Eat My Dust You Teenage Losers
When I was in high school, things weren’t always easy for me and my friends. The constant pressure to get good grades and save up enough money for mickies of vodka so we could get loaded in the bush meant that we were often stressed out. That meant that we needed to gather on the very edge of school property, smoking cigarettes and waiting for the next fight to break out.
These days things are very different. Back then, in the mid-90s, teenagers were genuinely trying to get ahead. Today’s teenagers are utterly hopeless individuals whose primary goal is to leech money from taxpayers. They need to be taught a lesson and I am overjoyed that Ontario’s government has decided to do just that.
Ontario is about to become the first Canadian province to deny driver’s licenses to teenagers, or suspend their driving privileges if they already have one, if they drop out of school or have bad attendance. According to Education Minister Gerard Kennedy, this is part of a plan that will be “opening up better choices for students.”
The plan also includes fines of $1,000 for students who don’t attend class regularly, and the same penalty for their parents. Bravo, Gerard! You’re opening up students’ wallets along with their choices, and that is to be commended.
Like so many other excellent ideas in government, this one isn’t original. Nine states in the US already do the same thing. These are widely regarded as bastions of compassionate conservatism, or what I fondly term survival of the fittest, like Alabama, Georgia, Texas and South Carolina.
Kennedy has also introduced “new co-op programs, apprenticeships and specialized diplomas in areas like construction and the hospitality industry to encourage more teens to stay in school, especially those not interested in the academic stream”, another superb idea based on the carrot and the stick approach. The stick is losing your driver’s license and getting fined $1000. The carrot? Go to class and learn how to mix drinks, wait tables, and carry the luggage of international travellers.
Once teenagers turn 18, they no longer have to worry about these penalties because they only apply to minors. This is a shrewd move, because that’s when they get to vote, too. I wouldn’t want the loss of a driver’s license or a thousand-dollar fine to cloud the minds of teenage voters when they finally get to have a say in government.
Way to go, Ontario. Struggling students everywhere will thank you when you take away their license, their money, and their dignity. And you’re making sure that public transportation remains viable in the province. It’s a win-win situation!
December 14th, 2005 at 8:03 am
Well, for starters I think that the real change should come at home, from the parents. However, as in my brother’s case, the newly proposed legislation won’t change anything if parents continue to cater to their lazy ass highschool dropouts and drive them to work/friend’s places at the age of 20 when they still don’t have their license.
I can definitely see this making it even harder for kids who don’t fit into our school system to sustain themselves, to find themselves in the working world, especially in rural areas.
However, I think that this plan also has a lot of potential. And it seems to be better than any other idea the government has had in a long while. In fact, I can’t remember there being any legislative moves to reduce high school dropout rates in a long time.
So I ask you Adrian – do you have any suggestions about how to fix the dropout situation? Do you have any better ideas?
December 14th, 2005 at 8:45 am
I disagree entirely, I don’t think this plan has any potential. One of the major problems with the school system is the curriculum. It reflects only limited types of people and limited types of learning. What about those that do not fit into that? What about the kid that gets high or drinks because of what is happening at home? What about the pregnant teen raped at a party?
This is a threat. There are a lot of problems with using theats to “encourage” teens or anyone for that matter. It is not a responsible way of looking at the problem, it’s just making things harder for people that might already have it hard to begin with. School doesn’t suit everybody and you need to make allowances for that, not everyone who drops out does it because they are lazy, and not everyone who drops out becomes a failure. I am not suggesting you shouldn’t go to school but I think the government should carefully consider the options teens have right now, and whether this is going to make things harder or easier on them.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:15 am
I struggle with this issue. On one hand, I see where the government is coming from. They have good intentions. However, school is not the easiest place for many kids and teens. If kids are literally going to be forced to stay in school, lets try and make school a safe place to be. School can be just as scary as home for many, many children and teens. School is not a refuge or optimal educational institition as the white, rich boys in the government may want to think. Ahem, not all of us can afford snooty private schools either – where I question if the learning is better, or just makes you ‘think’ your better. School can be scary, oppressive, violent and isolating. I’ve watched someone very close to me be eaten alive by an asshole principal and her fellow students resulting in some very complex trauma issues.
The educational system need to build in more tools and supports to kids and teens to make school a safe place to learn. Education is freedom and kids need to learn for lots of reasons – but the government needs to focus on making education inclusive not punitive. Hell, math class is bad enough…
December 14th, 2005 at 11:01 am
Maybe it’s the blue moon, but I agree with Wemi. I think that this plan vastly oversteps the bounds of common sense. I’ll explain more in a minute, but first let me tear a strip of Ade for some comments made in the opening post. He writes: “Back then, in the mid-90s, teenagers were genuinely trying to get ahead. Today’s teenagers are utterly hopeless individuals whose primary goal is to leech money from taxpayers.” This statement is all sorts of wrong.
Has teenage apathy increased wholesale since the 1990s? Or is this just a vapid statement thrown in to make people agree with the policy issue at hand. On the matter of today’s teenagers, I will concede that a growing emphasis on individual rights has caused some ire amongst those who say blithely that “kids should not be treated like adults.” However, there is no evidence to suggest that the current generation of teens (a decade removed from your own) is hopeless, or intent on leeching money from the taxpayers (whatever that means). Shame on you.
And shame on Gerard Kennedy for such a policy. It has more potential to make bad situations worse, than it does help teens get an education. There may be the odd teen that says to themselves “I want a drivers license – ergo, I will go to school.” This teen is likely going to be an angry, apathetic, middleclass kid like Ade who is “under constant pressure to get good grades and save up enough money for mickies of vodka.” It is not likely to be the kid next to him with few resources at her disposal, no one at home asking about her grades, no hope of borrowing (let alone owning) a car anytime soon, and therefore no reason to care about a drivers license policy like this one.
The Ontario government is reaching out to a generation of middleclass parents, who like Ade, believe that today’s children are hopelessly bilking the system and need to be stewarded into understanding the value of an education. This is a populist policy, that will likely pass because of its rhetorical value, not because it practically addresses the growing sophistication of the teenage mind.
There are competing interests at work when a teen avoids school. The fact is, we don’t always know what they are. Strengthen the school system, and chances are we will have a better chance at knowing (kudos to Wemi for mentioning curricula). Strengthening drivers license requirements does nothing to make schools more engaging or dynamic. It only perpetuates a misinterpretation of what it means to be young in the world – a feeling many people forget about altogether once they turn 27. Isn’t that right Ade? ;-)
December 14th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
I kind of think Ade is actually being satirical here. His arguments in favour of this IMHO boneheaded plan drip with sarcasm:
Alabama, which hasn’t increased taxes since the early 1970s, is a little corner of the Third World nestled right here in the heart of the First World.
No one in their right mind would hold the promise of porting luggage as a compelling reason to stay in school.
This clinched it for me. He’s pulling your leg. :)
December 14th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
Oops, the second last paragraph, “No one in their right mind would hold the promise of porting luggage as a compelling reason to stay in school,” is me writing, not Ade. I’m not sure why it was formatted as a quotation.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
Fixed it for ya Ryan.
I suspect that alevo might be pulling a few limbs himself.
I’ll write more when I have a minute.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
I have no time for poorly administered sarcasm, so I take almost everything I read at face value. Be warned.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
Ouch! Get back in your cave, grouch-ass!
December 15th, 2005 at 10:00 am
surly lever :-(
December 15th, 2005 at 11:53 am
Man, I’ve been crazy busy, haven’t had the time to post much. I still vividly remember what it was like in high school. Of the three people who dropped out of high school that I knew the best, one got pregnant, one developed psychological problems serious enough that his biker-dude dad committed him to a mental hospital for several weeks (his dad was a prick), and the third did a lot of nasty drugs for various reasons, including a chaotic homelife where he was bounced week-to-week between his pot-head mom’s and his reclusive dad’s.
So I’m not big on the whole “screw the teenage dropouts” kick. I think it’s ridiculous. Anyway, ideas. For starters, I say we lower the voting age to 16. Teenagers are as aware as anyone else what’s going on in this country and they’re the ones with the most to lose when the government screws everything up. That gives them some say in what the government does, and it also might make the government think twice about screwing them over for the fun of it.
That’s not really related to staying in school, but I think what I’m getting at is more basic than that: by trusting our teenagers with responsibility, we make them more responsible. Teenagers should be treated with respect. If they don’t want to be in school it’s probably not because they want to work in McDonald’s for the rest of their lives.
As well as looking at underlying issues, I also think examining curricula is important. I remember when I was in college being forced to take classes on topics that I knew I would never use, because I would never accept a job that involved those topics. I never have. Sometimes, teens know better than adults what is best for them. They should be allowed to have a say.
Man, I’m kinda brain-dead. Maybe today is not the best day for me to formulate education policies.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
Hi Ade,
I think we ought to persuade 18-25 year olds to vote before we extend the franchise to 16 year olds.
Ironically, rather than extending the franchise to 16 year olds, I favour raising the driving age to 18. I write this as a former 16 year old driver who should never have been allowed behind the wheel of a car…