- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
"The school reserves the right to require any female student to take a pregnancy test to confirm whether or not the suspect student is in fact pregnant," the policy reads. The policy also allows the school 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 Delhi Charter School."
School policy forces students to take pregnancy tests, bans pregnant teens | Fox News
US School Forces Pregnancy Tests On Girls, Excluding Those Who Are Pregnant Or Refuse
Get Tested Or Get Out: School Forces Pregnancy Tests on Girls, Kicks out Students Who Refuse or are Pregnant
:shock:
Wow, this is terrible. It's a blatant violation of Title IX and it's gender discrimination, pure and simple. And it's made worse by the fact that this is a PUBLIC charter school in Louisiana.
School policy forces students to take pregnancy tests, bans pregnant teens | Fox News
US School Forces Pregnancy Tests On Girls, Excluding Those Who Are Pregnant Or Refuse
Get Tested Or Get Out: School Forces Pregnancy Tests on Girls, Kicks out Students Who Refuse or are Pregnant
:shock:
Wow, this is terrible. It's a blatant violation of Title IX and it's gender discrimination, pure and simple. And it's made worse by the fact that this is a PUBLIC charter school in Louisiana.
It is a Charter school, not a public one. If the state finds the policy unacceptable, then don't issue charters for it. Otherwise, it's private and the state has no business being involved.
It is a Charter school, not a public one.
If the state finds the policy unacceptable, then don't issue charters for it.
Otherwise, it's private and the state has no business being involved.
Charter schools ARE public schools.
States have no authority to violate federal civil rights laws.
It seems you are misinformed as to how a charter school works.
If the pregnant student will miss time from the classes, and thus likely fail anyway, then what is the harm? This is ONLY policy at the charter school that has a waiting list of those wanting to get into it. Limitted resources can (and should) be allocated to those that will get the most advantage from them. If this discourages teen pregnancy then NO harm is done from it. Priority ONE is to complete school, then start a "family" - social and public policy should reenforce that TRUTH and not pretend it is just peachy for kids to have babies before completing high school.
If the pregnant student will miss time from the classes, and thus likely fail anyway, then what is the harm?
If the pregnant student will miss time from the classes, and thus likely fail anyway, then what is the harm?
This is ONLY policy at the charter school that has a waiting list of those wanting to get into it. Limitted resources can (and should) be allocated to those that will get the most advantage from them.
If this discourages teen pregnancy then NO harm is done from it. Priority ONE is to complete school, then start a "family" - social and public policy should reenforce that TRUTH and not pretend it is just peachy for kids to have babies before completing high school.
Actually in La. many of the charter schools were also private schools that applied to receive chater status. It has been on the local news a lot over the last few months. If the state has problems with a particular school, don't issue or allow charter status.
If it's a charter school, then it's funded by the state and therefore subject to the same civil rights laws as any other public institution. Furthermore, it's not up to the state to decide that they don't "have a problem with a particular school." States do NOT have the authority to violate federal law.
They should do this in sports. Have all the teams build their roster in the off-season, then award the championship trophy to the team most likely to win. No wasting time with all that playing crap, it's probably irrelevant anyway.If the pregnant student will miss time from the classes, and thus likely fail anyway, then what is the harm? This is ONLY policy at the charter school that has a waiting list of those wanting to get into it. Limitted resources can (and should) be allocated to those that will get the most advantage from them. If this discourages teen pregnancy then NO harm is done from it. Priority ONE is to complete school, then start a "family" - social and public policy should reenforce that TRUTH and not pretend it is just peachy for kids to have babies before completing high school.
There's another way, and it was actually relatively effective (until we lost the wherewithal to do it)... bring back public shame. Quit with all the oohing and aahing and baby showers and crap, and give them an earful of why they're being irresponsible to their kid by putting said kid at what is more then likely to be a disadvantage.Kicking out pregnant students helps no one, if you want to curb teen pregnancy there is only one way, comprehensive sex education. Kicking pregnant kids out doesn't do that.
If it's a charter school, then it's funded by the state and therefore subject to the same civil rights laws as any other public institution. Furthermore, it's not up to the state to decide that they don't "have a problem with a particular school." States do NOT have the authority to violate federal law.
That is not the only way.if you want to curb teen pregnancy there is only one way, comprehensive sex education.
If it's a charter school, then it's funded by the state and therefore subject to the same civil rights laws as any other public institution. Furthermore, it's not up to the state to decide that they don't "have a problem with a particular school." States do NOT have the authority to violate federal law.
Charter schools are governed independently by a board of directors and are free from many laws and regulations governing traditional schools. This allows charter schools significant flexibility and autonomy to allocate resources. However, in exchange for this flexibility, charter schools are regularly monitored and must demonstrate defined academic achievement goals and maintain satisfactory financial and contractual performance indicators in order to have their charters renewed. Thus, charter schools in Louisiana are subject to stringent standards as well as specific objectives outlined in their charter contracts with local school boards or BESE.
That's not quite true. From Louisiana's website:
Of course, should the state choose, they can revoke their charter.
Charter schools have more freedom than traditional public schools, but they do not have total autonomy. They still have to obey the law...and in any case, Louisiana does not have the authority to allow them to opt out of a federal law anyway.
Charter schools have more freedom than traditional public schools, but they do not have total autonomy. They still have to obey the law...and in any case, Louisiana does not have the authority to allow them to opt out of a federal law anyway.
I didnt see any complainants in the 3 articles.BTW, where are the references to the state and it's actions to any complaints that were filed? Did they go straight to a lawsuit without addressing concerns to the state and giving the state a chance to take action? What concerns were brought before the school and what actions did it take prior to the lawsuit?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?