[Tristan Lall]

State law presumably allows minors to drop out of school at some age (16?), and yet if they do so, this new law labels them "academically deficient", and prevents them from having a valid driver's licence? Isn't that nonsensical by definition? They're not academically anything, since they're legally and willingly not participating in school. That issue may become one for the courts, if someone with the proper standing works up the funds to challenge it.

Perhaps more pointedly, they've raised the stakes with respect to the responsibilities accorded their various boards of education. Should the administrators of these schools and boards have to deal with the ramifications of reporting their own students to the DOT? After all, if a failing student were stripped of his licence, he might feel that his school ratted him out to the DOT, and he might blame them for his situation. If the school is perceived as a villain, how can they work with him to improve his academic performance (since he distrusts them)? (What will that do to the school's No Child Left Behind scores? I'm sure those are always on school boards' minds....)

I'm in agreement with Kevin, that the state is trying wrongheadedly to solve a serious issue that afflicts their young population. As is unfortunately too often the case, they're imposing punitive measures on something that can't be solved by alienating the very people they hope to help. It's like trying to help the poor by making homelessness illegal.