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
Beverly Fraud
August 7th, 2012
11:12 am
Well this ought to be a shining example the charter school advocates can hold up LOL
Why not just make it simple and say while you have a right to an education, so do your CLASSMATES; and if you make behavior choices that consistently interfere with THEIR right, you will lose your privileged of being education in this particular educational setting?
And then MEAN it.
You don’t think after the first dozen or so are removed, the rest will get the message? And if they don’t the parents CERTAINLY will.
Katy
August 7th, 2012
11:18 am
” if you make behavior choices that consistently interfere with THEIR right”
How does being pregnant while sitting in a classroom interfere with anyone’s right to an education? I doubt these ladies became pregnant in the middle of biology class.
DJ Sniper
August 7th, 2012
11:24 am
Here’s my question: What kind of punishment will be doled out to male students who get female students pregnant? Will they get kicked out as well, or will they just get a slap on the wrist and be allowed to continue their education?
catlady
August 7th, 2012
11:24 am
Now, THIS I could not support! MYOB, school!
I remember when pregnant, married teachers were “encouraged” to resign once they started to show.
I remember when I was asked what kind of bc we were using when we applied for a loan to buy a house.
Beverly Fraud
August 7th, 2012
11:28 am
Will the pregnant student do the class work?
Will the pregnant student follow the class rules?
What other criteria does there need to be?
Beverly Fraud
August 7th, 2012
11:29 am
“How does being pregnant while sitting in a classroom interfere with anyone’s right to an education?”
EXACTLY my point @Katy. It doesn’t.
Jefferson
August 7th, 2012
11:29 am
Public funded private schools, courts should step in.
Bubba Buttcrack
August 7th, 2012
11:32 am
@catlady 11:24 I hope you told them it was none of their blankety-blank business what type of bc you were using!
Ashley
August 7th, 2012
11:41 am
Since Immaculate Conception is out of the question, what happens to the male students at this school who might be the daddy or engage in teen-sex with other females at this charter school? With the ACLU leading the charge this won’t be resolved anytime soon. Once again a patriarchal society is trying to invade the female womb and dictate how a woman should conduct herself. Educating these boys and girls might be a better solution, instead of showing disdain for a student who might become pregnant. Granted teens becoming pregnant while still in school is a dilemma and still carries social stigma in some circle, but kicking someone out of school for becoming pregnant is plain archaic!
MS MAN
August 7th, 2012
11:41 am
How did this charter get approved? Constitutional issues all over the place. This needed to be a private school, not a public charter. These things are reasons why the charter movement is in danger of not doing what it was intended to do when started in 1990s in Minnesota. This is a tough one to overlook. The charter movement needs to do a better job of managing good vs. bad charters. That being said, a bad charter can exist just like a bad public or bad private school can exist.
jd
August 7th, 2012
11:44 am
Louisiana Charter Schools are held in high esteem by Sen. Chip Rogers. Coming Soon to your county, via State fiat (If you vote for the constitutional amendment).
Beverly Fraud
August 7th, 2012
11:48 am
Well if we ever needed proof that Republicans can be as EQUALLY stupid as Democrats…
Again, will the pregnant student do the class work?
Will the pregnant student follow the class rules?
What more do you need of a student?
Bernie
August 7th, 2012
11:57 am
Thank God for the ACLU! I do hope that the legislators here Georgia have a huge reserve of funds to defend similar actions that will be soon here in Georgia.
You can’t fix STUPID!, but you can SUE when stupid and unconstitutional policies are enacted! and WIN!
Georgia has a well documented History of such misplaced delusional and backwards thinking and many here are only far to glad to follow in the same footsteps!
Similar polices of sort will be coming soon to a CHARTER SCHOOL nearest to YOU! you can count on it!
intown parent
August 7th, 2012
11:58 am
And if she’s pregnant from incest, familial abuse, teacher-power abuse or rape, what then -??
What about the father of the child?
August 7th, 2012
11:58 am
It takes two to tango….but all these administrators seem interested in is policing the bodies of female students.
Forced to take a preganancy test? Really??? So basically they are trying to kick female students out before they even show. What for, exactly? Talk about an abuse of power.
What a bunch of jerks.
Beverly Fraud
August 7th, 2012
12:00 pm
How dare you ask an intelligent question intown parent. You obviously ain’t no God fearin Christian, You obviously are a SPAWN of SATAN!
Maureen Downey
August 7th, 2012
12:14 pm
@intown, I think those are important considerations. (The degree of incest became clear to me 20 years ago when I did a story on a pregnancy clinic that Grady had started for girls under the age of 14. Most of the girls were incest victims. I went to the apartment of a 12-year-old with a baby; she was the victim of sexual abuse by relatives. It is a sobering moment to sit across from a sixth grader holding her infant.)
There are so many wrong things about this policy. Consider the humiliation factor of a 13 or 14 year old girl — already self-conscious about her body — being asked to take a test because she put on weight.
Maureen
williebkind
August 7th, 2012
12:19 pm
Ahhh Haa! See what happens to schools and education when groups like the ACLU jump in. That is why education should be voluntary. No government involvement what so ever. The pregnant teen violated a school policy and the ACLU and you other whacko liberals think she is being discriminated against. You are the problem with education! Like this statement:
“You can’t fix STUPID!, but you can SUE when stupid and unconstitutional policies are enacted! and WIN!”
Now only a flamming whacko liberal socialist would go there! What is unconstitutional? Have you redefined the constitutional again?
williebkind
August 7th, 2012
12:25 pm
Maureen:
Consider the humiliation factor of a 13 or 14 year old girl — already self-conscious about her body — being asked to take a test because she put on weight”
How about the uncomfort of other teens having to endure watching this girl get bigger every day! How about the uncomfort if she screams out in pain! Oh but that is not being sensitive is it. OMG!
I would not want to sit in a learning environment having to see a pregnant girl of underage there. It would be very distracting to me.
DJ Sniper
August 7th, 2012
12:31 pm
Something else to think about: potential HIPPA violations. That alone should shut this thing down.
Williebkind, please let the adults speak on this subject. Also, let’s say you have a daughter and they try to force a pregnancy test on her simply because they think she may be pregnant. I seriously doubt you would be ok with that.
Chunter
August 7th, 2012
12:35 pm
Abject fear and loathing—of competition, accountability and especially the ogre of parental choice … are on display daily here at Get Schooled. First-time readers (should there be any) must keep in mind that this AJC blog functions primarily as a platform for disseminating the teachers’ union viewpoint.
You know, the union viewpoint made infamous by the documentary film WAITING FOR SUPERMAN.
Wondering
August 7th, 2012
12:39 pm
Isn’t it the Supreme Court that said not covering the costs of pregnancy in a benefit plan was not sex discrimination because they would not cover the costs regardless of the gender of the mother to be (some saw this as a trigger for the Civil Rights Act)? Sometimes people say crazy things.
I’d like to see the law force the identification of fathers so child support can be enforced. It is hard to believe that most poor children were born from immaculate conception.
Maureen Downey
August 7th, 2012
12:40 pm
@willie, In that example, I was speaking of a girl who is not pregnant being asked to take a test because a teacher suspected her weight gain was the result of pregnancy.
But in any situation, this seems a policy fraught with problems and minefields.
Maureen
williebkind
August 7th, 2012
12:41 pm
DJ Sniper
August 7th, 2012
12:31 pm
Grown-ups? I would teach my daughter not to have sex at that age–you teenager.
Hillbilly D
August 7th, 2012
12:44 pm
I’d like to see the law force the identification of fathers so child support can be enforced.
I’m not sure if it’s everywhere but in my area, a father has to be named to receive public assistance. That doesn’t mean they’ll ever get any money out of him, though.
Wondering
August 7th, 2012
12:46 pm
In all seriousness, I see the schools policy as wrong and illegal but I don’t see how HIPAA plays in this. I have read both the security and privacy rules. Please explain what I am missing.
As for the legality of the school’s policy, not everything roles back to an explicit statement in the consitution. Many of our civil rights had to be spelled out by Congress through legislation and some come from court rulings. There is nothing in the consitution that specifically says a school cannot capture my urine or take a blood sample, but they better get permission first or they will have a law suit.
Wondering
August 7th, 2012
12:48 pm
Hillbilly D: What area do you live in? It is my understanding that WIC in GA asks but if the Mother refuses to answer, she receives benefits anyway. I simply hate deadbeat dads and want to hold them accountable. Society and nature already hold the mothers accountable.
williebkind
August 7th, 2012
12:51 pm
Ok so she is not pregnant and the teacher thinks she may be pregnant because of weight gain. The teacher then asks for a pregnancy test. So she fills a cup with urine and the test strip is added. Hmmm I just dont see a real problem with this unless it is done and all the school is aware of the test. That could be a problem! But then again ACLU is going to announce to everyone she had a pregnancy test. You educated adults come up with a sensitive answer for everyone. That is what liberals do.
Willow
August 7th, 2012
12:54 pm
They will apply the rules until someone “special” ends up being pregnant in school, same as always. 1966-1970, any girl turning up pregnant got kicked out of high school (I knew a couple of them), until the pregnant girl turned out to be the daughter of the Chairman of the Board of Education. The daughter spent most of senior year very pregnant, and also married to the baby’s father. (After the pregnancy was discovered, but another thing that heretofore was cause for banishment, boy or girl). I actually thought the change was OK because it would have to be applied the same for everyone. Plus, the girl in question was a very nice person whose only fault was falling in love,being a little careless and just plain unlucky. So now, here we are going back to puritanical roots of punishing the “sinner”. This disgusts me.
DJ Sniper
August 7th, 2012
1:01 pm
Willle, it doesn’t matter if you’ve taught you daughter not to have sex at that age and she adheres to that. You mean to tell me that you’re going to be ok with a school forcing your daughter to take a pregnancy test simple because they THINK she might be pregnant? Whether or not the test is announced isn’t even the issue here.
Jack
August 7th, 2012
1:03 pm
Since same-sex marriage is legal in some parts of the USA, maybe the male students ought to be tested for pregnancy also.
Hillbilly D
August 7th, 2012
1:10 pm
Wondering
I live in North GA. It’s been a few years but I know of cases where they had to name somebody. I don’t really know what happens if they refuse. I’m all for making fathers pay but I imagine if he protests, then you have to prove that he’s the father. It’s a mess, anyway you look at it.
Rockerbabe
August 7th, 2012
1:15 pm
Pregnancy is not illegal anywhere in the USA. A girl’s or a woman’s reproductive state is NONE of the school’s, the churche’s or the government’s business until she make it their business. And, her parent’s should back her up. No good will come of this form of discrimination.
I graduated from high school in 1970 and this practice of putting pregnant students out of school was quite prevalent back then. It was shameful and harmful then and the practice remains shameful and harmful to this day.
Pregnancy is often listed as a disability by many of the laws in our country. Disabled citizens cannot be discriminated against with impunity. This is a clear violation of her right to a public education of her choice, a right to be respected for who and what she is and putting her out of school is a form of gender discrimination as the boy who fathered this pregnancy is not suffering the same punishment. This school officials appear to have absolute no understanding of the laws with regard to pregnant women and these actions appear to me to be a violation of a number of laws. I hope the student, her parents and the ACLU sue the hell out of this school for their balant disrespect and disregard for the girl’s constitutional right.
Rockerbabe
August 7th, 2012
1:25 pm
In the medical world, no one can force a patient or a client to take a medical test of any kind without written authorization from the patient. That is why there is so much paperwork. Permission for testing has to be obtained from the patient and if the patient is a minor, then the responsible parent must consent to the testing for it is not done. The only exception I am aware of, is the testing done in the ER when a crisis situation is being treated. Usually the manadatory permissions are obtained later and because if you don’t get permission, the 3rd party medical insurance company will often not pay for the testing.
In the medical world, “forced” testing is considered a form of assault and assault is a felony. No teacher or other education should be put into this situation. No student should be forced to submit to a medical procedure by a non-licensed person. And no student should be put out of school because of pregnancy. Pregnancy is not contagious, it is not illegal, it is not undermining of any type of behavior; it is not unconstitutional; it is what it is, reproduction. To punish a girl for doing what comes naturally, is a crime against women in general and their should be hell to pay for this bad policy.
Jefferson
August 7th, 2012
1:38 pm
War on young women — its your lives girls. Stand up if you don’t like the way the wind is blowing.
Laurie
August 7th, 2012
1:39 pm
Leave it to Louisiana to up the anti on trying to be the most ignorant, backwards, and prejudice state in the south. I assume tax dollars are being used to fund this discrimination as well. My favorite part is where the policy does not address male students who engage in sexual relations that result in a pregnancy. Yep, that’s the shining star on top of this Christmas Tree. Kind of reminds me of some other group who likes to shame and demean their female population… oh yeah, the Taliban. That’s what this reminds me of.
Pride and Joy
August 7th, 2012
1:40 pm
It’s fair ONLY WHEN the boy who got her pregnant is kicked out of school too.
Mountain Man
August 7th, 2012
1:41 pm
“CharterStarter, Too
August 5th, 2012
4:32 pm
@ Brandy – if you know of a charter violating the law by not conducting a lottery or cherry picking, I encourage you to report it to the DOE’s Charter School Division immediately. Charters are committed to serving children….period. Without qualification. Those of us in the charter sector are committed to ensuring this occurs. Having attended (and audited) many, many lotteries through the years, I can tell you that this is the exception versus the rule.”
Are charter schools cherry-picking? I guess we now know the answer.
DJ Sniper
August 7th, 2012
1:42 pm
Here’s more proof that Louisiana is trying to win the race to the bottom. Try to keep your head from exploding when you read this bit of tomfoolery.
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/07/photos-evangelical-curricula-louisiana-tax-dollars
Laurie
August 7th, 2012
2:09 pm
@DJ Sniper… Oh cool, Dragons really did exist! And, And, And
Laurie
August 7th, 2012
2:10 pm
(KA-BOOM)
Embrace it!
August 7th, 2012
2:26 pm
If any school takes money from the taxpayers, it should be mandatory, they follow the same laws. If this is OK in public school, then it should be OK in charter schools. The problem is charter schools want the money we tax payers cough up for education, and run things their own way without any taxpayer control. This will be the downfall to education. The people of Ga better wake up and listen to what is blowing in the wind. We are going down the wrong road for this state.
bootney farnsworth
August 7th, 2012
2:36 pm
is there some kind of requirement which mandates insanity as a pre-requisite service in state politics (legislative and educational)?
absolutely no. since Charter schools are funded with public money, they do not have the right to stipulate this kind of regulation
debbieqd
August 7th, 2012
2:41 pm
Isn’t this typical Republican small government at its finest! First, we take your birth control. Then, we deny you your legal right to abortion. We demand you have your boyfriend’s baby or your father’s baby or your cousin’s or your uncle’s or even your rapist’s. Then, we kick you out of school because we want you uneducated and poor and your baby, too. But, don’t expect any support from government you loser. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps because you’re a real pain in our right-wing butts. But, vote for us! Because we’re the REAL patriots. We’re the REAL Americans. And, you’re nothing but a disgrace to this “exceptional” country.
Tony
August 7th, 2012
2:42 pm
Please keep in mind that our politicians want to adopt the Louisiana policies for our state. In addition to this kind of illegal behavior, the state would be paying private schools through vouchers that would be teaching religion, creationism, and other philosophies. There would be no accountability for these schools, either. Remember, we vote on this on Nov. 6.
bootney farnsworth
August 7th, 2012
2:44 pm
@ blind
my parents taught me not to have sex until marriage. they stressed it constantly, and made sure I knew the consequences.
didn’t stop me. not at all. I’m not proud of in now, but my virginity didn’t make it out of the 10th grade.
you really need to get a clue to how things work in the real world. deny it all you want, it changes nothing
Bernie
August 7th, 2012
2:55 pm
This Requirement should send another message to the WOMEN of America.
Your VAGINA is not yours alone!
The Republicans are so concerned with your Vagina to the point, pretty soon, if they suspect you or your daughters are Pregnant. The Both of you will be subject to a Probe at any time.
Never thought in my lifetime, I would ever witness The American Woman become a SECOND CLASS CITIZEN!
when are you guys going to WAKE UP?
Brandy
August 7th, 2012
3:13 pm
And yet some people claim that instances like this, on top of the hundreds of other examples of discrimination or wrong action by charters, should be left out of mature, honest debate–simply because they did not occur within the borders of Georgia…
I’m all for school choice if the rules are being followed by everyone, equally, and wrongdoers are held accountable. However, I worry greatly that the current movement is really about creating special schools for X group that either implicitly or explicitly exclude others. To me, the most glaring legal issue in regards to this charter school is the bit of the school’s policy that states that the school can make the student go to a doctor of the school’s choosing!
fulldawg
August 7th, 2012
3:27 pm
Another plot by the extreme right-wing! Horrors (but no surprise)
Students Last
August 7th, 2012
3:36 pm
This story has a satirical antidote. Got Wood? If You’re a Male Student In LA, You Better Hope Not @ http://goo.gl/P4UHV
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?