I've favored the general attitude of the Pawlenty administration... those parts that include cutting spending and cutting taxes. I've been delighted at the actions of State Auditor Awada, throwing up red flags all over the state where she found non-compliance, greed, waste, and corruption.  I know... these are Republicans, and they're politicians, but I'm optimistic.

Last week, Governor Pawlenty revealed that he does indeed have the traditional Republican mindset lurking inside what seems to be a small-government image. I don't know where politicians come up with some of their ideas, but it certainly isn't from a clear thought process.

The Governor proposed linking school attendance to a teen-ager's driver's license. Under the plan, students who drop out or miss more than 20 percent of the semester or academic year would have their driver's licenses revoked. The law would apply to 16- and 17-year-olds. State law allows students that age to drop out of school but, Pawlenty said, those students would have to apply for waivers to keep their driving privileges.

I can give Pawlenty a couple of points for "thinking outside the box", but that "bright idea" is anything but bright. It's a typical governmental "solution"... using government force to push people into doing something they don't want to do.

Students who don't attend school are a problem... for the school system. For public schools, it's a numbers game. By law, they're supposed to force all children to attend school. Their revenue is based on attendance... if they lose students, they lose money. It doesn't "look good" either, does it?... that there are students who don't want to attend. Of course, teachers would prefer to have students who want to be there... those who are forced to be there are likely to be disruptive. Imagine that... someone forced to be where they don't want to be, and doesn't like it... and acts up? Big surprise?

Pawlenty said that "if we can improve attendance, we can improve education success.'' What he's really saying is that if we can force more students to attend, against their will, "education success", as judged only by the numbers, will improve. Not one real aspect of education will be improved... not for the students forced to attend, and certainly not for the other students, nor for the school faculty and staff.

One constant refrain we hear from public school systems is that smaller class size leads to more success. How then is it reasonable to claim that forcing more students to attend will improve success? That's typical political double-talk.

Pawlenty said "This is not geared to be punitive..." Hmmm... you do something I don't like, and I take away something from you. Sounds punitive to me, but it's certainly an attempt at coercion. The only part of "success" that will improve is attendance and perhaps some subsidies based on attendance. It won't do a thing for the kids.

Naturally, Minnesota Democrats responded to Pawlenty's idea... not with logic, not with reason, but with rhetoric, calling his proposal a GIMMICK. Well, sure... it's a gimmick...  very much like gimmicks Democrats have tried in the past. No better, no worse... but this one is a Republican gimmick. Don't ya just love 'em? Personally, I think it's better than a feather boa.

The only way to get kids to attend school is to give them a reason to do so... to make it worthwhile to them. Many of them don't think it is... and they're right... it's largely a waste of time.

If they're going on to college, they need the high school grades and diploma (which does not mean they need to learn anything). If they don't intend to go on, high school is practically worthless to them. They can study for and take the GED instead, and they know that. 

In case you haven't read what I've written about education, let me make my own attitude clear:

Learning takes place only when the learner WANTS to learn. If someone wants to learn, they'll learn regardless of the situation. Kids who want to learn will learn even if you try to prevent them from learning. Some will certainly try harder because you don't want them to. Schools are far from synonymous with learning, which is why so many homeschooled kids learn more, in less time, with less expense, and without the use of force. Learning is fun... when it isn't being pushed down your throat.

It's ALL about FORCE... it's wrong, and it doesn't work... it never produces the desired results and it always has unintended consequences. What would be the unintended consequences of Pawlenty's "gimmick"?

We try to force kids to attend school... they resist and skip out, so we tell them they can't have a license to drive a car. Kids who have already demonstrated resistance to force... should we be surprised if they resist again? I think not. I think they would be likely to just drive without a license, don't you?