Fight my ignorance over HIGH SCHOOL MATERNITY LEAVE!?

[Sunrazor]

Okay, I don't whether to laugh, cry or stand up and cheer. The superintendent of the Denver Public School District has recommended that high school girls who give birth be given a four-to-six-week maternity leave during which time special efforts will be made to help them keep up with their studies. Details can be found here (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_7899096).

Some salient facts:
1. Denver has the highest teen pregnancy rate in Colorado (not really surprising, I guess.)
2. Students who miss more than two days start getting unexcused absences.

Now, I find myself caught between my rural "values" (unmarried teen-age girls having babies is not a good thing) and my liberal leanings (it's not their fault, damnit!) The conflict comes because I have read accounts of "many" (no cite available) inner-city teen-age girls deliberately getting pregnant because (a) it's a status symbol to be pregnant or (b) they want someone to love them exclusively. If true, both portray incredible ignorance of the condition of motherhood, yet both fairly scream about the life of despair and privation lived by inner city teens. But that's only "if true". It sounds just plausible enough to be true, yet smells faintly of urban legend.

To their credit, DPS did recently turn down a federal grant for a sex education program that would present abstinence as the only acceptable form of birth control, and will pay instead for a sex education program that pushes all forms of contraception and strongly promotes abstinence.

But will high school maternity leave negate work done to dissuade teen-agers from boinking or, if boink they must, at least not increase the population as a result? Are vast numbers of teen-age girls getting pregnant on purpose for reasons that are both self-serving and self-defeating? Naturally, people have taken radically divergent sides in this thing, so not a lot of creative thinking is being done. Anybody out there have any ideas about this?

[silenus]

No girl is going to get knocked up just so she can miss school (I hope!). Therefore the issue as far as the school is concerned is "How do we keep this girl in school and getting an education so she won't be a drain on the system her entire life?" The moral issues are beside the point, as far as Education is concerned. Although I share the OP's concern and offense. If maternity leave keeps them in the system and getting an education, I'm for it.

[miss elizabeth]

What is the down side? Do you think giving maternity leave to pregnant high school girls will result in more girls trying to get pregnant, because that frankly doesn't pass the smell test to me. We need better, more comprehensive sex education, but when it fails, I see no reason to abandon these girls. Making them choose between properly caring for themselves and their babies, or graduating school seems completely pointless to me. Can you give any reasons why it's a bad idea?

[Bridget Burke]

Generally speaking--if we're against Ignorance, we ought to support Education.

And I'd like a cite about all those "urban" girls having babies for the wrong reasons.

[Lord Ashtar]

(it's not their fault, damnit!)
Can you explain this in greater detail for me please?

[Eonwe]

I see others have a similar take on this.

There is no down side. It is in everybody's best interests for these girls to get a high school degree. So, we should find a way to encourage them to not drop out of school and become not only unwed teen mothers, but unwed, uneducated teen mothers.

[athelas]

I'm not sure where to come down on this, but I can't agree with those who blithely claim there's no downside. By making the consequences seem less severe, the policy will make pregnancy seem less scary. Certainly nobody will say "Oh, now I get to skip school. Cool, let's get me pregnant!" but on a population level, there will probably be an impact. One analogy is that nobody will say "Oh, I get a $200 tax rebate for buying a hybrid that costs $10,000 more. I guess I'd better get one then!" - but tax benefits are a common and time-tested way to encourage certain behaviors.

[Eonwe]

I'm not sure where to come down on this, but I can't agree with those who blithely claim there's no downside. By making the consequences seem less severe, the policy will make pregnancy seem less scary. Certainly nobody will say "Oh, now I get to skip school. Cool, let's get me pregnant!" but on a population level, there will probably be an impact. One analogy is that nobody will say "Oh, I get a $200 tax rebate for buying a hybrid that costs $10,000 more. I guess I'd better get one then!" - but tax benefits are a common and time-tested way to encourage certain behaviors.

I think that depends on the assumption that the fear of struggling to finish high school is keeping significant numbers of girls from having kids. My guess is that most of them are not weighing the pros and cons in a long-term sort of way.

[Sunrazor]

Generally speaking--if we're against Ignorance, we ought to support Education.

And I'd like a cite about all those "urban" girls having babies for the wrong reasons.
Here (http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/97/6.12.97/teen_pregnancy.html) ya' go. I thought the reference was so obscure that it had to be urban legend. Turns out ... not so much.

I'm not so sure the moral issue is either beside the point or less important than education. I'm an educator, but I think part of the education process has to be a commitment to morality, and as a near-atheist, I'm convinced morality is universal, not just religious.

This article (http://www.makewayforbaby.com/teenpregnancy.htm) argues that, while Americans overwhelmingly want teen-agers to abstain, they also understand that they're human and need access to birth control. (It also destroys some racial preconceptions we have about who gets pregnant.)

I have to say, I get the feeling from most of the posts so far that I'm supposed to adopt an attitude that it's not my problem, so I shouldn't judge or preach. But it is my problem, and everyone else's, to the tune of $9.1 billion (http://www.teenpregnancy.org/costs/) a year. And in this specific case we're talking about the Denver Public School District, largest in Colorado, which soaks up huge sums of state tax dollars, of which I personally supply a my fair share every year. So it is very much my problem.

Now, I don't for a moment believe that providing day care, maternity leave or even free prenatal, obstetric and post-natal care will increase or decrease the number of illegitimate births by even one baby. My objection is that the huge majority of Coloradoans (okay, mostly Denverites) are being told to ignore the morality of the issue in favor of educating teen-agers. I'm not saying solutions aren't needed -- I'm saying this is the wrong solution to the problem. And I'm asking for some creative alternatives from the out-of-the-box thinkers out there.

[Jolly Roger]

Can you explain this in greater detail for me please?

Well, maybe tthe girl got drunk at a party and woke up pregnant?

Seriously, I'd like to know that too. Because unless rape is involved the girl has to share half of the blame.

[miss elizabeth]

Here (http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/97/6.12.97/teen_pregnancy.html) ya' go. I thought the reference was so obscure that it had to be urban legend. Turns out ... not so much.

I'm not so sure the moral issue is either beside the point or less important than education. I'm an educator, but I think part of the education process has to be a commitment to morality, and as a near-atheist, I'm convinced morality is universal, not just religious.

This article (http://www.makewayforbaby.com/teenpregnancy.htm) argues that, while Americans overwhelmingly want teen-agers to abstain, they also understand that they're human and need access to birth control. (It also destroys some racial preconceptions we have about who gets pregnant.)

I have to say, I get the feeling from most of the posts so far that I'm supposed to adopt an attitude that it's not my problem, so I shouldn't judge or preach. But it is my problem, and everyone else's, to the tune of $9.1 billion (http://www.teenpregnancy.org/costs/) a year. And in this specific case we're talking about the Denver Public School District, largest in Colorado, which soaks up huge sums of state tax dollars, of which I personally supply a my fair share every year. So it is very much my problem.

Now, I don't for a moment believe that providing day care, maternity leave or even free prenatal, obstetric and post-natal care will increase or decrease the number of illegitimate births by even one baby. My objection is that the huge majority of Coloradoans (okay, mostly Denverites) are being told to ignore the morality of the issue in favor of educating teen-agers. I'm not saying solutions aren't needed -- I'm saying this is the wrong solution to the problem. And I'm asking for some creative alternatives from the out-of-the-box thinkers out there.
What is immoral about a girl getting pregnant as a teenager? Ill-advised, maybe, but immoral? And again, you say this is the wrong solution. What parts of it are wrong? I'll try to come up with some creative answers, but I'd need to understand what is wrong with this one.

[AskNott]

Let me offer a contrast for you. In my high school, class of 1967, a pregnant girl was booted from school the day the school became aware of her condition. The school didn't want to condone teen pregnancy. So, in many cases, the girl became not only a single mom, but also a high school dropout. Only bottom rung jobs were open to her, for she had no diploma. Often, it was a path to permanent poverty.

In present-day Denver, a pregnant girl who chooses a full-term pregnancy and motherhood (and apple pie!) over adoption or abortion does not get her whole life taken away from her as a penalty.

[WhyNot]

Here in Illinois, the IEP (Individual Education Plan) program can apply if a girl wants it to. Whatsat mean? It means that, since pregnancy is a diagnosable medical condition, she's entitled to whatever reasonable accommodations are given to other students with medical conditions in order to ensure their education. Whatsat mean? It means that if she can't make it into school (and her doctor verifies that she CAN'T, not that she's reluctant to), then the school must work out alternate education: computer learning, distance learning, tutors going to her bedside, whatever.

Unfortunately, I find most girls don't know that this stuff is available and the responsibility of the school; they think they're knocked up and their life is over and they have to drop out and maybe get a GED if they work really hard.
And I'd like a cite about all those "urban" girls having babies for the wrong reasons.
I can't answer for "all those 'urban girls'", but I'm one suburban (white) girl who had a baby at 18 (pregnant at 17) because I was mad at my mom. Or maybe because I hadn't chosen a college or even applied anywhere. Or maybe it was because I didn't know what I wanted to do when I grew up, so sponging off my mom as long as possible and having a baby seemed as decent a time-filler as anything.

All really shitty reasons for having a kid, IMcurrentHO. I mean, I'm glad I have him and all, but those are really, really stupid reasons for having a baby.

[Bridget Burke]

Here (http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/97/6.12.97/teen_pregnancy.html) ya' go. I thought the reference was so obscure that it had to be urban legend. Turns out ... not so much.

I'm not so sure the moral issue is either beside the point or less important than education. I'm an educator, but I think part of the education process has to be a commitment to morality, and as a near-atheist, I'm convinced morality is universal, not just religious.

This article (http://www.makewayforbaby.com/teenpregnancy.htm) argues that, while Americans overwhelmingly want teen-agers to abstain, they also understand that they're human and need access to birth control. (It also destroys some racial preconceptions we have about who gets pregnant.)

I have to say, I get the feeling from most of the posts so far that I'm supposed to adopt an attitude that it's not my problem, so I shouldn't judge or preach. But it is my problem, and everyone else's, to the tune of $9.1 billion (http://www.teenpregnancy.org/costs/) a year. And in this specific case we're talking about the Denver Public School District, largest in Colorado, which soaks up huge sums of state tax dollars, of which I personally supply a my fair share every year. So it is very much my problem.

Now, I don't for a moment believe that providing day care, maternity leave or even free prenatal, obstetric and post-natal care will increase or decrease the number of illegitimate births by even one baby. My objection is that the huge majority of Coloradoans (okay, mostly Denverites) are being told to ignore the morality of the issue in favor of educating teen-agers. I'm not saying solutions aren't needed -- I'm saying this is the wrong solution to the problem. And I'm asking for some creative alternatives from the out-of-the-box thinkers out there.

Your first link describes programs set up to discourage teen pregnancy:
These programs help girls acquire skills to achieve life goals other than motherhood. Carrera's program, for example, includes guaranteed college admission, employment, personal savings plan and medical services. In addition, the program focuses on teaching skills and values related to lifetime sports, self-expression and family life and provides sex education and counseling services.

To be most effective, programs must target high-risk girls early (before age 10) and help strengthen their families and provide educational enrichment and economic opportunities.

"We have to provide girls early with the support and skills they need to have a sense of control over their lives and the means to make meaningful choices," Parrot concluded.

As an educator, I'm certain that you're doing your best to see that your female students get the message. (And maybe you can have a word with your male students, while you're at it.)

Sure, it's better not to have children too early. But it's stupid & shortsighted to punish young women for offending your "morality." Ensuring that teen mothers lose the ability to get decent jobs probably costs society more in the long run.

Here's a deal: Let them return to school, but make them wear Scarlet A's....

[BrainGlutton]

Fight my ignorance over HIGH SCHOOL MATERNITY LEAVE!?

It's the little-known sequel to High School Hellcats. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051725/) Any more questions?

[Cat Fight]

From the OP's linked article (bolding mine)

Teen mothers face a challenging future, with many dropping out. A third of teen moms receive their high-school diplomas and 1.5 percent get college degrees before they turn 30, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.

[Lori Casillas'] organization advocates that schools provide child-care services for new moms. Too many girls drop out after giving birth, and schools must do something to keep them, Casillas said.

Students at one high school in southern Colorado wanted to set up a child-care center, but the principal forbade it, saying it would encourage teen pregnancy, she said.

"There is no evidence that has ever happened," Casillas said.

While I'm sure there are some teenage girls who get pregnant for the attention, or to receive 'unconditional love', or to keep their boyfriend (or vice versa, with teenage boys getting their girlfriends pregnant)... perhaps having the girls in school for longer, getting gassy and sick in the bathrooms, describing their ripped perineum, haggard from sleepless nights, missing out on dances and parties... maybe that would work as a discouragement, rather than shipping them off to an aunt's.

I'm also curious what the drop out rates are like at the high school for non-pregnant students.

[dangermom]

Well, I'm about as unhappy about teen girls having babies as it's possible to be, but I would be all for a program like that. The way to help young moms have good, useful, productive lives is to help them get as much education and help as possible. The way to help them fail completely is to let them drop out of school because they don't know any way to succeed.

Of course, it's best if they don't get pregnant at 15 in the first place, but how to encourage kids (girls and boys) in that is a different subject, I think. Once they're already having a baby, it's time to help them succeed with their life as it is going to be. I don't know if more sex education is really the answer, since it seems that many girls get pregnant more or less on purpose. (I mean, I'm all for SE, but it's not a silver bullet.) Changing the culture kids are living in and the social messages they're getting is more what I would be aiming for, but that's probably well-nigh impossible for people who just run schools for a living. If we're looking at what's actually a realistic thing for schools to do on their own--well, it's SE and maternity leave. Otherwise, it's a society-wide change we're looking for.

[gazpacho]

I am of the opinion that the punishment for getting pregnant in high school should not be any more than having to take good care of the baby. If that is not a punishment to some girls then that is all the better the child and parent will probably be happier.

If the people who get pregnant were really thinking about the consequences of their actions they probably would not be getting pregnant. Kicking the mothers out of school just increases poverty and ignorance which have been shown to be pretty correlated with more teenage pregnancies.

If we really want to cut down on pregnancies we need to teach kids how to use birth control effectively. I know my sex education in 5th and 6th grade skipped this all together. I don't recall getting to much more sex education later on. We know what causes pregnancies and how to prevent them there is no good reason to keep this a secrete known only to adults.

[AskNott]

Can you explain this in greater detail for me please?
I can't speak for Sunrazor, but here's some more detail. Today's teenage girl has many options in her reproductive health. Some of them may be limited by her school system or her parent's influences on her.

She was on birth control pills, and her partner used a condom. Statistically, that combination is 99% effective, but she's the 1%. So, she took reasonable precautions.

She was date raped, either by drugs or threat of force.

She was sexually abused by her father or her clergyman.

She had anal sex (popular among pledged-to-abstinence teens), but some stray semen dripped down to her vagina.

She gave oral sex (see above), then kissed her partner before he gave her oral sex.

Both her school and her parents taught abstinence-only sex ed. So, she had no knowledge of contraception, or worse yet, misinformation whispered in locker rooms. So, her partner pulled out early, poured Coca-cola® into her, or "knew" that she couldn't get pregnant if they had sex standing up. Dedicated sperm cells made a commando raid on her egg.

Her parents had always said, "You can talk to us, no matter what," but when she told them she planned to have an abortion, she was grounded or threatened until it was too late.

So, Lord Ashtar, how many of these examples involved the girl's intent to have a full-term pregnancy? In how many is it "her fault" she had a baby?

[Sateryn76]

What is immoral about a girl getting pregnant as a teenager? Ill-advised, maybe, but immoral? And again, you say this is the wrong solution. What parts of it are wrong? I'll try to come up with some creative answers, but I'd need to understand what is wrong with this one.

For me, it's not a question of whether having sex is immoral.

The immoral part is hurting your child. Getting pregnant in high school (and I was just barely out when I got knocked up) will very likely condemn your child to a life of poverty in many circumstances. You may provide a home full of love and life lessons, but many of these children still end up in bad trouble, or with emotional or social baggage that effects their lives forever.

It's very apparent to me that teenagers are going to have sex. Period. And I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. However, the girls and boys who produce children unthinkingly should be shamed somehow....

I've been thinking lately about how social stigma was actually a very useful tool to prevent certain behaviors, particularly with children. I know that certain stigmas were silly if not downright harmful, but it seems like there should be a way to use it effectively.

In my gut, I don't think that a maternity leave program is a good one. It makes allowances for behavior that should be discouraged. In my high school, if you got knocked up, you attended a night high school program with flexible rules, and got your diploma that way.

I don't think teenage mothers should be ostracized, but I can't imagine the nightmare of administering a program in a public high school that I'm sure is already up to its eyeballs in "programs" and "testing" and such. I mean, how exactly would this work? Would they be able to pick up homework, like if a student had mono? And, they would still be missing lectures, so would they get a pass on the test over that chapter? Or would already overworked teachers have to record everything and prepare special materials?

It just seems like another expensive, time-consuming responsibility for a public school system to benefit a group of people that made an irresponsible mistake.

Excuse my rambling, but being a pregnant 18 year old who turned out okay so far makes me particularly sensitive to these things...

[jsgoddess]

This won't encourage teen pregnancy. It might encourage some girls to opt for having the baby over abortion, which I think is probably the wrong decision for most but their choice to make. And in all other aspects, I don't see a down side. Education is good. Allowing people to make choices out of something other than desperation is good.

[Lord Ashtar]

So, Lord Ashtar, how many of these examples involved the girl's intent to have a full-term pregnancy? In how many is it "her fault" she had a baby?
My objection was to what I perceived as a global statement that it was not her fault ever. Perhaps I was reading too much into something that didn't really matter all that much to the overall point the OP was trying to make.

Out of sheer curiosity, how many of those examples did you make up on the spot?

[WhyNot]

I don't think teenage mothers should be ostracized, but I can't imagine the nightmare of administering a program in a public high school that I'm sure is already up to its eyeballs in "programs" and "testing" and such. I mean, how exactly would this work? Would they be able to pick up homework, like if a student had mono? And, they would still be missing lectures, so would they get a pass on the test over that chapter? Or would already overworked teachers have to record everything and prepare special materials?
See, the good thing is that you don't have to write a one-size-fits all policy. I mean, you can if you want, but it's a lot of time, effort and money to little effect, and no one will be happy with it in the end.

IEP's, I'm tellin' ya. Individualized. Girl, parents, teachers and counselors meet and figure it out together. Is her crippling morning sickness over by 10 AM? Then maybe we can move her really critical classes to periods 3-8, waiver her for gym and call her weekend parenting classes with the park district "Home Ec" for credit. Can she submit papers by email instead of carrying them into the teacher's office? Then set her up for an independent study in History, emailed papers due weekly (or whatever works for the teacher).

Not only does this get her a diploma, it teaches her to be proactive and to be creative. If SHE wants to make it happen, SHE can do that. It's empowering, and it puts the responsibility for her education on her in a way that's not too overwhelming for a child to handle.


My mother (sixth grade) once had a student that for some bizarre neurological reason (not related to pregnancy) couldn't read black type on white paper. She could read black type on pink paper, however. Rather than write a one-size-fits no-one policy that all teachers in all classes had to run copies on pink paper, they came to my mother and said, "How much of a hassle would it be to make her 1 copy of everything she needs to read on pink paper?" And she said, "Not too much, why, would that be helpful?" and they said, "Absolutely!" And so it was done.

"Policy" isn't always the answer. Addressing each person's needs as you can might be more useful.

[miss elizabeth]

For me, it's not a question of whether having sex is immoral.

The immoral part is hurting your child. Getting pregnant in high school (and I was just barely out when I got knocked up) will very likely condemn your child to a life of poverty in many circumstances. You may provide a home full of love and life lessons, but many of these children still end up in bad trouble, or with emotional or social baggage that effects their lives forever.
And many children won't. And I think one way to prevent these children growing up in poverty, or with emotional and social baggage is to allow the mothers the ability to improve their situation after having a baby at a young age. Don't you?

It's very apparent to me that teenagers are going to have sex. Period. And I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. However, the girls and boys who produce children unthinkingly should be shamed somehow....
Why? What good will shaming them do? All it does is produce the emotional and social baggage you claim to be against.

I've been thinking lately about how social stigma was actually a very useful tool to prevent certain behaviors, particularly with children. I know that certain stigmas were silly if not downright harmful, but it seems like there should be a way to use it effectively.
It wasn't a very good system, actually. Teenage birthrates are lower now then they were then.

In my gut, I don't think that a maternity leave program is a good one. It makes allowances for behavior that should be discouraged. In my high school, if you got knocked up, you attended a night high school program with flexible rules, and got your diploma that way.

I don't think teenage mothers should be ostracized, but I can't imagine the nightmare of administering a program in a public high school that I'm sure is already up to its eyeballs in "programs" and "testing" and such. I mean, how exactly would this work? Would they be able to pick up homework, like if a student had mono? And, they would still be missing lectures, so would they get a pass on the test over that chapter? Or would already overworked teachers have to record everything and prepare special materials?
I find it hard to imagine that running a seperate night school somehow uses less resources then having something set up for girls to be out of school on maternity leave. There is already a system set up to help kids who have medical issues continue to do classwork; this issue is about whether girls who've just had babies should be able to take advantage of that.

It just seems like another expensive, time-consuming responsibility for a public school system to benefit a group of people that made an irresponsible mistake.

Excuse my rambling, but being a pregnant 18 year old who turned out okay so far makes me particularly sensitive to these things...
You say you turned out okay; do you think that had anything to do with the support you received at the time? If you did have help, why would you deny another girl that same help? And if you didn't, don't you wish you had? I personally do not think that making an irresponsible mistake as a teenager should condemn you for the rest of your life. It's bad for these girls, obviously, but it's also bad for society as a whole.

[Sunrazor]

Here's a deal: Let them return to school, but make them wear Scarlet A's....I'm more than a little irritated by the attitude of some posters that, "Oh, well, kids will be kids! Whattaya' gonna' do?" When one-third of the girls, between the ages of 13 and 17, in any community, are getting pregnant and having babies, there's a societal disaster in the making, and a school district's band-aid approach isn't going to fix anything.

How about a real program that has a goal of reducing teen pregnancy in Denver schools by 50% over the next 15 years? Because it would be at least 15 years before any results are apparent. How about making sure that teen-age mothers who benefit from a maternity leave policy then do, in fact, graduate from high school and attend at least some kind of junior college or training school (because a high school diploma ain't worth squat when it comes to providing for a family!)? How about a contract between the DPS, the City of Denver and the state of Colorado that all three will cooperate in a joint venture to provide day care, father figures, positive family reinforcement and a sense of self-worth that isn't sex-based?

Sateryn76's comments mirror those of one of my students, a young man who's mother gave brith to him when she was 19, in college and unmarried. He's never met his father. There were times, he says, when he resented the hell out of his mother's "mistake," and it's been a long, hard road for them both to grow up together without hating each other. Here's the difference between him and his mom on the one hand and the kids in Denver on the other: My student's mother had the benefit of a huge support system (it's called a family, and out here on the plains, family is serious business) that made sure she had incentive, help when she needed it, corrective discipline when required, and unconditional love all of the time. That's why our teen pregnancy rate is so low our here in rural Colorado (Statewide it's 8.2%, Denver is 30%+; the arithmetic should be pretty easy.)

And that's just a girl-focused program. It needs a boy-focused component, too, with the goal of changing attitudes among boys about sex, family and personal responsibility.

[Mr. Moto]

My mother (sixth grade) once had a student that for some bizarre neurological reason (not related to pregnancy) couldn't read black type on white paper. She could read black type on pink paper, however. Rather than write a one-size-fits no-one policy that all teachers in all classes had to run copies on pink paper, they came to my mother and said, "How much of a hassle would it be to make her 1 copy of everything she needs to read on pink paper?" And she said, "Not too much, why, would that be helpful?" and they said, "Absolutely!" And so it was done.

Not to be snide, just curious - why wouldn't tinted glasses have worked?

[jsgoddess]

How about a real program that has a goal of reducing teen pregnancy in Denver schools by 50% over the next 15 years?

Do that, too.

But reducing by 50% means you still have 50%. There's no reason things can be tackled from more than one direction at a time.

[miss elizabeth]

I'm more than a little irritated by the attitude of some posters that, "Oh, well, kids will be kids! Whattaya' gonna' do?" When one-third of the girls, between the ages of 13 and 17, in any community, are getting pregnant and having babies, there's a societal disaster in the making, and a school district's band-aid approach isn't going to fix anything.

How about a real program that has a goal of reducing teen pregnancy in Denver schools by 50% over the next 15 years? Because it would be at least 15 years before any results are apparent. How about making sure that teen-age mothers who benefit from a maternity leave policy then do, in fact, graduate from high school and attend at least some kind of junior college or training school (because a high school diploma ain't worth squat when it comes to providing for a family!)? How about a contract between the DPS, the City of Denver and the state of Colorado that all three will cooperate in a joint venture to provide day care, father figures, positive family reinforcement and a sense of self-worth that isn't sex-based?

Sateryn76's comments mirror those of one of my students, a young man who's mother gave brith to him when she was 19, in college and unmarried. He's never met his father. There were times, he says, when he resented the hell out of his mother's "mistake," and it's been a long, hard road for them both to grow up together without hating each other. Here's the difference between him and his mom on the one hand and the kids in Denver on the other: My student's mother had the benefit of a huge support system (it's called a family, and out here on the plains, family is serious business) that made sure she had incentive, help when she needed it, corrective discipline when required, and unconditional love all of the time. That's why our teen pregnancy rate is so low our here in rural Colorado (Statewide it's 8.2%, Denver is 30%+; the arithmetic should be pretty easy.)

And that's just a girl-focused program. It needs a boy-focused component, too, with the goal of changing attitudes among boys about sex, family and personal responsibility.
All that sounds fantastic! Seriously, I think those are great ideas. But, what do you think should be done about the girls who get pregnant anyway? Should reasonable accommodations be made that allow them to continue going to school, or not? And if not, why not? That's what we're discussing, right?

[Sateryn76]

See, the good thing is that you don't have to write a one-size-fits all policy. I mean, you can if you want, but it's a lot of time, effort and money to little effect, and no one will be happy with it in the end.

IEP's, I'm tellin' ya. Individualized. Girl, parents, teachers and counselors meet and figure it out together. Is her crippling morning sickness over by 10 AM? Then maybe we can move her really critical classes to periods 3-8, waiver her for gym and call her weekend parenting classes with the park district "Home Ec" for credit. Can she submit papers by email instead of carrying them into the teacher's office? Then set her up for an independent study in History, emailed papers due weekly (or whatever works for the teacher).

Not only does this get her a diploma, it teaches her to be proactive and to be creative. If SHE wants to make it happen, SHE can do that. It's empowering, and it puts the responsibility for her education on her in a way that's not too overwhelming for a child to handle.


My mother (sixth grade) once had a student that for some bizarre neurological reason (not related to pregnancy) couldn't read black type on white paper. She could read black type on pink paper, however. Rather than write a one-size-fits no-one policy that all teachers in all classes had to run copies on pink paper, they came to my mother and said, "How much of a hassle would it be to make her 1 copy of everything she needs to read on pink paper?" And she said, "Not too much, why, would that be helpful?" and they said, "Absolutely!" And so it was done.

"Policy" isn't always the answer. Addressing each person's needs as you can might be more useful.


I fail to see how an individualized study plan for each girl would save time or money for the administrator. Having one child with one need is no problem; however, the high number of pregnant girls makes this a huge task.

Is it almost cliche to talk about "the problems of public schools" and I think one cause is requiring programs for every single damn problem.

Let's see... when I was in school, I had six classes a day. That's six teachers required to plan independent study materials. When exactly is the teacher supposed to do this? In the abundant "free time" we hear so much about? Not to mention that, various students have various courses, so every teacher is going to have to do this, and tailor it for every girl's course load.

It's abhorrent to me to ask teachers to do almost anything more then they are already required to. Particularly when it's because of a perfectly avoidable situation caused entirely by the parties who are now bitching about their lives being disrupted.

Sorry to be so hard hearted, but from one who's been exactly there, yes, you messed up, and yes, unfortunately, your life, as you know it, is now ruined. A new, good life can be had, but it won't be easy, and asking for special breaks is not a way to learn to be a grown-up.

[Sateryn76]

[QUOTE=miss elizabeth] Why? What good will shaming them do? All it does is produce the emotional and social baggage you claim to be against.

Okay, well, I was trying to imply that I was thinking about social stigma as a tool (at the time, in regard to obesity), not that I had decided that it was the best tool.

That said, I am uncomfortable with some of the current attitudes about teen motherhood. When I was a Girl Scout leader, one of the suggested award projects was to have a "baby shower" for teen mothers who were poor. What?

Why are we celebrating a poor girl getting pregnant? I could (and have) participated in a donation and distribution event for baby items for poor mothers. And I certainly don't think pregnant girls should be hidden away at the convent. But come on!

I do not think it is appropriate to praise and celebrate a teenager bringing a child into a poor household.

[AskNott]

... Out of sheer curiosity, how many of those examples did you make up on the spot?
One.

[Sateryn76]

And many children won't. And I think one way to prevent these children growing up in poverty, or with emotional and social baggage is to allow the mothers the ability to improve their situation after having a baby at a young age. Don't you?

Uh, yes, and I thought the night school thing was wonderful and completely appropriate. What's the problem, in your opinion, with that idea?




You say you turned out okay; do you think that had anything to do with the support you received at the time? If you did have help, why would you deny another girl that same help? And if you didn't, don't you wish you had? I personally do not think that making an irresponsible mistake as a teenager should condemn you for the rest of your life. It's bad for these girls, obviously, but it's also bad for society as a whole.

As Sunrazor said, I had a good family. I was lucky to end up here, but it mostly because I made some excellent decisions after I became a mother. In no way would my high school have been helpful to me, even if these programs were available at the time. And where do we draw the line? I always thought that school was to teach the Three R's, not provide pre-and post-partum "support" for teenage mothers.

Please do not put words in my mouth - I never said I wanted a situation where "an irresponsible mistake as a teenager should condemn you for the rest of your life" I have tried to be very clear that I most certainly do not want that. BUT...

It might be good for teenage girls to know that everything changes in a dramatic and mostly negative way when you get pregnant. There is a hard road ahead, and it sucks for a long time. You don't get to be a high-schooler anymore. You are a MOTHER.


Yea! I figured out how to multi-quote!!

[LilShieste]

It might be good for teenage girls to know that everything changes in a dramatic and mostly negative way when you get pregnant. There is a hard road ahead, and it sucks for a long time. You don't get to be a high-schooler anymore. You are a MOTHER.
That's all fine and dandy, but it shouldn't preclude a program as discussed in the OP.

The girl is going to be a mother, regardless of this program. The girl is going to see that raising another human being is difficult, regardless of this program. The road ahead is going to be hard for the girl, regardless of this program.

LilShieste

[Shawn1767]

When I was in college in Lafayette, LA, I had a friend who had gone to a prominent Catholic High School there. Her little sister was still in the same Catholic High School and had a friend who got pregnant. She was the sister of the conservative columnist at our college newspaper. If the powers that be at the high school would have found out she was pregnant, they would have kicked her out immediately (as they did another friend who got pregnant). So, she went and had an abortion so she could stay and graduate from the prominent Catholic School. I loved the unintended consequences their policy had on promoting abortion.

Just FYI.

[Sateryn76]

That's all fine and dandy, but it shouldn't preclude a program as discussed in the OP.

The girl is going to be a mother, regardless of this program. The girl is going to see that raising another human being is difficult, regardless of this program. The road ahead is going to be hard for the girl, regardless of this program.

LilShieste


I know, but my point is - how is this program going to work? It seems super-complicated to determine how to keep a student caught up with work when they have a new baby (and post-pregnancy body issues). I would imagine it would be much harder to make it to school every day when you have a child.

At what point does it become unreasonable to demand a student attend class? So they get 2 or 4 or 6 weeks of "leave". Then what? What if the baby gets croupy and can't go to daycare (assuming it's even available)? Should we start assigning "vacation days" to mothers? I hate to say it, but the logical next demand would be a higher limit of absences for mothers.

I'm a little surprised that anyone wants to continue to go to high school when they have a baby. A concentrated class load for a few hours in the evening would seem to be much more effective - hopefully, less time away from the baby would mean less daycare costs and more bonding time.

I'm trying not to address my concerns about the costs of all of this. Since this is a public school, I can't help thinking about what the Colorado taxpayers think about "free" daycare in the school and the like...

[WhyNot]

Not to be snide, just curious - why wouldn't tinted glasses have worked?
I don't know why. I do know they were tried and found not to be as effective as pink paper, although they did help some.
I fail to see how an individualized study plan for each girl would save time or money for the administrator. Having one child with one need is no problem; however, the high number of pregnant girls makes this a huge task.
Oh, I'm not much interested in saving their time or money, except by not putting them on tasks that are a waste of it. I agree that it will take a lot of time, money and effort to fix the problem. I just think it's more effective to do that on an individual basis, rather than a general policy.
When exactly is the teacher supposed to do this? In the abundant "free time" we hear so much about? Not to mention that, various students have various courses, so every teacher is going to have to do this, and tailor it for every girl's course load.

It's abhorrent to me to ask teachers to do almost anything more then they are already required to.
Supposed to do what? Grade a paper sent in via email? Same time as she grades the rest of the papers on paper, I expect. Sit in a meeting to determine the best schedule for the student? It's not like every faculty member has to be there every night for meetings - it can be done with little more time than a parent-teacher conference. Remember, this is only done at the request of the student. Realistically, most of them won't want to do the hard work to graduate. Some of them will. Show me a decent teacher who's not willing to work when the student is willing to work.

I agree that teachers ought not be overburdened with exceptional work loads, but I think that's better solved coming at it from the other end: I don't think special ed mainstreaming is a good thing. I'd rather free up a mainstream classroom teacher to help the bright pregnant student by removing the chronic masturbating kid with an IQ of 60 from the classroom. But that's probably a discussion for another thread.

It might be good for teenage girls to know that everything changes in a dramatic and mostly negative way when you get pregnant. There is a hard road ahead, and it sucks for a long time. You don't get to be a high-schooler anymore. You are a MOTHER.
Why? I'm asking that, seriously. Why? Why should being a mother preclude one from getting an education?

Mostly you're coming off like the surly old doctors who refuse to give Residents safe working hours because they were hazed by the same system, or parents who refuse DVD players in the car because they were miserable on long car rides as kids and so their children should be too.

(That's not to say that there aren't good reasons to keep long medical hours or not have DVD players in cars. There are. But "because I suffered, so should you" doesn't strike me as a good or logical one.)

[Sunrazor]

All that sounds fantastic! Seriously, I think those are great ideas. But, what do you think should be done about the girls who get pregnant anyway? Should reasonable accommodations be made that allow them to continue going to school, or not? And if not, why not? That's what we're discussing, right?What's good for many is great for a few. The cost is going to be stunning, but the cost of NOT doing anything will be greater over the longer term. The idea is to reverse a trend, then keep applying what works. The smaller the problem grows, the smaller the cost of addressing it.

[Bridget Burke]

....I'm a little surprised that anyone wants to continue to go to high school when they have a baby. A concentrated class load for a few hours in the evening would seem to be much more effective - hopefully, less time away from the baby would mean less daycare costs and more bonding time.

I'm trying not to address my concerns about the costs of all of this. Since this is a public school, I can't help thinking about what the Colorado taxpayers think about "free" daycare in the school and the like...

Since you've volunteered yourself as a teenage mother--did your education end when your baby was born?

[LilShieste]

I know, but my point is - how is this program going to work? It seems super-complicated to determine how to keep a student caught up with work when they have a new baby (and post-pregnancy body issues). I would imagine it would be much harder to make it to school every day when you have a child.
Exactly, and the program is supposed to help by making it easier (i.e., "much harder" --> "harder").

At what point does it become unreasonable to demand a student attend class? So they get 2 or 4 or 6 weeks of "leave". Then what? What if the baby gets croupy and can't go to daycare (assuming it's even available)? Should we start assigning "vacation days" to mothers? I hate to say it, but the logical next demand would be a higher limit of absences for mothers.
Part of the reason you give somebody 2 or 4 or 6 weeks to deal with the new baby, is so they have some time to figure out how to handle special circumstances - setting up day care plans, designating emergency contacts, scheduling your life around school and the baby, etc.

In the corporate world, women get maternity leave. Maternity leave with a set duration. Most women are able to make it back into the office after their leave is complete. If they need to go home early, or miss a few days after that, then it comes out of a PTO/sick day allottment. If they do not have any PTO/sick days left, then you run into the same problem you're describing. In this case, it could lead to the woman quitting her job or possibly being fired. In the case of a mother/student, it could lead to the girl dropping out or getting kicked out of school.

The program isn't trying to make it easy for the mother - just easier.

LilShieste

[Sunrazor]

I just realized I didn't fully answer Miss Elizabeth's questions, specifically, why a goal of only 50%? I wasn't really clear on that.

A fifty percent drop of any problem is a huge chunk of progress. The goal isn't to just reduce any problem by half, but to keep reducing it by half for every allotted time period. The reality is that the lower a bad thing goes (crime rate, disease, illiteracy) the harder it is to fight because it becomes rare. The good news then is that there are so few cases that it's easier to customize solutions.

As I said, the cost would be horrendous but, having in mind the last thread I started, I'm betting it would cost less to turn around the teen pregnancy problem in America than it would to go back to the moon.

[Sateryn76]

\

Why? I'm asking that, seriously. Why? Why should being a mother preclude one from getting an education?

Mostly you're coming off like the surly old doctors who refuse to give Residents safe working hours because they were hazed by the same system, or parents who refuse DVD players in the car because they were miserable on long car rides as kids and so their children should be too.

(That's not to say that there aren't good reasons to keep long medical hours or not have DVD players in cars. There are. But "because I suffered, so should you" doesn't strike me as a good or logical one.)

Why does NOT getting "maternity leave" preclude an education? If you were serious about getting that diploma, then wouldn't you finish what school you could before you give birth, then take a semester off, then finish at the start of the new semester? I understand that the timing of a pregnancy may not fit in with a standard school year, but with new semesters in September and January, and summer school, it seems to me that you'd only end up a semester or so behind. Are they kicking out girls who had babies?

I think it's fine - take a semester to bond with the baby, plan your next moves and generally heal from all of the physical and emotional trauma that comes from an unplanned pregnancy. Then go back in the fall and finish. What's the problem?

I don't want to look "surly" but I hate this idea that we should make teenage pregnancy easy. We shouldn't try to make it harder, but women (and men!) have difficulties with having children and jobs and college and making it all work out. So you do as suggested above - put things off for a short while and organize your life accordingly.

[Sateryn76]

Since you've volunteered yourself as a teenage mother--did your education end when your baby was born?

Ha! Well, since you asked.....

No, I managed to make very poor decisions before I got pregnant. I dropped out my junior year (boy, I showed them!) and just hung around for a month or so until my mother made me get a job. Then I worked some standard menial jobs until I was 18, then I got pregnant.

My daughter was born in March, and I got my GED in April (and I got the "Einstein Award :p ) That fall, I was in college at my local Purdue campus. However....

between working full time, going to school, taking care of my daughter, and just generally growing up, I was going crazy, so I dropped out of college. I got a good job at a law firm, and proceeded to become a Grown Up.

My general guilt/shame/something has been hanging over my head for ten years. I went back to that same Purdue campus this past fall and started over again. I am still at the same job, and I am faring very well so far in school (although I feel like a dinosaur).

Writing this makes me think that maybe pushing a girl to keep on the "high-school-college-job" path is not the right way to go in many cases. Perhaps it's a matter of forcing a situation that may not fit in a practical way. Sort of in line with the arguments about not always pushing college on kids, but including trade schools and the like... Hmmm....

(Off to think some more while I do laundry...)

[WhyNot]

Why does NOT getting "maternity leave" preclude an education?
I'm only so-so on the "maternity leave" plan; but I think that if you'd consider substituting "create an educational plan which may include independent study, tutors or other creative solutions to individual problems" (ie, create an IEP through already established channels) then I think the answer is that while time away does not preclude an education, it makes it much, much harder to go back to. As I suspect you know from personal experience; I know I do.

A maternity leave is preferable to a semester drop-out for me because then at least the girl is coming back into familiar classes with, I would assume, some continuity of teacher, classmates, etc. This would, of course, mean that she'd have to keep up with the work while she's not in class, right? I'm guessing, anyway. These continuities and some amount of hand-holding would have made it a whole lot easier for me to keep up with school, anyway.

Dropping out and coming back a semester later is possible, sure. But you just lose track of the kids that way. They get used to not doing homework and they forget how to learn - at least I did. It's just really, really hard to go back in, especially in high school, where now all your friends are ahead of you and you're in classes with people you don't know, which yes, really is a hardship on a 15 year old. Is it insurmountable? No, not really. But, again, why make it as hard as we can?

And, before anyone asks, I was knowingly but unshowingly pregnant at my high school graduation (after a triple birth control failure). I had a 3.8 GPA and was in the top 10% of my class; I did one semester of community college while pregnant and then left for about 2 years. Went back, dabbled, failed a bunch of stuff I stupidly didn't Withdraw from and after about 5 years got an AA. Went to a "real" school, earned $20,000 in student loans and no credit hours. Did I mention I was really, really stupid at that time in my life? :p

Saturday I'm going into the local community college to have them look at my old transcripts, see if anything is useful, and enroll in the prerequisites for their 2 year RN program. That kid I was pregnant with at high school graduation? He turns 15 in about a week.

[Lord Ashtar]

One.
Okay, well I'm not going to play the guessing game to try and figure out which one that is. How often does a girl have sex without realizing that there's a possibility that she could get pregnant (exceptions for rape, of course)?

[alphaboi867]

Let me offer a contrast for you. In my high school, class of 1967, a pregnant girl was booted from school the day the school became aware of her condition...

The same thing happened to my mother in 1971. She was midway through her junior year. Apparently the school found out when her name appeared in the paper with all the other marriage licences issued. No tutor, no independent study, no coming back. Her only other option was still illegal.

[Frostillicus]

CPS has a "Homebound" system for students who are unable to attend school due to injury, illness, or pregnancy. A teacher visits the home several times a week, bringing work for the students to complete and then the completed work is returned to the classroom teachers to be graded. I have had many students go on Homebound, many of whom were pregnant. And most of them ended up returning to school and eventually graduating.

[even sven]

I live in an area (rural Africa) where the vast majority of people have their first child as young teenagers. Our school systems don't allow pregnant women in classes, and once you start missing years, it becomes hard to ever catch up. As a result, the high school enrollment rates for girls are very low. As you'd expect, this leads to increased poverty and all manner of social problems. Mothers are ultimately responsible for so much, and when a mother has, say, a primary school education, they are poorly equipted to look out for the health, safety, education, and general development of their children.

Why would we want to see this happen in America?

On the flipside, these children are loved, and well taken care of, even if they live in what we'd consider grinding poverty. My friends live in mud huts with dirt floors and only own one set of clothes. But their kids are their lives, and they arn't sorry they had them. Nor or they sorry they themselves were born. To go out on a limb, I'd say I see a lot less despair and depression here than I did in America. Poverty is not immoral. Living in poverty is not immoral. Reproducing in poverty is not immoral. If it were, most of humanity for all of history should have never existed.

For the vast majority of human history, teen pregnacy has been the norm. It's not the end of the world- it's how the human race has got by for millions of years. However, teen pregnacy doesn't work well in our society. For the people who get pregnant as teenagers- for whatever reason- this is unfortunate.

But we don't need to sit around making it even more unfortunate. There are plenty of consequences as is, without us manfacturing consequences.

[Sateryn76]

I've been thinking about this further, and it just makes me very uncomfortable for two reasons:

1) The article the OP posted is filled with references to "support" that Colorado provides, including very expensive programs such as day care and night schools. Who is paying for this? Is it free to students, or is paid by the Colorado taxpayers? This is an unbelievable amount of money being spent on students who caused their own problem. I know that the argument is that we should get them their diplomas now, so they don't cost more when they're in poverty later. So I think, yes, there should be some help, but don't they have to do their part?

If these girls have decided that getting their diploma is so damned important (and it is), why would they be falling through the cracks and not coming back next semester? If they do not, that means that, at some point, they've decided that a diploma is not so important after all. Dumb decision, but when do we let them be the adults that their pregnancy has made them, and pay the consequences of their actions (NOT the pregnancy, but the decision to stop going to school?)

2) My step-niece, 17, got herself pregnant this summer. Unlike when I turned up pregnant, she was not that upset about it. It certainly wasn't part of the plan, but, based on the experiences of her friend who was 15 (!) and pregnant, it just didn't seem like a huge deal to get all upset about. She knew how to finish school, apply for all of the state taxpayer funded programs and just generally got excited about decorating a nursery. WTF?

Is anyone else on this thread bothered by that at all? Regardless of your feelings about the specific Colorado program we've been discussing, do you recognize that, by removing all of the obstacles for teenagers, we may be dismantling a social check that has been effective in keeping pregnancies low?

[WhyNot]

Dumb decision, but when do we let them be the adults that their pregnancy has made them, and pay the consequences of their actions (NOT the pregnancy, but the decision to stop going to school?)

Pregnancy hasn't made them adults. It's made them parents. Not all parents are adults. Only time and education makes people adults.

2) My step-niece, 17, got herself pregnant this summer. Unlike when I turned up pregnant, she was not that upset about it. It certainly wasn't part of the plan, but, based on the experiences of her friend who was 15 (!) and pregnant, it just didn't seem like a huge deal to get all upset about. She knew how to finish school, apply for all of the state taxpayer funded programs and just generally got excited about decorating a nursery. WTF?
Okay. Why WTF? I don't see the problem there. Is it the ideal path her life might have taken? Probably not. Does she seem to be dealing well with it? Yep. I hope she's using those funds as a temporary measure and gets herself a job as soon as she can, of course.

I've got a friend who is 35 and single and miserable. She really wants to have a kid, but hasn't found someone to have it with and can't afford to do it alone. Her life hasn't taken the ideal path it might have either. There's lots of ways in which our lives can suck, being a pregnant teen is neither required or exclusive.

Is anyone else on this thread bothered by that at all?
Bothered by teenage pregnancy? Yes, I am, quite a bit. I bothered because it's so hard for teenaged girls to complete their educations, afford child care, and work (if that's what they want to do) in fulfilling careers and be good parents at the same time. There's two ways to solve that problem: reduce teenage pregnancy (which we've been doing, and continue to try to do) and make it easier for girls to complete their education, receive child care, etc. It's not either-or.

I'm actually in favor of late teenage pregnancy medically. If we had some fantastic utopia where women could be both good attentive mothers and have fulfilling careers while having children in their late teens or early twenties, that would be a good thing. Younger women have healthier and easier pregnancies and deliveries as long as they have good prenatal care, with less age-related birth defects like Down's Syndrome.
Regardless of your feelings about the specific Colorado program we've been discussing, do you recognize that, by removing all of the obstacles for teenagers,
ALL obstacles? This is one, and a minor one, in the eyes of most teenagers. Remove obstacles like getting fat and losing your social life and the horrors of dating as a single mother, and then we'll talk.
we may be dismantling a social check that has been effective in keeping pregnancies low?
Wait, I thought you said a girl could just go back to school after taking a semester off. So how is school assistance a social check?

Or did you mean the shame and blame and hiding pregnancies and getting kicked out of school has been effective in keeping pregnancies low? I'd like a big ol' cite on that, especially since, as has already been pointed out, pregnancy rates have been dropping for thirty years, ever since we've eased up a bit on the most overt shaming and labeling. There was, I admit, a small upswing in 2006, but it's too soon to tell if that's a statistical blip or a real trend. If it IS a real trend, then I hypothesize it's because the last 7 years have seen an upswing in abstinence only education funding, restrictions on abortion funding and a return to "family values" which includes those good ol' social controls of shame and shunning.

[Sateryn76]

Pregnancy hasn't made them adults. It's made them parents. Not all parents are adults. Only time and education makes people adults.

I was speaking in a legal sense, or at least in the sense of the idea that, by deciding to become pregnant, they are now expected to act like adults. We all know people who never act like adults, but there comes a time when they are expected to, and getting pregnant is one of those times.


Okay. Why WTF? I don't see the problem there. Is it the ideal path her life might have taken? Probably not. Does she seem to be dealing well with it? Yep. I hope she's using those funds as a temporary measure and gets herself a job as soon as she can, of course.

Um...you don't see anything wrong with her attitude? I don't think she should be in sackcloth and ashes, but come on! It appears to me (and I know her pretty well) that she wasn't upset. I see a tremendous difference between telling a teen "it's okay" and "it will be okay"

Please note - my niece lost the baby about 2 months in...

I've got a friend who is 35 and single and miserable. She really wants to have a kid, but hasn't found someone to have it with and can't afford to do it alone. Her life hasn't taken the ideal path it might have either. There's lots of ways in which our lives can suck, being a pregnant teen is neither required or exclusive.

I'm sorry for your friend, but she isn't (so far as I can tell) asking for special treatment from the taxpayers, so I don't see your point. Is it that life sucks sometimes? Well, duh...


Bothered by teenage pregnancy? Yes, I am, quite a bit. I bothered because it's so hard for teenaged girls to complete their educations, afford child care, and work (if that's what they want to do) in fulfilling careers and be good parents at the same time. There's two ways to solve that problem: reduce teenage pregnancy (which we've been doing, and continue to try to do) and make it easier for girls to complete their education, receive child care, etc. It's not either-or.

But those things are hard for everyone! Men and women of all classes and creeds have to make very hard decisions about having children. I am not saying that teens should have no options; I'm not sure I agree that tailoring an additional educational program for another set of girls who have different "wants" is the way to go.

I'm actually in favor of late teenage pregnancy medically. If we had some fantastic utopia where women could be both good attentive mothers and have fulfilling careers while having children in their late teens or early twenties, that would be a good thing. Younger women have healthier and easier pregnancies and deliveries as long as they have good prenatal care, with less age-related birth defects like Down's Syndrome.

It's for a different thread, but I also have a problem with people who put off children, with the attendant consequences. So we agree on something!

ALL obstacles? This is one, and a minor one, in the eyes of most teenagers. Remove obstacles like getting fat and losing your social life and the horrors of dating as a single mother, and then we'll talk.

Right, this kind of proves one of my points. You said yourself that no education is "a minor one" for most teenagers. They are far more worried about their weight or boys or whatever. If they don't come back to school, then at what point do we stop the hand-holding? They no longer have the luxury of being a school-girl/guy.

Wait, I thought you said a girl could just go back to school after taking a semester off. So how is school assistance a social check?

Or did you mean the shame and blame and hiding pregnancies and getting kicked out of school has been effective in keeping pregnancies low? I'd like a big ol' cite on that, especially since, as has already been pointed out, pregnancy rates have been dropping for thirty years, ever since we've eased up a bit on the most overt shaming and labeling. There was, I admit, a small upswing in 2006, but it's too soon to tell if that's a statistical blip or a real trend. If it IS a real trend, then I hypothesize it's because the last 7 years have seen an upswing in abstinence only education funding, restrictions on abortion funding and a return to "family values" which includes those good ol' social controls of shame and shunning.

Please see my post #47 where I say that social stigmas may have been effective. If you read the post, you'll see that I have been thinking about them - meaning I have not decided either way. I will provide no cite, because I'm not saying that is the case.

In addition, I feel that you are painting me with a pretty broad brush. You seem to see me as a "family values" kind of gal. And you couldn't be more wrong about it. For example, see the same post, where I say that teen sex is pretty okay.

Sunrazor was looking for some discussion of this subject, and some "outside the box" thinking. My though is that, perhaps, too many allowances for behavior has the unintended effect, much like some of the welfare arguments.

At no point did I advocate "shame and shunning" If you recall, I've been through this, just as you have, and I do not appreciate the implication that I'm a red-state Christian scum bag.

What is your outside-the-box thought? Because more and more social programs don't seem to be working...

[Broomstick]

CPS has a "Homebound" system for students who are unable to attend school due to injury, illness, or pregnancy. A teacher visits the home several times a week, bringing work for the students to complete and then the completed work is returned to the classroom teachers to be graded. I have had many students go on Homebound, many of whom were pregnant. And most of them ended up returning to school and eventually graduating.
That system has been in place for decades, you know - my husband spent much of his high school years in the hospital and the CPS's willingness to accept hospital tutoring had a lot to do with him being able to get an education.

Now, what I found disturbing about the linked article in the OP was this statement:

Two counselors from East High School approached the school board last month, saying the policy at their school is unfair and inconsiderate because it forces new moms to return to school the day after being discharged from the hospital or face being charged with unexcused absences.
If that is true - that young mothers were being pressured to attend school the day after hospital discharge I have to say that really is a problem. Especially with the trend towards discharging women sooner after childbirth rather than later. Have we forgotten than childbirth is major physical process? These girls really do need time to heal. Cripes - in the job world women get maternity leaves of 8-12 weeks in most jobs. After surgery you get at least a few days to recover at home - and a certain percentage of pregnancies DO wind up being surgeries called "cesearians".

How can absence due to recovery from childbirth or cesearian be UNEXCUSED? WTF kind of double-standard is THAT? That's holding teenagers to a standard that would be considered unreasonable for women out in the working world!

What do you do about young women who have pregnancy complications?

Now, as to what should be granted - perhaps these girls SHOULD take a semester off and come back to summer school or graduate a half a year late. And no, not all young mothers should be forced onto a career track, but they should have the OPTION to finish their high school education and continue on to college if that's in their best interests. In other cases, raising the children early on then going to college later in life might be a better option.

Yes, pregnancy and childbirth is a life-changing experience That should NOT be glossed over. But having pregnant girls "disappear" from high school like in the old days doesn't send a message I'm comfortable with.

[MLS]

I've been thinking about this further, and it just makes me very uncomfortable for two reasons:

1) The article the OP posted is filled with references to "support" that Colorado provides, including very expensive programs such as day care and night schools. Who is paying for this? Is it free to students, or is paid by the Colorado taxpayers? This is an unbelievable amount of money being spent on students who caused their own problem. I know that the argument is that we should get them their diplomas now, so they don't cost more when they're in poverty later. So I think, yes, there should be some help, but don't they have to do their part?

If these girls have decided that getting their diploma is so damned important (and it is), why would they be falling through the cracks and not coming back next semester? If they do not, that means that, at some point, they've decided that a diploma is not so important after all. Dumb decision, but when do we let them be the adults that their pregnancy has made them, and pay the consequences of their actions (NOT the pregnancy, but the decision to stop going to school?)

2) My step-niece, 17, got herself pregnant this summer. Unlike when I turned up pregnant, she was not that upset about it. It certainly wasn't part of the plan, but, based on the experiences of her friend who was 15 (!) and pregnant, it just didn't seem like a huge deal to get all upset about. She knew how to finish school, apply for all of the state taxpayer funded programs and just generally got excited about decorating a nursery. WTF?

Is anyone else on this thread bothered by that at all? Regardless of your feelings about the specific Colorado program we've been discussing, do you recognize that, by removing all of the obstacles for teenagers, we may be dismantling a social check that has been effective in keeping pregnancies low?
First of all, saying "free to students OR paid for by taxes" makes no sense. The answer could be "yes." Or there might be a reduced fee and the difference paid for by taxes. Either way, the choice is to pay (or help pay) for their education now, or pay to subsidize them via welfare or othe social support for the rest of their lives.

Regarding your step-niece: Better call out the angels and the wise men and the shepherds if she really "got herself pregnant."

What would you prefer? Abortion? Shotgun wedding, marriage that may well be doomed to fail anyway? Or is it just that she should feel horribly guilty and ashamed? Or that she should hate the baby? Should the father of the child (and I am sure there really is one, somewhere) be forced to drop out of school be ostracized also? Do you really think that if she were upset about the situation, that she'd reveal it to you, her step-uncle? How do you know she didn't cry herself to sleep for a week and then put on a brave face to the world and make the best of the situation?

[Broomstick]

I2) My step-niece, 17, got herself pregnant this summer. Unlike when I turned up pregnant, she was not that upset about it. It certainly wasn't part of the plan, but, based on the experiences of her friend who was 15 (!) and pregnant, it just didn't seem like a huge deal to get all upset about. She knew how to finish school, apply for all of the state taxpayer funded programs and just generally got excited about decorating a nursery. WTF?

Is anyone else on this thread bothered by that at all?
Um... no.

Seriously, what do you want from your step-niece? To be sobbing her eyes out in shame 10 hours a day? Let's look at these items:

1) "She knew how to finish school" - GOOD, she'll continue with her education. This will give her a shot at a good job and a middle-class or better income down the line.

2) "apply for all the state taxpayer funded programs" - GOOD, she is making use of the support systems available. Would it be better if she hadn't gotten pregnant and didn't need them? Yes. But would it be better if she refused all help and really wound up in a tight spot, say, jobless, homeless, and without adequate education? No! For that matter, I'm in my 40's and lost my job, is it wrong for me to accept unemployment benefits or look into food stamp eligibility due to severe lack of income? Or would you prefer I lose my home and possessions? We're both making use of the social safety net. That's what it's there for - to help people survive difficult circumstances so they can get back on their feet and become taxpayers supporting the safety net.

3) "got excited about decorating a nursery" - GOOD, she's taking a positive interest in the baby. It is NORMAL for women to look forward to having children and making a nice place for them to be. The fact she is decorating a nursery does not, to my mind, make her irresponsible, particularly in connection with her apparent desire to finish her education and make use of her support system. I'd rather see a girl acting like your step niece than crying hysterically, shamed into inaction, or worse.

[WhyNot]

What is your outside-the-box thought? Because more and more social programs don't seem to be working...
But I think they are working. How are they not working if the teenaged pregnancy rate is going down? Isn't that "working"?

I want to see a two-tiered approach. Step 1. Reduce teenage pregnancy. Step 2. Make life easier for those who get pregnant anyway.

I don't think making things easier is going to lead to more girls having babies. We've been slowly making things easier for three decades now, and during that time, the teenage birth rate has steadily dropped.

I believe you that you're not a shame and shunning family values red state kind of gal. It was your vague unquiet and opinion that your niece should be more upset and "your life, as you know it, is now ruined." that gave me that impression, but your word is more important than my impression.

And I understand the tax concerns. But I think it's shortsighted. My fantasy is that giving short term help with discrete goals is more useful than long-term welfare. And I don't see a great financial cost to IEP's or maternity leave programs at school - far less of a cost, certainly, than other welfare programs, and it might make those other programs less needed, which would save money.

Do you really think that if she were upset about the situation, that she'd reveal it to you, her step-uncle? How do you know she didn't cry herself to sleep for a week and then put on a brave face to the world and make the best of the situation?
That's a really good point. I was terrified and spent a whole lot of my time crying. I was in a major clinical depression, but I hid it well. I hid it because I wanted everyone to agree with me that I was mature enough and smart enough to have this baby and that I wasn't making a terrible mistake. Inside I agreed with them all that it was a horrible, horrible thing, but I was NOT going to let my mother be right about that!

[Sateryn76]

But I think they are working. How are they not working if the teenaged pregnancy rate is going down? Isn't that "working"?

I want to see a two-tiered approach. Step 1. Reduce teenage pregnancy. Step 2. Make life easier for those who get pregnant anyway.

I don't think making things easier is going to lead to more girls having babies. We've been slowly making things easier for three decades now, and during that time, the teenage birth rate has steadily dropped.

I believe you that you're not a shame and shunning family values red state kind of gal. It was your vague unquiet and opinion that your niece should be more upset and "your life, as you know it, is now ruined." that gave me that impression, but your word is more important than my impression.

And I understand the tax concerns. But I think it's shortsighted. My fantasy is that giving short term help with discrete goals is more useful than long-term welfare. And I don't see a great financial cost to IEP's or maternity leave programs at school - far less of a cost, certainly, than other welfare programs, and it might make those other programs less needed, which would save money.


That's a really good point. I was terrified and spent a whole lot of my time crying. I was in a major clinical depression, but I hid it well. I hid it because I wanted everyone to agree with me that I was mature enough and smart enough to have this baby and that I wasn't making a terrible mistake. Inside I agreed with them all that it was a horrible, horrible thing, but I was NOT going to let my mother be right about that!

Maybe I just see this differently, because my reaction and decision were so different...

I saw it as "yup. I just ruined my life" And, looking back, in a lot of ways, I did. I had to work hard to make sure I didn't end up in a bad place. My thought is - if girls (and guys!) don't see this as a huge, huge thing, they may not realize the very real consequences their subsequent decisions may have.

So, getting back to the OP, do you think having multiple programs could "soften the blow" and not have the impact that leads to good decision making down the road?

Re: my step-niece - I'm a girl, and being only (!) 31 and having experience with this myself, I talked to my niece about it a lot. We're close, and I'm very close with my sister, so I also got all of the second-hand conversations relayed to me. (It was kinda funny, that my huge mistake had turned out to be good for two things - my daughter (of course) and as a mentor-ish of my niece's unplanned pregnancy!)

I was just shocked that she did not see it as a big deal. And I mean, not really at all. She was far, far more upset about the guy (who split, of course) not really loving her, then the fact she was going to be a mother. I was also icked out that she thought it was okay to take advice from a fifteen year old pregnant girl. That's not who I would take advice from...

So, we talked and talked, and, honestly, I tried to steer her toward getting her GED after the baby came and starting at Purdue in the fall of 2008. That's what I did, and since she didn't actually seem to be that intent on going back (there's a whole back story there), I figured it would be a nice way to keep moving forward.

Re: the social services - I guess I'm not the most unbiased in this subject. I was a teenage mom, and I took zero dollars in social help. No WIC, no welfare, barely any Pell Grants, for crying out loud. My daughter and I lived on my $10,500 a year waiting tables. I borrowed money from my family twice - both times for car repairs, and both in the amount of about $200. Thank Og for medical providers who take small payments forever!

[Broomstick]

Re: the social services - I guess I'm not the most unbiased in this subject. I was a teenage mom, and I took zero dollars in social help.{/quote]
Why the hell not? What were you trying to prove?

And be honest - from the moment you were pregnant were you a completely self-sufficient human being living in and paying for your own home, paying all your utilities, food bills, diaper bills? Or did you live with mom and dad for at least a little while? What did you do about baby-sitting? Did you hire someone, or rely on mom and dad and relatives? That's not "social help"? It's not governmental help, but it sure as hell is help.

[quote]No WIC, no welfare, barely any Pell Grants, for crying out loud. My daughter and I lived on my $10,500 a year waiting tables. I borrowed money from my family twice - both times for car repairs, and both in the amount of about $200. Thank Og for medical providers who take small payments forever!
I just don't get people who are so proud that they refused help - sure, it's great if you don't need it, but it's not a badge of honor to be so blessed, either. Maybe if you had accepted some of that help you and your daughter might have had it just a little bit easier. Maybe you were earning enough money that you didn't qualify anyway, so good for you. Just because YOU could do it doesn't mean your step-niece can. She should at least be aware of what help is out there, what resources she has, and it is HER decision to accept or decline help.

And frankly, your suggestion she drop out of high school and get a GED is not the best advice - it may be, due to other circumstances, her best option but to be honest, in this society, a GED is NOT as good as a high school diploma. If you have a GED and you go on to get a degree that largely (but not entirely) erases the stigma but the IDEAL is for her to get a high school diploma. A GED-followed-by-college is a second choice. A GED with no college degree, however, is definitely inferior to a high school diploma with no college degree.

[Broomstick]

Re: the social services - I guess I'm not the most unbiased in this subject. I was a teenage mom, and I took zero dollars in social help.{/quote]
Why the hell not? What were you trying to prove?

And be honest - from the moment you were pregnant were you a completely self-sufficient human being living in and paying for your own home, paying all your utilities, food bills, diaper bills? Or did you live with mom and dad for at least a little while? What did you do about baby-sitting? Did you hire someone, or rely on mom and dad and relatives? That's not "social help"? It's not governmental help, but it sure as hell is help.

[quote]No WIC, no welfare, barely any Pell Grants, for crying out loud. My daughter and I lived on my $10,500 a year waiting tables. I borrowed money from my family twice - both times for car repairs, and both in the amount of about $200. Thank Og for medical providers who take small payments forever!
I just don't get people who are so proud that they refused help - sure, it's great if you don't need it, but it's not a badge of honor to be so blessed, either. Maybe if you had accepted some of that help you and your daughter might have had it just a little bit easier. Maybe you were earning enough money that you didn't qualify anyway, so good for you. Just because YOU could do it doesn't mean your step-niece can. She should at least be aware of what help is out there, what resources she has, and it is HER decision to accept or decline help.

And frankly, your suggestion she drop out of high school and get a GED is not the best advice - it may be, due to other circumstances, her best option but to be honest, in this society, a GED is NOT as good as a high school diploma. If you have a GED and you go on to get a degree that largely (but not entirely) erases the stigma but the IDEAL is for her to get a high school diploma. A GED-followed-by-college is a second choice. A GED with no college degree, however, is definitely inferior to a high school diploma with no college degree.

[Dangerosa]

I have to agree with Sateryn, seems like a ridiculously expensive approach. Why not give them leave, then delay graduation by a semester and have them retake the classes they missed? That's what happens with my job when I go on maternity leave, or college, my progress gets delayed by the amount of time I take leave.

Granted, that would probably mean less of these young women finish high school. But I think women that are motivated to make a better life have avenues to do so (GED, night school) and the ones that aren't aren't going to be truly helped regardless of how much money we throw at them.

I'd rather use limited education funding somewhere else.

[Zoe]

I will tell you what really bothered me the most: Having to give a final exam to a student who was in labor. If I had it to do all over again, I would have refused and required an order from the school board. Can you imagine the possible consequences of the principal's decision? (The full class was present.)

[Broomstick]

Re: the social services - I guess I'm not the most unbiased in this subject. I was a teenage mom, and I took zero dollars in social help.
Why the hell not? What were you trying to prove?

And be honest - from the moment you were pregnant were you a completely self-sufficient human being living in and paying for your own home, paying all your utilities, food bills, diaper bills? Or did you live with mom and dad for at least a little while? What did you do about baby-sitting? Did you hire someone, or rely on mom and dad and relatives? That's not "social help"? It's not governmental help, but it sure as hell is help.

No WIC, no welfare, barely any Pell Grants, for crying out loud. My daughter and I lived on my $10,500 a year waiting tables. I borrowed money from my family twice - both times for car repairs, and both in the amount of about $200. Thank Og for medical providers who take small payments forever!
I just don't get people who are so proud that they refused help - sure, it's great if you don't need it, but it's not a badge of honor to be so blessed, either. Maybe if you had accepted some of that help you and your daughter might have had it just a little bit easier. Maybe you were earning enough money that you didn't qualify anyway, so good for you. Just because YOU could do it doesn't mean your step-niece can. She should at least be aware of what help is out there, what resources she has, and it is HER decision to accept or decline help.

A suggestion she drop out of high school and get a GED is not the best advice - it may be, due to other circumstances, her best option but to be honest, in this society, a GED is NOT as good as a high school diploma. If you have a GED and you go on to get a degree that largely (but not entirely) erases the stigma but the IDEAL is for her to get a high school diploma. A GED-followed-by-college is a second choice. A GED with no college degree, however, is definitely inferior to a high school diploma with no college degree.

[Ocean Annie]

I'm not so sure the moral issue is either beside the point or less important than education. I'm an educator, but I think part of the education process has to be a commitment to morality, and as a near-atheist, I'm convinced morality is universal, not just religious.

This article (http://www.makewayforbaby.com/teenpregnancy.htm) argues that, while Americans overwhelmingly want teen-agers to abstain, they also understand that they're human and need access to birth control. (It also destroys some racial preconceptions we have about who gets pregnant.)

I have to say, I get the feeling from most of the posts so far that I'm supposed to adopt an attitude that it's not my problem, so I shouldn't judge or preach. But it is my problem, and everyone else's, to the tune of $9.1 billion (http://www.teenpregnancy.org/costs/) a year. And in this specific case we're talking about the Denver Public School District, largest in Colorado, which soaks up huge sums of state tax dollars, of which I personally supply a my fair share every year. So it is very much my problem.



If you are worried about your tax dollars funding the massive U.S. welfare state, encouraging young mothers to get an education is the most cost effective way to keep her off of public assistance, enabling her to provide a decent life for her child.

The alternative is to continue faith based - abstinence only - sex education. Shun the pregnant teen. Offer no support for the child. And eventually fill the jails with more throwaway kids. Now, this is tax dollars at work. Your tax dollars can help or punish. I suppose it boils down to morality.

[Oregon sunshine]

I'd LOL if it wasn't so sad.

Why are we celebrating a poor girl getting pregnant?
Because it's a NEW HUMAN BEING!

I work at a food stamp office, and the first thing I generally say to a pregnant or recently become a parent client is "congratulations"... regardless of age, homeless or marital status, or other aspects of the situation. Is common human decency so difficult to grasp?

At what point does a pregnancy become "acceptable" enough to celebrate? When she's 18? When she's married to the father? Is there a yearly income amount that would satisfy your silly notions of when it's right or wrong to celebrate a pregnancy? Isn't an abandoned, impoverished mom's life hard enough without some imperious person like you saying she doesn't have the right to be happy or celebrate the birth of her child?

This kind of thinking has landed us in the moral vacuum in which we now live... in which some are valued more than others based upon income and other material characteristics. Boo on you for perpetuating this type of thinking fallacy.

[Triskadecamus]

In the end, my decision on this sort of thing is always based on present tense actual facts in a personal case.

I got a teenage girl, who is pregnant, and has not finished high school. Me, I want her to do a lot of stuff. Finish high school, get good medical care, eat well, stay off drugs. This girl, this time, right now. I find the argument that doing that, or assuring that that will happen is going to have a bad effect on my society to be . . . well dumb.

The argument implying that not letting her finish high school will be a deterrence to other girls is . . . well really cruel, stupid, and self righteous. And, of course, wrong. Wrong as in incorrect, wrong as in cruel, wrong as in stupid, wrong as in evil. Deterrence is a really badly failed principle for criminal laws, but the argument in favor of it is somewhat mitigated because we are, in that case discussing criminal behavior.

You want to keep little girls from having sex while they are in high school? Try increasing the amount of involvement between them, and their parents, and the social structure of their communities. Give them the love and support that a child needs. And if they get pregnant anyway, then love them all the more, and their babies.

The reflex for "who's fault is it" management is pernicious.

Tris

[Muffin]

But where else are you going to get the unskilled cheap labour pool once you build your fence at the border? A great way to ensure that you never run out of peons is to preach abstinence to teenagers and kick them out of school when they get pregnant. Hey, someone has to live at the bottom of the shit-pile – might as well the immoral ones who deliberately ignored the baby Jesus' commandments. :smack:

[Dangerosa]

I got a teenage girl, who is pregnant, and has not finished high school. Me, I want her to do a lot of stuff. Finish high school, get good medical care, eat well, stay off drugs. This girl, this time, right now. I find the argument that doing that, or assuring that that will happen is going to have a bad effect on my society to be . . . well dumb.

The problem I have is how much "assuring" we need to do. To some extend high school is a great case of "you can lead a horse to water...." You can't make someone get an education, you can simply make it available to them. And yes, you can make it easier for people, and that will encourage them to get it. But I think there are better use of limited resources that would be more valuable across a larger population - this one sounds VERY resource intensive.

[Sateryn76]

Why the hell not? What were you trying to prove?

And be honest - from the moment you were pregnant were you a completely self-sufficient human being living in and paying for your own home, paying all your utilities, food bills, diaper bills? Or did you live with mom and dad for at least a little while? What did you do about baby-sitting? Did you hire someone, or rely on mom and dad and relatives? That's not "social help"? It's not governmental help, but it sure as hell is help.

Yes, I accepted help from my family - mostly, as you pointed out, baby-sitting and the occasional pack of diapers. That, in my view, is the ideal situation. Family helping family. So sue me.

I wasn't trying to "prove anything", except to myself - that I could do it, that my life wouldn't be awful, that I could be a "grown-up"


I just don't get people who are so proud that they refused help - sure, it's great if you don't need it, but it's not a badge of honor to be so blessed, either. Maybe if you had accepted some of that help you and your daughter might have had it just a little bit easier. Maybe you were earning enough money that you didn't qualify anyway, so good for you.

You know what - I'm damned proud. Not that anyone who gets help should be ashamed, but I got a lot of self-worth out of it.

[Sateryn76]

I'd LOL if it wasn't so sad.


Because it's a NEW HUMAN BEING!

I work at a food stamp office, and the first thing I generally say to a pregnant or recently become a parent client is "congratulations"... regardless of age, homeless or marital status, or other aspects of the situation. Is common human decency so difficult to grasp?

At what point does a pregnancy become "acceptable" enough to celebrate? When she's 18? When she's married to the father? Is there a yearly income amount that would satisfy your silly notions of when it's right or wrong to celebrate a pregnancy? Isn't an abandoned, impoverished mom's life hard enough without some imperious person like you saying she doesn't have the right to be happy or celebrate the birth of her child?

This kind of thinking has landed us in the moral vacuum in which we now live... in which some are valued more than others based upon income and other material characteristics. Boo on you for perpetuating this type of thinking fallacy.

My point was not that poor girls should be skinned alive, or whatever you're assuming. It was that I was uncomfortable taking a group of 7-8-9 year old girls, and saying "Look! If you get pregnant and have no money, total strangers will have a big party for you, with presents and balloons any everything! It weirds me out a little bit.

Had my niece not lost her baby, I would have planned and made invitations and salads and everything else. But, I don't think you can force total strangers to celebrate another teenage mom...

[Muffin]

How does one break the generational welfare cycle? One place to start is by moving heaven and earth to keep kids in school, such that they develop the skills necessary to move on up financially in the world, and such that they are inculcated in a culture in which education and employment are priorities.

[Sateryn76]

If you are worried about your tax dollars funding the massive U.S. welfare state, encouraging young mothers to get an education is the most cost effective way to keep her off of public assistance, enabling her to provide a decent life for her child.

The alternative is to continue faith based - abstinence only - sex education. Shun the pregnant teen. Offer no support for the child. And eventually fill the jails with more throwaway kids. Now, this is tax dollars at work. Your tax dollars can help or punish. I suppose it boils down to morality.


Yahoo - you guys are right!! I love Jebus!! :rolleyes:

The original request was for new ideas to deal with teenage pregnancy and the resulting educational problem. So we have two options right now (possibly three depending on Colorado's system):

1. The night school program
2. IEP's
3. Losing a semester, and graduating a semester late

So, do we need to add another option, and it's costs - including not only the costs in time and tax dollars, but also the opportunity costs of money and time being spent that may be better spent elsewhere? I'm sure there other places to spend education money that would help a larger sector of all kids - better materials, tutoring help, after-school programs.

I have several new ideas that may help. How about a free Depo shot clinic at the school? How about updating the Sex Ed classes to include information about how to deal with an unplanned pregnancy from a strictly practical standpoint - leaving out the emotional component, so if it happens, they have an idea of how to proceed? Hell, how about free abortions?

[Broomstick]

Yes, I accepted help from my family - mostly, as you pointed out, baby-sitting and the occasional pack of diapers. That, in my view, is the ideal situation. Family helping family. So sue me.
Well, it's wonderful that your family actually helped you, but a lot of girls don't have that. In fact, it's still the case that a lot of people want to punish pregnant unwed girls.

[Dangerosa]

Well, it's wonderful that your family actually helped you, but a lot of girls don't have that. In fact, it's still the case that a lot of people want to punish pregnant unwed girls.

Yeah, but there seems to me to be a difference between punishing them (you can't go to school, we won't take you back after a semester, we won't offer night school, we won't offer daycare, you can't participate in activities or go to prom) and enabling them (personally, I think daycare is over in the enabling range, but its the sort of "making it easier" that serves a fairly large population and I think does far more good than the cost). This sounds like we are over into "oh, honey, let me do pretty much everything but your actual math homework for you" territory.

I don't have a clue what the Denver schools are like, but my own district in Minnesota is stretched so thin meeting NCLB and IEP programs that we don't have librarians, or art teachers anymore, the antiquated sewer pipes which we didn't fix because of budget problems broke and flooded the building, and we have constant class size battles. It bugs me when my kids are in an elementary classroom with 38 people in it (they haven't yet, we've had other classes that big) but sending tutors out to a student on "maternity leave."

If "maternity leave" really means "you'll have to get your work done on your own to your teachers satisfaction or you'll repeat the semester" - that's great, that's simply not enforcing stupid mandatory attendance policies for these girls - that's fair. That may mean your teachers have to send work back and forth with a friend, but that's the way schools have taken care of extended illness for years - more work for the teacher, but most teachers figure out a system to deal with that fast. If it means tutors swinging by your home for four weeks, or graduating on time without having competency in the material - that's more resources than I want to throw at this problem for the first, and frightening for the second.