Kentucky No Pass / No Drive Law

Interesting. Here in California, it wouldn't work. Unless they made every officer memorize the license plate red-flag list, they are legally unable to pull you over until you violate a traffic law.

This seems to be the next version of the change from waiting 6 months to having to wait a year before once can drive their friends in a car. It's the law, yes, but no one follows it unless they have their parents breathing down their necks.

As for the intent of the law, I disagree. Usually if a student isn't doing that well in school, it has to do with a lack of support; parental, teacher related, or other reasons. If you then take away their means of transportation, they're not going to be as happy about going to school. If I were already failing, and then were denied the ability to get myself to the school that I was failing in, I would most likely drop out right then and join the military.

Just my two cents.

[Alivia]

Originally Posted by 114ManualLabor

If you then take away their means of transportation, they're not going to be as happy about going to school. If I were already failing, and then were denied the ability to get myself to the school that I was failing in, I would most likely drop out right then and join the military.

That's definitely one of the major fallacies I see with this new law. For some students, the law will maybe be an incentive. But for others, it could make the difference between staying in school and dropping out.

[Stuart]

/in my best cop voice/ "let me see your license, registration, and latest report card please"

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I'm uncertain how removing an otherwise basic right from these people helps at all.

Not sure about where you live, but here in New Jersey it is made abundantly clear that driving is a privilege not a right.

My opinion is that if KY is trying to keep kids in school and working at it, this will succeed. I'm not a big fan of Government, myself, and this new policy is a little bit Orwellian, but I am a huge fan of education.

Don

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Don Rotolo

Not sure about where you live, but here in New Jersey it is made abundantly clear that driving is a privilege not a right.

Don

In this case, it's a privilege that, prior to this, you were giving to any citizen that could pass a driving test and wasn't found to be driving unsafely.

I mean... It has to be some sort of very important privilege if they only make this suspension applicable to minors that aren't of voting age. They don't even suspend the license of convicted felons. I just looked in Indiana, and all of the license suspensions involve traffic violations or crimes committed in a car, save for: being suspended from school, dropping out (unless due to financial hardship, thank goodness), failure to pay child support, or graffiti. I'm still trying to figure out how failing classes would fit in with any of that other stuff.

I'm really just very, very confused about how this is supposed to help, since it just doesn't seem like an effective deterrent and more importantly, seems like it will just make it even harder for a student to recover and pass once they do have their license suspended.

[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.

[Dan Petrovic]

Hmm... this is interesting.

I think this sort of thing is at the discretion of the parents. If they feel the kid shouldn't drive due to poor grades, then either don't let them get their license or don't let them drive.

The state has no right to be telling people that they can't drive due to poor grades (well, technically they do, but they shouldn't!). They don't know what's going on in that family. Any sort of family problems can cause grades to drop, the kid could be a fine student but once there's serious trouble in the family that distracts that kid from their schoolwork, things can change. It could be loss or severe illness of a close family member, a divorce, parents losing their jobs, and other extremely stressful situations.

On the contrary, if they are failing because they don't care, then simply taking their license away for a year or two wont change anything.

[lukevanoort]

We pretty much have this law in NC, if you're under 18, you have to have a certificate from your school saying you are passing enough classes, are in school etc. to get a license/permit. After that, if the school informs the NCDMV that you have dropped below the requirements, your license is removed. In my experience, the law doesn't really have much effect.

[ebarker]

Definitions:

Leadership - The ability to get a person to do something that they ordinarily wouldn't own their own.

Stick - A form of 'negative' feedback used to motivate a person. Example, Kentucky driving law.

Carrot - A form of 'positive' feedback used to motivate a person. Example, FIRST FRC, FTC, FLL, JFLL programs.

Physics - One carrot plus one stick = twice the motivational force.

Conclusion - If Kentucky wants to double the motivational force, they need to put a FIRST program in every school.

Q.E.D.


Ok, that was goofy but fun.

[Pavan Dave]

I hate how the government* thinks they know everything. One of my friends' brothers has been driving [without a license] for 3 years, until he turned 18 [he now has a real one] and he did it because he worked and his parents worked too and there was no other way. He was in school, and than he dropped out and started working full time. I don't understand why what politicians say is right, should be praised...Driving isn't a privilege, its a necessity!

* I am specifically talking about the American politicians and their politics. In many other places [not all] they don't think that they are gods, above all power, with infinite rights.
...

EDIT

Originally Posted by ebarker

Conclusion - If Kentucky wants to double the motivational force, they need to put a FIRST program in every school.

I don't think FIRST in every school is a good idea. I may go as far as saying robotics in every school is a good idea, but I think there are many other effective programs other than FIRST and that FIRST to me is becoming more and more like a corporation trying to create a monopoly for robotics education with this 'FIRST in every school' mumbo jumbo. Botball and BEST definitely kick FIRST's butt in many areas in the big picture and the VEX platform [since it has been dropped by FIRST] is equally as great. FIRST costs WAY TOO MUCH to be put in every school.

[Kris Verdeyen]

Originally Posted by Pavan

I hate how the government thinks they know everything.

So says the Marxist.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

I believe that this measure has the potential to help the educational systems. However, my belief is that it will likely contribute to a growing divide between "academic all-star schools" and poverty-ridden schools. This separation has been evident since before the No Child Left Behind Act, and is certainly a problem. A few reasons:

1) Schools with excellent academic and attendance records whose students generally are on top of the academic game and may or may not need to work full-time to support their families will retain their students.

2) On the other hand, schools who already have tremendous attendance and/or academic performance issues won't be drastically improved by such a measure.

3) It's not always about the entire state - every student counts. What if a student relies on public transportation to get to school, and commutes an hour each way, every single day? Losing something they never had won't motivate them, it will only act as a scolding factor, a "you're not good enough" message on top of any insecurity they may be feeling in failing a class, or the pressures of having to support a family.

The concept is very well intentioned and I'm glad it is on their minds, I am just concerned for the students that have more to worry about than that piece of plastic in their pocket.

[team222badbrad]

So you drop out of school and loose your license....

What is the 16 or 17 year old to do?

How are they going to support themselves without the ability to drive legally?

It's sad to say but even teenagers have bills to pay these days.

[JaneYoung]

There are students who struggle to help support their family, their family business while still trying to stay in school. It can be very difficult. I've witnessed this and it hurts my heart. I've also known students who are first generation high school students/graduates and who are attempting to be first generation college students/graduates. This is the year 2007 and we are still struggling with finding ways to encourage education for our students as a critical priority in our society. I'm not sure this would be considered encouraging.

[Gboehm]

You know when a person get to the point to where they may be too old to safely operate a car, or they no longer have the eyesight or coordination, their lisence should be revoked, but that would be AGE DISCRIMINATION. Yet there are familys that require teens to be able to drive for the sake of younger children or for their jobs to bring in income for the household. I am sorry but that is pure AGE DISCRIMINATION!!!