.

For One Charter School – Pregnant Students Need Not Apply

This piece is part of series that will be look at the requirements of state and locally approved charter schools operating in Georgia.

Editor's Note: This is an opinion piece that originally ran on another Patch site. It is in no way a news article nor is it or its content endorsed by Patch.

 

 

Hope for ALL Students?

EmpowerED Georgia’s Myths piece caused quite a stir.  We received e-mails from parents who had children that had been “kicked out” or “screened out” of charter schools.  We received e-mails that insisted that charter schools are public schools and that charter schools do not have the authority to kick out or screen out kids.

EmpowerED Georgia started looking into the contracts, handbooks, and application processes of charter schools that are operating in Georgia.  We came across a lot of eyebrow-raising practices from both locally authorized and state authorized charter schools.  These practices have largely gone unreported from media outlets and have been largely ignored from charter school/amendment proponents.  We will be highlighting these practices and the need for reform in this and future pieces.

Pregnant Students Need Not Apply

From its research, EmpowerED Georgia found one Georgia charter school that prohibits pregnant students from being entered into the charter’s lottery or from attending the charter school.

According to the charter school’s handbook:

“No student who is or has been pregnant may attend [school’s name]. No student who fathers or has fathered a child may attend [school’s name].”

This practice should not be one that debates the morality of teen pregnancy, but should focus on whether a school that is receiving public funding should be allowed to keep out certain students.

Other questions come into mind.  How is pregnancy proven (if the student is early on in their pregnancy)?  How is “fathering of a child” proven? Does the school require suspected students to take pregnancy or DNA tests?

Recently, a school in Louisiana got into trouble for how they handled the pregnancy issue. Click here for the article

Charter proponents often tout flexibility from regulations and innovation as key strengths of charter schools, but denying pregnant students admittance should not be an allowable flexibility and ignoring the needs of certain students is not being innovative.

One response that EmpowerED Georgia received from its Myths piece was that traditional public schools can “kick out” students too, so we decided to look at this particular charter’s traditional school counterpart.

According to the local traditional school’s handbook:

Pregnant Students

Pregnant students should advise school personnel of their condition as soon as they discover they are pregnant. It may be beneficial to contact the Assistant Principal/Social Worker to explore options.

Pregnant students may receive Homebound instruction only if their pregnancy requires as absence of more than ten (10) consecutive days due to confirmed medical complications. Pregnant students must have a doctor's certification requesting Homebound instruction. All Homebound requests are handled in Social Worker's office.

Expectant mothers and fathers are encouraged to attend school support groups and enroll in parenting classes.

Notice how the local traditional public school is actually attempting to not only address the academic challenges associated with teenage pregnancy, but to help those students through a particularly challenging point in their lives.  The charter spends two sentences addressing the challenge, whereas, the local traditional schools spends an entire paragraph addressing the challenge and supporting the student in whatever way they can (urging student to contact Social Workers, prepare for absences, and participate in parenting classes/support groups).

To be fair, EmpowerED Georgia only found one charter school that targeted pregnant students, but we found many with very strict attendance policies.  The real issue is not how many charters are engaged in the practice of prohibiting pregnant students, but that any charter would be allowed to do so while receiving public funds.

Proponents claim that the charter issue is about putting the needs of students first, but reforms must be put into place that ensures that the needs of all students are addressed.  On this, proponents continue to be silent.

Eddie E. October 03, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Why use taxpayer funds to invent a new form of discriminatory school? Aside from being illegal, it is also redundant. There are already numerous options that provide the alternatives to dealing with the realities of youth. They are called PRIVATE schools.
FreddieK October 03, 2012 at 02:47 PM
This is a stinking high school - call me old fashioned but people shouldn't be pregnant in high school. The world doesn't need more people and certainly those created by those, who are at least at that moment, uneducated (read: stupid). The term "single mom" used to elicit some degree of sympathy, now, it feels like the vast majority of blithering idiots who find momentary fascination with making a child. The correct historic word being bastard. Harvey Danger war right "only stupid people are breeding" - note the use of term breeding as opposed to "having a child or two". Teen pregnancy - the gift that keeps on giving, to far more people than the two who caused it.
Nubs October 03, 2012 at 03:32 PM
Is this a news article or an editorial? It certainly takes a strong stance regading the issue and goes beyond reporting. I'm with FreddieK. Schools are not the place for pregnant people. There should be consequences to behavior and one of the consequences of getting pregnant should be going to an adult campus.
John McGrew October 03, 2012 at 03:50 PM
This is a good example of why we should scrap the Soviet-style educational paradigm and opt for a voucher-type system. Then these questions wouldn't matter.
Kiri Walton (Editor) October 03, 2012 at 10:05 PM
Hi Nubs, this is an opinion column. It is not a news article.
Eddie E. October 04, 2012 at 03:15 AM
John, I meant to ask you at the Mayoral debate (but there was such an effort to hurry us out) are you familiar with the University of Tennessee studies on educational outcome and class sizes?
John McGrew October 04, 2012 at 01:09 PM
No, I am not. But I am familiar with the statistics regarding monies spent and educational outcome. We're not getting our money's worth, and simply spending more is not the answer. The change must be structural.
Eddie E. October 04, 2012 at 05:13 PM
John, The statistics on improving outcome through reduced class sizes are staggering and broadly replicated. That is why we were on a path to accept the costs and shrink the classes (until Gov. sonny-the-moron stanched the idea). At the same time, there is NO definitive study pointing to improvement through any for-profit-charter, privatized school system or for-profit experiments. This despite nearly 20 years of taxpayer funded experiments.
John McGrew October 04, 2012 at 05:29 PM
I know that smaller class sizes mean better results. But what I also know is that the political & union establishment has been working at "reforming" education since I was in grade school. During that time the situation has only degraded. I think 40 years is long enough to wait to see results. But as long as the educational establishment is run as a Soviet-style monopoly, there is little real incentive to change. I don't care so much whether the schools are public, private, profit, or not. What I do care about is the state monopoly that says that if I want my child to go to a public school, they have to go to the one they say. Can you think of any other high-achieving, successful enterprise that works that way? I can't.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something