<p>Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend anyone. It’s been my experience that the different emphases individuals choose for their lives makes it difficult to apply a general theorem … which in this case might be “Addition by subtraction doesn’t work for societies.” </p>
<p>The theorem approach lacks cache, doesn’t it? Yawn. It’s considerably more effective to state the obvious from an authoritative perspective. “In our community, we believe that uneducated mothers make better mothers. Accordingly, when young women become pregnant we terminate their schooling. We only wish that colleges and employers would follow our lead.”</p>
<p>Sounds pretty ugly when it’s put that way, doesn’t it.</p>
<p>NewHope, whatever you’re trying to say, it’s unclear. And if you are again twisting other people’s words or making false assertions of what other people’s views are you should stop.</p>
<p>NewHope, you’re off on your own tangent. Have a nice argument with yourself. What you’re writing bears no relationship to what anyone else was saying. Good evening.</p>
<p>If charter schools are accepting public funds, they must be held to the same standards regarding discriminatory policies/behavior as public schools/institutions. </p>
<p>In short, this Louisiana Charter high school has no business expelling students for being pregnant or for refusing to take a mandated pregnancy test. Heck, they may not only fail the constitutionality test…but also the “True American exemplar” test. </p>
<p>Mandated pregnancy test…that’s something I’d expect from schools run by stereotypical Fascist/Communist regimes on a power trip or private/religious institutions…not ones run/funded by a government of the Land of the Free.</p>
<p>It’s great how ardent defender’s of women’s rights argue so hard for teenage women’s right to get pregnant in the midst of high school, including while taking up a coveted spot in a school that many young women aspire to attend.</p>
<p>Here’s the thing – many on here attempting to couch their argument that the charter school’s policy was a terrible infringement on women’s rights are not considering the possibility that the “terrible” policy was mostly about increasing women’s chances to pull out of poverty, single motherhood and wasted lives. </p>
<p>Whatever works, sometimes. If that “terrible” policy made any young boy or girl in the school or trying to get into the school pause a moment, think about the consequences of having unprotected sex . . . then I’m for it.</p>
<p>And having had kids in public schools where a number of female students got pregnant and stayed and were actually quite adulated for their pregnant condition, I can report that such a policy is not helping the academic effectiveness of the institution. The pregnancies are a huge distraction, a source of fun, the girls who are pregnant are not really scorned at all. Many of the students envy them because by becoming pregnant these young girls will soon qualify for a host of entitlements to help them raise the baby. That’s way cool in the context of these schools. And that’s not helping anyone.</p>
<p>Of course a pregnant teen must be guaranteed an opportunity to graduate from high school. No one is arguing differently. Should they be guaranteed a spot in a highly sought after school with limited slots available? No.</p>
<p>Sew, the rights that we are fighting for are to ensure that women are not discriminated against for something as natural as pregnancy. Especially not for the woman to be punished and the man not. </p>
<p>No one WANTS a pregnant teenager but we also don’t want them discriminated against if it happens. </p>
<p>The policy is not going to make young people stop having sex. The only thing proven to work for that is comprehensive sex ed.</p>
<p>We have a drive for sexual activity, akin to seeking shelter, or assuaging hunger.
Logical thought doesn’t play into it, especially in teens.
I would agree that schools should be giving accurate sex education, and high school students should have easy access to health care. My daughters school had a clinic in the school, her sisters school was close to Planned Parenthood.</p>
<p>The school has changed the policy, because one that cannot be equally applied to both male and female students is illegal under Title nine. </p>
<p>If the school wants to discontinue use of public money in order to continue implementing their “values”, they are welcome to do so as a private school.</p>
<p>Hmmm . . . maybe the non-charter public schools should kick out their pregnant students . . . and send them to the public charter school. Turnabout is fair play, after all.</p>
<p>Yes, pregnancy is “natural” but pregnancy during high school is a huge catalyst for downward mobility, poverty, a life of dependence and the production of more teens who will simply repeat the pattern.</p>
<p>So absolutely provide access to the high school degree but I support a school trying to lift kids and give kids a sense that they attend a really special school that is a privilege in asking pregnant kids to leave. And if they can identify the boy involved in the pregnancy - great! Same policy should apply to him.</p>
<p>I think the way our public schools just embrace pregnant students is better than sewing a scarlet A on their chest but the attitude has become an endorsement of teen pregnancy and sends the wrong message. I think pregnant teens (boy and girls) should go to an alternative school and should be made to get serious about the consequences of their actions. Often the pregnancy was driven by an overemphasis on peer acceptance. So remove them from their peers.</p>
<p>All pregnant teens? What about those who didn’t become pregnant by choice?</p>
<p>Also most alterative schools don’t have the resources regular schools have. Not enough people for honors courses, AP, etc. </p>
<p>I have a good friend who got pregnant junior year. She has a wonderful daughter and will be graduating next year with honors from an honors college at a directional U. I’m so glad she was allowed to finish her education where she was comfortable. The pregnancy was hard enough. Switching schools would have made it far worse.</p>
<p>“I think pregnant teens (boy and girls) should go to an alternative school and should be made to get serious about the consequences of their actions.”</p>
<p>Ah yes, the ‘Consequences’ model. I’d choose the “Educate for Prevention” model myself … but that’s just me.</p>
<p>And if you’re going to say that rape victims can stay because they didn’t get pregnant by choice then you run the risk of false rape allegations by scared young women who don’t want to switch schools on top of everything else. Not saying it would happen but it’s definitely something that should be considered.</p>
<p>So you’re holding pregnant teens…or those who are against policies which would never fly in public institutions for constitutional/discriminatory reasons completely responsible for issues that are really the responsibility of other parties (Students/local culture being distracted)?</p>
<p>Moreover, I’m not sure this draconian policy of kicking out pregnant teens and young women who refuse to be tested is right from the stance of being a freedom loving American who abhors authoritarian power trips or solves the issue. </p>
<p>Then again, it’s usually much easier to use a “sweep the issue under the rug approach” and treat pregnant teens like social pariahs than to tackle the real issues of changing the prevailing culture in the area concerned regarding perceptions and classroom behavioral expectations. </p>
<p>In short, I echo another commenter who said if said charter school wants to exercise power trip derived policies that are discriminatory enough to never fly in other public institutions…they are free to do so without public funding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not only that, sending someone to an alternative school is extremely stigmatizing and is rightfully considered a form of severe punishment in itself. </p>
<p>IMO, the only students that should be sent to alternative schools are those who are extremely disruptive/violent that their presence in regular schools jeopardize the physical safety of the regular school community and turn the classroom into a verbal/physical warzone. </p>
<p>Pregnant moms or women who don’t want to obey invasive authoritarian policies which wouldn’t fly in regular public school for constitutional reasons…not so much.</p>
<p>Cartera, I agree with the statement that parenting teens are not well served in traditional school settings. Feel free to call me names.</p>
<p>Parenting a baby is serious business and those young parents need support and services available to them in an accessible manner if we are going to protect them AND their babies. Social workers, nurses, childcare as well as education need to be provided to the young parents so we can make sure their babies are thriving, immunized and cared for while the parents are, hopefully, earning a diploma. Yes, expensive, but what cost failure for them?</p>
<p>This whole argument reminds me of the illegal immigration arguments. A group of people so committed to a position for their own reasons that they lose sight of the needs of the people actually involved because it may be a little more complicated than the arguments that make them feel so good about themselves.</p>
<p>The question isn’t what’s “fair” or what’s good for “women.” The question is how best to ensure that the pregnant girls have healthy babies, have support for keeping them all safe, and graduate from high school. It seems obvious to me that most charter and public schools can’t do that and we should reach for the optimal solution, not the politically correct one.</p>
<p>Zoose, I would agree with you if it’s the woman’s choice to leave and there were alternative high schools designed for pregnant and teen moms. I know Detroit had a wonderful school like that but it’s fighting to stay open due to funding issues. Many places don’t have the resources for those kind of schools so if the options are stay in the charter school, homeschool, or go to the public which they originally opted not to do then I support staying in the charter school.</p>
<p>I truly do wish we had good alternative schools all over the country but we don’t.</p>
I think every district should have a school, but I don’t think it should be the girl’s choice to leave if such support were available. When she chose to become a parent, the health and safety of the baby moved to the top of the list. I’m less concerned about the other students being influenced because, fact is they all know where babies come from. But I absolutely believe that it is an incredibly rare teenaged girl who can parent appropriately AND get a high school diploma without the help and support of professional adults.</p>
<p>The question is actually moot for schools that accept public money.</p>
<p>I agree that schools can be fashioned to provide extra support for students with additional challenges besides the usual adolescent growing pangs. But it must be up to the families to determine where the student is best supported.</p>
<p>Until the district decided they wanted to reclaim space in one of our local comprehensive schools to handle increased enrollment, our neighborhood high school had a preschool, where teens could enroll their kids if they had any or they could participate in an early childhood training program. </p>
<p>It’s difficult when teens become pregnant before they are physically, emotionally and financially ready to be responsible for another person. But punishing them by removing them so they won’t “contaminate” the other students who just have evaded being caught isn’t the answer.</p>