[Speed Gibson,
Wednesday September 8, 2004 at 10:13am]
Why Johnny Can't Drive
Governor Pawlenty gets so much right that it's especially disappointing when he fumbles an issue, particular one of his own creation like the false economy of Canadian prescription drug imports. His latest proposal that teenage drivers have their driver licenses suspended if they are truant is especially confounding. It is unconstitutional sophistry.
First, what's to be gained? Yes, students not at school cannot learn. But you logicians out there know that does not mean that attendance results in learning. Worse, unmotivated students are often disruptive students who interfere with the class. Lowering the truancy of some may impair the learning of others.
Second, who's in charge? School administrators, who regularly practice political correctness, affirmative action, zero tolerance, and other forms of injustice. These administrators also have a conflict of interest, since schools literally get so much state financial aid per day per student in attendance. I personally got "the look" when I picked up my daughter for "Take your Daughter to Work" day one year. "You realize this counts as an unexcused absence, don't you?" muttered the clerk as I signed her out. Anyone care to bet there won't be special rules and exceptions made for certain groups, those on free and reduced lunch, and enrolled in English as a Second Language (ESL)? If so, does this not violate equal protection under the law?
Third, what about dropouts? Such a proposal might push some marginal students, however foolishly, to drop out rather than face license revocation. Or does Pawlenty intend to withhold licenses to anyone before age 18 not in school? Again, does this not violate equal protection under the law?
Fourth, what about the home schooled, by parents or tutors? What about those attending charter schools and private schools? I'd like to see how you're going to again not violate equal protection under the law?
Finally, what about birthdays? In a given class there will be just over a year's range of birthdays. There will be Seniors who turn 18 in early September, others that turn 18 in late May. Throughout the year, 17 year old Seniors are subject to this rule, while 18 year Seniors are not. The consequences for truancy are clearly not equal for this reason.
For all these reasons, I believe this is clearly unconstitutional, and besides, it accomplishes nothing.
Governor, if you would really like to try something innovative, how about repealing the compulsory education statute? I like the thought that those students who do show up are there voluntarily or because their parents insist, undisturbed by would-be truants.
Better still, how about changing the aid formulas to pay districts for proven results, not mere attendance?
First, what's to be gained? Yes, students not at school cannot learn. But you logicians out there know that does not mean that attendance results in learning. Worse, unmotivated students are often disruptive students who interfere with the class. Lowering the truancy of some may impair the learning of others.
Second, who's in charge? School administrators, who regularly practice political correctness, affirmative action, zero tolerance, and other forms of injustice. These administrators also have a conflict of interest, since schools literally get so much state financial aid per day per student in attendance. I personally got "the look" when I picked up my daughter for "Take your Daughter to Work" day one year. "You realize this counts as an unexcused absence, don't you?" muttered the clerk as I signed her out. Anyone care to bet there won't be special rules and exceptions made for certain groups, those on free and reduced lunch, and enrolled in English as a Second Language (ESL)? If so, does this not violate equal protection under the law?
Third, what about dropouts? Such a proposal might push some marginal students, however foolishly, to drop out rather than face license revocation. Or does Pawlenty intend to withhold licenses to anyone before age 18 not in school? Again, does this not violate equal protection under the law?
Fourth, what about the home schooled, by parents or tutors? What about those attending charter schools and private schools? I'd like to see how you're going to again not violate equal protection under the law?
Finally, what about birthdays? In a given class there will be just over a year's range of birthdays. There will be Seniors who turn 18 in early September, others that turn 18 in late May. Throughout the year, 17 year old Seniors are subject to this rule, while 18 year Seniors are not. The consequences for truancy are clearly not equal for this reason.
For all these reasons, I believe this is clearly unconstitutional, and besides, it accomplishes nothing.
Governor, if you would really like to try something innovative, how about repealing the compulsory education statute? I like the thought that those students who do show up are there voluntarily or because their parents insist, undisturbed by would-be truants.
Better still, how about changing the aid formulas to pay districts for proven results, not mere attendance?