

Last week, my 15-year-old son told me that “Juan” is furiously trying to get back into school because his license was being revoked. (I would have thought, however, that “Juan’s” license was revoked a long time ago for constantly driving without insurance.” Anyway, perhaps this action IS a good thing — but I don’t thinNice effort, though.

What I see happening as a result of this action is that the jails will fill with kids booked on traffic offenses.

By MC

May 23, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

If this had happened to me I would have dropped out of school. In most cases these problems are caused by someother underlying emotional issue. If the schools and parents would start doing there job then maybe the kids would do theres? I would not be suprised if we didn’t see another “columbine” type incident as a backlash of this.

By Peter Hoover

May 23, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

PARENT - you made a good point of who will enforce it. With the situation you outlined, those parents ought to be held responsible. they should go to jail for their child’s truancy!!!! It’s already been done elsewhere

By jim d

May 23, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

So Peter, since they don’t want to be in school anyway whats the problem with helping them OUT and making a better environment for those that do? Get them out, allow them to keep their license so they can drive their unrully little behinds to the carwash to get a job.

This driving revocation only serves as a deterent to kids that want an education and they’re already in school. This has to be one of the least thought through laws our legislature has ever passed.

By RWH

May 23, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

Mom, Dad, some of you are perhaps upset about this law. However, we need all of our children to be the future leaders for tomorrow. We start now and give them the grave responsibilities of being where they should, and not where they want. Many parents are still in recovery to date because their children did not mind, or were out and did not come home, at all! Driving is serious and lives are not just getting up in the mornings and going to be late. Responsibilites from your children should be taken seriously…no licenses means that they were not responsible and if they were with someone else, they are just as guilty. We have lost a lot of our children in years gone by, and the reality is; we still are losing them. This revoke of license will sure weigh heavy on them and the car that will be taken from the road might just save other lives. This is a good law.

By Larry

May 23, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

If we don’t do something to correct these teens actions, our society is going to go in oblivion, and there will be no

By Eric

May 23, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

Great idea… too bad it is so easy with teens and so hard with people like drunk drivers, illegal immigrants and Mercedes drivers

By Peter Hoover

May 23, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

Jim, they had the opportunity to be helped by going to school. That is their opportunity and responsibility. By revoking their licenses, the parents have to be invovled by driving them around - something I can assure you parents would rather not do. Kids have a responsibility to go to school and graduate. Getting a job, again, is not a right in this country, and certainly not for kids who refuse to go to school.

By Dewaine

May 23, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Take away their licenses but take away their cellphones while you are at it. Treat the confiscation like an auto confiscation so that they will have to ante up if they want their cellphones back. We do not need anyone driving while on a cellphone. There are too many distractions that may lead to accidents without having cellphones added to the list. Students who do not attend class should also be made to take a field trip to visit those other students who thought they should not attend school. Let them see how cool it is to work at a Wendys or a Burger King.

By Johnny is walking now

May 23, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this

SOB’s took away my license.

By Old Man

May 23, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

HA HA HA…just what these young whipper-snappers need. When I was a kid we had to walk to school with 3 feet of snow on the ground and no shoes.

Serves ya right…lil punks.

By EW

May 23, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

The problem is that parents are not saying much of anything - this is how we got to this state. The only time we started to hear about legislative intervention is when it started to affect a certain ‘part’ of the population. I personally don’t need any help in parenting; however it seems that many do.

For example, I don’t have a problem with 16 year olds driving IF they are properly trained, most of us starting driving at 16, nothing has changed except we are now parents and have we set clear consequences for our children’s actions? I don’t think so; we wouldn’t have this issue if we had.

For example, I lived on the south side of Atlanta, however I went to school on the North side, when I was old enough (16) I got my license. My mother gave very strict rules.

Consequences -

If I was caught breaking any of these rules - my car would be parked automatically for SIX months… I would have to ride the school bus, walk or ride MARTA to get around. Needless to say I didn’t break these rules. I got my first ticket when I was a sophomore in college; I was scared to call my mother because I thought she would take my car.

We have to start being parents again, children need boundaries or else they are doomed to fail…

By Greg

May 23, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

Hooray! Great! Great! Great! I am not a supporter of everything the governor has done, but as a teacher and school administrator, I can tell you that this is one of the most effective ways to get a teenager’s attention.

I am 100% behind this, and i hope that the state will continue to rigidly enforce this law.

By jim d

May 23, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

WHAT? You can’t be serious! You think you can force a child to learn just because you force him into an educational environment? WRONG!

All you’re doing is coddling them. Force them to get a job to keep their license but allow them to keep them. Sometimes kids best learn from the school of hard knocks. Working and supporting themselves is preparing them for life in ways school never can.

By Peter Hoover

May 23, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

Right on Dewaine…touché

By Dwayne

May 23, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

I think this is a great idea. It’s sad that the state has to get involved, but since some parents (a minor amount) will not do their job, the state will do it for them. The parents give these kids fast cars that they cannot handle and when the kid crashes, everyone wonders what happened….too sad. Maybe this will do some good.

By jim d

May 23, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

I’m truly amazed at how so many understand driving is a priviledge and still can’t grasp that concept with education. Keep thinking it’s a right folks and we’ll soon discover even more mediocrity in our schools.

By judy

May 23, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

Oh well, lil’ johnnie… guess you better go back to school! You’ll wish you went to school when you get older. You don’t see the “need” now because kids want to grow up so fast! You have to have a degree to even so much as work at McDonald’s these days. If you want a better life for yourself… go to school and get an education! I hope you look back in a few years… appreciating the fact that somebody tried helping you! But… I want to ask you… where was your adult supervision? Where were your parents?

By ugh

May 23, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

Peter, “Since when do parents have rights over the state when their children are breaking the law?” License revocation should be tied to road behavior. Well, parents used to have the option to exempt their kid from persecution when they dropped out. When did having a lighter constitute “breaking the law”.

Ron, “What is DFCS going to do?” Haul the family to court and remove child from the home? Monthly visits to check on family? Are you saying DFCS is useless? If they’ve committed a violent act, won’t there be jail and/or probation requirements? If they’ve been caught with drugs, won’t there be jail and/or probation requirements? Probation requirements (as heard from whiny co-workers with dui) seemed pretty troublesome, strict, and attention-getting. “TEN. What consequences should there be? What alternatives do you propose?” Expel the kid from school, re-direct them to alternative school. If they want to be out and their parents don’t care enough, then let them free.

Not all kids are acting this immature. What % of the population of teen drivers have these issues? Why slap these requirements (which actually read like some of the probation requirements I’ve heard about) onto an entire population?

Ironically enough, I’m not opposed to strict probation requirements. For example, if a kid is found drinking, arrested, guilty, jailed, and probationed out. I’m not against a policy that essentially clamps down tightly on that kid and strictly forbids any weapon, any travel outside state, advance notice of extended absence from county, and yes, even rules for license revocation for further offense. Just examples, nothing more. I’m against having such requirements applied broadly and without a significant history of lawlessness. A kid who commits a crime while in probation is just asking for it, though.

Someone here commented about earning a license by having better grades, or at least allowing kids to earn them earlier by having all A & B’s. That gives some real incentive. Interesting idea. Less of a punishment slant, more of a reward slant. It would still tie schooling to licensing, though. I can’t get past that oddness.

By jim d

May 23, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

How about a little survey here.

How many of you parents would continue to support your child if they weren’t in school, just lounging around the house every day? Be honest now.

By Christine

May 23, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

I am all in favor for cracking down on kids, but I don’t think taking away their driver’s licences is the answer. We don’t take away adults’ drivers licences for bad behavior unless it is driving-related. There needs to be some other way to discipline kids - hey, how about parents actually keeping tabs on their kids and grounding them when they get in trouble? I have seen too many kids in my neighborhood doing illegal things right in front of their mother’s eyes and seen the parent walk away and do NOTHING. Even after I called the cops and the mother didn’t even come out of the house when the cops came. Parenting and discipline start at HOME, not from the governor’s office or the school system.

By Joe

May 23, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

You can put up all the little wooden crosses on the side of the road you want, and the cutesy little notes of prayers and teddy bears but the best thing you can do is MONITOR your damn kids and take the cell phones away from them. You had them, you bought them the big and fast cars; parents now go a step more and parent them the way you’re suppose to. Kids out at 3 AM are the result of two idiots procreating.

By Brian

May 23, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

I’ve about had it up to here with bad behaviour from punk teens that goes unchecked in this nation. We have become a society that does not pin responsibility on the perpetrator. If a kids skips school, it’s the parent’s fault. If a kid robs someone else, it’s because he didn’t have lawns to mow. On and on and on. Hell we have become a society that doesn’t even want to PUNISH any more. “Time out?” I’m sure that would have worked well for me growing up. NOT. In any event, throw the book at these punks who can’t behave like normal citizens.

By ugh

May 23, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

EW, Your mom sounds like mine. Although add this: - no radio at any time - no passengers - no driving after 6pm without advance approval - no food or drink

By Charles Farley

May 23, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

For many of them it is the last chance to learn basic responsibility before becoming a “Real” adult. I think taking it for a year is excessive since many teens actually do have jobs and in some cases support families; basically living AS adults already. It’s also good to see this sort of cooperation between state agencies. It reduces the number of cracks people can slip through. To those who were so tardy or absent, walking for the next year will mean it is even MORE difficult to be on time. Try to learn from it. Like it or not, the business world has almost NO tolerance for schedule variations. Be late at your own risk. Be lazy at your own risk. Be a rebel at your own risk. Be an unemployed bum at your own risk!

Chas.

By ugh

May 23, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

EW, Oh yea, and no driving alone for the first year I had my regular license. It was like I still had my learners license. Hehe.

By Cherish

May 23, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

….To ACG…

They will only take the licenses away if they miss 10 or more UNEXCUSED days. Certain circumstances do come up and are excused. They will not lose their licenses for excused reasons.

However, I think they should raise the driving age to 18. Period.

By Ginny

May 23, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

This is fantastic and perhaps it will cause some students to sit up, take notice, and go to class! Yes parents should be taking more responsiblity-but let’s face it, many parents are not. There is a direct correlation between school attendance and behavior. Those students who have a history of poor attendance-and we are talking about TEN UNEXCUSED ABSCENCES—TWO FULL WEEKS-also have a history of legal trouble; including poor driving habits, petty thefts, drugs, etc. If their parents won’t protect society from them, then the state must. I don’t want to be on Hwy. 400 at rush hour with some kid who is nothing but trouble, has an attitude and skips school. Guess how pleasant he is about lane changes? He is a menance and I want him off the road as long as possible!

By Spanky

May 23, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

Yeah, Brian! I agree!..I grew up in south Georgia in the 70’s. The only “time-out” I got, was when my dad stopped whipping me, to change his grip on the belt! He wasn’t abusive, cuase I earned damn-near every one of them! I’m so glad that they did this! It hits them where it hurts!!

By LInda

May 23, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

The school should have nothing to do with this. It kills me all these teachers posting who say ” this will show them who’s boss” — you all are a joke and shold be ashamed of your self righteous attitudes.

By Christine

May 23, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

My brother was a handful to manage when we were younger and had a tendency to “follow” trouble. My mother - a single mom - had him in every sport and activity she could think of to keep him active, worn out, and out of trouble. And it worked. I am SICK TO DEATH of the little punk kids that walk up and down our neighborhood street in packs of 10-15 ages from 8-17 all day long from 9am-2am and do nothing but yell, curse, hang on street signs, play sports in the narrow street, run across everyone’s properties, shoot BB gun’s at cars passing by, leave trash all around, fight, and I can only imagine what else. Don’t these kids play sports? Join clubs? Play at a park or at a local school? The parents need to get these kids involved in life and build a foundation for them or these punk kids are still going to be doing the same thing when they are in their 20’s or 30’s. Only worse.

By Shane

May 23, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

I think a year is to long.Maybe 3-6 months for the first time.Most people need to remember when they were that age..plus whats funny most people in here are the ones cussing people out and shooting birds out of road rage in front of there own kids. I think kids react to how they are raised.

By brandi

May 23, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

If kids can’t take school seriously, they certainly can’t take operating a vehicle seriously. It’s about time something like this was enforced & it’s the perfect time - school vacation. I’m thrilled that there will be less cars on the roads, especially from that age bracket. Maybe this will wake up the kids & their parents.

By SavageNationalist

May 23, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

Brian & Spanky,

Amen! If more parents would incorporate some old-school, hard-nose discipline (via the switch, paddle, belt, etc.), earlier on, it would alleviate much of the delinquency we see from these snot-nose teenagers! Back in my day, we got the razor-strap when we got out of line, and we turned out just fine! This license revocation is long overdue. Also, we need to raise the license age to 18 (asap).

By Gail

May 23, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

AGE SHOULD BE RAISED TO 18 YEARS OLD IMMEDIATELY…….

By Quentin

May 23, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS……!

I got my license when I was 16 and by the time I got my license I must admit I was VERY RESPONSIBLE AND VERY CAREFUL. In order for a teenager to drive, the teen must be totally focused living a balanced life. Therefore, I am HAPPY that diliquents will loose their driving prviledges until age 18. Driving is a privledge and I hope that this practice continues!

By Jennifer

May 23, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

My kids are not old enough to drive. (yet) Just a few more years…but I believe this should have started at home. I REVOKE my kids priviledges when they get out of line….it’s called discipline. More parents should try it. It’s a good idea though…but I think I’ll get mine WAY BEFORE the state of Georgia gets a chance.

By Teacher2

May 23, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

I took this question to my HS students. Overwhelmingly (and surprisingly) they agreed that this is a good idea. They said something has to be done about truancy and behavior problems, and since having a license is the strongest motivator for most students (except for the students whose families do not have a car) my students agree that this is an effective deterrent. They do not agree, however, that licenses should be tied to grades. They argued that C students who try hard and work up to their ability shouldn’t be penalized. I agree with them on this one.

By TBird

May 23, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

I’ve read comments about “what this Governor” has done and “Sonny’s ads”. Are you people complete idiots. Sonny became Governor in 2002. This law was passed in 1997. The ad is another one of Sonny’s lies. The Macon Telegraph had an article a few weeks back about how Sonny was claiming the State was in a financial crisis unheard of when he took office, but the Macon paper (which is pretty much Sonny’s hometown paper) was not afraid to point out that Sonny took office with a surplus, It wasn’t until 6 months later when the surplus was spent (by Sonny and his special session no less)and Georgia was in crisis mode.

Again, this is a good law to try and keep kids in school and complete their education, but it was not Sonny’s law. In fact most of the undoing of the educational process in the past 4 years has been Sonny’s work, and only this year has he decided to “get back on track”. Improvements were being made up till the time he became Governor.

People do your own research and quite believing the lies and hype on the Sonny campaign. The AJC is afraid of offending the Governor’s Office so you may need to expand your reading beyond the walls of Atlanta.

By Tmick

May 23, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

Linda

By Tmick

May 23, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

Linda

By Ga Liberal

May 23, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

Wow! What a bunch of judgemental hypocrites. You have your licenses and probably drive like jerks; speeding, running red lights and stop signs, not using signals to turn or change lanes, tailgating, flipping people off, etc. No one pulls your license because you misbehave or ‘sick out’ from work to go fishing. But some kid misses a few days or “acts up” (whatever THAT means) in school and you want to pull their license. No traffic offenses or arrests involved; just the plain old double standard of ‘Fu*k you, I got mine.’ What typical Republican grandstanding.

Granted, driving is not a right but then again in a city with no viable mass transit system it is a necessity. I won’t let my child drive to school or downtown with my cars, but I’m glad I don’t have to drive everywhere anymore. Getting a license at 16 with limits is ok; having to wait until they are 18 is just too long.

By Peter Hoover

May 23, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

UGH! Your issues are with the legislature, not me. Having a lighter in school does break the law of zero tolerance. Yes, i have an issue with zero tolerance, and we may agree here. But we are not talking about lighters and zero tolerance. READ THE ARTICLE. It’s about TRUANCY, and that is against the law!!!!

By ParkviewDad

May 23, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

Excellent! Good job Sonny! Losing your license will send a firm message to many of those kids, one they need to hear.

By Peter Hoover

May 23, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

Hey, GA. Liberal…I’ll bet you also think 21 is too long to wait to have these kids drink and 18 is too long for them to vote….You’re the grandstander!!!

By Fan of Sonny

May 23, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

This is a GREAT idea. Wouldn’t it be nice it other states followed?

By Just wonderin

May 23, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

If they are so serious about teens losing there license, why are they making it so easy to get an exemption? I am 20 years old and i have had my license revoked when i was 17, however i have noticed that some of my little cousins friends who are still in HS have had there license suspended, but have easily got it back just by asking for an exemption. so it seems like its not even a big deal to teens because they know they can get away with it.

By Just Wonderin

May 23, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

My little cousin is still in High School, and I have noticed that a few of her friends have had there license suspended, but were able to get an exemption to get out of it. It seems like teens aren’t even worried about the suspension, because they know they can easily get away with it.

By RF

May 23, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

My school has seen quite a few reported for truancy and our little community is taking this law seriously. It has really helped keep some kids in school and behaving within the limits. I only wish we could expand it to include disciplinary referrals (X number of referrals to the administration equals suspension of license). Thank goodness we finally have something to use to make kids realize they have to come to school and parents to make parents realize that school is indeed important.

By Robert Tweedell

May 23, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this

I concur with the law allowing the State to revoke the drivers licenses of those who cannot follow the rules. A drivers license is a privilage, not a right, as so many young people think today. If the parents will not invoke dicipline on those who violate the law then it will be left up to the State and they will surely do there job.

By Peter Hoover

May 23, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this

Quentin…touché. You were a respopnsible teen…and you understand the value of the privilage to drive. Good for you!!!!

By Rich

May 23, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

Sounds like a law with too many loop holes and no merit. There should not be a coorelation between attending school and having a driver’s license. I understand the goal, but I also understand that someone that totally ignores the rules, whether at home, school, or wherever, is not going to abide by the traffic laws either, so what’s the point? Short story is it will cost more money to the tax payers b/c we are paying for the court system, and I can assure that people will not just sit back and let there licenses be taken away. They will either fight in court or end up with a court date for driving on a suspended license. The cycles continues beyond that. Now we have a bunch of 16 or 17 year olds with an even “bigger” chip on their soldiers. More arrests, more court dates, more kids with a record, and guess what, worse school attendance.

By LISA

May 23, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

I agree 100%! I also think the driving age should change to 18 and only if they graduate high school.

By Rich

May 23, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

It’s sad, but the reality is it’s the parents who should be taking away the priveledge to drive. Why is it we always rely on the kids to do the right thing. I guess the next law “after this one does not work” will be to suspend the license of the parent(s) whos kids are skipping school.

By Zoe

May 23, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

Part of NCLB is to report attendance. Schools are not allowed to drop students off the rolls until the age of 16 and even with that proviso, it is still difficult to get them off the rolls. Teachers have to fight tooth and nail to get kids that have missed the last 2 months of school off their rolls. If teachers are going to be punished because students that do not come to school are counted against failure percentages, then this is a great way to get students back in school. Most of my students that are failing are failing due to absences. I have a student that has missed 11 days this semester in an honors class. If she had missed 11 days of work, she would have been fired. We allow students to be tardy without recourse, we allow them to be absent without recourse. Then, when it is time to go to work or college, they get fired, flunk out or both. Of course, at that point they are living off the teat of the government. Guess what? Making students accountable isn’t a bad thing. This law lets students know there is a connection between school and the outside world.

By SavageNationalist

May 23, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

“Ga Liberal”, Typical bed-wetting mentality from the Left. It’s quite obvious you never saw the business-end of paddle or belt when you were a kid (assuming you’re currently not one). Your assumptions are nothing more than grasping at straws. Even if that little lefty rant was valid, WE (adults) pay the taxes of this state that subsidizes the government, and these teens do not (by in large). These kids don’t need to be coddled!

By LISA

May 23, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

Ga liberal, I hope you don’t drive like you talk. It’s kids that have your same attitude that need this law.

By jim d

May 23, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

Yeah,Yeah,Yeah,

Keep them in school regardless of how disruptive they are, take their license to force them to be there. All just so parents don’t have to deal with them.

What the hells the matter with you people?

By l

May 23, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

11,000 drivers off the road. Now, Sonny needs to punish idle parents who allow their kids to receive absentees and commit felonies.

By ugh

May 23, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

Peter, I have no issue with you. I was only trying to respond to your questions. I thought the article was about the policy, not just about truancy. And the policy, as you know, states more than just truancy. My point was the policy is too broad.

By SHR

May 23, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

OK, my otherwise never-in-trouble senior high school student got in trouble at school, got 15 days suspension, 15 days of schoolwork being done at home with no teacher help and only able to make 70% of the final grade, which hurt HOPE. I agree for attendance problems, but for discipline - the schools and parents handle it. Now, my child has a suspended license until age 18 in a month. So, you thought the lines were long enough at the drivers license offices, wait until those 11,000 drivers show up to get their license back over the next two years - yes, since license is suspended, which means per the letter from the state, we have to surrender it via mail back to the state, and then we have to go AGAIN and get another one at a local office. This part too stinks! What about a permit for work, say for specific hours if the student is for discipline reasons and not attendance? Something different should be done. AND, if the student is already 18, their license won’t be suspended anyway. That’s unfair too!

By Peter Hoover

May 23, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

Jim D - your grammar is incorrect on your last entry….”hells” is wrong. It should be hell’s. Guess you were truant too!

By Peter Hoover

May 23, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

Hey, GA. Liberal…I’ll bet you also think 21 is too long to wait to have these kids drink and 18 is too long for them to vote….You’re the grandstander!!! Typical bleeding heart liberal!

By Veritas

May 23, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

Get them off the roads, and off the Ritalin !

If they want respect they have to show it.

Back to school then two years in the military before their licenses can be restored!

By V for Vendetta

May 23, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

Now if we only treated school like a privilege as well, then we would be on to something! Seriously, what’s the difference? Driving is not a RIGHT, and guess what, neither is school! We never should deny anyone an education who truly wants it. On the flip side, if you don’t respect it (just like with the driving permits) then you don’t deserve to keep it. Kids need to learn this earlier. They need to learn a bit more responsibility and respect before they are put behind the wheel of a car (not to mention flat out driving skills).

Would you want your 16 year old to walk around all day with a loaded gun? The gun by itself, same as the car, will not hurt a fly. But when paired with an immature, inexperienced, or flat out BAD person… well, then you’ve got all kinds of problems on your hands. It’s not really that hard to see. This is a good step, a step that NEEDS to be taken. There are many parts of your life that are interconnected, and kids need to realize that as well. I cant get drunk on a weekday night and come in with a hangover smelling like alcohol. What would be my excuse? “Um, well, it happened outside of school, so it shouldn’t affect me when I am there”. Yeah, right. I’d be gone faster than one of Bush’s cabinet members.

Accountability and responsibility cover ALL aspects of your life. Not just the ones you want them to. Cracking down on truancy with laws like this one prove to kids that your actions can affect you in more ways than just one. Guess what? That’s life! By some of ya’lls logic, I can get a DUI and still keep my job as a teacher because it happened outside of school. Good luck with that!

By Peter Hoover

May 23, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

UGH…we agree on the zero tolerance policy. I had a neighbors son who had a landscaping business he oiperated after school and on weekends. He kept his tools in the back of the truck which he drove to school. He had been clearing some land with heavy foliage and used a machete to do so…which was in his tool boox on his pickup. He left one of his books in his tool box, went out to his truck to get it, removed the machete to get to the book, and one of the teachers saw him with it in his hand, ot by his truck. Suspended 10 days. in this case, zero tolerance = zero brains. Had he been selling drugs instead, I’d have no problem with zero tolernace, but I really take issue with truancy, and there should be zero tolerance for that. I am a former teacher. i taught at a private school, and the policies were enforced. Kids were expelled..and lost all money paid for the year. That’s when it seems to hurt the parents…when it gets to their pocketbook.

By V for Vendetta

May 23, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

SHR-

Never in trouble? And he got 15 days suspension? I don’t know where you come from, but where I come from 15 day suspensions are not exactly handed out like candy. He got what he deserved, plain and simple. Now he has to deal with it. I can tell you one thing, I bet he never does it again.

By Peter Hoover

May 23, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

Hmmmm…..Vendetta, that’s an interesting point…school as a privilage. But you will have those social problems associated with kids who do not give a damn and reject school altogether!

By Larry

May 23, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

Why not? As we move closer and closer to a totalitarian “big brother” police state - and the people sit by and let it happen by abdicating their parental responsibilities - we might as well let the kids get used to it! Go ahead and let the nazi republicans and the communist democrats completely dismantle the Constitution and Bill Of Rights - instead of saying “I told you so” I will only shed more tears.

By joy

May 23, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

I think that’s GREAT,AND NOW WE NEED SOME MORE LAWS IN BE PUT IN AFFECT FOR THESE KIDS SINCE SOME PARENTS REALLY DON’T CARE.

Thank You a millons times,

By Rich

May 23, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

The entire law is not fair. The goal of the law is good, but the law itself does not provide a solution to the problem and it is not relevant to everyone. Yes we needs kids to go to school, but I’m not sure how taking their licenses away accomplishes that. If someone can explain how taking a kids license away will make them go to school, please tell me.

By a high school mom

May 23, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

Driving is a privilege that is earned. You break the rules, you face the consequences. How can a student not understand the law? Before even getting a learner’s permit, there is required paperwork from the school. Then, even more before the actual road test. It’s a good law. Makes the kids take at least some responsibility.

Geez, a 15 day out-of-school-suspension sounds like a pretty serious offense. Should’ve thought of the consequences before getting in trouble. That’s life.

By Peter Hoover

May 23, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

Vandeta!!!!!!!!!! Again, touché! You are right on the mark!!!!!

By EW

May 23, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

V - you are on it today, also SHR 15 day suspension? Are you serious? Please, please tell us the scenario…

By Rich

May 23, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

The schools should keep their noses out of the personal lives of US citizens. I can see them revoking a students “priveledge” to park on the school’s propery, but they should not have the “right” to infringe upon the personal lives of the students. Driving is a “priveledge” between the state and it’s citizens, and has nothing to do with the school system. It’s that simple. Yes, everyone must face the consequences of their actions, but one must also use common sense when applying laws, and this law has no merit and will not hold up whatsoever in a court ruling. One must face the consequences of their actions; therefore, the parents needs to take resposibility in raising their kids. That is the consequence of having sex. If the parents choose to take away their kids driving priveledges, more power to them. If they choose to not raise their kids and they end up skipping school or constantly breaking the rules of the school all the time, then the kids need to be removed from the school, not have their driver’s license revoked.

By Peter Hoover

May 23, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this

Rich - you are obviously a poster child for truancy. First, you need to learn to spell correctly…it’s not “priveledge” , it’s privilage. Has you license been suspended for not going back to school?

By EW

May 23, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this

Rich,

Suspend their license today, or possibly pay for them to be imprisoned tomorrow. Most truancy cases are truant because they are up to no good. Maybe while you’re at work, working hard to acquire things for your family, a school aged child is breaking in your house stealing your things.

If he is caught, the first thing you will say is “why wasn’t he in school?” and maybe the deterrent could have been the suspension of his or her license, but now you must pay for a public defender and penal costs. What would you rather do?

By 3rd Party Indie

May 23, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

Here’s my problem - If you can LEGALLY drop out of school at sixteen, than how can it be legal for your licensed to be suspended for missing too much school?

In other words, if I use my legal right to drop out of school than how can they legally take my drivers license away, since I legally don’t have to be in school? (if there are any lawyers out there, please let me know how this could be legal)

And on another point, they are two separate issues and shouldn’t be connected - it’s like telling an adult you will lose your teacher’s license (realtors license, financial advisors license, medical or any other that is required to do business) because you missed too many days of work. You should get fired or disciplined by your employer but not lose your right to practice your occupation.

By Peter Hoover

May 23, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

Rich, you said…”The entire law is not fair. The goal of the law is good, but the law itself does not provide a solution to the problem and it is not relevant to everyone. Yes we needs kids to go to school, but I’m not sure how taking their licenses away accomplishes that. If someone can explain how taking a kids license away will make them go to school, please tell me. “……

Well, I’ll tell ya Rich. If they ever want their license back, they’ll go to school. Or they will choose a life that will have much more dire consequences!

By EW

May 23, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

3rd party,

That is totally different because we who hold licenses are ADULTS. See the real problem of the world today is confusing the rights of children with the rights of adults. IF I miss work to many days, I will be fired. That is my consequence, as a high schooler you coming to school is your job. The government provides transportation back and forth so that is not an issue, no excuses.

I’m not on the same level as high school aged student so please, the comparison of my consequences and theirs are no comparison because they are children, or teenagers.

As far as the legal age of drop outs that is a very valid and interesting point, I would be interested to see if someone challenges it in court.

By Peter Hoover

May 23, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

Party Indie, you make a good point. The drop out law should be repealed, and alternate education should be required if the stabdard path doesn’t work. Trade schools should be partnered with high schools where truancy out rates seem to be the highest. Not ecery student will be a docotr or a lwayer, and they need to know its perfectly accepltable to work a trade with your hands…i.e plumber, landscaper…what ever he she wants.

By ugh

May 23, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

Peter, I really don’t believe that many kids will say “Fine, GA, have it your way, I’ll play your game and go back to school.” It seems far more likely, they’ll say “What the h, I’m minding my own biz and you take away my license??? Go to h GA.” Then they’ll relocate to another state or drive illegally. I’m not sure how common this is, but I know some teens (6 teens actually) that dropped out of school, to get their GED, to go to college earlier. They were in college by the time they were 17. They had parental permission to dropout (essentially, they homeschooled themselves) and it’s what they wanted. Why mess with it?

By Rich

May 23, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

Or they will just wait until they are 18 and start driving, or like the last person said, they will just drop out of school and the law no longer applies to them…..And Peter…sorry for the grammar, this is a blog, not a English paper. Maybe you are not intelligent enough to know the difference.

And 3rd Party Indie hit right on the head!

By SET

May 23, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

In CA we have a lot of people and a lot of drivers. We also have the Mexican occupation of the state in progress… So we are into the driver’s license issue.

If you are caught in this state driving illegally the car is impounded as a matter of course. The occupants are put out on the sidewalk and are usually not provided a ride home. Hope they have a cellphone.

Getting the car out of impound is not easy. About 46% of the impounded cars are never recovered. - You have to pay as much as $700 and up for towing and storage, have the car registered and have a licensed driver and the registered owner collect it, etc.

Possession of Driver’s Licenses varies by race and age with a majority of certain groups not having a license. This is a huge change from 1960 when it was easy to get and keep a license. Modern driver’s license protocols now deselect for low IQ, illegal residency, criminal lifestyle, etc. You cannot walk in off the street and pass the exam any more - it is longer than before, tricky and has a significant failure rate.

Even if you have a license currently if you are caught driving a car without current registration the car may be towed and the driver cited. Traffic fines are huge. If you don’t pay the license is turned off.

Licenses & registrations are cancelled for a host of reasons including child support delinquency, pending charges or convictions involving alcohol or drugs (whether or not driving involved), too many tickets or accidents, unpaid judgements, and administrative holds placed because of reports from family, neighbors, schools or doctors.

Many people now will never be able to get or maintain a drivers license in this state - starting from when they are teenagers. So when a particular teen has a license now they already know they have something not every classmate has. If they are minorities they may be the exception not the rule among their peers. It’s not 1960 anymore.

If the teen has anything going for them they would very much like to keep the license. They see and hear their friends lose licenses - a DUI arrest is an automatic loss of license without a hearing. If you want a hearing you have to ask for it and get yourself there. Hearing takes 5 minutes - you’re suspended.

Many employers use the possession of a license as a screening tool. No license, no job. And getting around in this state can’t be easily done with public transportation. (Can we say “grown men on bicycles”?)

There is no automatic link between the courts and DMV except for traffic court which is computer linked. The general criminal courts have to remember to notify DMV of drug cases and such. That will likely be fully automated eventually.

Once the license is cancelled you have to go through hoops to ever get it back. There are snowballing insurance problems - if the license has been suspended you may face dramatically higher rates. And you may face proof of insurance requirements normal drivers don’t have to comply with.

Because teens having a driver’s license is becoming the exception rather than the rule it was when I was young - school driver’s license revocation is not a real issue. Bad students don’t have a driver’s license to begin with here.

Brave New World.

I wish we could at least let poor people drive scooters to work…

By Rich

May 23, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

EW,

You stated, “IF I miss work to many days, I will be fired. That is my consequence.”

You see, that is a logical consequence. I would not say you missed work too many days, so I am suspending your license.

Get it?

By Rich

May 23, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

Actually EW, that would not be my 1st question after someone broke into my house. I would assume this person to have dropped out of school or have been kicked out of school. I would not say, “has this person had their license suspended for truancy” and “why not”. This would have prevented my house from being broken into. Get real.

By SET

May 23, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

Also If you’re caught driving without a license here depending on why the license is gone you can be booked in the local jail and upon conviction sentenced to as much as a year in jail.

You could be cited, but in any event the car is towed and it is searched in your presence. When your drugs and weapons are discovered in the car you will be booked in the jail and not cited.

You will then be strip searched and the rest of whatever you are hiding will be discovered - such as the fake ID and the stolen credit cards.

You can see this played out on the TV show “Cops” which is good entertainment. Funny how it’s usually never any one thing with some of these “kids”. They have no license, they have a warrant, they have drugs in the car, they have contraband in the wallet. They have kids and friends in the back seat. Boo-Hoo!! It’s so unfair!

By ugh

May 23, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

Rich, Hahaha. Thanks. The silliness of it actually made me chuckle. :)

By Rich

May 23, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this

UGH,

People are living in a fantasy world if they think this will even contribute at all with truancy. I agree with your earlier post that a kid is not going to say, “Okay GA you win, I am going back to school.” It’s most likely going to have the exact opposite effect!

By teach overseas

May 23, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

I’m not sure it’s the kids who will be ignoring the suspensio, it’s the parents. Many parents have the mentality that they alone make decisions for their child. Rasing the driving age has come into disucssion many times over the years. The PARENTS vote it down. They want the kids driving because they are tired of driving to school activities, they want someone to help run errands and drive around younger siblings. The PARENTS will allow kids to ignore this law. Kids don’t go out and buy fancy cars for themselves- the PARENTS want them to have cars, they want them to be driving and no one better be telling them when they can and can’t do. This law sounds good, but as long as parents allow their drinking, smoking, drugging, school skipping kids to drive in the first place- it’s pretty powerless.

By ugh

May 23, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

SET, All the consequences you reported are logical. Some of them appear to be exaggerated according to friends and colleagues in CA. The test doesn’t appear at face value to be more difficult compared to some other states. I’m sure it is more difficult than GA’s, but WA also has a somewhat tricky one that requires you to memorize a few pages of the driver’s manual. For an adult impounding, in most places (and CA from what I understand) policy is to offer a ride to a 24 hour establishment or the police station. And, if a minor, it’s a requirement. License requirements for employment I’ve seen everywhere, too. Moreso in certain occupations, like the lower paid ones. And, getting ANYTHING reinstated ANYWHERE is a bureaucratic nightmare.

By SET

May 23, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

I think the law about truancy driver’s licence revocation requires kids to be able to first have licences so there is something to threaten.

I’d like public schools to bring back Driver’s Education and Driver’s Training classes, required for teen licenses. Probably a forlorn hope here, these classes seem to have gone the way of Wood Shop and Print Shop in our schools.

And here many parents don’t sign for the license anyway because they know they can’t trust or control the kid, or can’t afford the insurance rates.

The kids who have earned and been granted licenses here are not the truants. If there were behavior problems either the license would get suspended anyway or a parent would preemptively issue a notice to DMV to cancel the licence - there is a form for that on our DMV internet site.

By C.R.H.

May 23, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this

Part of the logic behind this law is that kids who are truant are probably using their car to ditch school. If you remove the license that makes using the car to skip a little trickier, not impossible, they can still drive without the license. I would imagine a parent of one of these little darlings would want to make sure he/she is not driving w/o the license. And finding that little johnny or janie lost the license due to truancy might come as a surprise to many parents because they never really to seem to know where there kids are anyway. I say they should also pile points on their license for discipline issues at school…insubordination = 2 points…see how long it takes some of these little creeps that are constant problems to learn about “cause & effect relationships”!

By SET

May 23, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

Ugh…

I’d love to see data about the pass rates on the license test. I’m not in a high income area. The percentage of unlicensed drivers here is considered larger than elsewhere in CA. A huge portion of our traffic stops here involve unlicensed drivers. I was told on one (extended) holiday weekend our local police once towed over 45 cars. And there are 8 or 9 other police departments operating. And we have a lot of Mexicans living most of the year in this area for work. Those who produce valid driver’s licenses issued in Mexico are not treated as unlicensed drivers, unless they are on the California DMV Computer as not entitled to drive because of some other problem (Like a DUI, or a traffic warrant).

As far as the rides, that sounds reasonable. I have personally (while driving home through town) seen people and families walking away from traffic stops as the car is towed. But these were on major thouroughfares with Taco Bell and Denny’s etc. open all around. I once took a friend to pick up an impounded car (He had to bring cash also). I had an interesting chat with the impound lot operator who was quite happy with the business they were doing.

Years ago the police used to give a citation to an unlicensed driver who would drive away with it or have a licensed friend drive or come to the scene. No More! The policy changed at least 5 or 8 years ago.

By ugh

May 23, 2006 05:34 PM | Link to this

SET, I’d like to see the pass rates, too. Especially if there’s more data from other states to compare.

By decatuparent

May 23, 2006 05:36 PM | Link to this

OK, I have something to get the heated debate rolling… Change the policy to state that any kid who fails any End of Course Test loses their license. Also, any child who is suspended (in school included) for bad behavior at school loses their license until the end of the school year (that would include Ms. “Old Smokey.”

That ought to help solve the truancy, discipline and low achievement problem. I know that this is going to get ripped apart though because it has a lot of problems…. flame away fellow bloggers!

By Jeff

May 23, 2006 05:45 PM | Link to this

decaturparent,

I doubt you’ll see too many of us teachers against your proposal! (Sounds GREAT to me!!)

By teacher too

May 23, 2006 05:49 PM | Link to this

Hey, it’s better than nothing. I agree with decaturparent about the taking away a license for suspension but disagree for taking it away over the end of course tests. One is for behavior, the other for intellect or poor test taking skills.

By Mr. Liberty

May 23, 2006 05:57 PM | Link to this

Any person too dumb to pass the end of course tests is too dumb to operate several thousand pounds of metal at high velocity through complicated traffic patterns.

Or you could avoid the whole thing by homeschooling.

By Teacher_Guy

May 23, 2006 06:18 PM | Link to this

As a visiting teacher to the city of Atlanta, I just learned of this law (thanks to television commercials for Sonny!) and think that it could be really effective. That would be great for those unruly students aged 16 and up, but what of the students that are not that old. As an elementary school teacher, we are are laying the foundation for success in High School. If we cannot nip the problem of discipline/truancy when students are 10, it will only be more severe 6 years down the road. Example - One student brought $200 worth of hash to school on a Friday. The student was back, seemingly undisciplined, on Monday. Example - I have a student that has been tardy 43 times. Perhaps the state should look at revoking the liscenses of the parents to get some kind of response/early intervention so that by the time these kids are 16 they won’t be too far gone. Just a thought.

By Teacher_Guy

May 23, 2006 06:25 PM | Link to this

Two things…

By SET

May 23, 2006 06:54 PM | Link to this

A facinating concept. Removal of the ability to drive cars if you can’t pass the High School Exit exams… I’d agree to it as long as we give them Scooter permits so they can ride those to work.

By Karen Armsby

May 23, 2006 07:20 PM | Link to this

I love this law. School admins need to learn a lesson and reinstate to teachers the authority to establish accountable academic discipline in their classes, i.e., if you are absent in either body or mind (sleeping or goofing off in class) then you get an F for that day, assignment, quiz, lab, test, etc.

By SHR

May 23, 2006 07:33 PM | Link to this

The 15 days were 5 days in school/10 days out of school for being caught with a six pack of beer, in the car, at a high school game. The beer didn’t belong to my child, but the school rules on alcohol on school grounds for a minor are the same regardless. My child was not even drinking. It had been left in my car and stupid him was “showing” it off and someone in the parking lot told on him. So, not too serious, but wrong still the same. My point is, don’t start griping when these 11k drivers show up and cause a wait in line at the license center. This new law applies to attendance, ANY kind of fight, alcohol/drugs that lead to a suspension.

By Kathleen

May 23, 2006 07:42 PM | Link to this

I agree that Atlanta driving has changed dramatically since I learned how to drive in the ’80s. People are pulling stunts that I’ve not even seen in Washington, DC, where you can find the worst traffic hands down this side of Los Angeles. Having lived in Italy for 2 1/2 years and driven on the Autostrade and having ridden on the Autobahn in Germany, I can tell you that although people drive very fast there, I felt safer driving these superhighways than around 285. Why? Because in order to obtain a driving lesson in these countries, you not only have to be at least 18, but also have to pony up with some major amounts of cash, take hours of training (both in the classroom and on the road) and pass tests that include the physics of driving. Here’s an idea: put drivers ed back in the schools and make it a mandatory class for graduation with the idea that you would obtain your license only upon graduation from high school AND after you turn 18! Also, to the kids who think the law is unfair, 2 things: 1. Life is not fair; 2. Adults are in charge, not you. Get used to it and hit the books!

By Lee

May 23, 2006 07:50 PM | Link to this

I’m not impressed with this law. I guarantee you that a good percentage of the 8000 or so kids who lost their license lost it because of some administrative SNAFU.

All this law is is a ploy by politicians to act like they are doing something. Whenever they do that, it always has unintended consequences.

By Beccaann

May 24, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

I don’t understand why some of you want to blame this on the schools. The schools did not make the law. The school is only asked to report the unexcused absences and the discipline problems.

By pete

May 24, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

I had a student that missed 50 days this semester. He comes back and gets his work makes it up and turns it in. He has the possibility of passing some classes and there is nothing his teachers can do about it. I have fought tooth and nail but the administrators say that it doesn’t matter how many days they are here as long as they don’t miss more than 11 in a row. That just seems crazy to me. I cannot tell you how much extra work this student has caused me. I have to re-explain everything to him. It isn’t as if he has one illness that has caused him to miss. It is all kinds of “illnesses”.

By hs sped

May 24, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

A few weeks ago we had an 18 year old (tenth grade status) get busted for having a controlled substance, in his car, on school property. I don’t know what happened to him, but do you suppose his license will be revoked? How does it work when they are already 18? Anybody know?

By SHR

May 24, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

To: hs sped, I’m sure the school will punish with suspension, etc. As for the new state law, doesn’t effect a teen 18 yrs old or older. It is for 16 and 17 yrs old because their license is probabtionary anyway until age 18. BUT, the school may have and should have called police, so he’ll have something worse than the license punishment.

By Dan

May 24, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

At first glance it sounds like a good idea, but the reality is it has absolutely zero to do with school and gives the bad parents just one more reason to complain that the system is being unfair to their child.
This is just another attempt at government allowing parents to shirk responsibility.

By Velatra

May 24, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this

Spanky and Savage,

Yep, we need to go back to some sound butt-whipping to get these kids under control. But, what’s so funny is the “Catch-22” situation here. One minute, the “law” pracitcally forbids spanking (which, in my opinion would straighten a lot of kids out before they reach “teenagery”), then it takes licenses away for those who misbehave.

I don’t necessarily disgree with the law, but it was my parents who had “laws” in their house and upheld them way before I began to drive. And, yep, there was the rare, occasional car-grounding that I got, but it wasn’t due to misbehavior in school. Thanks, Momma and Daddy!!!

By Laf

May 24, 2006 05:23 PM | Link to this

school and he made up all the work and passed the classes what is bad about that. I know this made your job tougher but it is a lot of things tough about being a teacher. You should be proud of this student instead of complaining about him. He deserves the passing grade if he earned them even if he did miss 50 days of school.

By JW

May 24, 2006 06:00 PM | Link to this

decaturparent, I think your ideas are right on.
However, I have seen from experience that when politicians or anyone else tries to strengthen penalties, the problem becomes that SOME (not all) administrators become less likely to administer appropriate consequences out of fear (either fear of parental reaction or fear of a negative label on the school as with No Child Left Behind). Anyone else notice this happening?

Also - Karen A. - good point!