Driving school students are not tested or examined or even evaluated to determine if they have actually learned anything from the driving school programs they've completed, thus leaving instructors without any motivation to teach well or even to teach at all, giving students no motivation to learn, (especially as they don't know what they need to know in the first place; and everyone passes just for showing up.

"As a driving instructor, you can try to teach students how to drive properly, but sometimes they become frustrated, and get upset and angry; obviously driving school owners do not like unhappy customers, so they make it as easy to pass as possible so students don't get upset. Or, you can avoid frustrating students by refraining from trying to teach them anything at all, unless they specifically ask for instruction, which they rarely do, except how they can easily pass the road test for license, and then they will be happy customers; this has been the case at every of the several driving school worked at over the years." - licensed classroom and in-car driving instructor (name withheld)

Customers, students and parents, don't know what to expect from a driving school because there is relatively little comparative experience. Drivers attend a driving program only once in their lives, it last for only a few weeks, by the time a student enters into a driving program it's already been 20 years since the parent took the course, if the parent took the course, and so parents and students, as customers, do not truly understand the difference between good and poor quality driver education. And yet it is the free market that is supposed to separate the good from the bad, in the way the driver education system is currently designed.

Aside from the short multiple choice written test provided by the department of transportation, instructors test and evaluate their own students. Instructors also evaluate each other, including instructors who are required to evaluate their own employers.

The only test required for the student is the same multiple choice written test students took to get the learner's license. There is no actual driving test.

Some driving schools may provide extra evaluation and extra testing, but it isn't required. The majority of driving schools provide the minimum, as customers seek the lowest cost for the program. In the end, student drivers acquire incompetent training and education simply because their parents did not choose the most expensive course; furthermore, the students go on to cause accidents because of the low standards.

Instructors are allowed to test and evaluate their own students, but the grades they provide are based entirely on the "honour system," meaning instructors are trusted to make honest evaluations, regardless of the fact that a failing grade makes an unhappy customer. Instructors evaluate and "test" without any verification by any third party.

Instructors are pressured by their employers to pass as many students as they can get away with, and do so in order to please the customers and generate business through customer referrals, hoping to create a reputation through word of mouth as an "easy" driving program to pass. Nobody complains, except when they don't get an "easy" instructor, a type of instructor who expects the students to put some effort into their learning and actually develop their knowledge, skills and attitude. But that type of instructor is rare, partly due to the fact that the department of transportation rarely evaluates instructors, and reprimands instructors who receive complaints from students who don't want to follow instructions, or who resist training..(Many students and their parents, as "customers", feel naturally entitled to a passing grade simply because they have paid the registration fee.)

Most students are taught previous to lessons by their parents, and most drivers whether they have taken lessons or not learn simply by driving alone; a process of trial and error, or "learn as you go". Drivers ed students actually fail to learn anything they don't already know, because instructors don't bother to teach them anything the students don't know already know, because regulators don't examine the results of the instruction. This is why the eventual accident rate is so high.

During a typical lesson, instructors merely give the students directions. "Turn left, turn right, change lanes"; and then follow with occasional praise, "you're doing very well; you're doing just fine, good job," none of which teaches the students anything they didn't already know before.

Students in the classroom are not required to have I.D., and therefore are not accountable to the instructor. Students may not even speak the language of the instructor, and merely sit in the classroom and watch, without understanding anything the instructor is saying. Students may have an interpreter read the questions and answers to the test, even if the interpreter knows all of the answers, in language the instructor does not understand.

Driver training should be about training students to drive responsibility, not simply how to operate the motor vehicle. Simple operation is a very minor part of learning how to drive.

Only the very unskilled and inexperienced drivers, and drivers with extreme psychological nervousness are given failing grades, and only because they are unlikely to complain, and because driving schools must not have a 100% student pass rate, according to government regulations. The students who pass, however have not really developed any significant knowledge and haven't been properly trained.

The extent of the problem.

Here is a quote from the AMA:

�Every few minutes [in the region] someone crashes a vehicle. By the end of an average day, about 80 people will be injured, more than 400 vehicles will be damaged and at least one person will be dead. Each year, hundreds of people die and thousands are injured in crashes. Unlike other epidemics that tend to claim the sick or the old, traffic trauma is indiscriminate, killing and maiming people of all ages. Indeed, the 16-24 year old members of our society are statistically more likely to die or be injured in a crash.�

 Unfortunately, while insightful, the same report goes on to say:

�The key to preventing them is understanding why and how they happen�

which goes to demonstrate how little consensus there is regarding the solutions to these problems.

For example, the same report says that we should no longer use the term "accident," because all of the collisions were avoidable. Again, there is disagreement on whether or not this statement, that we shouldn't use the term "accident" should be part of the curriculum, simply because nobody crashes intentionally. So any collision is in fact an accident.

Although the actions that the driver took may have been intentional, and certainly avoidable, they may also have been the result of a lack of training and education, which is certainly not the individual's fault. There should be some consensus and a standard by which driver education can be provided to all licensed drivers, to the effect of significantly and reasonably reducing the rate of collisions.

The current driver system

Everyone who causes a traffic accident has a driver's license. This might be interpreted to mean that the accidents are caused by people who ignore the rules and drive carelessly and recklessly, but the truth is that drivers are not trained or educated well enough before they get a license. The road test is simple and often does not incorporate procedures such as merging, freeway driving, circles, left-turns onto one-ways, and various other situations. The accidents are caused therefore by lack of knowledge as well as by lack of care.

Driving school owners and operators; mom and pop business ethics

You cannot blame the driving school business owner and operator from simply responding to market forces and giving passing grades to unqualified students in order to honor the golden rule of business - 'please the customer.'

And what the customer wants most is the privilege, status, and convenience that comes with a drivers license and the insurance discount that results from a driver education program � whether or not the customer has learned anything or knows enough to drive without causing accidental vehicle collisions.

In one case, a driving school owner and operator actually wrote in a letter to an instructor that the instructor's need to be right will cause too many complaints from students, an example of how "right" is less important than a student's "satisfaction."

Education standards: the difference between education and training

According to the AMA, �The key to preventing them [accidents] is understanding why and how they happen.� But that's actually the gate; the key to preventing accidents is to teach drivers why and how they happen, what to do about it and how important it is and then to train them to drive accordingly. Not just simply to obtain that information, but to convey it in a meaningful and effective way, and to provide the necessary incentives such as passing an accountable training program.

But if you try to train a student, they may become frustrated, and upset, and complain about the lesson. If you refrain from attempting to train a student, they will not complain, even though they will not learn.

Government standards

The government's approach to driver education is to inform drivers that it is the driver's responsibility to acquire the knowledge, skills and proper attitude, that the information is out there and the driver is responsible for acquiring it. This is a "passive" approach, and is entirely ineffective.

An "active" or even "pro-active" approach is to provide the necessary education and training, and is how driver education should be approached.

 The reason accidents happen is three-fold,

a) drivers are unaware of why and how accidents happen,

b) drivers don't respect the knowledge they may have, and

c) drivers are not "trained" properly to follow procedures consistently

Part of the reason drivers are unaware is because driver education and training programs are not doing what they are intended to do, and it is entirely the fault of the governments that regulate the driver training industry. Part of the reason for that is because while the department of transportation may understand the issues of traffic it has little understanding of the issues of education. That is the responsibility of the department of education.

While it might be difficult for administrators of the department of transportation to understand issues of education, obviously administrators of the department of education could easily understand issues of traffic, and then design ways to educate the public.

Training vs. education

"Training," by definitions, means to practice behavioral response so that it becomes automatic behavior response. An example is to automatically stop, without thought or consideration, at every stop sign. Or to cover the brake when approaching a 'stale' green light. Or to signal and shoulder check for every lane change.

The term "education" on the other hand, refers to understanding the concepts and issues, importance and relevance of all issues, particularly those relevant to training. The latter provides perspective on the importance of proper driving procedure as it relates to safety, and the second provides an unconditional adherence to the proper procedures.

Instead, students are taught using liberal education principles, to explore, question, investigate and conclude independently, yet driving is more akin to mathematics than the liberal arts, and should be approached the same; there is a right way and and a wrong way to solve an equation, even if the results are the same.

There is a right and a wrong way to drive, and this must be impressed upon all drivers by the government, as a matter of authority, especially to those who believe that a manner of driving is a matter of personal and individual interpretation.

Consensus on issues

So, part of the reason for all of this is that there is a distinct lack of consensus on what the problems are and what the solutions are. What should and must be recognized is that beyond all other problems, problems such as road and car design, training and education are the number one problem. Irresponsible driving behavior cannot be changed by car or road design, yet training and education can solve problems of car and road design. Besides, it's a lot less expensive to educate and train drivers than it is to redesign cars and roads.

Changing the roads and cars to suit the drivers is impractical. The AMA and many other people site road design as a major problem. But with proper education road and car design are inconsequential.

The driving instructors

There�s a lot of pressure on instructors to refrain from teaching, and to pass unqualified students. The reason is because failing a student often results in an unhappy customer, even though some students are just too young and immature to understand the responsibilities involved in driving safely and properly, and an unhappy customer is bad for business.  

Instructors are required also by government regulation policies to ensure the "satisfaction" of the student. Thus the emphasis is on customer satisfaction, and the government therefore becomes a consumer advocate. The average teenager, the typical student, would be satisfied with a driving program that was easy, convenient and quick, assuming that the program was authoritative. If government regulations require customer satisfaction, then that's what the students will get. As a result, they graduate from these programs unqualified and overconfident, contributing to and increasing the rate of collisions.

Instructor training

Driving instructors are poorly trained, poorly paid and receive no support or benefits from any organization; it�s no wonder the quality of education they deliver is substandard. But you can�t blame the instructors for doing as they�re directed; instructors are trained improperly and then are employed to provide easy, simple lessons for students, lessons that teach drivers very little and do not significantly reduce the risk of accidents.

If an instructor attempts to teach students the knowledge and skills and proper attitudes they need to driver properly, some of the students may fail, and if they fail they will complain, and the manager of a driving school will side with the student/parent/client and blame the instructor, giving the complaining student the passing grade they demand. (more)

Rogue instructors are cited by the Department of Transportation for blame. They say that these instructors are the exception rather than the rule, but for reports such as the Auditor General report to show that the majority of driver education graduates are more likely to collide in traffic suggests that the problem is endemic to the industry and fault lies in the regulation of the driver programs rather than in the delivery.

Here is an example of what governments are saying (from a letter written by an elected representative responsible for the department of transportation, in response to criticisms of the program):

"it is inevitable that some breaches of established policy will occur, fortunately this is the exception and not the rule."

Unfortunately, the breaches are of "established policy" which is poorly designed in the first place,

and furthermore they have no evidence that breaches are the exception.

Then, the elected representative writes:

"...[the government] ensures that current standards are followed,"

although it is the current standards that are ineffective and the direct cause of poor driving knowledge, skill and attitude.

"Student and customer satisfaction is certainly an important aspect of running a driving school."

While you may expect this approach in a liberal arts program, driving is a different matter. Customer satisfaction overrides driver responsibility. In an example of the "passive" approach:

"...it becomes the responsibility of the driving schools and instructors to remain current with traffic safety information, as well as student and instructor learning and teaching methods."

The government "washes its hands" of responsibility, putting the blame on drivers and "rogue" instructors. Yet reports such as the Auditor General report state that the majority of drivers who take a driver education program have a higher rate of collision than those who don't. Obviously this is not one or two violators, but a problem that is endemic of the system.

As a result, instructors are unable to expect a certain level of knowledge, skill and attitude (such as self-discipline, compliance, attention, courtesy, etc.) from the students lest the instructor break the golden rule of �the customer is always right,� even if the customer is a student.

Proper training method

The proper method of behavior modification is for an instructor to discipline a student when the student is noncompliant, ill-mannered, aggressive, uncooperative, and then have the parent notified. The parent will then speak with the instructor for explanation and clarification. The parent then returns to speak to the student to adjust the child's behavior, and then the behavior is corrected by the parent. If the student is legal age an not ward of the parents, the student either identifies the lesson or fails the program.

An example of disciplining a student is to dismiss a student who does not learn. When the student has matured the student may try again. But instructors are required to never discontinue a lesson unless the student requests, which is viewed as a discredit to the instructor.

Instructors alone cannot correct student behavior and understanding. They must work with parents, guardians and program administrators to show the student that the instructor has the authority. Instructors have no authority to contact parents, administrators don't want to get involved and thus student behaviors go unchecked.

Being on time: good driving is a matter of discipline

If an instructor attempts to discipline a student (i.e. by canceling and postponing lessons until the student develops an emotional and intellectual maturity required for safe motor vehicle operation,) the student as customer may complain, withdraw patronage to a rival driving school, generate negative referrals against the company or take other action against an instructor until the driving school management realizes that the only way to compete with other driving schools is by giving the student-customers what they want � a passing grade - and to ensure the instructors are following suit.

Anger management.

DA believes in traditional forms of education and training, simply because modern progressive educational methods that are open to interpretation and expressions of individuality are not suitable to driving responsibly in a traffic system that is based on a set of laws that are to be followed accurately and consistently among all drivers. In much the same way that mathematics are applied, methods that allow room for ideas and concepts such as creativity and self-expression and individual interpretation do not function in sciences such as mathematics, nor do these free-form types of learning methods apply to driving in traffic. A stop sign is a stop sign � failing to stop, yield and follow all traffic laws and rules of procedure are the primary cause of motor vehicle collisions. All drivers must follow the same rules accurately to prevent accidents.

Nonetheless, while laws such as speed limits are not formally or legally open to interpretation, there is some flexibility among law enforcement officials with regard to tje exactitude of adherence to laws such as speed limits. However, providing intructino to students to interpret speed limits and other laws simply as they feel, driving according to an emotional intuition that negates strict adherence to laws and rules, which might be good for the liberal arts and literature, are not applicable to methods of teaching safe driving.

Traditionally, when a student misbehaves (i.e. showing up late, not completing the work, not paying attention, distracting other students, etc.) the teacher expresses anger toward the student, and then communicates with regard to the misbehavior and expressed anger to the parents (guardians) who then may choose to agree or disagree with the assessment of the teacher; if the parents agree with the teacher�s assessment then they may also choose to express anger toward the student also, thus reinforcing the lesson of the teacher to not misbehave or face the consequence of expressed of anger from both teacher and parent.

It is necessary, however, that the parent and teacher work in tandem; expression of anger from a teacher may or may not have the desired effect, but teacher and parent together almost always does.

The anger-expression method of behavior modification can be broken down into 3 steps:

1. Student misbehaves and teacher responds with expression of anger
2. Student and teacher communicate with the student�s parent(s) and parent(s) select(s) as �correct� either the student�s assesment of the situation or the teacher�s assessment
3. If the parent chooses the assesment of the teacher the parent may then express anger toward the student who then learns not to misbehave. (If the parent chooses the student�s assessment then the teacher�s assessment is reviewed by the teacher�s own supervisors.)

Examples of appropriate expressions of anger are:

• Raised voice
• Disciplinary tone of voice
• Words that explicitly express disaproval
• Lecturing
• Punishment, i.e. extra work, limited privileges, suspension or cancelation from program, etc.

Examples of inappropriate expressions of anger are:

• Screaming hoarsly
• Swearing, foul language
• Personal insults and other psychological offence
• Physical violence toward students or property
• Cruel or unusual punishment

Of course, there are many students with various neurological problems who do not respond to the anger-expression method, simply because they cannot control their own behavior due to the mental deficiency they suffer from, who require other means of attention. That being said, students without developmental problems will respond normally and naturally to expressions of anger from authority figures (in tandem, i.e. teacher and parent) and will learn, especially with guidance, to control their own behavior, which without any cognitive or neurological disorder they are entirely capable of doing.

Since the students with developmental problems are not capable of controlling their own behavior they should not be driving with a drivers license anyway, and therefore they should not be in a driver education program either.

In today�s world, where tradition is often looked at as archaic and neanderthal, and modern, permissive educational methods are standard, it�s no wonder that student drivers are learning to drive in a way that negatively affects the traffic safety record.

Instructors standards

You would be hard-pressed to find anyone teaching for the driving schools who has any degree of educational experience, as the pay for instructors is low; the return on investment for owner operators, after overhead, staff, fees and maintenance is low; the hours are difficult, conforming to the convenient hours of the students; instructors often work without breaks because the students must be driven to and from their homes in order to compete with other schools who provide the same service; the car seats and cramped quarters of the smaller cars preferred by driving schools for their fuel efficiency can cause physical pain after long periods of time; and there is also much hostility directed toward instructors from other drivers even if a student is not failing to follow traffic law, as well as impatient and aggressive students and their parents, profit-oriented managers and ultimately the department of transportation who insists that nothing is wrong with the driver education industry that they regulate.

To make matters worse, there is no communication between instructors and regulators; audits are rare and ineffective. Instructors are asked to audit their own employer�s ability to teach. Employers may direct instructors to simply sign the evaluation form without an actual evaluation.

How can employees effectively audit their own employers? Driver education is thus mostly self regulated, or rather like the fox guarding the henhouse.

Teacher's union

There is no real instructor's association that facilitates communication between instructors so that they may share their experiences, ideas and methods. Once organization, the Association of Profession Driving Instructors is nothing more than a name and telephone number listed in Edmonton. None of my calls have ever been answered or returned, there is no newsletter or web page, there is no association in practical effect.

As a result, instructors have no actual resources or authority to properly train student drivers.

The business of driver education

Too often, driver education operators are choosing business over education simply because they have the choice. Driving school operators are often simple small-business people who have no substantial background in education or traffic, and who only understand the natural order of supply and demand wherein the demand is for driver certification and the resultant insurance rate discount, and all or any information, tips or advice to assist in the passing of the driver license examinations. (more)

 Imagine if when you took your road test to get your license that you failed the test. Then imagine that all you had to do to get your license, after failing the test, was to complain to a manager about the examiner, saying the examiner was to strict, or too harsh, and that you should have passed even though you were aggressive, impatient and broke several rules of law. Then imagine that the examiner made the test as easy as possible for future clients in order to prevent more complaints. That�s the situation in drivers education.

Driving school operators are required to design their own educational program and curricula without any assistance from government departments, transportation or education. Governments only approve of programs designed by private businesses, and do so quickly in order to increase the number of driving schools in order to justify the efforts of the traffic departments.

Of course, the quantity of driving schools says nothing about the quality. The quality of the driver education programs are therefore determined by an average common denominator as determined by the owner/operators of the driving schools who do not have any specialized training or background in education or traffic law, and the demands of the consumer in the free market. This is like letting drivers choose their own speed limits.

 First of all, driver education is everyone�s business, for anyone who drives or rides in a motor vehicle in traffic. Accidents are caused by people who make mistakes while driving as result of improper training and education. Choosing to drive safe only works if a driver knows exactly how to drive safe, and given the rate of accidents it is apparent that many, if not most do not know how. Knowing how to drive is not the same as knowing how to drive safely. (more)

Certification based on attendance

For all intents and purposes, driving school customers, as students and parents of students, are receiving qualifying course certificates based on little more than attendance (plus the same simple 25-question multiple-choice test required to obtain a learner�s license.) A student only need sit in the classroom with eyes open, answer correctly 20 out of 25 multiple choice questions, and demonstrate the some basic motor vehicle operational skills in a quiet suburban residential area. Driving school clients then receive the course certificate which qualifies them for an insurance discount, whether or not they have acquired the knowledge, skills and proper attitudes necessary for the safe operation of a motor vehicle in public traffic.

 By issuing the license the government is indirectly but effectively implying you that you have all the necessary skills and knowledge to drive, or at least to practice driving, while governments make the disclaimer that it is the individual driver's responsibility to improve and learn as much about driving as possible.

Moreover it should be the government's responsibility to ensure that driving educators are providing sufficient and competent driver educational services. You can blame someone for ignoring the rules but you can't blame them for not knowing them in the first place if you license them. If you want to ensure driver safety you must ensure drivers are properly and sufficiently educated, and if you are the government then the onus is upon you.

The consumer demand 

The clients of driving schools, as both students and their guardians, are interested in obtaining the privilege, status and freedom of motor vehicle operation and to do so as quickly, easily and inexpensively as possible. Few driving school customers seem to consider safe driving as the primary objective of the driver education program, though they may expect it. The driving schools are of course eager to please the customers by supplying them what they seem to demand � an easy pass.

 The students are often na�ve teenagers who are not themselves paying for the program and so have no financial interest in the quality of the program, and the guardians of the students, who are not present during the lessons in the car and in the classroom, and who also do not have any relative experience or background with which to judge the quality of the program, are left to believe that their wards will receive both an education and a certificate. Usually they receive only the latter.

 Because the student/customer attends only one driver education program, there is no experience for them to compare the quality to. You know when you receive poor service at a restaurant because you have received restaurant service many times before. So if a student receives a very poor standard of education, but it is presented in a pleasing manner, the student is unaware of the danger they themselves pose as drivers.

If students found a consistent level of expectations and standards from each and every instructor and driving school they would soon learn that impatience, aggression, disinterest and non-compliance are not tolerated, both in lesson and in real life. Instead they are deceived into thinking that they have all the skills and knowledge necessary to drive safely. 

Young and expectant drivers may soon realize through word of mouth that little is expected of them in terms of effort during the lessons, that all they need to do is show up and write the 25 multiple-choice question learners test in order to pass, that with any luck they will be assigned an instructor who is extremely lenient even to the point of allowing the student to skip the lessons. As a result, some students are left with the impression that there is no consequence to their actions while others remain completely naive; instructors continue to get paid little while driving school owners profit, and the collision rate continues to rise.

The authority of instructors

Basically, driving instructors have no authority. Driving instructors are required to answer to students (this is obviously a backward situation; students are naturally supposed to answer to the teacher, not the other way around,) because the student is a customer, and government regulation happens to defend the student/customer's rights to be a satisfied customer. Driving instructors must also answer to the students parents (as an amalgamation with the student as the "customer") to their employers, to government regulators and to everyone else in the general public, but no one answers to the instructor, effectively giving the instructor no authority and thus no resource to train.

Students want a license, parents want an insurance discount, driving school owner/operators want a profit, and regulators want to appear effective, all at the expense of the instructor's ability to train.

Instructors are poorly trained, poorly paid and most of them just ride around with the student without complaint because they either don't know better (they're naive enough to think they're doing a good job) or don't care (it's easy, sitting down, warm environment, no supervision,) and all because of how the driver education program is designed.

Wherever you drive.

Thank you for visiting Drivers Advocate.org

LINKS: