Introduction
The “No Pass, No Drive” bill should not be enacted, as it has more downsides than benefits despite its positive short-term effects and theoretical advantages. The “no pass, no drive” policies have been tested across the United States and have negative aspects that limit their efficiency (Kennedy, 2019). Therefore, I am against implementing a similar practice in this state, as it hinders the academic achievements of a portion of students and lowers the quality of education.
Drawbacks of the Bill
The incentive of “no pass, no drive” policies adversely affects academic institutions by forcing people to drop out, postpone their graduation, or continue lagging behind their peers and await their eighteenth birthday. The negative reinforcement strategy causes the Average Freshman Graduation Rate to decline as more teens struggle to attain their degree in time due to the pressure to drop out for a driver’s license (Kennedy, 2019). This notion creates a dangerous environment that inflates the retention rates without affecting educational facilities positively. The reduction in dropout rates is artificial and perceivable only in ninth-grade student retention (Kennedy, 2019). Thus, it is vital to compare students’ academic outcomes affected by this policy.
This initiative will violate the rights of many Americans who are unable to graduate from high school due to their physical, mental, or economic limitations. First, the “no pass, no drive” approach ceases to apply to individuals older than 18 years, causing children from poorer families to have fewer work opportunities (Kennedy, 2019). Additionally, some students repeat grades due to challenges grasping the educational materials.
The No Child Left Behind Act specifically prohibits discrimination against such individuals, which this initiative affects severely (Kennedy, 2019). This notion is perceivable in statistics, indicating that it has a significant negative impact on a portion of the U.S. population. The number of licenses issued to teens is reduced under such a law (Gilpin, 2019). Thus, this policy should not be considered a feasible option, as it includes bias that harms people’s economic prospects.
While this bill could positively impact students’ efforts in education, it does not justify its strict limitations. There is evidence that “no pass, no drive” policies reduce vehicle fatalities that are caused by 16-17-year-old individuals (Kennedy, 2019). However, there are complications stemming from such initiatives due to unaccounted biases. Most of this benefit can be attributed to the requirement of supervised driving hours for a licensee to obtain complete permission (Kennedy, 2019).
This element reveals other formats the state can leverage to make the roads safer. Reducing car accidents involving students may originate from the improved access to driving courses rather than the negative reinforcement stemming from the program (Kennedy, 2019). Therefore, this improvement can be implemented through alternative methods rather than strict laws that may harm educational facilities in the state.
Conclusion
In summary, “no pass, no drive” policies will harm society more than benefit it due to the possibility of teens dropping out of school entirely to maintain their licenses. Young individuals who lack mobility become more inclined to leave education altogether and focus on their careers to support their families or have to stay in schools despite showing little to no academic progress. While these laws decrease the rate of fatal car accidents caused by teens younger than 18, other approaches can provide similar, if not better, results than the incentive from the bill.
References
Gilpin, G. (2019). Teen driver licensure provisions, licensing, and vehicular fatalities. Journal of Health Economics, 66, 54-70. Web.
Kennedy, K. J. (2019). The unexpected effects of no pass, no drive policies on high school education. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 39(1), 191-217. Web.