<p>Not only cash-strapped, but in some areas…bureaucratic inertia among the educational administrators and local school board prevents the opening of alternative schools even when there’s a need.</p>
<p>This is one of the reasons why one upper-middle class Midwest school district I know of is wasting money fighting tooth and nail to keep a convicted stalker in the general population even after his conviction and revelation that he has a long criminal rap sheet. </p>
<p>Even after two courts have upheld his mandatory separation from the general school population because of the high safety risk he poses. </p>
<p>Moreover, the “separate but equal” idea has been tried before in our nation’s history in many areas including education…and it turned out to be anything but equal in practice. </p>
<p>Unless the reasons for separating out a student from the regular school population is due to reasons that aren’t discriminatory against protected classes like protecting other students’/school safety…it should be up to the student/family to decide to stay or not. </p>
<p>I’d even be ok with school admins making suggestions that leaving may be a good idea…but the ultimate choice in this case should be up to the student/family…not the school unless they decide to completely forgo public funding.</p>
<p>The New York National Guard had mandatory pregnancy tests for women on active duty task forces until March of 2009.</p>
<p>Over 1/2 of the births to women under age 30 occur outside of marriage and that age group, which includes under 18 year old females, have nearly 2/3rds of all US births. Bridal industry surveys have indicated that of the fewer women who get married, approximately 1/2 are pregnant brides. There doesn’t seem to be much stigma left to unmarried pregnancy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As far as I can tell 2008 is the most recent year that there are complete stats. Among teens age 15-17, the pregnancy rate in 2008 was 67.8 pregnancies per 1,000 women, or 7% of that population. This rate was the lowest in over 30 years, down 42% from the peak pregnancy rate of 116.9 per thousand in 1990. Among girls 14 and younger, the pregnancy rate declined 62% from a high of 17.5 pregnancies per thousand in 1990 to 6.6 per thousand in 2008.</p>
<p>cobrat-- When you are talking 6.78% (15-17) and .66% (14 and under), isn’t there a stigma in HS and middle school for just being pregnant? I know I’m “old” but wouldn’t there be a lot of negative teasing/comments/conduct/ostracism aimed at these girls in any school other than one that caters to pregnant students? </p>
<p>If the pregnancy rates have fallen 42% then something is getting the message of how not to get pregnant across. I would wonder if the scarlett letter(s) would be not a “P,” but “DA.”</p>
<p>A lot of that can be controlled by teachers, parents, community, and culture which sets an ethos that such behaviors are unacceptable. Unfortunately, most don’t want to do the introspection and put in the required effort to have and enforce that expectation. </p>
<p>I’d say that’s a major reason why some regular public schools friends/colleagues attended where they were pregnant teens, they were in a mostly supportive environment and others where they were not. All of them ended up graduating, going off to 4-year colleges, and having great careers. </p>
<p>However the latter group succeeded in spite of the unsupportive HS community…and why none of them would be moving back, going back to their HS reunions, or donating to the HS alumni fund despite being one of the most/the most successful graduates from their class in terms of career and finances. Instead, they put their charitable giving towards groups which have been supportive of them when they needed it or those who didn’t try to kick them when they were down. </p>
<p>Incidentally, I had a few pregnant classmates during my undergrad at my LAC. We were largely supportive…or at the very least weren’t acting like immature a^&h&^les toward them. </p>
<p>A large part of that wasn’t only the fact we were undergrads…but moreso because the campus culture set the ethos that such behavior was unacceptable and won’t be tolerated.</p>
<p>I agree scout59.
Teens who accidentally get pregnant despite birth control are not as big of a concern to me than teens who subconsciously or actively plan to become parents before they are ready because they see it as a positive choice.</p>
<p>It might be hard for parents on this board to understand, but when you haven’t had guidance to expand on your interests and skills and children are one of the few areas where your friends and relatives find joy, it could be hard to find a reason * not * to become pregnant.</p>
<p>Helping teens to plan after high school and expanding their opportunities is where we should focus our attention.</p>
<p>Having public/publicly funded schools force choices on someone…especially when it would disproportionally affect one constitutionally protected class may not only be illegal, but also provides too much power to public/publicly funded institutions to be extremely intrusive in areas of an individuals’ personal life where public institutions/publicly funded institutions should stay out. Last I checked, we don’t live in religious theocracies or a Fascist/Communist dictatorships where governments enjoy regulating every aspect of every individual’s private lives…especially what goes on in the bedroom or his/her own body. </p>
<p>As I said before, if the charter school in question wants to enact hamfisted intrusive totalitarian policies reminiscent of religious theocracies/schools or Fascist/Communist dictatorships…they are free to do so by going private and not receiving any public funding. Even then…I’m betting there’s still limits to prevent excesses and abuses.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, Could you expand on teaching parenting skills in public school and what you mean by that?
I think we can teach logical consequences, and have structure that rewards responsibilty, timeliness etc in public school, but spend time teaching skills that are only applicable to those who might choose to become parents someday? </p>
Sure. I think there is some confusion, though. I’m ONLY talking about parenting classes for girls (and boys) who have or are about to have babies. They should have the special care that they need in their individual circumstances, just like English language learners, or other kids with special needs. I think that girls with babies should have available to them nurses and social workers who can teach things like bathing, diapering, safe sleeping, use of car seats, etc. and then continue to teach what they should look for as the baby gets older and needs to reach different developmental milestones. I don’t think this should be an across the board thing, except in health class, but when there is an actual, living baby already born, I think we should mobilize every resource possible to help the girl and the baby come out of high school in the best position possible to succeed.</p>
<p>Just wanted to add that my philosophy is that as a human being and as a society, we should strive to do our best for each person, rather than fight and die on battlefields of the theoretical. I don’t support illegal immigration. I do, however, teach illegal immigrants to read because they are here, they are human beings, and they are easily exploited if they don’t have basic levels of literacy. Therefore, one leaves aside the principle and does what one can for the person. Same with teen pregnancy. Ideally, there would be much less. But when there is a girl and a baby, it’s a no-brainer to me that individuals and school districts should do what is necessary to make sure they succeed.</p>
<p>You’re free to metaphorically take your marbles home when challenged on a point others may disagree with. </p>
<p>Others are also feel free to make inferences about the veracity of your arguments/points from that very behavior. </p>
<p>I’m puzzled as to how you feel it makes no sense. </p>
<p>Most of my points are derived from US historical and legal precedent as commonly understood by most US history/legal scholars and attorneys who’ve studied and worked on discriminatory cases related to education and other public institutions. </p>
<p>It is also derived from my studies of Fascist/Communist political systems/societies…both academically and from talking with family/friends who fled such societies because of their totalitarian tendencies. </p>
<p>IMHO, while public school/publicly funded charters teachers/officials may offer the suggestion of going to an “alternative school” with support for pregnant students…they should never have the power to compel her to make that choice. </p>
<p>To me, forcing a student to leave school because of pregnancy or refusing to obey a policy that is likely to be unconstitutional and thus, illegal is deeply antithetical to the founding principles and ideals of our constitutional republic. It also smacks too much of government and busybodies attempting to intrude into and regulate aspects of other peoples’ lives that are really non of their damned business.</p>
You didn’t challenge a point I made. You quoted something and then didn’t respond to that quote in any fashion. Go back and re-read your post as if you were seeing it for the first time. It makes absolutely no sense in the context of my quote. Did you intend to quote something else? The fact is that you know that I find many of your posts dishonest and this is yet another one. If you would like to clarify how your diatribe on Fascistic/Communistic Dictators relates to my statement that I believe getting pregnant girls to earn a diploma and learn to parent appropriately should be the top priority in their education, I will wait patiently for you to do so.</p>
<p>
You do know that the state has the power to compel minors in many ways with regard to education? Since you claim to live in NYC, you surely know that truants are rounded up by the police on a regular basis.</p>
<p>This was the quote I was referring to when I made references to religious theocracies or Fascist/Communist dictatorships. </p>
<p>Why shouldn’t it be the student/her family’s choice? This is one area where forcing the choice is effectively enforcing someone else’s morality onto others…something which last I checked…isn’t allowed for public school officials and by extension…officials in publicly supported charter schools. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apples and cashews. Truants are rounded up because there are state laws which mandate school attendance for a minimal period. Laws which don’t conflict with an individual’s constitutional rights. Moreover, those laws because they are in the best public interests, facilitate the provision of an individual’s right to basic education, and does not conflict with an individual’s constitutional rights. Last I checked, there’s no constitutional right to skip school for those before the age of 16 or what ever minimal age for dropping out happens to be. </p>
<p>Policies which compel a student by virtue of her pregnancy to switch to an alternative school without any consideration of her educational needs and desires…or those of her family…not constitutional as this disproportionally affects one protected class, intrudes into an area of her personal life that shouldn’t be anyone else’s business without confirmation, and leaves too much room for abuse by school officials or any bored busybody with authoritarian/totalitarian inclinations.</p>
But that’s not what you quoted, is it? Go back and look at your post 287. I may be awesome, but I’m not a mind reader.</p>
<p>
I would say that keeping the kids in any school not equipped to handle their needs based on someone else’s morality is abusive. It may come as a shock to you, but other people have views different than yours.</p>
<p>
Compelling a student to stay in a school at which her attendance will almost guarantee failure is, again, negligent at best or abusive at worst. People over principles, cobrat.</p>
<p>
You could make that silly statement about pretty much any governmental involvement in anything. Most educators are the finest, most dedicated professionals one could ever find.</p>
<p>Here’s the admissions policy for Delhi Charter from the school’s official Policy Manual:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All based on residence and sociological factors, not on being “selective” in the academic sense. Here’s the new revised policy on pregnant students, dated Aug 10 and included in the policy manual:</p>
<p>If the choice is left up to the student/parents, then they’ve exercised their choice and the student/parent(s) will bear the full responsibility for that decision. </p>
<p>Officials from public schools/publicly funded charters may make suggestions and provide options, but cannot force the decision here. Being pregnant or refusing to follow what may be an illegal policy should not be the main/sole reason for such officials to override student/parental wishes and make the decision for them. </p>
<p>“People over principles”? </p>
<p>Interesting. Similar sentiments/rhetoric have been espoused by some seemingly idealistic political movements which ended up instituting some of the most brutal authoritarian/totalitarian regimes in history on both sides of the political spectrum…and ends up being the same load of extremely confining bloody BS in the very end.</p>
<p>I notice that you are ignoring the confusion caused by your misquoting, cobrat. Very classy.</p>
<p>
But we will all bear the consequences for that decision.</p>
<p>I would be fine with an opt-out provision, but I think the default should be for pregnant girls to be placed in an environment in which their health, well-being and academic success (as well as that of their babies) is at the forefront. Other people can disagree. But only certain people can disagree by invoking communism/fascism and dictators. As most people know, when you’ve felt that you had no choice but to go there, you’ve lost the argument.</p>
<p>
You have it exactly backward. It’s when a system of government or belief places philosophy or the state ahead of the individual that totalitarian regimes arise. But one wouldn’t expect you to understand what you type.</p>
<p>Haven’t followed this whole argument for the last few pages, but it’s clear to me that, whateve we think *ought *to be the case, public schools can’t do what this school was doing, whether charter or not. That’s not how we run our schools in the USA. And they now know it; thus–change of policy.</p>
<p>Students should be judged on their conduct in school, not on what group they belong to (race, disability, orientation, or even pregnancy status.) That’s the law, and I believe it’s right. Someone’s baby bump isn’t defacto bad conduct in school–if someone else is disruptive or influenced because of it–that’s their problem.</p>
</p>