In Saturday's story about Assemblywoman Jean Fuller's proposal to make driver's licenses conditional on school attendance, Laura Maldonado, a counselor at Vista Continuation High School, argued that while the proposal would, undoubtedly, get some kids to attend school, she supported increased funding for counseling and programs to attend to their emotional and development situation. 

It seems to me that there is no forced choice here:  a mix of incentives, both carrots and sticks, is likely to have the most effect.  If attending school as a precondition of getting a license gets more kids to come to school, then we should do that.  Just because other ideas might also be a good idea is no reason not to do this one.

Several folks expressed the opinion that this proposal would burden schools.  I am not sure exactly how much more burden would be created, but if a drivers license as a reward for school attendance reduces truancy, then I would think that would actually reduce the burden on schools.  True, more kids attending more classes would be more of a burden, but surely we can all support that, no?  And surely requiring our schools to keep accurate and up-to-date attendance is a burden we can help them shoulder as needed, no?

Several students expressed their opinions about the matter, and they were uniformly negative.  But, you know, their thumbs-down arguments sounded like reasons FOR the proposal to this educator.  Sometimes students don't like something BECAUSE its good for them and these opinions sure sounded that way to me.

One student articulated that "our education ain’t got nothing to do with no license."  Well, that doesn't address whether it should or not.  Perhaps the threat of no license might keep some students coming to their English classes. 

Another argued that this proposal would undermine education: "Kids will go to school just to keep their license, so school wouldn’t really be important."  Although well-stated, this argument grants the most important reason for the proposal:  "Kids will go to school.."  We would all rather that students go to school because they understand that their futures and our common future depend on them becoming educated, but I will settle for almost ANY reason for kids to go to school, including hanging out with their friends, having nothing better to do, because the truant officer makes them, and, I know this is old school, but even because Daddy will shellack their behind if they don't.  If they attend only because they want a drivers license, that's disappointing but it's a good enough start. 

That same student offered a pessimistic assessment of law enforcement: "No matter if you take them or not, they’re going to be out of a school, out of a license and still driving."  I am a college debate coach and think that this young man has a promising future on the debate team.  But, alas, this argument doesn't come to much, either.  It assumes some things that are just not so.  It presumes that a student can get a CAR without a license.  Now I know a few parents might be willing to get their child a car even without a license, but they are a tiny exception.  The vast majority of parents would have an easy reason to just say NO to a car, which gives a huge incentive for their child to go to class.  Also, for those few kids who do get a car without a license, the police stop younger drivers often enough to substantially deter this behavior.  The response might be that the kids will all just cruise around with a kid who has a license but is willing to skip with them.  Although possible, a car with a bunch of kids makes an excellent choice for a chat with an officer.  Too, the kid willing to do that more than rarely won't get to hold onto their license long.

A final student made what I call the "culture of ignorance" argument.  Now, I am not calling this student names, this argument is made by a lot of folks, she isn't the problem.  This student argued that: “Most times, students drop out to get a good job, so taking away a driver’s license is just making them fail more.” 

The first thing wrong with this argument is that they are not getting "a good job."  They are getting a crappy job, the sort of job that unskilled and uneducated kids can do, that pays minimum wage and helps families out a bit but doesn't offer much of a future.  Don't get me wrong, work is work and I spent summers digging ditches and canvassing door-to-door while in grad school:  those jobs built character and motivated me never to have to do them again.  When those jobs terminate a student's education, they are not only NOT "a good job," they are a life sentence to a mean, hard scrabble for both that student and their children.  In another post I mentioned that the difference between a high school grad and a dropout is $500,000 over an earnings lifetime,  about $10,000 a year.  If they managed to stick with it for a college degree, that's an additional $1.2 million over their adult lifetime.  A job that, essentially PREVENTS you from earning an additional $1.7 million is a "game over" job.

The second thing wrong with this argument is that it ignores the basic argument that Assemblywoman Fuller makes.  Kids care about cars.  They all want to get a license to drive and a car to do it in.  Today, like when we were kids, cars are the ultimate freedom, the first giant step.  There is nothing cool about a kid without a license or a car.  If the drivers license is the reward for attending school and if taking away a driver's license is the punishment for NOT attending school, then that is one giant incentive to attend school. 

Finally, even though the kids may not think so, not having a license is NOTHING as punishment, compared to not getting an education.  In the worst instance, the kid committed to ruining their own future will be able to get the license once they turn 18 anyway.  Then they can drive to their dream job digging ditches for minimum wage and start the life they have chosen for themselves.

I call this the "culture of ignorance" argument because it is one of the central arguments which make it okay for our kids to be ignorant, to not finish their education.  They think they will be just fine without an education, which is as huge a mistake as having unprotected sex with the most promiscuous person in school.  When parents believe it, it is doubly tragic and when an entire community believes it, they end up with 18% of its citizens living below the poverty line, with 7.5 % unemployment, and a huge high school dropout rate.  All three of those are 50% above the national average in Kern County.

Taken together, those "thumbs-down" in the story and video from Saturday seem to me to be pretty good reasons FOR Assemblywoman Fuller's proposal.