A charter school mandates pregnancy tests for students suspected of being pregnant. Is that going too far?
Should a public charter school be able to demand that its students undergo pregnancy tests? (AP Images)
UPDATE Wednesday: The school is changing its policy. The Associated Press reports that the school chairman said no one at the school realized there was anything wrong with the policy until the American Civil Liberties Union’s state chapter threatened to sue.
Original post:
A Louisiana charter school is in the news this week for its policy of mandating pregnancy tests for female students if there are any suspicions that the girls are pregnant. And then kicks out anyone who is pregnant.
Dehli Charter School in Dehli, La., has 600 students in grades k-12 and presents its pregnancy policy as an effort to maintain its high standard for student character.
In its policy book, Dehli Charter School states: “The school reserves the right to require any female student to take a pregnancy test to confirm whether or not the suspected student is in fact pregnant. The school further reserves the right to refer the student to a physician of its choice. If the test indicates that the student is pregnant, the student will not be permitted to attend classes on the campus of Dehli Charter School.”
The policy goes on to say that the student can purchase a homeschooling program if she wishes to continue her education.
So what happens if a student refuses to take a pregnancy test?
The policy states, “Any student who is suspected of being pregnant and refuses to submit to a pregnancy test shall be treated as a pregnant student and will be offered home study opportunities.”
Among the many criticisms of this policy, including what appear to be blatant violations of federal law: The policy does not address male students who engage in sexual relations that result in a pregnancy.
“The pregnancy policy violates the rights of every girl at Delhi Charter School,” said Marjorie R. Esman, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana. “Every girl is at risk of being subject to intrusive medical testing, and possibly forced out of school, for reasons that have nothing to do with her education.”
“The right to attend school and to participate fully in activities cannot be denied simply because a student is, or may be, pregnant,” said Galen Sherwin of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. “Pregnancy is not a disease, and schools may not treat it that way. The administrators of Delhi Charter School should be ashamed that they seek to deprive students of the benefits of going to school every day.”
The ACLU has asked the school to end the policy. In a statement issued Monday, the ACLU said:
Today, the ACLU of Louisiana and the ACLU Women’s Rights Project asked Delhi Charter School to immediately suspend this discriminatory and illegal policy.
The policy’s complete disregard for Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities, is astonishing. Title IX and its regulations explicitly mandate that schools cannot exclude any student from an education program or activity, “including any class or extracurricular activity, on the basis of such student’s pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy or recovery therefrom.”
Besides violating Title IX, the policy is also in violation of the Constitution’s due process right to procreate, and equal protection: it treats female students differently from male students and relies on archaic stereotypes linked to sex and pregnancy.
Approximately 70 percent of teen girls who give birth leave school, due in part to illegal discrimination. Schools should be supporting pregnant and parenting teens that face numerous barriers to completing their education, not illegally excluding them from school. The ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project protects the rights of pregnant and parenting teens through advocacy, education, and litigation, working to combat the push-out of pregnant and parenting teens from school.
Looking over the school’s lengthy policy handbook, the school also permits corporal punishment . One of the considerations of whether and how to use physical discipline on students is: “The student’s ability to bear the punishment.”
–From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
84 comments Add your comment
Mikes
August 7th, 2012
3:38 pm
Tolerating immoral behavior that leads to poor education results is worth fighting against.
tim
August 7th, 2012
3:45 pm
That’s their rule………
If you don’t like it….
go somewhere else
Jane W.
August 7th, 2012
3:46 pm
@Bernie: Once again trending toward the silly, Bernie?
You need to move out of mommy’s basement, make more friends, find a job and pay taxes. The world will gradually become a less frightening place for you.
And you’ll likely appear less emotionally unstable if you can especially refrain from commenting on women’s issues!
Chunter
August 7th, 2012
3:47 pm
Once again trying to sow hatred of Republicans, Bernie?
You need to move out of mommy’s basement, make more friends, find a job and pay taxes. The world will gradually become a less frightening place for you.
And hey, give the caps key a break! You LOOK even less emotionally stable than you sound.
— Jane W.
Beverly Fraud
August 7th, 2012
3:51 pm
@tim it might be “their” rule, but it’s OUR tax dollars.
GABlueStarMom
August 7th, 2012
3:55 pm
It is a charter school, they make the rules. If you can’t abide by them, then move on and open the spot up for someone who will. Lack of accountability, responsibility and anything goes, public school is what created the need for Charter Schools in the first place……..And yes, a 15 yr. old pregnant IS distracting!
Bernie
August 7th, 2012
4:05 pm
Mikes @ 3:38 pm – Words of wisdom for one who is without a VAGINA and who would never tolerate political legislation of any parts of his MALE body or his GUN!
Woody
August 7th, 2012
4:20 pm
Um, the presence of a pregnant student does not ‘harm’ other students or disrupt their education. It does, however, possibly damage the image of the school, which is what the school was thinking of when they wrote their rulebook. I would think the continued presence of a pregnant student would be a caution to the others, n’est ce pas? As a visible consequence? This school is thinking of its image, not the welfare of students.
catlady
August 7th, 2012
4:45 pm
tim: It is a PUBLIC school.
Bubba, in 1974 it was not against the law.
Pride and Joy
August 7th, 2012
5:04 pm
Mikes you make the point that “Tolerating immoral behavior that leads to poor education results is worth fighting against.”
I understand your point. You don’t want teenage pregnancy to be thought of as “normal” and “acceptable.” The truth is, the more we see it, the more common it is, the more acceptable it is.
So, I understand your desire, which is the same as mine, to prevent teenage pregnancy, especially when the teenager has few financial resources and has a lack of support (such as an absent father).
But by banning pregnant teenagers from school, we’ve done two things:
Guarantee the mother and child lives in poverty.
Guarantee that you and I, as taxpayers, will pay to keep that mother and her child in poverty for the rest of their lives. It’s a very expensive thing to provide care for those two people forever and that’s what will happen if you don’t educate the mother.
I advocate for a third option — alternative school for the mother and the father. the father needs an education too if we expect him to ultimately support the child instead of you and me paying for the three of them.
We should focus on pregnany prevention and when it happens, ensure an education for them, albeit one away from other kids who absolutely ARE influenced by seeing pregnant girls.
You have to understand, teenaged girls thing pregnancy is thrilling. They get so much attentoin and babies certainly are cute and fun but they don’t have the means to financially support the child and emotionally support the child.
These girls and their partners need to finish their educations so you and I won’t have them as parasites on we taxpayers for the rest of their lives.
So, educate them and do it in an environment that nurtures them away from other easily-influenced teenagers.
Hillbilly D
August 7th, 2012
5:08 pm
I advocate for a third option — alternative school for the mother and the father. the father needs an education too if we expect him to ultimately support the child instead of you and me paying for the three of them.
I actually like this idea. I think there are problems with either of the extremes and this is somewhat down the middle.
Back when I went to school, pregnant girls (only were 2 or 3 that I can remember) were automatically out of school. I also remember a boy and girl who got married secretly and kept going to school. When it was found out that they were married, they got kicked out, too. I think there’s an element of throwing the baby out with the bath water, in that.
Gina McNair
August 7th, 2012
5:23 pm
I learned today of a student that is expecting not one, but two children, from different mothers this year. He’s going to need all the schooling he can get in order to pay child support for the next 18 years, as will the mothers, one of whom is a student and the other who just graduated, because odds are he won’t be able to pony up.
I love teaching. I hate what it is becoming...
August 7th, 2012
5:53 pm
@GABlueStar Mom “It is a charter school, they make the rules. If you can’t abide by them, then move on and open the spot up for someone who will.
Except, as Charter proponents keep reminding us, Charters ARE public schools, and as such must follow public school policies. They cannot institute religiously or morally based discrimination and still be supported by tax dollars. Not without facing lawsuits.
“Lack of accountability, responsibility and anything goes, public school is what created the need for Charter Schools in the first place……..”
That is what created the DEMAND for tax funded Charter schools that would ACT like private schools and allow parents to “escape” from public schools which must educate everyone. Problem is, they ARE NOT private schools, and they CANNOT act like it and still receive tax payer funding!
Something comes to mind about having your cake and eating it too. Which is what a lot of us have been saying all along!
Ron F.
August 7th, 2012
6:06 pm
As a publicly funded school, they are subject to existing law, federal and state. They can’t force her to take a pregnancy test and they can’t kick her out. Period, end of discussion. I can’t imagine a parent giving permission for that anyway, and I think they would need that for a minor, wouldn’t they? This is not a good example for charter supporters. If these schools which call themselves charter schools are to be considered public schools, then they have to follow existing laws.
catlady
August 7th, 2012
6:15 pm
At that school your “urine” is actually “theirsn’”
Beverly Fraud
August 7th, 2012
7:25 pm
“Tolerating immoral behavior that leads to poor education results is worth fighting against.”
@Mikes would you mean by immoral behavior NOT having an abortion, just because your pregnancy was against your will?
But so many of the Christian right would describe that as MORAL behavior. So you would support a charter school that throws students out who, by their own Christian definition, are engaged in MORAL behavior?
So MANY stupid people; so LITTLE time
sigh
LarryMajor
August 7th, 2012
8:27 pm
So… Dehli Charter School would have expelled Mother Mary because she wasn’t moral enough for them. That’s a though provoking position.
Beverly Fraud
August 7th, 2012
9:41 pm
@LarryMajor, apparently they would have expelled Bristol Palin as well.
You betcha!
William Casey
August 7th, 2012
9:51 pm
@williebkind: I am eternally grateful that I will never sit in a classroom with you.
3schoolkids
August 7th, 2012
10:27 pm
This is a school that also allows corporal punishment, see page 108 of their school policy manual:
http://www.delhicharterschool.org/www/dcscharter/site/hosting/Delhi_Charter_School_Policy_Manual.html
It basically says to the parents that if they do not agree with corporal punishment, they should not have their child/children attend the school. I guess that is their message, get with their program or get out. Pretty much the message with all charters so why are we surprised?
3schoolkids
August 7th, 2012
10:44 pm
Page 130 of the policy manual is where the school “reserves the right to require any female student to take a pregnancy test to confirm whether or not the student is in fact pregnant. The school further reserves the right to refer the suspected student to the physician of its choice.” Say WHAAAAAT?
The policy manual stops short of saying a student will be expelled if they refuse to take the test or if they refuse home study.
3schoolkids
August 7th, 2012
11:15 pm
See attached links to Delhi Charter School listing in us news school report and also one for Delhi High School (the local public school alternative) and note the differences in demographics:
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/louisiana/districts/richland-parish/delhi-high-school-8721
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/louisiana/districts/delhi-charter-school/delhi-charter-school-8455
Pride and Joy
August 8th, 2012
8:38 am
Beverly Fraud, you’re way out on a limb today. You made a snarky comment about another poster who wrote “Tolerating immoral behavior that leads to poor education results is worth fighting against.”
I agree with that poster. The immoral behavior I am referring to is having children and requiring other people to pay for them. That’s stealing.
Pregnancy is preventable, easily preventable, expect in the obvious case of rape. Many little girls are raped by the very people who are supposed to protect them, including their own coaches, teachers and parents.
What the poster is referring to is unmarried sex. What I am referring to is unprotected sex. That, in my opinion is immoral.
Do you remember the saying “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime?”
I have another one “If you can’t pay for the baby, don’t make one.”
Children born to teenaged parents are a huge drain on our society. It all but guarantees mother and child will live in poverty and continue to bleed we tax-payers out of our money we need to support ourselvs.
Instead of expressing moral outrage over the idea of an abortion, you should instead spend your energy teaching your community the positive benefits of delaying childbirth and providing the necessary tools and medicines — and morals — to prevent the pregnancy.
Beverly Fraud
August 8th, 2012
9:02 am
You missed the point Pride and Joy. That point being, that as a logical consequence of this charter schools policies, it would be considered immoral (and worthy of expulsion) for a victim of rape or incest to carry the baby to full term.
Does a victim of rape or incest DESERVE to be labeled “immoral” and expelled for school?
Ron F.
August 8th, 2012
10:52 am
3schoolkids: Good information! The facts don’t lie, and this is exactly what I see charters becoming in smaller systems in Georgia. In the rural counties, the negative racial issues are far from solved. The charter schools will likely further the racial separation rather than help solve it.
Katieminna
August 8th, 2012
12:50 pm
Why shouldn’t they have mandatory pregnancy tests for sexually active girls? We have drug tests for athletes. I remember when I was in high school in the late 90’s, there were a handful of pregnant girls walking around, but as my sister just graduated this past year, I not only saw pregnant girls walking around, I saw one with a baby seat on the school bus! What’s happening is that teen pregnancy is on the rise and the policy of “acceptance” is getting out of hand. Maybe by letting girls know that they will be tested and removed from school if pregnant will deter them from engaging in unprotected sex (which is likely what they are doing).
Ole Guy
August 8th, 2012
12:51 pm
HELL DAMN NO, this ain’t, as one would imply, “going to far”. By accepting a kid, any kid, into the classroom, there is a level of RESPONSIBILITY which must be borne by the school (read that to mean anyone owning property). What if some “girl thing” pops up, requiring some level of medical intervention beyond the capabilities of the school medical staff? Is the school nurse trained and certified in pre-natal requirements…that is to say, are the tax payers willing to support…in addition to the current goings-ons and what-have-you…the potential (and very real) possibilities of all the scenarios which can only be considered, AT BEST, mere distractions (as though there weren’t enough) to the educational process. What the hell’s next…an on-campus L&D facility. Howbout an ICU/CCU for those kids who fall prey to the onset of maladies once the domain of my gen.
OF COURSE THIS REQUIREMENT ISN’T GOING TOO FAR! If kids, and their parents, are to view education as a right (which it most-certainly is), than the lil’ ole annoyance known as RESPONSIBILITY simply must be in the equation.
When are you folks going to realize that, with everything in life, there simply must be a balance; an accompanyment, of BOTH right AND responsibilities. If the prego kid is going to attend a publically-funded educational facility, the facility, in accepting such, assumes a level of responsibility somewhat beyond the norm. Is this so gd hard to comprehend?
Pride and Joy
August 8th, 2012
1:23 pm
Sorry, Bev Fraud, it’s you that missed the point. No one here is advocating an abortion. I don’t know where you got that notion.
What the poster proposed is not to allow the girl to go to THAT charter school when she is pregnant.
I agree.
We need alternative schools for pregnant students AND the boy who impregnated her. They need a differernt kind of education, one that along with math and science, nurtures family responsibility and development. The goal being, to teach these kids how to care for the child — and encouraging the boy to see it is his responsibility to care for the child, while learning their geography and science and math.
They’re kids.
Ideally, our bodies should not be able to procreate until we are 21 but that’s an issue I’ll have to discuss with Mother Nature.
So, calm down, Bev.
No one is saying — hey — let’s make the girl have an abortion.
What I and others are saying is — yes, pregnant girls in school have a negative impact on their peers. We want to discourage teenaged pregnancy for all the usual ills it causes.
The best way to do that is to separate those sexually active, pregnant teenagers from the rest of the crowd so as not to influence others to become pregnant or to impregnate others.
Surely you recognize that children born to poor, immature parents are a big problem to all of us, especially the child.
Pride and Joy
August 8th, 2012
1:32 pm
Beverly, you asked “Does a victim of rape or incest DESERVE to be labeled “immoral” and expelled for school?”
Of course not.
You’re arguing for the exception in the extreme.
Most teenaged girls who are pregnant in high school got that way because they and there boyfriends were having unprotected sex.
When communities don’t have good family values, other communities should have a right not to place their children in that unhealthy environment.
And let’s get real here.
This is Louisianna we’re talking about.
Public schools in Louisianna are the blackest of all. They make Atlanta schools look pale.
What is going on in LA is that many black parents don’t want their children influenced by the casual acceptance and expectation of teenaged, unwed pregnancies.
Instead of faulting people for wanting to do the right thing (delay childbirth and teach their children to delay childbirth) you should be helping your community reach the common goal for all people — delay childbirth until one is financially and emotionally ready.
Let me make it clear, I am not advocating for abstenence training. I am advocating for using birth control consistently and wisely.
Frankie
August 8th, 2012
3:53 pm
as much as we want to see the pregnancy amonung our youth decrease this is not the way to do it…
Will the teacher also determine who the father is if they suspect the female student to be pregnant.
How about teach sex education in the schools and abstanance in the home.
It is working thus far for my two girls…both are over 15 and neither has been pregnant. As far as i know they both are virgins but i digress.
THis is pretty stupid idea for a school try and mandate something like this.
I ask of the school what have you done to prvent this in the first place..if you want to be an elitess school how about settingthe example through knowledge.
Ron F.
August 8th, 2012
7:24 pm
Pride: If you look at the stats posted online and noted by 3schoolkids at 11:15p.m. yesterday, the local high school is over 90% black and the charter school in question here is 79% WHITE. Now I’m no mathematician, but those numbers make it look a lot like racially motivated creation of the charter school to me, and definitely no lottery or open-door enrollment. How else could you explain the racial disparity? Did only 20% of black parents care about what school their kids attended?
3schoolkids
August 8th, 2012
7:26 pm
@Pride and Joy, you are saying it is ok if the kids have sex, they just can’t get pregnant? Because only poor or stupid people get pregnant? You are aware that no birth control is 100% effective except abstinence (note the correct spelling)? So why not require the students to sign a pledge that they will not have sex while a student at Delhi Charter School and then lay out in the policy what will happen if anyone (boy or girl) is suspected of having sex?
3schoolkids
August 8th, 2012
7:28 pm
Also, if you click the links I provided above you will see that the local public school with a much higher percentage of minority and “at risk” students actually outperforms the charter school.
3schoolkids
August 8th, 2012
7:46 pm
The school announced today they are changing their policy. Scary thing is the policy manual linked above is dated 2007! It took 5 years for anyone to notice?