No Drive Argumentative Essay

Many teens in the US are employed part time while also attending high school. Having a license enables these teens to get to and from work, job interviews, or even in some cases become employed in the delivery business. USA Today reports that while 30% of teens have jobs, employment rate is still falling. Increasing the driving age would only decrease the number of teens in the workforce. Surprisingly one third of those teens working, do so to support their family. Without proper transportation these teens would be forced to either miss more school or work less in order to make ends meet while still

However, their argument would be invalid considering that students’ grades/ intelligence level and their driving skills don’t have anything to do with the other. If students are getting good grades in school it doesn’t necessarily mean that their driving skills are going to be equal with the intelligence level. Besides, in an article it reads that, “The mean grade point average for female high school graduates was 3.10 in 2009, .33 higher than the average GPA for young women in 1990. The average GPA for male high school graduates over the same period rose .31 points to 2.90.” and that, “Some say this means American high schools are churning out smarter, harder-working students.”( U.S. News). This evidence proves that the policy that students should have good grades before they can receive their license is unnecessary because students are already doing better grade wise. I can’t say myself for a fact that teens

A student with a driver’s license has a right to drive to school and form school.

Though I understand the concept they were trying to create by suggesting these ideas, I do not agree with it, and I don’t think grades and driving correlate. “...granting the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles the permission and authority to revoke any student’s driver’s license due to poor grades or attendance.” I can better understand a parent making a rule that if their son/daughter does not maintain adequate grades, their driving privileges could be taken away. However, I don’t think it should be

Many schools across the country have been implementing the “no pass/no drive” law for a few decades. Under this law, state officials have the power to confiscate student's driver's license if they have poor grades or too many absences. This law is thought to help decrease the state’s High school dropout rate. California should implement and enforce the “no pass no drive” law to all public high schools to decrease dropout rates.

The state lawmaking body ought not pass a bill that would require a man to win a secondary school confirmation before he or she could get a driver's permit because of the way that it is a disadvantage. Folks would need to drive kids more places and the children would take more time to grow up.

Imagine not being able to go to school. Your parents are mad and you feel horrible. Suddenly the police take your driver's license away and you can't drive to school or to work. The No Pass/No Drive law Has been implemented in over 27 States and has affected many lives. This law takes away people's licenses if they don't do well in school or don’t go to school. The goal of this law is to motivate students to go to school more often or to motivate students to study.California should not pass the No Pass/No Drive law because if they do it will hurt lives of students who depend on their car to drive to work or school.

How many students broke the law today or last night? What kinds of offenses? Often students willingly admit to driving over the speed limit. And many acknowledge they have driven while intoxicated. Why is it so easy to ignore a familiar law designed to protect public safety? Why isn't specific deterrence working in this scenario? In order to eliminate speeding violations and drunk driving, how severe would the punishment need to be? In the most extreme example, would you continue to speed or drive drunk if you faced 90 days in jail? 180 days in jail? A year? What if your car was impounded? Harsh consequences for violations of the law might serve as deterrence, but are they appropriate and proportional?

In conclusion people should have a high school diploma before having a driver’s licence, for two reasons some people are too immature to be handling a driver's license, some people who do have a driver's licence but no car sometimes don’t really have enough education about how to drive cars, but for a counter claim ;however, Most people would learn at a younger and better age to drive than those who learn to old and have some difficulties

Children are the future of America and the world at large, but as we move these kids up from Kindergarteners all the way up to adults we often overlook the astonishing 25% dropout rate in the United States. There have been many different solutions put forth to solve this but one that is widely used across the country and accepted is the no pass/no drive law. The no pass/no drive law would make it so in high school if you do not attend class often and or fail classes you will get your driver's licence taken as a teenager. Many people are in favor of this law but in truth, a law like this would be a bad idea. I believe that this law would be inadequate, and there are much better solutions than this

Another quote from the article “No Pass/No Drive” comes from Russell Rumberger. He is the director of the California Dropout Research Project, and he claims, “Getting their bodies into the building doesn’t mean that they are going to learn anything…..It’s much better in my view to be putting resources and energy into making schools better places for kids”.(5) To me, Russell is saying that we shouldn’t be enforcing this law because it does not guarantee the kids improvement. He states that we won’t necessarily see progress in grades even if they are on time. He further argues that we should be focusing on making their overall environment a better learning space, not enforcing a law that doesn’t guarantee improvement. I strongly disagree with his statement, because adding this law will improve their learning environment. It will advance within the fact that the kids will be paying closer attention to their grades, and the teachers will be working closer with their students. Attendance isn’t the only element of the law, grades are a huge part as well. If a kid is working towards the goal of their driver’s license, they’ll be improving both elements of grades and being on

The reason to follow this law is because there are so many ways that someone could die or end up seriously hurt in a car accident. There is drunk driving, sleep deprivation, and being too emotional.

Times. http://www.nytimes.com.2008/02/19/world /americas/19iht-princeton.1.10175351.html Fitzsimmons, W. 2014. Time out or Burn out for the Next Generation. Retrieved from

If I were a member of the West Virginia state legislature, I would have voted against the law prohibiting dropouts younger than eighteen to obtain their driver's license. I believe that there are numerous reasons why it is necessary for teens under the age of eighteen to drive. For instance, many teens start their first job around the age of sixteen, which is also the minimum age required for a provisional driver’s license. However if the teen dropped out of high school, they would not be able to apply for the license making it harder, or even impossible, for them to work at their given hours. The law is believed to prevent students from dropping out, yet it isn’t 100% effective for those who don’t feel school is for them and would rather work

Although this may seem like a good or responsible rule it may cause havoc with today's youth, especially the teenagers. With this rule it may cause rebellious teens and/or young adults to break this rule, basically setting them up for consequences from breaking the rule. Also teenagers are able to get their driving permit at 15 and their driver's license by 16, meaning