Pawlenty proposes 'no school, no driving' plan

Typical "Compassion" from the GOP - rather than working at the problems that keep kids from finishing school, punish them for not being in school. Take away their license, that oughta learn 'em!! I swear Pawlenty and Coleman are "Chimplets."

http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4153616.html

High school dropouts and no-shows would have their driver's licenses suspended under a proposal announced today by Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

Even students old enough to drop out of school legally would lose their licenses under the proposal. So would students who are absent more than 20 percent of the time for a quarter, semester or school year.

Derek do this for me all the way from old Virginia.
This is for your governor :argh:,

Isn't growing up a dumbass punishment enough? Of course, some people are impervious to the concept of "punishment enough".

What next... preventig them to VOTE? After all, "there is no excuse for not showing up at school."

Please.

That's what public education is for - neutering historical and political awareness.

By age 18, the perfect consumer is ready for the world!

This will be cemented by Total Amerikan Installation of Toucshcreen "Voting" machines (Bushevik Selectors) by 2008.

Though it wouldn't surpirse me if Busheviks Coleman and Pawlenty did if fact do just that.

After all, the Busheviks need to keep the overt vote fraud minimal if they are to maintain the fiction that Imperial Amerikan Subjecst choose their own leader.

Frankly I don't see why people are against it. I think it's important that kids stay in school.

Kids who drop out - for whatever reason - need to have jobs, even if it's just stocking the shelves. Until you can guarantee public transit for every imaginable route, this is bogus.

Teenagers should be in school. There is no excuse to drop out. Dropping out of high school means even less opportunity for these kids.

Why you support high school dropouts is beyond me.

The argument that being against this is the same as being FOR dropouts is like the "Oh, you must be a Saddam supporter argument".

Please explain to me why students who are chronically absent from school deserve to have a drivers' license. Seriously, all they have to do is show up. It's not that hard.

ished?

what about a situation where the oldest is the only person at home with a driver's license, and his little brothers and sisters need to get to the doctor?

in a lot of situations it's not black-and-white exactly why a student skips a lot of school. showing up at all is showing that at least they are trying slightly. why punish them if you can't know exactly why they aren't there? THERE ARE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES and most often, they happen in troubled homes where removing a driver's license from the family will do more harm than good.

Sorry, but you can't be trying all that hard if you still miss school 20% of the time. That works out to one missed day per week. If I tried that at work, I'd be fired.

Most of these families that you speak of don't even have cars.

I had a great excuse. I hated high school. I finished on my own through independent study, while working full time to save for college. If my license had been taken away, I wouldn't have been able to work.

Not everything is black and white.

...such as an unwanted preganancy or family emergency or personal problems. Why impose an extra obstacle that would make it more difficult for them to become self-sufficient in our society.

nt

Such as a friend of mine who dropped out to raise her child during an unintented pregnancy. As soon as her kid was in school, she went back to school herself, but in the meantime, what was she supposed to do?

to deal with pregnant sdutents?

Sorry. By having this policy it will deter other students from dropping out.

And not having an HS Diploma is an obstacle. Very few places above your baisc low wage jobs--and even low wage retail jobs require HS Diplomas or GEDs--will hire dropouts, espcially those with little to no employment history.

This is just reactionary punitive politics and serves no purpose.

Having them not attend school is "making it even harder for them".

Sort of like "Hey, if it weren't for that damn death penalty, I'd go out and murder me someone"? How about giving some credit to the kids and acknowleging that staying in school is just the right thing to do? Let's try instilling some values rather than fears for once.

punish them and keep them from participating in society -- getting a job, for example. The lack of schooling will be a major handicap to their futures, but it's not enough -- we need to keep them from anything approaching a decent life. Hey, taking away their drivers licenses just isn't enough -- I say that we should put them in prison. Even better: capital punishment for dropping out of school. That'll learn 'em.

The type of people you're describing probably don't have cars anyway.

This is a good policy to keep kids in school. Why you are supporting truancy and high school dropouts is beyond me.

by your thinking, wouldnt it make more sense to make it impossible to drop out?

this is ridiculous

Once again, the 'we know what's best for you' lobby puts in an appearance.

I'm trying really hard to not get pushed over into libertarianism.

It is a parent's job to convince their kid to stay in school, just as it is their decision (if the kid is a minor) to allow the kid to get behind the wheel of their car.

All this does is give parents who can't put their foot down yet another escape clause. "The state says so."

Sorry, but parents don't have a choice about whether to send their kids to school.

Which generally coincides with the age at which you can get a permit or license.

Even students old enough to drop out of school legally would lose their licenses under the proposal.

And you want to know why we complain the US populace is increasingly infantilized ...

Ah, but here's the root of it: No Child Left Behind raises its ugly head -

"Schools are being held accountable, but what do they do when students don't want to step up to the plate?" said Education Commissioner Cheri Pierson Yecke, who joined Pawlenty at the press conference.

Overturning the silly NCLB act where schools lose funds over drop-outs is much more of an answer than removing the drivers' license of a 16 year old who declares themself outside the school system - whether voluntarily or otherwise.

As long as it's PAINFUL capital punishment! After all, some kid whose dad was killed by a drunk driver and whose mother is an invalid and who has three smaller siblings should just haul his ass to school and forget about issues like keeping the electric on. (Yes, this is an actual case) I teach.

I have talked to a number of educators who have said that a classroom is the worst place for some kids. Some high school kids aren't comfortable there for many reasons.
A lack of parental support is one. These kids may also wind up having to support themselves financially. What do they do without being able to drive? Pizza delivery is another job to cross off the list of possibilities. Getting to work becomes difficult, etc...
Some of these students are young women who have gotten pregnant and decided to keep her baby. Parenthood does include financially supporting the child. Forcing HS into the mix complicates matters beyond reason.

Many educators support the decisions of some students to dropout of HS early, get their GED and start college or work. A professor in the Educational Psychology department at the U I went to talked about this a little bit. He makes it a point to stress the fact that GED is the EQUIVILENT of a HS diploma.
The social culture of some schools is just unbearable for some kids. Why should they be required to stay in a terribly uncomfortable environment when they could move on with their lives and enter a more healthy social environment?
Some students prefer other kinds of work. They are not planning to go to college, and by the time senior year comes around they begin to feel that they are not being prepared for the lives they are going to actually live. They may want to attend a trade school instead.
BOREDOM!! Some students are intellectually advanced beyond HS work. Why should they waste their time on it when they could effectively "test out" by taking the GED?

I was talking to my sister about this the other day. She told me that she would allow her daughter to "drop out" of HS and get her GED if she wanted to stop going to HS and start college early.

These kids deserve more credit than this administration gives them. Their response to any "problem" they see seems to be to simply impose some sort of formal criminalization. A more effective way to deal with this would be to recognize the gray areas, and consider a myriad of possibilities and solutions. Forcing the issue into a black and white model is easier, but as we have seen with things like "abstinance only" and "just say no" programs, black and white thinking is not typically successful.
The reasons why a kid wants to stop attending HS should be addressed and understood.
If it seems like the kid should rethink that decision, they should get some guidance. If it appears to be a decision that is worthy of support, I think they should get it.

I called Pawlenty's office and said pretty much what you just said. The response I got was underwhelming. I don't think they're interested in opposing viewpoints on this one.

that address the underlying reasons why students drop out, this is a truly dumb idea. There's no cause and effect between driving and going to school or dropping out.

spending any money on something like this right now is just plain foolish. Take this money and better the schools, maybe that will help keep kids in school. Why do republican solutions always have to be negative or hurtful or make a life more difficult? I think school is a very tough place for these kids. Especially for those who don't fit in, or have learning disabilities, or who just learn more slowly. Kids can only take so much pressure and rules and some of them quit school when it gets too much, without that, they might just quit the world. These kids need some better solution that to take their driver's licence away, hell, that might be the only thing they ever succeeded at.

All these people are being asked to do is show up for school. It really isn't that hard. Stop trying to make up excuses for these people.

Or students have mono or another disease that requires them to be absent? This would affect those students.

I wouldn't scrap an entire program just because of a few hardship cases. You can build in equitable exceptions.

However, I'm not exactly sympathetic about the "unintended pregnancy" case, since high school students shouldn't be sexually active in the first place.

I've taught for decades now, and in our sucky west Texas economy, many of my students work til 2 am supporting their families, and then they show up bright and ready to go at 8:45? Puh leze.

When we get a living wage in this country, come back.

I work for my school district's truancy program. The number of children actually referred to as "habitual truants" admit guilt maybe 95% of the time, and 2-3% of those who don't are faound guilty anyway. Of course, teh only way in most states to actually be "truant" is to not bring in a letter from Mom -- what's so hard about that?

Then again, my community is not poor and is not in West Texas, but we have an inner city being served alongside the white suburbs, too...like your town, a lot of the kids who admit guilt are working in some way to support their families -- and they're rarely prosecuted as far as we could, usually a hand-slap, a stern admonishment, and a referral to financial/family/health services.

The task in juvenile justice is to separate the truly delinquent kids from the truly desparate ones, enforcing the rules and consequences on a case-by-case basis.

How on earth did the species known as mankind manage to survive throughout all these millenia before sociologists came along and clued us in to the fact that 16-18 year olds were too young to have sex??

Because before that happened, a person that age was pretty much expected to be procreating. Human instinct, and what-not.

Boy, I'd love for you to go back in American History and tell all of the 16-18 year old patriots and pioneers that they couldn't have sex anymore. You'd probably get tarred and feathered.
How did we manage to build this country with all of that "improper" sexual behavior going on?

By the logic of this example, you'd deny condoms to them because they shouldn't be doing that nasty stuff anyway.

you republican

All these people are being asked to do is show up for school. It really isn't that hard. Stop trying to make up excuses for these people.

Who exactly are "these people" to whom you refer? Are you aware that not every dropout is some sort of criminal? Did you know that there are POOR PEOPLE out there, and sometimes their kids need to work to help support their families?

Sometimes, it really is that hard. I'm sorry, but I find your post both infuriating and classist.

the first time someone who's 17 and already has their GED is arrested for illegally driving their vehile because the cop shop made a booboo and failed to record their GED on the record?

What happens when a cop who has something against those who dropped out to get their GED early? Suppose for a moment a cop has had previous contact not related to truancy with a student who has subsequently dropped out of HS, gotten their GED, but the cop doesn't know about it? He'll assume that the kid should be in high school when he sees that kid working at the bank.

"Shouldn't you be in school?"

"No, I got my GED two weeks ago."

"Well, untilwe can prove that, we're going to have to revoke your license."

"How do I get it back?"

"You need to be in school."

"But I just got my GED last week! Didn't you hear me?"

"Well, I don't know that for certain."

"So go check!!"

"Well, you'll have to bring down a copy of your GED to the station."

"How am I going to do that if I can't drive?"

"You'll just have to figure that out for yourself."

Can anyone else see something like this happening, or is it just me?

It's sad that far too many students simply aren't motivated to do well in school. It's downright pathetic that parents aren't taking a greater interest in the children's school performance.

But you can bet that a lot of students would be motivated to show up for class if they knew they could have their driver's license taken away.

And frankly, I'm mystified as to why so many people around here would rush to the defense of students who repeatedly fail to show up for school. How about siding with hard working students for a change?

Personally, I'd like to see a system where students who maintain a B average or higher are allowed to get their driver's license at 16, students with a C average have to wait until they're 18, and students who fail to graduate have to wait until they're 21.

equates to encouraging truancy. My position on this is that it will not work to replace whatever truancy programs that are in place with simply lifting the kid's licenses.

Take two groups of truant kids, tell one group "Screw you, you failed, you lose your license." Work with the other group to resolve whatever it is that is causing them to miss school. Which group is going to have the higher graduation rate?

Does kicking the failing student while they are down really reward the hard working student? Is the hard working student even aware of the student that is failing? They usually don't move in the same groups. I'm sure that several people dropped out of my high school class, I couldn't say that I would have felt rewarded if they had lost their licenses. I'm not sure what it would say about anyone that got any satisfaction from that.

that last is just a punitive pile of crap. Wait until they're 21 fora driver's license?

Are you prepared to deal with all the disenfranchisement suits that result when people that can't drive because they didn't graduate also can't get to the polls to vote, because getting there on their own is illegal?

Are you even thinking about what you're saying before you spout off?

This is strong arming kids to keep them in school. What a great idea.
Of course, it's easier than actually working to fix the problems that cause kids to drop out - as Thor rightly points out.

This would be a severe hardship for kids and parents in rural areas.

It's also discriminatory and probably unconstitutional. And just an all round shitty idea. How dare we force a kid to do something that is making them miserable, and quite possibly even hurting them?

So having to attend school at least 80% of the time is a severe hardship? Well boo f*cking hoo! A driver's license is a privilege, not a constitutional right.

Two words: BS.

School attendance and qualification to drive are completely unrelated. Why not deny them Internet access too? Or telephone? Or alcoholic drinks? Or admittance to sports events? Or cable TV? After all, none of these is a constitutional right.

Punishism is evil. Period.

For crying out loud. Please explain to me how it is unreasonable to expect students to show up for classes 80 days out of 100?

It's not unreasonable to expect people to show up for school. Punishing for the sake (or perverted pleasure) of punishing IS unreasonable.

Why not use carrots instead of sticks? Here in Brazil, in some cities the govt gives cash bonuses for families in which all kids have X % school attendance. Evasion dropped so fast you could hear the noise.

But nooooo.... "PUNISH PUNISH PUNUSH!!!! HUHHHH HUHHHH HUHHHH... my I need new trousers."

dolstein.

I know, probably better than you, about how unfair life can be.

Yep - driving is a privilege. Lot's of kids get DWI's, and get their licenses back in less than a year. So a kid who dropped out would have no license, while a convicted drunk driver did. Nice.

Maybe next we could only give licenses to college grads, or how about if only men get them?

Forcing school on someone isn't going to accomplish anything, except create hostility and potential violence.

Other than producting a more literate country. Compulsory attendance laws had a significant positive effect on society. Thank god more people like you weren't around when these laws were being debated.

If you think it's unfair that someone convicted of a DWI incident can get their license back after a year, then push for tougher sentences for DWI. But don't try to use it to justify chronic absenteeism.

Restricting licenses to college grads discriminates on the basis of wealth, since even public universities aren't free. Obviously, restricting licenses to men discriminates on the basis of sex.

But restricting licenses to high school students who show up for 80% of their classes? Gee, that discriminates in favor of students who comply with compulsory education laws, doesn't it? Got forbid the law should smile favorably on those who work hard and play by the rules.

doesn't mean he'll learn how to read.

Most schools have a drop out age of 16. If a kid hasn't learned to read by then - they aren't going to. Since education is compulsory only until that time - your objections are moot.

People like me, eh? You don't know squat about people like me. I'm glad there weren't people like you around when I dropped out of high school and left my alcoholic family home at age 16. It probably saved my life. I went back to school. I went to college, and had a 4.0. I was accepted at an Ivy League school. So, your simplistic generalizations and stereotypes don't mean anything.

While you're at it, force a dress code on 'em and make 'em say the Pledge and get a haircut. Oh, yeah - and you could dangle the grade carrot, too. No license without a 4.0 grade average. Detention? Oops, sorry, your license is suspended.

Uniforms would be good. Maybe something with a nice brown shirt.

against those who wish to take a different course of education, you can allways go back and get a GED

kids who are in 12th grade, have jobs, and are taking care of a young brother or sister with a sick or alcoholic parent and trying to finish school, but miss too many days, lose their license so they can't drive to school on the days they can go.

the problem with this is that it is so simplistic and un-thought-out. there are too many unknowns. punish kids with something that makes sense, not by keeping them from having transportation which can be lifesaving to their families in an emergency... why give troubled families more trouble?

oh, i get it... pawlenty doesn't CARE if troubled families have more trouble. they aren't the ones who voted for him... they're probably white trash, black, or hispanic, aren't they pawlenty? what an short-cutting ill-planned piece of sh*t bill this is.

The unknowns will be plentiful here and there are too many situations where a student needs to be gone from school (taking care of a younger sibling, an unintended pregnancy, disease) to pass something like this.

is that it creates an expectation that kids will actually show up to school.

or a "don't tell the complete truth about your DUI arrest record voluntarily when running for the president of the united states, lose your license" law?

or a "kill your boyfriend at an intersection with your car in high school and lose your license" law?

How about if you're an evil fuck who lies about your state of residence to run for vice president in contravention of the constitution, then you don't get a license?

Or if you're a dumbfuck NSA who never thought about people flying planes into buildings, then you don't get a license?

Or if you're an oxycontin addict who's also a moron, you don't get a license?

Or if you expect people to believe that minorities took all the spots in the military so you had to become a congressman, you don't get a license?

Say, this DOES have possibilities, after all!

But leave unfortunate kids alone until all these wealthy asshole lawbreaking murderers and liars are dealt with! Priorities!

How the hell are these kids who have to quit school and work to support their low-income families going to actually GET to a job, then?

Another typical GOP idea that ignores basic realities of life for those who aren't rich or middle class.

That should teach em! Punish, punish, punish! Can't we look at the ROOT of the issues instead of treating symptoms? :think:

Like they are going to get jobs as high school dropouts? Maybe the lowest of the low wage work. But most of the "low wage" places I've worked at--retail outlets--won't even hire high school dropouts. These dropouts have no experience--where the hell are they going to get a job that is doing meaningful work that's legal?

I can't believe that the DUers are rushing to the defense of high school dropouts. What happened to the emphasis on education?

against those who stay out of school and DON'T have driver's licenses. They get to stay out of school free?


rocknation

i'm a highschool drop out making a fair income and i was punished in the classroom and that's why i left. this is no joke, i was made fun of for my interest in programming (commodore 64) by my chemistry teacher. for some reason, he just hated me and i finally gave up. i quit school, got my ged, went to a vocational college, and now i'm an application support analyst (no credit to my highschool) but i would not have been able to go to work and pay for classes without transportation and thus likely just give up.

I wish I could talk to that chemistry teacher!! Why in the world would you want to discourage someone about an interest, especially one so valuable to scientific work?

I'm guessing I'm a bit older than you as I got my Commodore 64 while I was in college. Funny thing is that even though I finshed college with a degree in Chemistry - it is the programing on my own outside of school that is providing me with my income. I have that piece of paper that says I there, but it's not doing a whole lot.

The one class that I took, I was continually correcting the prof's mistakes. I guess that they were wrong when they thought that the Computer Science department could share someone with the Philosophy department. I'm now doing mostly database work, but prior to that I spent 6 years doing application support for an expense reporting system.

Communties w/ an effective truancy program have seen as much as a 50-60% reduction in daytime burglary.

We have the "take their licenses" program here in Nevada, and -- when used selectively -- it works quite well. It really doesn't seem to affect any but the well-off kids anyway; this usually isn't a concern for the poorer kids who have other problems causing their truancy, as not driving is already a way of life for the whole family.

and high school dropouts. Education is the only way out of poverty. I really don't understand why people here are interested in enabling high school students to be truant.

What about them? They aren't adults yet. If their parents are homeless, can't get jobs, then the kids are shunted from shelter to shelter, or from the street to living in a car, whatever. The current economy has made life a hell of a lot harder for a lot of people.

If a kid is somehow able to keep his family afloat til the parent can find a job, why punish him? I got a GED at age 31. I retired a couple of years ago, after working for the same company for 25 years. According to you, by dropping out in my senior year of high school, I should have been punished, instead of marrying the father of my child, and providing a supportive, loving family home.

just saying that the punishment of losing a driver's license does not make a whole lot of sense in trying to keep these kids in school. How about trying to solve the problem that is causing them to miss school?

Someone mentioned that a strong truancy program reduces daytime crime. Great, they are doing good. Now let's take the "Compassionate" GOP solution to this and replace that program simply simply pulling the kids license... I have nothing to support it, but I'm thinking that the crime rates are going back up. On the other hand, it probably free up some money that could be siphoned off to contributors...

The argument about them having jobs is BS because no credible employer is going to hire someone with little experience and not even an HS Diploma. Even the low, low end fast food and retail places won't hire such people.

And given how some DUers are arguing that this will hurt "low income" teeangers who have "to help their families" I doubt that many of them can afford cars anyway.

Many Teenagers get restaurant work while they're IN HS.
Do you seriously think deciding not to continue and get a diploma will get them fired faster than having to reduce their hours due to transportation issues????
Many people in smaller cities and towns don't have access to public transportation. People who have even very small incomes often have cars because it's impossible to get around without one. I've known many people who drive a falling apart cars that they bought for very little.

"Even the low, low end fast food and retail places won't hire such people."

In a word- bullshit. Every fast food outlet I've ever worked for had at least one HS dropout, most of whom were well on their way to getting their GED. They just didn't much care for public school. So THAT'S dealt with; you're wrong, now go sit in the corner.

"And given how some DUers are arguing that this will hurt "low income" teeangers who have "to help their families" I doubt that many of them can afford cars anyway."

There's another message board you should look at, then. It's called "Free Republic", I believe.

Rush has no college degree-
Bill Gates has no college degree-

I've got two and believe me, I am no Bill Gates!

I propose that shoplifters should have ALL their possessions confiscated, their driver's licenses revoked, and all businesses should be forbidden to hire them, forever.

What? You disagree? I REALLY CAN'T BELIEVE DUERS ARE DEFENDING SHOPLIFTERS! WHY PEOPLE HERE ARE INTERESTED IN ENABLING PEOPLE TO STEAL???

Relax, if what the supporters of :eyes: my governor's :eyes: bill says is true, then the high-school dropouts are already going to be punished enough.

If these kids feel that they don't want to go to school, that's their business, as long as they are not hurting anyone else. And if I read my local rags correctly, the Rethugs in power are already bastardizing the education of our kids to promote a conservative point of view, so if some individuals feel that attending that sort of setting is intolerable, they should be free to leave (under the auspices of their parents.)

If a kid does not want to be in school, let them drop out. Don't punish the other kids who want to be in school and learning by making mad kids attend. All they will do is disrupt and hamper the ability of the good kids to learn. I've seen it firsthand, so this is a bad idea, trust me.

...................... hmmmmmm? look at generaldiscussion and see what is meant...

54% support this idea
46% don't

Minnesotans are really becoming stupid.

This has to be the stupidest plan ever. Can we have Jesse back? Or how bout we get Pentel in there?

Population growth here in Minnesota has meant more Republicans, more suburban sprawl, more shopping mall mentality...

The eras of Humphrey and Wellstone shall fade into memory; we're all Norm Colemans now.

More and more are teaching their kids at home, even through high school. Do these kids just not get their licenses at all? Do they get a pass?

Kids have all kinds of reasons for dropping out of high school,
or performing badly in high school. Some of these are attributable
to individual failings -- and many are not. And when you are
talking about an entire state's worth of teenagers, even the
low-probability, 3-sigma situations crop up with regularity.

Bottom line: some kids have very legitimate reasons for leaving
high school (i.e. leaving is is the most functional response to
a very bad situation). Throwing this obstacle on top of that
situation (whatever it is) is not going to help.

Even in the case where a kid leaves high school for foolish,
immature, or dysfunctional reasons, I don't see how cutting
the kid off from any real possibility of employment is going
to help the kid, the school, or the community.

Blanket policies like this sound great, if you're thinking at
the surface level. Get one inch below the surface, and you
start seeing problems all over the place. Problems that vary
with socio-economics and geography.

This is the main reason why education, historically, has been
managed as close to the local level as possible.

By and large, our current structure for high schools is
based on a theory of mass production that even mass-producers
don't use any more.

If I were in Pawlenty's place, I'd be looking to make the
high school process *more* flexible, not less. By which I
mean: accomodating kids with different styles of learning,
different rates of intellectual and/or emotional maturation,
kids that need to help out at home (due to a family crisis
or situation), kids that need to work, kids that are parents,
etc, etc. *That* will keep more kids in high school. It
will also cost more money.

How is it that politicians are so hopelessly stuck in this
watered-down kindergarten version of behaviorism?

J.

Alaska used to have a law that if a juvinile got caught drinking or at a drinking party they would forfeit their driving privilage. The law was challanged in court and thrown out for being unconstitutional. Laws can't be intermixed in that manner. If driving had absolutely nothing to do with the party there could be no penalty against their driving privilage. Probably same reasoning in this case.

Underage drinking or drug use? - License suspended.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0562/Sec111.HTM

Don't go to school? - License suspended.
http://www.schoolboardpolicies.com/5_185.htm

Interesting that Alaska has declared the law unconstitutional. I wonder why it would be acceptable practice in one state, and not in another.

Alaska's Constitution is very close to the US Costitution and people here seem to want to abide by it moreso than the US people want to abide by theirs. It is apparently unconstitutional to punish one for an unrelated event. Even Sixteen year olds have constitutional rights to the chagrin of law makers.

driving isn't a right--it's a privilege

I see nothing wrong with this

finish school. Oh that is different! Only in degree not in concept. It is un-related punishment. If a school kid got caught skipping school and driving around in their car a correlation could be drawn and the license could be taken. Without correlation to a crime or abuse there is no justification. Why not take away their pet or their music? It is not constitutional

Pawlenty is just pushing this and his "super teacher" initiative because they sound like good ideas when first mentioned. When you think about the details, suddenly neither are all that great.

He's doing this for the non-news watchers/readers out there. If you don't pay attention to the details then it doesn't seem like so much crap, and Pawlenty is buying on that to help him win re-election. He is a dangerous politician.