Get Schooled

By JustMe

April 9, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

A driver’s ed course does not have to cut into “academic” course time, but rather into “elective” course time. Students would not have slots available to take things such as music, art, PE, etc.

So, I think that this is a good thing.

However, it irritates me to think that we need to have this in order to have “good” drivers. Heck, the DMV should not be issueing drivers licenses to “bad” drivers, right? Maybe the driving test should be more thorough and difficult to pass?

By SET

April 9, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

Boy is this a loaded question.

Driver’s Licenses and the coursework to get them are VOCATIONAL subjects. Our public school system nowadays eschews anything vocational. The mission statement of the public schools (not advertised to it’s employees and clients) is to politically indoctrinate the proletariat - not to actually educate them out of being the proletariat.

In CA fewer and fewer blacks 16 to 40 have driver’s licenses - it’s the exception rather than the rule for proletariat urban black males in CA. (Watch stats on blacks if you want to see where the proletariat are heading)

The public schools all dropped Driver’s Training which I believe is up to $600 and climbing to take privately. In the 1960’s Drivers Ed (classroom) and Driver’s Training (behind the wheel) was taught for free in the public schools.

Without Driver’s Training you can’t have a permit or a license until after age 18. As an adult you can get through the system if you can pass all the other tests. Doing this creates a number of other problems - higher insurance rates and increased liklihood of tickets and accidents due to poor training.

As if that wasn’t enough, CA is changing it’s DMV testing to switch to computerized time pressure testing which is heavily loaded against those with IQ deficits. And anyone caught driving without a valid license suffers towing and impoundment of the vehicle. Not to mention that having a valid driver’s license is a prerequisite for every civil service job (and most private jobs) including jobs that never involve driving. It’s a screen to keep losers out.

I would be remiss not to mention that the DMV computer takes the license if you don’t pay your child support, have had any drug conviction within a year, get too many points on your license, have an unpaid judgment due to a crash, have any alcohol charges whatsoever before age 21, or have a single delinquent ticket. Once the license is taken, it remains gone untill and unless the miscreant personally appears before DMV (take a lunch - long lines) pays reinstatement fees and jumps through various hoops (such as attending expensive classes after a drug or alcohol conviction).

Our Mexican Invaders also have critical problems with not being allowed to drive - although if they had a Mexican Driver’s licence they could avoid a ticket but as a rule they never have that (perhaps that is reserved for the ruling class in Mexico?)

So to answer the question YES, I believe the public schools should teach all the required courses to get a driver’s license provided the child is deemed suitable by deportment and legal residency status to be allowed in the classes. These driving classes are more important that many of the academic classes because a driver’s license is vital to get a job in this state.

But we won’t teach this because the government is not interested in vocational subjects for the proletariat.

By V for Vendetta

April 9, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

Allow me to weigh in on this one since I am a big auto enthusiast (I know, I know, I’m multi-talented, what can I say?)

The driver’s ed system we have here in Georgia (and just about everywhere else in this country) is a farce and a joke at best. The driver’s ed classes should be MANDATORY and offered by the state, not the local school system. The state (and the country) has a responsibility to thoroughly educate people on the techniques and hazzards of driving a car. We are simply failing at this currently. There is not other way to put it.

Take Germany for example: In Germany (the land of unrestricted speed limits - although those are currently endangered there as well) a driver’s ed course takes MONTHS to complete, requires many hours of prep and in-car driving time, and has rigorous test components as well. As a result, the country with the most automotive “speed freedom” on Earth has one of the lowest accident ratings on Earth. I think there may be a connection.

Parents need to weigh in on this as well. My driver’s ed classes were pathetic, taught me nearly nothing I didn’t already know, and were over in a few weeks. My parents, however, drilled me constantly on the safety of driving and made me practice ad nauseam before I was allowed to take the test at age 16. The result of all that? I have NEVER (knock on wood) had any form of accident. I don’t exactly drive like your grandma either. :-)

It is the responsibility of the state, as a civic duty, to better educate the young when it comes to handling a car. Driving is NOT A RIGHT and it should not be treated as one. We should be making it harder to earn a license, not easier. If you can’t pass the test/drive appropriately/pay the fees, then too damn bad. The rest of us that can would like you off our roads.

By Jeff

April 9, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

Should the public in general be concerned about it? YES!

By Teacher Teacher

April 9, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

Shall we teach them how to make correct change, talk to customers and not co-workers, wear appropriate clothing, ride bikes with the traffic, and be polite, too?

By JustMe

April 9, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

Teacher Teacher,

It seems that our society is putting more and more onto the public school system while parents (and others) take less and less responsibility. Until this trend ends, I am afraid that the answer to your question is “yes.”

By Ernest

April 9, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this

Another thought provoking post by SET! I like the idea of this being a ‘strongly recommended’ elective for high schools in GA. As SET mentioned, it could be considered ‘life skills’ training. We all know that to get around the metro area, most of us need a car. I believe my answer would be different if we lived in an area like NYC or DC that has a far reaching public transit offering.

My oldest is taking Drivers Ed this semester and is really enjoying it. They practice on a course, use simulators, and also perform road tests. The feedback provided by his instructor has been helpful to me as a parent. This combined with my taking him on the road should help him become a better driver.

A buddy of mine in Cobb mentioned his son will take drivers ed through their church. One of their ministries will underwrite most of the costs so that it can be offered to teenagers in that general area. If I recall, he mentioned they will pay about 25% of what it would have normally cost. This sounds like a great investment for all involved.

By Tony

April 9, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this

Parents should be responsible for educating their own children about driving. Driving is a privilege and that privilege is granted when one meets the requirements to get the license and buy a vehicle. To add to what V for Vendetta stated about Germany, the parents or teen must pay nearly $2000 for the courses and tests required to obtain driver’s license. The teen must also be 18!

Schools have already had enough social agenda forced onto us and this attempt to make schools responsible for producing safe drivers is a poorly disguised UNFUNDED MANDATE. In the world of operating schools, there is no such thing as free or inexpensive. Everything in public education comes at taxpayers’ expense. Our legislature is quite aware of this reality but refuses to pair adequate funding with this proposal.

Drivers Education courses are valuable for teens who are learning to drive. But the requirement to provide the courses should not become the local schools’ responsibility.

Tony

By OldSchool

April 9, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

We paid for private lessons for our older daughter and did so gladly. She simply could not schedule it in during the schoolday. She also got extensive behind the wheel time with both of us. Her driver’s ed teacher was also the high school teacher and he did a fantastic job. He used the same methods and spend a whole lot of time working with her.

The youngest was able to schedule the class in and had the same remarkable instructor. She got less seat time but we compensated for that ourselves and kept in close contact with the instructor. Both my girls are extremely capable, safe drivers.

The instructor at the school now is first and foremost a coach. I have serious doubts as to the quality and quantity of instruction/practice and would not even consider allowing my child in that class. I’d pay for lessons at the technical college first.

By OldSchool

April 9, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

One more thing, several years back, the AJC ran an article about a dad who thought the existing driver’s ed course was woefully lacking. He developed his own test and his kids had to pass that before taking the actual licensing tests. It was a really good, in-depth exam and ought to be updated and required of every new driver. I printed out a copy for myself.

By parentof2

April 9, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

The driver’s ed system we have here in Georgia (and just about everywhere else in this country) is a farce and a joke at best. The driver’s ed classes should be MANDATORY and offered by the state, not the local school system. The state (and the country) has a responsibility to thoroughly educate people on the techniques and hazzards of driving a car. We are simply failing at this currently. There is not other way to put it.

Vendetta wrote that paragraph, but its so perfect, I decided to paste it in again.

We paid for our son, now 21, to take private driving lessons over a summer. I think it was $800 and included 3 hours 3 times a week of driving practice for the whole summer. I would have paid a lot more for that service! Its scary riding as a passenger with a beginner driver.

The driving school had a simulator that simulated near accidents and the students had to decide in real time how to respond to avoid the accident or make it a survivable accident. My son was so shaken by how often he made the wrong choice and was declared dead by the simulator that he voluntarily took himself off the road for a little while.

We were impressed. It was money well spent.

He’s a very, very cautious driver now. I credit the driving school.

We could all use that kind of driver training. Even experienced driver’s can use a refreasher every 20 years or so.

By SET

April 9, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this

Tony has a point and I am torn between a philosophy that good families should be allowed to rise while bad families should be allowed to fail. (Social Darwinism)

But.

The link between having a driver’s license and making a living (at least in CA) is so strong now that no child is “educated” without Driver’s Ed and Driver’s Training. We know that the urban underclass don’t have families - they have birth mothers and sperm donors. If we are having a “school” system at all we have to teach at least Driver’s Ed, and make Driver’s Training reachable for at least those teens that we want to be employable.

Plus the proletariat “families” are so incompetent nowadays that I would make a policy decision that I don’t want our cities to be full of people who haven’t a clue on right-of-way. It’s just a public health issue. Yes I would include illegal aliens in the Driver’s Ed classes as long as they are in the school anyway. The classroom training helps everyone. The law prevents them from getting behind a wheel, though.

I am not so comfortable compromising on some of these issues but as I said earlier, it’s become a matter of public health. It’s dangerous living in towns where only some people know the basics about traffic law.

I feel the same way on teaching of sexuality, venereal disease & public health in general. I would not allow religious excuses for those subjects and would not allow public school attendance for those who refuse to learn those subjects either. Stopping for Red lights and sanitation are not optional subjects.

By DJ

April 9, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this

Gee TEACHER TEACHER - your argument sounds like another thoughless knee-jerk right-wing anti-government tirade to me. Does knowing how to make correct change, talk to people, wear appropriate clothing, or be polite put innocent bystanders’ lives at risk? Hint: NO. God help us all if you are actually a teacher of our children. And please - PLEASE - don’t vote.

By Lisa B.

April 9, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

Great posts, SET.

Since there is such a strong link between having a driver’s license and having a job, I am all for mandatory, free if necessary, driver’s ed courses. I also know that no matter how well we train our own children to drive, we cannot control who else is on the road. This seems to be an economic as well as a public safety issue. I have sometimes bemoaned the fact that schools are expected to do everything, but in this case, driver’s ed is most easily handled in school.

Vendetta made a good point that some school-based driver’s ed courses were total jokes. I realize that some would be better than other. My H.S. driver’s ed course was actually pretty good. It lasted the entire school year and involved lots of driving. I have no opposition to Driver’s Ed being provided by the state, but hink that it would be easier to teach the course at school because the kids are already there.

In Georgia, many jobs require a driver’s license. Even jobs that don’t involve driving.

I am all for providing the education people need so they can get a job.

By Janine

April 9, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

Young drivers [actually any drivers, but today’s issue is young drivers] who are cautious and trained benefit us all. As such, public schoolis probably the best place to train as many as possible, tax money is well spent on this endeavor…although it is agreed that the course should be more challenging. I don’t trust all parents to do as ‘parentof2’ did.

By jim d

April 9, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

Keep Government out.(period)

Who really stands to profit from having educated drivers? ——-Lets see would it, like, be the insurance companies?—— I think so.

If Governement world get out of the business of educating drivers I suspect it wouldn’t take long for the insurance companies to realize they could increase profits by assuring everyone was trained in the safe and proper operation of a motor vehicle.

Besides, let’s think about this for just a moment and ask ourself if we really want a sytem that is struggling to do what they already have been charged with doing, attempting to take on more?

By sw

April 9, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

I am 30something who did not grow up in GA; yes, my high school offered drivers ed, but it was taken from P.E. (if I remember correctly, it was an 8 week or so in-class training with simulators). We also had 3 hours of drive time. However, my parents also paid an outside company for road training. I don’t believe it is necessarily state or school system’s responsibility. Like all things, everything should and does begin at home and it is ultimately the parent’s responsibility to make sure his/her child gets the appropriate driver training (among other things). At the same time, I think a permit at 15 and license at 16 is unnecessary. I did not get a license until my 17th birthday and it did not effect my life in any way. I will say that I have never been involved in a car accident in the 15 years that I have been driving - although I’m sure a little bit of luck played a part in that as well.

By V for Vendetta

April 9, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this

SET is right about the government subsidizing the costs, we should not deny anyone the right to drive a car, but we should also be more wary about just WHO is driving a car. The tests (performance as well as written) need to be made much more difficult. Think about it, do you want people with far below average intelligence behind the wheel of a two-ton machine that could easily kill a crowd of people if operated improperly? We should also create MANDATORY re-testing for people in excess of 60 years of age. The re-testing should be like taking the test the first time. There should be a written exam AND a performance exam. It is not fair for us to crack down on one end of the age spectrum while ignoring the other.

On top of all this, we should absolutely BAN illegal immigrants from driving a car. That shouldn’t even be a question.

We can cut down on accidents and congestion without building more roads, we just have to come to grips with the fact that some people will not like it. We will all be much safer on the road when the inexperienced, the ignorant, and the incapable elderly are off of it. I know it sounds mean, but it is the logical and safest thing to do for the majority.

By Jamie

April 9, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

I agree it should be. We need to have safe and educated drivers on our roads. My drivers education class (not from Ga, from Ks) was taken during the summer but was free and teachers from the school signed up to do the teaching, we had the book course then we did the actual drivings on the road with the teacher. The classes were Monday-Friday like 8-1. My summer days may have been cut short but I believe well worth it.

By Janie

April 9, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this

School system should not be involved. The state should be the involved party. If you want your child to drive at the legal age, pay for the classes through a state run prgram.

Personally I think new laws need to be in effect for new drivers anyway. Using the Canadian system would be an improvement over the system we have.

By jim d

April 9, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this

Jamie,

So you’re ok with folks, that can’t teach these kids simple algebra, teaching them to drive?

By jim d

April 9, 2007 4:20 PM | Link to this

Let me just add—Government shouldn’t be in the business of issuing drivers licenses. Insurance companies should.

By SET

April 9, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this

Jim D: In my area a third of the drivers (supposedly) have no insurance. People with insurance are most likely to have a recovery from their uninsured motorist coverage than their collision or comprehensive portions of their auto policies. We’re not complaining because uninsured motorist claims have no deductable (for the insured claimant).

So your idea that the insurance companies can provide any kind of regulation is false. To have that mean anything we’d have to have roadblocks all over town where the motorists have to drive through with their credentials held up against the driver’s window like in the movie “Strange Days”. We’d have to actually get the uninsured off the road - utterly unthinkable or impractical in CA as long as the democrats are in power.

And Vandetta - you have to remember that the US Gov’t is legalizing millions of “immigrants” willy nilly without regard to whether or not they speak english or whatever - plus the unassimilated children of illegals are for some reason (unique to the USA) given “citizenship” status. The distinction between illegal and legal invader makes little difference when they drive drunk, blow stop signs and run into you - without speaking a word of english.

The majority of traffic collisions and tickets are Hispanic in my town - for a minority of the population. Whites are the largest population group but a small fraction of traffic court.

Since 10 years ago we have radically stepped up towing of cars. Then people drove away from a ticket for driving without a license. Now the car is jailed even if all the other adults in the car have licenses. $700 an impound. Meter Maids are having cars towed if they encounter a car with 3 month old expired tags. You can’t renew your annual car tags if you have no insurance or unpaid auto tickets.

We’ve tried to stem the tide of losers behind the wheel by going after their cars. Well, the cars are cheaper than the tickets ($360+ for running a red light plus $1000 for failure to appear) - so they abandon the cars (only 46% of impounded cars are reclaimed) and buy replacement junkers.

We now have programs in traffic court to try to rehabilitate the repeaters so that they can clean up their records and support their families. I’ve watched traffic court - It is run with Spanish Interpreters (and we’re hiring clerks and court commissioners who are bilingual also). It is a form of Driver’s Ed - for Adults.

So I really believe we must force a strong traffic law education on everyone passing through the public schools for the good of all and the economy. It’s not like I’m a big fan of government programs, but you can do it right in the first place or do it more expensively later.

Brave New World - coming to a Southern State near you!!

By jim d

April 9, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this

Set,

With our current system you are quite correct. However, using the technology available in this “brave new world” insurance companies could easily turn your car off if you allowed coverage to lapse or recieved too many violations. This technology is already being built into many cars. Insurance companies could in fact regulate who, or at least which vehicles could be operated.

By Teacher Teacher

April 9, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this

DJ,

Soooooo, you can’t make change, huh? Hit a nerve, huh?

Love and kisses!

By SET

April 9, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

Vendetta - there is no right to drive a car and we should block a whole lot of people from being behind the wheel of a full sized vehicle because they are a danger to themselves and others.

But I oppose our current policy of pulling licences completely for DUI people, etc, without letting them have a motor scooter licence so they can try to keep their job. We don’t make the distinction now, it’s all or nothing. To the extent it is reasonable I want to keep people working. And bus and train service in this state is usually not viable.

Our public policy must be changed to realize the importance of everybody working to the extent they are able to do so. This government and it’s ministers seem to think it’s just fine for everyone to go on aid and stay there… Even people in their 20s. We sign drug addicts up for SSI and qualify them because they were once in special ed.

There was a line in a “Mad Max” movie - “You can shovel s**, can’t you?” I think Tina Turner spoke it. It ended the discussion about Max finding a job.

So even most of our losers should be able to get a scooter license for to and from work. If they can manage the rules of the road written test. And I know that the SSI/Special Ed crowd have been able to past that test in the recent past. It’s given in all foreign languages and has lots of pictures.

Greater responsibility is needed for a car or pickup truck, not a scooter.

By Ernest

April 9, 2007 5:06 PM | Link to this

JimD:

You bring up an interesting point of using technology to ‘disable’ use of a vehicle for violations. The age of ‘Big Brother’ is closer than most know.

To the point again, having Drivers Ed as an option in high schools makes sense to me. Like SET implies, you can look at this as a ‘quality of life’ issue. While taking drivers ed is not a guarantee one will be a safe driver, it at least ensures a basic level of understanding of those behind the wheel.

By catlady

April 9, 2007 5:22 PM | Link to this

Driver’s Ed is very important, but PLEASE don’t give the schools another of your family’s responsibilities! We are literally drowning in passed-off responsibilities as it is! It is not that it needs to be done, it is WHO needs to be responsible for doing it!

By jim d

April 9, 2007 5:35 PM | Link to this

Ernest,

I have no problem with it as an option, but as a mandate that schools must offer? Well thats where the rub comes. I predict this will rapidly become another unfunded mandate

And nothing against teachers, but I’d prefered someone in the business for a profit teach my child (as they did) rather than someone that insists they are simply in it for the love of the chldren. I guess it really is my disgust with the one size fits all crap. I preferred to choose a one on one instructor, for my child, that was able to focus on one child—not multiple children at the same time.

Personally, I don’t believe the schools can get the job done.

By Najeh Davenpoop

April 9, 2007 5:36 PM | Link to this

There are many more important classes for which funding is needed in schools. Driver’s Ed should be a before- or after-school program. If the government wants high school kids to become better drivers, hold the DMV responsible for administering tougher driving tests for teens.

By JustMe

April 9, 2007 5:41 PM | Link to this

Regarding scooters….. for the small size engines (like most scooters) one does not need a drivers license nor insurance.

By Lisa B.

April 9, 2007 5:49 PM | Link to this

From reading these posts, I am abivalent about putting driver’s ed back in schools. However, I look at my students and know many of their parents will not or cannot spend much money on private driver’s ed courses. I believe it in society’s best interest to have trained drivers on the road. Our roads will be safer, and maybe a few roadblocks to employment will be removed.

It does seem like when no one else steps up to the responsibility, the responsibility gets handed to the schools.

It’s my experience though, when certain responsibilites are left with the parents, many parents fail to live up to their end of the bargain. Remember when children learned their multiplication tables by practicing at home with their parents?

By Lisa B.

April 9, 2007 6:05 PM | Link to this

Jim D.

For my child, I too, prefer the scenario you describe, and I will pay for it. My son will receive proper training, as will his friends. My concern is for all those children out there whose parents will not pay for driver’s ed, and who will not train them to drive. Those children still need to have jobs, and most likely will have to drive to those jobs. We have no mass transit in South Georgia. They, too will need to be safe, legal drivers. I am just trying mentally work out some feasible plan to make that happen.

By Noelle

April 9, 2007 6:11 PM | Link to this

I think Driver’s Ed should be given FREE in the public schools complete with the simulator as it was when we were in high schools(80’s, etc). However my daughter is in Gwinnet County Schools and we paid the $300 for her to take it through the community school since it’s not offered as an elective as it is (I am told) by Dekalb County schools. The bottom line is our kids are our responsibility - fair or not - we have to do what it takes to keep them safe. We are giving her plenty of behind the wheel lessons as well as paying for a defensive driving course for her.

By catlady

April 9, 2007 6:17 PM | Link to this

I don’t think the answer to every question/every need is the public schools. Need to eat breakfast or lunch? the public schools. Need counseling? the public schools. Need medical intervention? the public schools. Need to learn right from wrong? the public schools. Need sex ed? the public schools. Need drug and gang education? the public schools. Need help with a handicap (pick one or more)? the public schools. Need to learn English? the public schools. Want a picture taken? the public schools. Need to learn to drive? the public schools. Those 3 word seem to attach themselves to any problem for people ages 4-21. At what point can the public schools focus on planning, delivering, and evaluating academic work of the students?!?

By Lisa B.

April 9, 2007 6:27 PM | Link to this

Great point, Catlady. We do need some other agencies, besides schools, to take on some of these “responsibities.” I just don’t see it happening, unfortunately.

By PJ

April 9, 2007 6:30 PM | Link to this

You hit the nail on the head, catlady.

By catlady

April 9, 2007 6:46 PM | Link to this

Lisa B, it reminds me of when I was married. If I did a chore, even one time, it became mine forever more. Which is why I was mowing and tilling when I was 9 months pregnant. My (then) husband figured, if I could do it once I could do it every time. Now, I think the public schools have been used in just that way, and until we are willing to say, “OK, we will take on driver’s ed AS LONG AS WE TAKE SOMETHING ELSE OFF THE PLATE” so that it becomes a zero sum game. Right now, it is just more and more and more with no end in sight!

Driver’s ed is a wonderful, needed program for SOMEONE to provide. So would giving each high school grad a car! However, I don’t think the schools should be responsible for providing either one, given limited resources and an already full plate.

By catlady

April 9, 2007 6:51 PM | Link to this

If young folks have to present evidence of driver’s ed before they are given a test for a license, I think money would be “found” to take the course. It seems like lots of parents don’t blink at buying a car, new or used, for their child to use. How much cheaper to buy a little extra “insurance” by way of a driver’s ed course. Schools need to be in the “business” of teaching reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic. Goodness knows, we have our hands full doing that already!

By jim d

April 10, 2007 8:01 AM | Link to this

Drivers education in schools? Sure why not, and while were at it lets get the schools to teach proper table manners and how to wipe ones behind so paper isn’t wasted. How about adding courses on proper bathing procedures, gift wrapping, maybe even one on how to breath effectively and the proper handling and discharging of an M16 rifle. Then if time permits maybe educators could teach the helpless, uncured for little beggars how to read and cipher. What do you think? Y’all up for it?

Personally folks, I don’t care if a parent teaches their kid to drive or not, their failure to do so automatically nominates them and their kids for the coveted Darwin awards It really isn’t my problem, nor is it the responsibility of our educational system. Parents that really give a damn will sign their kids up to one of these courses at Road Atlanta.

http://www.audidrivingexperience.com/programs.lasso

I highly recommend it! These courses may help teach yours how to avoid the ones that are just thrown behind the wheel.

By KA

April 10, 2007 8:24 AM | Link to this

I had Driver’s Ed in HS in the 60’s in Florida, and was shocked when I discovered that it was not a part of the Georgia HS curriculum. I paid for my three kids to take Driver’s Ed through the community classes offered at our high school. IMO it should be offered in every HS and required for ALL students who want a license. I don’t care who pays for it, but we all benefit if all new drivers are better educated about driving BEFORE they get out on the road by themselves.

By KA

April 10, 2007 8:31 AM | Link to this

Our auto insurance gives a discount for driver’s ed, for defensive driving classes, and for good grades, so we got a return on money spent on the classes.

By Larry

April 10, 2007 8:37 AM | Link to this

As I recall, 35 years ago when I took driver’s ed. at school, the classes were taught on Saturday mornings, so they didn’t interfere with regular class schedules. Schools are the perfect place to teach driver’s ed. But the school systems, with their already over-stretched budgets, should not have to bear the burden. It should be jointly paid by the state and parents - the state providing the funding for the course, instructor and materials (including vehicles) and parents required to pay a fee for the course, and the students required to take and pass the course to earn a driver’s license.

By N-GA

April 10, 2007 9:06 AM | Link to this

I suspect that if teenagers are allowed to get a driver’s license at age 17 provided they have taken driver’s ed in school, they will find time to do it. Those who choose not to take the course would face not getting their license until age 18 coupled with having to pay higher insurance premiums.

By Yada Yada Yada

April 10, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this

When I was growing up. my parents took the responsibility for teaching me to be a good driver. They knew they were legally responsible for my actions until I was 18, and of course they were good parents that knew they were responsible for my development, rather than the government or someone else.

By Tonia

April 10, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

I took my driver’s education course in High School. I personally believe it should be a part of the cuuriculum, Ddriver’s Education teaches responsibility, and helps you with your focus while driving. Having an instructor who taught defensive driving taught me to better handle my car on the road and watch for other drivers who might not be paying attention.

By Shannon, M.Div.

April 10, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

Drivers ed should absolutely take time neither from core academic courses nor from enrichment electives (art, music, etc.). If the schools do offer it, it should be as an after (or before) school elective. Who pays for it? If the student is going to be able to afford a vehicle, then the student’s family can pony up the cash.

I had driver’s ed when I was in high school, and it was a joke. There were two types of folks in that class. About 75% of them already knew how to drive, and they were there because their parents were forcing them to take the class in order to get an insurance reduction. Then there were the other 25% who had never been behind the wheel before. who were actually taking driver’s ed to learn to drive for the first time. That mixture alone meant that the class would be ineffective.

I agree with those who say we need far more stringent license requirements. Our current system is crazy. When I took the test, we had to know how to parallel park—which people outside of the Atlanta city limits will rarely if ever need—but the vehicle never went over 35 mph, which doesn’t test driving at all!

Of course, if we would become a less car-dependent society, that would be even better—for the environment, for our tempers, and for our community-consciousness. It would hit personal convenience, though. We worship individual choices, so who cares about the environment, general quality of life, and the good of the whole over and against the good of the individual—not to mention personal health, where obesity has been shown to correlate with high commute times in blind studies? (If obesity is a personal choice, as so many people think it is, then why do obesity rates correlate with sociological and environmental factors, such as drive time commutes and lack of sidewalks in a subdivision? Hmmm).

So in sum: 1) The schools don’t have time. 2) Driver’s ed run through the schools is ineffective anyway. 3) The tests for driving need to be overhauled and toughened to reflect actual driving conditions. 4) To step back from this question and look at the metaissue, our society needs to stop its love affair with the car and realize its true costs.

By jim d

April 10, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

Might as well just sign them over at birth and then reclaim them at 18.

Looks like time for a few parents to wake up and assume some responsibility. We’ve become a society that feels entitled to a free education, free driving lessons, and hell even a free existence if we choose not to work. Time to put a halt to all of this entitlement crap. Get over it! You want your kid to drive? Pay for the insurance and the training! Not one of you bothered to ask me if it was ok with me that you have kids, so don’t ask me to provide more support by teaching them to drive.

GROW UP!

By MrLiberty

April 10, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

Let’s see. Parents gave birth to these children. Parents are supposed to be responsible for their children up until they are 18 years of age. Law or no law their insurance company would want to see some training before insuring their kids. Seems pretty obvious to me. Let the parents pay.

At what point did we socialize the responsibility for having children? Parents don’t pay for the rest of their education (certainly not the $7000-10,000 per year costs), they get a tax break for having kids, the wreckless gamblers pay for their kid’s college (Lotto), and we are all picking up bigger and bigger bills for prisons, DFACS, now PeachCare, and likely hundreds of additional programs that I haven’t mentioned.

Parents - get out there and teach your kids the right way to drive!

If you are too lousy a driver then take a class with your child. Need to save up to pay for it. Then save. My parents did without a lot of things so that they could afford to pay for both private school and the property taxes for the government school.

There is no reason for society at large to pick up the tab for driving education in the schools. The schools can’t manage to do a decent job with reading, math, science, or any other subject they get their hands on. Why would we want an equivalentally-horrible driver’s training program.

Besides, there is no way the schools will ever be able to afford the liability insurance for kids to drive on the freeways, and if they aren’t going to learn that, then why bother at all.

Take some responsibility for a change parents. You had these kids - stop trying to force the rest of us to pick up the tab !

By jim d

April 10, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

Mr. Liberty,

I’m so glad we can finally fully agree on a subject!

HAGD!!

By SET

April 10, 2007 7:40 PM | Link to this

Mr Liberty & Jim D: while I am sympathetic to your principals of Social Darwinism I remain nervous of this government’s replacing the USA Republic with an Imperial USA built on a hereditary overclass and underclass.

Public Schools were supposed to lift the underclass up - to teach the immigrants to assimilate into American society and to make sure that any reasonably able boy or girl could grow up to hold a job. Public Schools were not for the rich, they were always able to take care of themselves.

When you two insist that training of proletariat children be left to their “families” (as if they had functioning families) I see you as playing right into Imperial America - which requires the dumbing down of the nation’s public schools to come to fruition.

Your advocacy that we scrap the public schools and let everybody fend for themselves makes the overthrow of this republic easier. Just give it a generation or two.

I want a public school that functions the way it did pre “Brown vs Board of Education” integrated, segregated or whatever. It’s in the public interest that we have schools that teach students especially the proletariat to get ready for honest work. That also includes teaching traffic laws.

I want the public schools to actually produce workers who can rise in society. Like we used to have in CA from 1st grade to University of CA. That’s becoming a distant memory now as education and wealth is increasingly being concentrated into a “class” who marry among themselves (assortive mating) while the rest of this country gets destroyed by the New World Order. This was predicted a long time ago by Charles Murry in his “The Bell Curve”.

We can’t keep a republic with a non-functioning public school system. That’s why Congress has destroyed it.

By Lee

April 11, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this

Thirty years or so ago, I took driver’s ed in high school. I recall it being a joke.

Three students in an old Buick with a football coach as the driving instructor. Basically, you got about 15 minutes behind the wheel twice a week. Unless, of course, the coach had to stop somewhere to run a couple of errands.

I can understand the arguments pro and con on this issue. However, I don’t think that most public schools are capable of doing it right.

This is an issue with me as our youngest is 15 and learning to drive. We’ve already signed her up for a driving course this summer. We’ll see how it goes.

We’re lucky in that we live in a semi-rural county. I don’t see how parents who live in metro Atlanta area handle seeing their novice driver get out in that traffic. I’ve been driving for 35 years and absolutely detest Atlanta traffic.