Get Schooled

By Karen Armsby

June 9, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this

I am against raising the driving age or waiting until the child graduates. My husband and I shared the driver training and practice for the learner’s year for our 3 kids. We were able to oversee their driving instruction while they were still living at home under our watchful eyes. After all, they were covered under our auto insurance policy, so we had the liablity. We made sure they took driver’s ed. and driver’s saftey courses, that when they got their licenses they started driving with our restrictions on time, distance and types of roads. If kids had to wait until they graduated from high school, then they would likely be out of the house, at college, or moved out, working. They would have had little or no parental guidance, and may not be able to afford their own insurance, and if they were on the parents’ policies, that would create a very uncomfortable liability for parents. I would prefer to see licenses suspended if kids are chronically truant, that drop out or fail to graduate, and require that they take summer school to graduate or get their GED. Require that all kids take driver’s ed and driver’s safety courses in order to get the license.

By Pat

June 9, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

I know of a child that was kicked out of high school, put into the detention center and had warrants issued for his arrest, and his drivers license was NEVER suspended. He was in the detention center three separate times, his license was NEVER suspended! So….rules, why bother! Laws, why bother. I grew up and took drivers ed in school….why is that not an option in GA? Parents teach children bad skills, it’s just common sense that kids learn how their parents drive, and follow the leader! I’m not a perfect driver, but I’ve yet to have an accident (or cause an accident), or get a ticket, and I drive 60 miles a day to/from work, and have driven for 31 years. I was taught defensive driving, and the laws, which are followed. It’s no wonder GA has awful traffic, high insurance……look at who’s on the road!

By Karen Armsby

June 9, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

Most of the adult drivers on Atlanta highways are NOT from Georgia…..

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

June 9, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

I’m against it as well and I don’t have a child old enough to drive. My sister and I received our license at 16 and vehicles. I’ve yet to have an accident or a speeding ticket.

The only thing this will do, is “drive up” the number of UnLicensed Drivers on the road. Maybe they should add math and reading comprehension questions to the driver license test.

By Lola

June 9, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

would it leave the poor and uneducated without transportation and further limit their options?

What does that statement have to do with needing a diploma for a driver’s license? If someone is poor and uneducated, they are most likely using MARTA to get to their job, if they have one, anyway. If someone drops out of school, that tells me they have no desire to achieve much in life, they wish to be poor, and they don’t wish to be a productive part of our society, so let them stay on public transportation. We don’t need them on the roads anyway.

Karen Armsby said it well. I had driver’s ed where I grew up, and don’t understand why that is not a required (or at least optional) class to take in HS. But setting loose a bunch of kids just out of school, with no idea how to drive, is more dangerous than the situation we have now. Putting driver’s ed into schools as an option would be the best solution.

By SET

June 9, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

Lola,

The states are different and in CA for example - public transportation is not viable in many parts of the state. I think Texas and AZ may be more affested by such a policy than NYC and some of the more concentrated, older states.

High School diplomas should not be directly tied to a basic license. As a society we need to make keeping people employed a priority.

I agree their should be gradations of licenses. People with learner’s permits shouldn’t be out cruising at 4am. Alcoholics should be on restricted licenses - perhaps restricted to a scooter.

My point is that with the new rules that deny HS diplomas to dull people who can’t pass a 8th grade reading test (in this state at least) we will have a whole catagoty of people who now will never have a HS Diploma. They may be dull but they can for the most part be trained to drive a car - and support a (small?) family. As a society we have to make plans that includes keeping these dull people fully engaged in our society.

If they have anger management or drug issues (common around here with the dull), DMV should hold them on that basis. If they are otherwise honest and capable of course they should be able to have a license. Having a license is directly tied to employability (on the west coast) even if you don’t drive in the course of work.

By Rich

June 9, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

Maybe it should be against the law to reproduce if you do not have an education! Forget about driving. Those people are going to end up without a license in the long run anyway….DUI, Driving on a suspended license, Driving with expired insurance/license, Speeding, No tag, etc. I’m sure most drop outs have been found guilty of at least one traffic violation!

By Danny

June 9, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

I think it’s a good idea. Not only does it keep kids in school, but it shows them that driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. If there are extenuating circumstances where the kids needs to drive, let the DMV create a form and have them explain the need to drive early.

Another fabulous thing that happens is kids have to ride the school buses, leading to less traffic congestion and fewer kids die in auto accidents.

Now if we can only get the fat, lazy, soccer moms to STOP driving their little darlings to school and make them walk or ride the bus, we’ve got it made! The kids get more exercise from walking or learn a few more social skills by riding the bus.

By Temp

June 9, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this

Which social skills should they learn from riding the bus? How to steal smaller childrens’ lunch money? How to rape girls in the back of the bus?

We should get rid of school buses completely and make parents responsible for getting their kids to school.

By jim d

June 9, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

Does anyone know where stats might be found that might indicate the number of HS dropouts that are products of dropout parents?

By Rich

June 9, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

No, those are not social skills. I think Danny is referring to things like communicating, sharing, teaching, encouraging, story telling, etc. You know, social skills….not criminal activity.

By jim d

June 9, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

Yo Temp,

I’m not really a tree hugger but have you considered the amounts of fuel that would be consumed if every child were to be driven to and from scholl by their parents and the environmental impact of such actions?

By Danny

June 9, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

Temp - this is ATLANTA! Do you really think we need the added traffic from parents taking their kids to school? And what about the parents that don’t have cars or don’t drive?

The problems you mentioned with stealing and rape on buses…just how often does that really happen? And I think it’s a parenting problem more than anything. We could always put Marshals on buses like we do on planes.

The social skills kids learn on buses are probably the only ones they’ll get outside of the classroom. Heaven knows they sit at home in front of the telly or playing video games when they’re out of school. If we’re going to have an isolated society let’s go all the way and get rid of schools completely, no more commuting to work either. We’ll just lock ourselves in our houses and homeschool and telework. Actually, that sounds pretty good to me!

By jim d

June 9, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

Horse feathers,

since when does one need to know how to work algebra or to know who the third president of the US was to be able to drive and become productive members of society?

Y’all need to get a life and quit attempting to control the lifes of others.

By Rich

June 9, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

Hey Temp,

We should get those same parents, who are not responsible enough to teach their children right from wrong or to teach them the value of an education, to be responsible for getting their kids to school each and every day of the year? Sounds like a great plan!

By MMM

June 9, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

What catagory would we put GED folks in?

If they can get licenses, wouldn’t that provide an incentive for 17 year olds to drop out, go straight to taking the GED, and then drop back in on their old group of friends with the car and minimum wage job and turn all the other kids green with envy?

These folk aren’t all stupid—-some of them can be very inventive to get something that is important to them.

By jim d

June 9, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

Interesting statistics.

68% of State prison inmates did not receive a high school diploma.

About 26% of State prison inmates said they had completed the GED while serving time in a correctional facility.

• The groups of State prison inmates who had not completed high school or the GED included: 40% of males and 42% of females 27% of whites, 44% of blacks, and 53% of Hispanics 61% of noncitizens and 38% of U.S. citizens 59% with a speech disability, 66% with a learning disability, and 37% without a reported disability 47% of drug offenders 52% of inmates 24 or younger and 35% of inmates 45 or older 12% of those with military service and 44% with no military service.

Source

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/ecp.txt

About 88% of State inmates who had served in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines, or other military service and 56% who had not been in the military had completed high school or its equivalent and may have enrolled in postsecondary courses.

By jim d

June 9, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

Let’s assume this report is accurate.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/jailrace.htm

Lets also look at this one.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/Vol3/34/q3-3.asp

Now answer me this. With more students of every ethnic persuation earning a HS diploma why are we seeing increases in crime? Are they just getting smarter? Will with holding a drivers license from those that don’t complete affect these stats?

I don’t think so

By MrLiberty

June 9, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

Comments like “driving is a priviledge, not a right” do absolutely no service to any discussion about driving. Driving is a responsibility, just like everything else in life. In today’s reality, driving is essential to most, and there needs to be a reasonable mechanism for obtaining the authority to perform this task, whether you have completed high school or not (and what about the older folks who never completed high school?).

The better question to ask is why the government continues to be in charge of handing out drivers licenses, and why this authorization is constantly finding itself as a political football.

There is only one group of folks that are directly impacted by the ability of drivers to operate a motor vehicle properly - the insurance companies (well yes, other drivers are too). The state doesn’t care how much you damamge somebody else’s property or how much harm you do to someone. Your insurance company does (or their insurance company does if you don’t have insurance). Yet the state sets these constantly changing arbitrary rules that must be met in order to get a license. Their tests are inadequate, they allow folks from other states to just get a license in this state without any testing, and their rules for maintaining a license are routinely changing with the political winds. Does anyone really believe that these bureaucrats honestly know what the best requirements are for issuing a license?? At least the insurance companies study crashes and are constantly dealing with the financial consequences of crashes. Why we let them off the hook for issuing licenses is a mystery. Unless you realize that licenses are really about power, and government never gives that up.

An even better question is why do kids hate government schools so much that they must constantly be threatened with loss of this or that “right” to force them to stay?

It seems like with every problem in our society, its easier to just put another band-aid over the bleeding than it is to get inside and fix the problem at its source. If this doesn’t work, maybe we can just take all the dropouts and shoot them on reality TV. Maybe that will finally be what turns the schools around.

By Dave

June 9, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

Just because 2 or 3 teenagers out of 100 are irresponsible and/or bad drivers, you want to punish ALL of them and their parents, who’d have to find more time in the day to drive around their responsible children? I guess it’s easy for politicians and others to restrict the freedoms of responsible teenagers who can’t yet vote, but look out for their parents!!

By fedup

June 9, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

Rich .. you are right on! Let them drive all they want… just don’t let them reproduce. 99.9 percent of the people who don’t care enough to finish high school will have neither the money nor the credentials to raise kids.

Of course, that will never happen. You just can’t turn off those reproductive parts.

By SET

June 9, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Jim and Mr. Liberty have good points about people wanting to control people just to excercise power.

Maybe the solution to safe driving is to relax the licensing rules (DMV would just determine identification and no more - and let the Insurance Industry control the rest - ie have licenses turned on and of in the DMV computer by the insurance companies.

So it won’t be the politicans pulling licenses just to pander to voters but the unsafe not being able to get (or afford) insurance. Such a system would maybe be self policing and more efficient.

That is until the voters start setting racial and zip code preferences on the insurance companies to protect their favored people from the consequences of reality and a free market.

Face it, Jim & Mr. Liberty, the US people want a command economny and they want socialism. That is why things have turned out the way they have in the 20th century.

The problem is when the bills come due.

By jim d

June 9, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

Here we go again!!

Get over the racial thing sweetie.

It’s not a black and white issue regardless of how much you try to make it one.

By Larry

June 9, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

As I said last time this came up, we are moving closer and closer to a living in a totalitarian “big-brother” police state every day - and the people sit by and let it happen. Why not just do like Star Trek and plant “instruments of obedience” in our brains at birth so the bureaucrats can just push buttons to control us? Hey nazi republicans and communist democrats - anyone remember the Constitution and Bill Of Rights? Time to give as least one branch of the government back to the democrats (who are no better than the others) so the bureaucrats can fight with each other instead of thinking up more and more things to do to us.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

June 9, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

Should you have a highschool diploma to get a passport?

I was reading an online article about the 16 year old Michigan girl who took a trip to the Middle East to meet a MySpace PAL.

She actually had money to purchase an airline ticket to the middle east. She’s not exactly from a broken home or low income. And she’s not geographically challenged.

You can put all the obstacles you want on a person, it still will not produce a decline in stupidity.

By BlindHomer

June 9, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

Already too many kids just hanging out in high school because they lack the desire and/or ability to succeed, and alternative tracks to pursue. Now you want to keep the dropouts in another 4-5 years (these are kids that will never graduate on time) so they can get a license. This is a terrible idea.

By Rich

June 9, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

Does anyone understand the meaning behind what Amazed stated in her post? A girl who had money wanted to go the Middle East and understands how to read a map. What does this have to do with anything?

By Cletus Snow

June 9, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

there are plenty of PHDs out there that act like morons behind the wheel. Its a fact that diplomas & degrees don’t make better drivers.A graduated system tied to grades and graduation for a full license would help. more serious enforcement, higher fines and revocations would clean up the streets and highways.Whats happening around atlanta now is a joke. No other major city except LA has this kind of highway insanity.The example we set for young drivers is completly insane.

By BlindHomer

June 9, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

Rich - The first part means A) This girl found the ways and means to get to the Middle East, therefore B) some 16 year olds should be allowed to get licenses. The ending means encouraging kids to stay in high school, who might otherwise drop out, just to get a license, won’t make them any smarter or, by extension, better drivers.

By SET

June 9, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

Larry: If the people want Bread & Circus that’s what they get.

Jim D.:

I see political and social policy - especially school policy - dominated by racial issues and racial spoils. If you don’t, give us your version of why these things (we complain of) are happening now as opposed to pre-1960.

Yes I take delight in bringing that issue to the forefront of public debate. I think the public policy debate hides the true issues (not all of which are racial) and fiddles while Rome burns.

I think we are figuratively speaking living in Rome and I smell smoke.

Keep the volley going. Why do you think we have these social problems currently we didn’t in 1960?

By BlindHomer

June 9, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

I agree with MrLiberty and I’d like to add that I think licenses should be controlled and issued by parents as part of the home schooling process (after all they have the most to lose). Only home schooled kids should be allowed licenses before their 21st birthday. After that anyone can get a license at a car dealer, as long as they buy a car.

By SET

June 9, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Rich:

I think it means that teenagers have an undeveloped pre-frontal cortex which makes them impulsive and prone to act without considering the consequences of the proposed action.

So maybe teenagers shouldn’t have an American Express Gold Card. Or a MySpace account. Or a Driver’s License.

I had a MasterCharge card at 16 but it had a $300 limit (1970). Don’t know if that would have bought a ticket to the Middle East. I would have liked to travel but I had to go to school and work year round. Didn’t get the Amex till I was 18 and I doubt they’d have ok’ed a ticket to the middle east.

Nowadays Dogs and Cats get pre-approved large limit credit card offers (If they live in a good zip code - you don’t deliver pizza to the ghetto).

By jim d

June 9, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

Set,

I’m soory, you’re right.

Mighty whitey would attempt to keep all the blacks down in the back 40 pickin cotton rather than allowing them to drive.

Get over it! Get help!

By Rich

June 9, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Actually, you only have to be older than 14 to get a passport. I think we can address this problem by increasing the age requirement needed to obtain a passport. This has nothing to do with driving and you do not have to have a credit card to spend money at age 16. You know some people actually have jobs, save their money, etc. At age 16, I had plenty of money to by a plane ticket if I really wanted one, and I did not have a credit card. And the MySpace problem could have been avoided by the “responsible” parent. You know there are tools out there to prevent this.

By Rich

June 9, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

Why is it we always beat around the bush when it comes to certain issues.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

June 9, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

SET - the numbers are different between the 1960’s and today - because prior to 1960’s there were HUGE amounts of blacks who did not attend school past the 6th and 7th grade. They were not tracking standards like they are today. As far as crime, the Jim Crow laws kept the black south in line. I hope you are NOT suggesting that we go back to those days. There was lot’s of crime in the North, but the “Soprano” types kept the policement on their toes.

If you dare to say, there were just as many black kids registered in school during or prior to the 60’s - you are incorrect. They were out helping in the fields or working with their parents to help support the family. There may have been more girls in school, but the boys were learning to support the family. The education of young black men, were put off - in order to make ends meet.

There is definitely a decline in the marriage of blacks today, but it was not a result of Brown versus the Board of Education or the Civil Rights Movement.

Today, we see dramatic events (large drop outs, marriage is frowned upon, drug abuse and respect for a jail sentence).

Instead of spilling more incorrect rhetoric and justifing stereotypes - take a young black man, by the hand and show him the way.

By Rich

June 9, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

Hey Set,

Since you are so smart, when does the pre-frontal cortex fully develop? Try 30 years old………so what is your excuse for the 18 to 29 year old range?

By NJA

June 9, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

I’m laughing at how people determine what others values should be. In SC, the Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer is a college graduate, however, he has been pulled over by police for reckless driving on more than one occasion. Education does not equal maturity, responsibility or common sense.

By SET

June 9, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

Jim,

You must be a white liberal or under the influence of one.

An ethnic group can’t be “kept down”. Liberal thinking on that is wrong.

Discrimination makes an ethnic group stronger over time. For example, San Francisco Chinese, European Jews, and others. Burn them, (try to) kill them, prevent them from importing their women - over time what doesn’t kill you makes stronger.

The reason the opposite has happened since the middle 20th century on this particular ethnic group is that they were given what they wanted, the Anti-Freeze in the Iced Tea thing.

How much college level economics have you had?

By jim d

June 9, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

Set,

Something you probably missed. I WAS BEING SARCASTIC. Well all except the part about getting help.

By john

June 9, 2006 05:29 PM | Link to this

Why not? They find all kinds of ways to discriminate against teens. What? you say? What? THINK ABOUT IT - for a person of voting age - 18, legal age - 18, the group of 18 to 21 year olds are the most legally discriminated against age group in our society. Even though they can vote, own property, get married, be drafted (if there were a draft) and get killed in defense of their country, yet they are denied a lot of the rights the rest of us that are OVER 21 enjoy. They cannot legally buy, possess or drink alcohol, and cannot legally use tobacco products, which are legal products. What? you say? They abuse it. They can’t control themselves…. Well, if not, then the voting, driving, marrying age should be raised to 21, or the people of that age group should be held responsible for their actions, just like the rest of us.

By Laf

June 12, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

black race is still trying to overcome 400 years of discrimination, slavery, Jim-Crow laws, and slavery. Set if it wasn’t for the white liberals they would still lack equality in this country.

By SFR

June 13, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

Just one more case of a few bad apples ruining it for the vast majority of good kids. Since my daughter was about 10, I’ve been pointing out good and bad things we’ve seen happening on the road; now, she’s pointing them out to me. Start early enough and teach by example and you’re going to be much more likely to have a good driver on your hands. Should she be penalized because some idiot (whether or not a high school graduate) wants to prove how fast his or her car can go? I think not, and it has nothing to do with my having to drive her around or where the current Atlanta drivers were born - she’s a native and I’m not.

Perhaps the incentive could come from the “graduation” to a full license, as opposed to a provisional license with its attendant restrictions, be based on graduation. That way, non-graduates could still work and support their families yet still be penalized for not fully finishing their duties as students.

By SFR

June 13, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

Just one more case of a few bad apples ruining it for the vast majority of good kids. Since my daughter was about 10, I’ve been pointing out good and bad things we’ve seen happening on the road; now, she’s pointing them out to me. Start early enough and teach by example and you’re going to be much more likely to have a good driver on your hands. Should she be penalized because some idiot (whether or not a high school graduate) wants to prove how fast his or her car can go? I think not, and it has nothing to do with my having to drive her around or where the current Atlanta drivers were born - she’s a native and I’m not.

Perhaps the incentive could come from the “graduation” to a full license, as opposed to a provisional license with its attendant restrictions, be based on graduation. That way, non-graduates could still work and support their families yet still be penalized for not fully finishing their duties as students.

By SET

June 14, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

Laf -

Your position is a polar opposite from experience, research and history I am aware of - Can you give us some background info on yourself so that I can better understand where you are coming from and the basis of your thinking?

Jim:

If you have a different point of view try to support it - if you can. I’m doing quite well, here, actually.