I promised another post as to why the IL Secretary of State needs to be notified about any transfers from a public school.  This information passed along to the Secretary of State’s office include transfers to any private school, including homeschools.

The Public Act 094-0916 (Vehicle Code & School Code-ATTEND SCHOOL), which was introduced by Representative Flider and took over a year to pass both houses, has been declared unconstitutional.  I think that was one of the legitimate arguments against the bill, but that concern and many others were ignored by all but one who voted nay (Peoria’s Representative David Leitch). 

The Decatur Herald & Review covered this in Wednesday’s article:

Privacy concerns prevent enforcement of driver’s license law aimed at truants
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
By KARTIKAY MEHROTRA
SPRINGFIELD - Truant or not, a student’s right to privacy has stopped a state law from being enforced that would prevent dropouts from driving until they attend school.

In 2006, the Illinois General Assembly approved a system of checking teen drivers’ school attendance records. The process included communication of those records among school districts, the Illinois State Board of Education and the Illinois Secretary of State’s Office. If a student was deemed to be truant, the law declared the student’s license would be suspended.

The US Department of Education halted this soon after it came into effect in July because it violated privacy rights.  There’s one good thing about the federal DoE….they noticed something affecting families who generally don’t have the wherewithall to fight.  Their kids’ rights were being violated.  Interesting note, families that do have the wherewithall ignored it claiming it as a non-homeschooling issue.  Apparently the thought is that there must a no-man’s land between transfer of public school to homeschool.  It’s a puzzle to me.

From the H&R:

"It’s mostly a legal issue at this point. We’ve been discussing with our staff and state board but don’t have any solution per se," said state Rep. Bob Flider, D-Mount Zion. "The whole goal of this is to assure that in the long run, as kids are going through school and beginning to take driver’s ed, that staying in school, doing good in school and driving are seen as coexistent."

"Legal issue" is a bigger problem than I’m sensing as a concern from Representative Flider.  Apparently "staying in school, doing good in school and driving" are not coexistent per the Constitution. 

The funding part will certainly have their attention…$2 billion in federal education monies From the H&R:

"The ultimate penalty for the violation is a cutoff of Education Department funding," said Jim Bradshaw, spokesman for the U.S. Department of Education Family and Compliance Office. "But let me hasten that we have always been able to work with schools to help them come into compliance, short of having to take that last, final step.

Arguments against this act here.  This was written concerning the original bill when it came out 2 years ago:

Reasons to Oppose HB 1463

Representatives Flider, Chapa-LaVia, Munson, Moffitt and Dugan are co-sponsoring HB 1463. Here is the introduced synopsis: Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code and the School Code. Provides, beginning August 1, 2005, with certain exceptions, for the cancellation of or refusal to issue a driver’s license for failure of an unmarried person under 18 years of age to maintain school attendance. Effective immediately.

Here are some reasons to oppose this bill:

•         Some children are forced out or "pushed-out" of the school system by public school administrators worried about low test scores decreasing funding under NCLB mandates.  I’ve seen this occur in more than one Illinois school district.  They will suffer even more by denial of a driver’s license.
  

•         There is already language in place in the law regarding the driver education course that requires a passing grade in at least 8 courses during the previous 2 semesters prior to enrolling in a driver education course, or the student shall not be permitted to enroll in the course. 
  

•          It would cause harm to teenage mothers that drop out and will then have no transportation for day care, doctor visits or even a return to school. 

•        This is a punitive penalty towards unmarried young parents.  Young marriages and the statistical success rate thereof are not supported with this bill.

•     Individual families might have temporary hardship reasons for young people who need a job now and a high school diploma later. The State shouldn’t interfere or cause more difficulties.

•      This will only cause more reliance on our welfare systems as well as hardships from education system failures..

•          The increased paperwork and cost for the already overwhelmed school district and the Secretary of State’s office in processing a monthly report is unnecessary.

•          Proof should not be necessary by private school students that they are in school.  Students who are not dropouts do not have to prove that they are in compliance with the school code per the 1950 People v. Marjorie Levisen  Illinois Supreme Court ruling.

•          The compulsory attendance age is effectively changed to 18 with this bill in the requirements for proof that a student is getting or has a GED or is enrolled in a school, college or university.  If you do not fulfill any of the above requirements, then you will be denied a driver’s license. 

The “push-out” problem is so significant that the children will be punished even more besides being rejected by the school system that is there to serve them.  As the sponsors are concerned about children dropping out of school, they should address their concern to the individual school districts.  It is mandated that children should be provided a free and appropriate education within the compulsory attendance age of 7-17 years of age.  The schools need to find solutions for dropouts and/or “push-outs” regarding unsuccessful educational goals.  This bill does not address that core problem and is not part of a solution.

Legislators should not be creating a law that has already assured successful attendance in enrollment in a driver’s education course.  The judicial branch should be responsible for punishment when necessary.  This bill also intrudes into the privacy of non-truant children and families who should not be punished for any reason, let alone with the denial of a driver’s license.

Susan Ryan

 

Reference:

Bill Status of HB1463 94th General Assembly

 

Report of pupils no longer enrolled in school. 

§ 105 ILCS 5/27-24.2. Driver education course

http://www.fairtest.org/joint%20statement%20civil%20rights%20grps%2010 -21-04.html

Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act

NASSMC News Brief #2086 TITLE: "To Cut Failure Rate, Schools Shed Students"

New York Forced to ReAdmit Push-Outs

Associated statute:

(105 ILCS 5/26-3a) (from Ch. 122, par. 26-3a) Sec. 26-3a. Report of pupils no longer enrolled in school. The clerk or secretary of the school board of all school districts shall furnish quarterly on the first school day of October, January, April and July to the regional superintendent and to the Secretary of State a list of pupils, excluding transferees, who have been expelled or have withdrawn or who have left school and have been removed from the regular attendance rolls during the period of time school was in regular session from the time of the previous quarterly report. Such list shall include the names and addresses of pupils formerly in attendance, the names and addresses of persons having custody or control of such pupils, the reason, if known, such pupils are no longer in attendance and the date of removal from the attendance rolls. The list shall also include the names of: pupils whose withdrawal is due to extraordinary circumstances, including but not limited to economic or medical necessity or family hardship, as determined by the criteria established by the school district; pupils who have re-enrolled in school since their names were removed from the attendance rolls; any pupil certified to be a chronic or habitual truant, as defined in Section 26-2a; and pupils previously certified as chronic or habitual truants who have resumed regular school attendance. The regional superintendent shall inform the county or district truant officer who shall investigate to see that such pupils are in compliance with the requirements of this Article.