Lifting voices: towards equal education for pregnant and parenting students in New York City.

• Author: Ling, Tamara S.

We all love to learn, but we feel disrespected. (1)

PROLOGUE

East 128th Street in Harlem, New York City, is empty, but for a middle-aged man walking along the sidewalk. Outside of the old school building, there is no sign, no central entrance--there is only a ramp leading to a side door of dull gray metal. The man on the sidewalk calls out, "What are you looking for? Looking for the school for pregnant girls?" Hands clasped, he draws an exaggerated circle in front of his middle, and then points to the gray door. In faded paint, small stenciled letters read, "P-911--School for Continued Education."

Inside, hallways are papered in children's finger paintings and student election campaign flyers. In breaks between classes, students stop by a nursery filled with toys and books to visit their babies. Here there are no advanced placement classes and there is no school band, yet for the students, all of whom are either expectant or new mothers, this "pregnancy school" is the only way to continue their educations.

Some students chose to come to P-911 because it offers them basic academic instruction and social services in a small, nurturing environment. (2) Others, after being compelled to leave their mainstream schools, had to choose between coming to P-911 or dropping out of school completely. (3) And then, there is Emily, (4) who was forced to leave her mainstream school, but refuses to accept the alternative that P-911 offers.

For Emily, that man on the sidewalk is one of the reasons she refuses to attend P-911. She is embarrassed by the thought that once she walks up that ramp and through that grey door, her pregnancy is all other people will see. She does not want to be labeled by her pregnancy--there is so much more to her than that. But how can she express and explore all the other facets of her identity when, to that man and everyone else who sees her at P-911, she is just another "pregnant girl"?

The other reason why Emily refuses to attend P-911 is because she wants to be challenged to learn and grow academically. Her goal is to continue progressing toward the high school diploma she was striving for before she became pregnant. But all of the courses offered at P-911 are in basic subjects that she has already completed.

Because no regular school will admit her, and she will not enroll in a pregnancy school, Emily is left out of school completely. Deprived of her education, Emily worries that she is losing her hopes of a happy future, for herself and for her child.

INTRODUCTION

Throughout New York City there are many girls, like Emily, who are denied access to public education because they are pregnant or have children. (5) Pregnant and parenting students are routinely subjected to hostile and punitive treatment in mainstream public schools, (6) resulting in their educational disenfranchisement. (7) In a recent survey of pregnant and parenting teenagers in the New York City foster care system, forty percent stated that they dropped out of school while pregnant, (8) and twenty-two percent stated that they were "forced to change schools" due to their pregnancies. (9)

This discrimination against pregnant and parenting students persists despite the legal protection provided by Title IX of the Education Amendments, enacted by Congress in 1972, ("Title IX") which guarantees educational equality for all students, regardless of pregnancy or parental status. (10) Decades of empirical evidence demonstrating the critical link between educational attainment and positive outcomes for teenage mothers and their children have also failed to compel mainstream schools to accommodate pregnant and parenting students. (11) Instead, pregnant and parenting students are either driven out of the education system entirely, (12) or pushed into separate pregnancy school programs. (13)

P-911 is one of New York City's five pregnancy schools, (14) or "P-Schools," (15) dedicated exclusively to serving pregnant and parenting students. (16) Begun in the late 1960s as an effort to counter the high risk of school drop out among pregnant and parenting adolescents, (17) pregnancy schools seek to provide educational and social services within insulated pregnancy and mothering-centered sites. (18) Although these services are vital, (19) their provision in separate settings has permitted the mainstream school system to continue to disregard its responsibilities towards pregnant and parenting students.

This Comment examines the educational environment facing pregnant and parenting students in New York City and argues that positive integration, rather than separation, of pregnant and parenting students and their needs into the mainstream school system is critical to achieving educational equality. Part I provides a historical account of the exclusion of pregnant students from public schools until the late 1960s. Part II discusses the social and legal changes that led to the creation of pregnancy schools and the recognition of the educational rights of pregnant students. These reforms culminated in the passage of Title IX, which affirmed the rights of pregnant students to remain in school and established requirements for separate pregnancy schools. Part III analyzes the educational program provided by pregnancy schools under the comparability requirements of Title IX. Part IV examines enrollment in pregnancy school programs under the voluntariness requirements of Title IX. Part V describes the pervasive discrimination facing pregnant and parenting students in mainstream schools. Part VI demonstrates how the separation of pregnant and parenting students from the general school population isolates and marginalizes them. Finally, Part VII proposes altering the institutional structure of mainstream schools to achieve substantive equality and to empower pregnant and parenting girls through education.

1. EXCLUSION

   Until 1968, pregnant students in New York City's public schools were required to drop out of school once their pregnancies became known or apparent to school officials. (20) This "known or shows" dismissal policy was not unique to the New York City school system. (21) Until the late 1960s, more than two-thirds of the school districts throughout the country maintained formal policies expelling pregnant students from school. (22) These expulsion policies were justified on the grounds that pregnant students required medical and emotional protection from school settings, and that their presence would be harmful to other students. (23)

   The medical protection rationale cited the dangers of climbing stairs, carrying books and maintaining full academic course schedules to the health of pregnant students. (24) This reasoning was unsubstantiated by medical facts, because most pregnant women are able to sustain full activity throughout their pregnancies. (25) Rather, it served as a "cover up for puritanical moral judgments." (26)

   The educational exclusion of pregnant students was rooted in a condemnation of adolescent, and most likely premarital, sexual activity. (27) Pregnant students were considered harmful to other students under the theory that "one bad apple spoils the bushel of apples." (28) Therefore, they were cast out of school to prevent the "contamination" of other girls. (29) School administrators feared that the mere sight of a pregnant girl in the classroom would influence other girls to follow her example and become pregnant themselves. (30)

   Schools were seen as sterile environments, removed from the unseemly realities of the outside world. (31) Students were seen as innocent children, to be protected from those realities. (32) Pregnant girls were seen as "pushers of immorality among other students," (33) and schools refused to tolerate their presence. (34)

   A pregnant, unmarried girl was branded as a "criminal and her pregnancy a crime for which she must assume feelings of guilt." (35) It was feared that if a pregnant girl was permitted to remain in school, the school would appear to condone her conduct, and thus appear to condone premarital sex. (36) Instead, schools insisted upon teaching pregnant students "an object lesson in the wages of sin" through educational banishment. (37)

   This lesson was meted out solely upon girls, rather than upon female and male partners alike. (38) Boys who engaged in premarital sex resulting in pregnancy did not face expulsion or any other consequences for their actions. (39) The lack of commensurate measures against male students reflected the disparity between traditional attitudes towards male and female adolescent sexuality. (40) While adolescent male sexuality was permissively accepted, adolescent female sexuality was repressively denied--a double standard that has persisted to the present. (41) Accordingly, the physical mark of pregnancy made girls easy targets for denouncement, while boys remained unscathed. (42)

   The emotional protection rationale reflected the internalization, by girls themselves, of the social stigma associated with teenage pregnancy. (43) Many girls were made to believe that their pregnancies made them "dirty or cheap." (44) These feelings often led to drastic efforts to disguise or end their conditions, creating grievous danger to themselves and their unborn children. (45) To shield them from harsh external judgments and concomitant internal negativity, pregnant students were excluded from schools. (46)

2. THE END OF EXCLUSION AND THE BEGINNING OF PREGNANCY SCHOOLS

   In the late 1960s and early 1970s, school districts throughout the country began to move away from excluding pregnant students from school and towards enabling them to continue their educations. (47) Growing awareness of the connection between denial of educational services and negative outcomes for teenage mothers and their children, as well as changing public perceptions of pregnant teenagers, created the impetus for schools to develop schools specifically for pregnant students. (48) Increased legal...