Times, they are a changin’
Posted by BrianFrom Time.com:
As summer vacation begins, 17 girls at Gloucester High School are expecting babies-more than four times the number of pregnancies the 1,200-student school had last year. Some adults dismissed the statistic as a blip. Others blamed hit movies like Juno and Knocked Up for glamorizing young unwed mothers. But principal Joseph Sullivan knows at least part of the reason there’s been such a spike in teen pregnancies in this Massachusetts fishing town. School officials started looking into the matter as early as October after an unusual number of girls began filing into the school clinic to find out if they were pregnant. By May, several students had returned multiple times to get pregnancy tests, and on hearing the results, “some girls seemed more upset when they weren’t pregnant than when they were,” Sullivan says. All it took was a few simple questions before nearly half the expecting students, none older than 16, confessed to making a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together. Then the story got worse. “We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy,” the principal says, shaking his head.
A pact to get pregnant. Among girls younger than 16. Holy cow.
The article then brought up whether or not the town, which is heavily Catholic, should provide easier access to birth control. I would like someone to explain to me how easier access to birth control would prevent girls who are hell bent on having a baby from getting pregnant. It may help prevent accidental pregnancies, but if someone wants to get pregnant they won’t use birth control. You can pass around bowls full of condoms in homeroom in that case and it will not prevent anything.
Near the end of the article the author hits on what may be the real cause.
The high school has done perhaps too good a job of embracing young mothers. Sex-ed classes end freshman year at Gloucester, where teen parents are encouraged to take their children to a free on-site day-care center. Strollers mingle seamlessly in school hallways among cheerleaders and junior ROTC. “We’re proud to help the mothers stay in school,” says Sue Todd, CEO of Pathways for Children, which runs the day-care center.
The high school has effectively taken away the stigma of having a child out of wedlock while still in high school. That these girls would recklessly put their futures at risk is not terribly surprising since the negative consequences have been obfuscated.
Related content:
June 19th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Brian, I think another very significant contributing factor is highlighted midway through the article:
But Amanda Ireland, who graduated from Gloucester High on June 8, thinks she knows why these girls wanted to get pregnant. Ireland, 18, gave birth her freshman year and says some of her now pregnant schoolmates regularly approached her in the hall, remarking how lucky she was to have a baby. “They’re so excited to finally have someone to love them unconditionally,” Ireland says. “I try to explain it’s hard to feel loved when an infant is screaming to be fed at 3 a.m.”
Society in general, and parents in particular, are failing to give us kids the love we need so we turn to other sources. That problem is compounded by the schools taking away one of the consequences (social stigma) thereby making the cost/benefit equation more attractive.
In all honesty though, I’m conflicted about whether the lack of stigma is a good thing. On the one hand, I think it’s definitely contributing to an increase in out-of-wedlock births, which is obviously bad, but once that mistake has been made, should we not as a society embrace these girls (and any boys willing to take responsibility) and try to support them as best as possible? I’m sure you agree we should but my guess is that you feel these in-school programs aren’t the best way to do that. Is that accurate? If so, what do you propose? I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Yeah, I caught the “unconditional love” part too and I agree that it is an important aspect. To any young girls out there looking for unconditional love let me suggest getting a dog first. I could probably zap either of my dogs with a cattle prod (not that I would) and they would come right back to me wagging their tails. Voila! Unconditional love without the burden of a child. (Don’t get me wrong; they require time and money, but not nearly as much as a baby)
It is a difficult problem to tackle. The trick is to help the young mothers (or, better yet, parents) in such a manner that sends a clear signal to others that their situation is not a desirable one. I don’t think the girls should be able to bring their children to school with them any more than women in the workplace can (typically) bring theirs to work. Does that mean alternative schools, time off until the child is old enough to go to an out-of-school daycare, or something else? I don’t know. The bottom line is, though, that making the consequences of poor decisions less difficult only encourages more poor decisions.
One of the problems is that young girls with children need supportive parents more than ever, but, as you mentioned, they often lack them in the first place.
A similar, but simpler, situation involves “food stamps.” People on the government dole shouldn’t be given debit type cards that can be used discreetly, but rather should have to use a more awkward type of payment - something noticeable that causes slight delays at checkout, forcing the user to suffer the gazes of those who are paying for her food. The lady still gets her food support, but the stigma of using actual stamps instead of a debit card may encourage her to improve her lot in life and become self sufficient.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
The school should not do ANYTHING you suggest Brian. If they don’t want them to bring their children to school because it could inhibit learning amongst the other students, fine, but to deny someone an adequate education when they are in need of one most is immoral and reprehensible. You are chastising a child for making a bad decision. There needs to be more emphasis made on the schools part in terms of educating children about this life choice and what it means, but for the school to try and help engineer social stigma is not their job. Are high schools don’t do a good enough job educating children about math, science, etc… to venture into solving all of societies social ills. Don’t really know why the food stamps ran is on here, but I can’t let that go either. I would go out on a limb and say that MOST people that get food stamps don’t like the fact that they get them. In most instances it just covers their child(ren) because that child didn’t have a choice who there parents were and what choices they made in life. Should we chance a baby not getting it’s milk because you have a problem with the idea of food stamps altogether? I think most rationale/caring people would say no. If you want an exception or more oversight, that’s fine too, but helping those in need should not be something we should to with lightly.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
One of my shoot-from-the-hip suggestions (you don’t seriously think that was a deeply contemplated thesis on how to approach the problem, do you?) was alternative school - a baby friendly alternative school. How does that deny them an education? I would argue that it would provide them with an environment that caters directly to their unique needs (focused parenting and “Home Ec” type classes in addition to the three R’s) without interfering with the needs of students without children.
I agree that our schools don’t do a good enough job teaching math, science, etc. I actually couldn’t possibly agree more. They do a poor enough job without the added distraction of babies on campus.
Let me more accurately articulate my point. I’m suggesting that schools should not make an effort to engineer away the social stigma, which is what the Gloucester school appears to be doing. Like I said, “Making the consequences of poor decisions less difficult only encourages more poor decisions.”
Not to nit pick, but there is a logical flaw in your argument. In one sentence you say the schools shouldn’t “venture into solving all of societies social ills.” However in the prior sentence you call for the schools to do just that by “educating children about this life choice and what it means.”
June 20th, 2008 at 12:32 am
I’ll take your opening statement with a giggle, as you know I didn’t think this was a thesis or it wouldn’t be on a blog. I said all of societies social ills, but let’s not parse words. I think a logical argument CAN be made with regard to eliminating sex education, but I personally believe it should be part of the curriculum. That doesn’t mean that schools should be involved in condemning (proverbially or metaphorically) a CHILD’S life choices. You make a much more salient argument with the food stamps (as long as they aren’t for children) than with the school pregnancy thing. You do not stress enough that these are CHILDREN making bad choices. I just don’t think we should be so harsh in the treatment of a child who made a bad life choice. On the contrary, if we don’t do all we can to see that they have an adequate education, they will long pay for it after their high school education is finished. As for my past/current comments about an adequate education, think back to when you were in school. A decent number of the teachers I had were crap, as I am sure some of yours were. Do you honestly think a child gets the education they need at some type of alternative school? We have trouble educating children in a normal classroom setting, much less in some isolated location with very few resources/teachers. You do make a good point about that type of system catering to the child’s needs as a young mother, but it just doesn’t out weigh the (now more than ever) need for a good education.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:07 am
I worked in an alternative school in the 70’s where the students test scores were higher than the regular school. One reason I think that school succeeded is that the teachers were paid extra and better picked. Of course, since then, I’ve seen alt schools that no better than gloried study halls and/or psych wards with bells.
However, the worrisome thing here is that these mothers having babies to have some to love them which reflects badly on what’s going on elsewhere and is worrisome for the future of these babies. What happens when they hit the terrible twos, let alone that phase where they all know more than their parents? Be interesting to see the child abuse rate in a few years.
One more inchoate thought fragment before I re caffinate, Children, even though they deny it, generally do whats expected of them.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Seventeen pregnant teens in one close-knit community? And at least one of them impregnated by an adult? Perhaps Massachusetts should take Texas’ approach. Bring in the armored troops, take custody of all the kids in the school and place them in foster-care to protect them from further abuse.