10 slide power point

Preventing Pregnancy OR Supporting Students? Learning from the Stories of Young Mothers

Jenna Vinson & Sally Stevens

Published online: 7 May 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Researchers have long discussed the negative implications of discourses about teenage pregnancy. The authors of this article join this discussion by focusing on the tension between social/educational imperatives to pre- vent teenage pregnancy and the educational imperative to support all students. Drawing from data from the My Preg- nancy Story Project—a mixed-method study of the lived experiences of 27 young pregnant and/or mothering wom- en—this article illustrates that pregnant and mothering stu- dents often endure school environments in which they are consistently reminded of their “mistake” by teachers, peers, and sex education learning activities. Although some par- ticipants reported feeling stigmatized and silenced, these young women also articulated what they want from their schools. Reflecting on these youth voices, the authors call for school personnel and those making policy decisions to examine and revise school policies in the areas of harass- ment and bullying, school codes of conduct, personnel hiring and training, health and sex education pedagogy, and access to information.

Keywords Teenage pregnancy . Motherhood . Sexuality .

Education . Youth . Rights . Prevention . Social justice

I think they should give us, since we are continuing with school and we’re trying our hardest to give our kids a good life and a good future. They should give credit to the ones that are still trying to, you know, do what they can and get their education and stuff like that. Instead of just jump and judge all of them in general. –Miranda, Arizona high school student and mother

Introduction

In March 2013, controversy erupted when the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) initiated their new approach to preventing teenage pregnancy. The HRA cam- paign consisted of publicly placed posters that featured pho- tographs of babies alongside statements directed at teenage parents, particularly teenage mothers. One poster included an image of a crying baby alongside a statement that read, “I am twice as likely not to graduate high school because you had me as a teen.” Another featured a baby adjacent to the quote, “Honestly Mom, chances are he will not stay with you . . . What happens to me?” Each statement was reinforced with a tagline that presented contested statistical correlations be- tween young motherhood and economic and social conditions such as “Kids of teen moms are twice as likely not to graduate than kids whose moms were over the age of 22,” and “90 % of teen parents don’t marry each other.”

The HRA campaign made national news. Along with or- ganizations such as Planned Parenthood, the New York

J. Vinson (*) English Department, University of Massachusetts—Lowell, 61 Wilder St., O’Leary Library, Lowell, MA 01854, USA e-mail: [email protected]

S. Stevens Southwest Institute for Research on Women, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA e-mail: [email protected]

Sex Res Soc Policy (2014) 11:322–336 DOI 10.1007/s13178-014-0157-6

Coalition for Reproductive Justice, and the National Women’s Law Center, some young mothers publicly critiqued this campaign by voicing their experiences in outlets such as National Public Radio and the New York Times. Activists and young mothers Gloria Malone (2013) and Natasha Vianna (2013) each brought attention to how the approach of the HRA campaign fosters hostility toward young parents. This hostility can lead to discriminatory practices that affect their life outcomes. For example, in her New York Times article, Malone (2013) pointed out that after discovering she was pregnant, her high school counselor would no longer speak with her about applying to college and assumed she would drop out of school. Often absent from the national debate over the HRA campaign was the fact that many researchers have long questioned and refuted the statistics used to associate societal ills with the timing of a woman’s first birth. Many argue that the statistical outcomes that are attributed to teenage child rearing are actually the conse- quences of living in poverty—a lived condition that is not necessarily ameliorated by delaying pregnancy (Furstenberg 2007; Geronimus 1987, 2003; Kearney and Levine 2012; Lawson and Rhode 1993; Luker 1996; Males 2010; Moran 2000; Pillow 2004; Sisson 2012; SmithBattle 2007). Further- more, feminist researchers have illustrated that negative depic- tions of young pregnancy encourage the ongoing stigmatization of visibly pregnant and mothering young women, the creation of ineffective policies regarding the treatment of pregnant and mothering students, and the continuation of racialized and gen- dered representations of deviant sexuality (Luttrell 2003; Fessler 2008; Nathanson 1991; Pillow 2004; Roberts 1997; Rodriguez 2008; Rowley 2002; Vinson 2011, 2012, 2013).

Despite thisresearch, the pathologization of teenage pregnancy and motherhood continues. The HRA campaign is one of many examples of teenage pregnancy prevention initiatives that stigma- tize young mothers as a means of preventing other teens from making this “mistake”; that is, the purported mistake of engaging in sex as a (female) teen that results in pregnancy and the birth of a child to a (female) teenager. Malone’s (2013) perspective, as a young mother who experienced the effects of stereotyped views of “teen moms” as careless, deviant, educational, and economic failures, competes with the social imperative to prevent teenage pregnancy by framing young pregnant and mothering women’s experiences as cautionary tales for others.

How might the pathologization of teenage pregnancy and motherhood affect young pregnant and/or mothering women1

who are attending school? Drawing from stories told during

focus groups with young pregnant and mothering women, we illustrate troubling situations they endured as students along with their feelings of inability to contest these situations. By listening to the voices of these youth, we are able to present what they think of school supports, why inclusive school accommodations are needed, and how school staff and stu- dents can better support young people’s rights to education regardless of their sexual or reproductive decisions.

Educational Policy: Pregnant and Mothering Students

Prior to the implementation of Title IX, which requires that all schools that receive federal funding provide equal educational opportunities to students regardless of their pregnancy or par- enting status, pregnant young women were expelled from school grounds (Kelly 2000; Pillow 2004; Solinger 2000). As punishment of young women’s sexual activity before marriage, and as a way to protect “the minds of innocent children” from being influenced by that mistake, pregnant students (and often teachers) were not allowed at school (Luker 1996, p. 2). Draw- ing on historian Rickie Solinger’s work, education policy scholar Deirdre Kelly points out that some alternative educa- tional programs did exist for adolescent mothers in the 1960s but they primarily served African American young mothers who were not pressured to (or allowed to) enter maternity homes (Kelly 2000, p. 10; Nathanson 1991; Solinger 2000). But it was only after Title IX—passed in 1972 and implement- ed in 1975—that young pregnant and mothering women had legal support for the right to their education.

Although Title IX mandates equal education for students who are pregnant or parenting, there is little follow-through to ensure that these students are being offered appropriate accom- modations at their school (Luttrell 2003; National Women’s Law Center [NWLC] 2012; Pillow 2004). From her ethnographic research and discourse analysis, Wanda Pillow (2004) found that “discourses of contamination” permeate dis- cussions of how to treat pregnant and mothering students. Educational responses to these students are done on an individ- ual basis by school administrators who are influenced by media representations of an “epidemic” of teenage pregnancy. Pillow explains that one administrative approach is to treat pregnant and mothering women like students with a cold. In this ap- proach, young pregnant and mothering students are not ex- pelled, but they are not offered any special services that may cause the cold to spread to other students. The underlying assumption of this approach is that support for pregnant or mothering students might prompt non-pregnant or mothering students to engage in sexual activity for the purpose of getting pregnant. Kelly (2000) calls this the “real-world microcosm” approach; that is, incorporating young pregnant and mothering women into the regular school context with the same rigid policies and structures (e.g., strict absence policies) that will prepare them for a “real world” that has little sympathy for the

1 From this point on, we use the phrase “young pregnant and mothering women” to refer to the participants of our study. Two participants were pregnant and currently raising a child; most were either pregnant or mothering. Although it is important to distinguish pregnancy from moth- erhood, we refrain from using “and/or” to simplify our sentences. By referring to these women as “young,” we indicate that they were all under the age of 20 years old, which is often referred to as a young period for pregnancy.

Sex Res Soc Policy (2014) 11:322–336 323

needs of caretaking people. Another administrative approach identified by Pillow (2004) is that schools may treat young pregnancy and motherhood as a disability/disease wherein the student is seen as inherently deficient and in need of a separate school space to both meet their particular needs and to, again, prevent the potential contamination of others. Recent reports from the American Civil Liberties Union (2012), the National Women’s Law Center (2012), and California’s Latinas For Reproductive Justice (Franco 2012) maintain that despite fed- eral and state laws requiring equal treatment for pregnant and parenting students, young pregnant and mothering women are sequestered in their schools, pressured to leave their school for a special school for pregnant students, and/or given substandard educations at alternative schools for pregnant/parenting teens. This article furthers the work of previous ethnographic studies that examined how young mothers are (or are not) included in secondary educational contexts (Lesko 1990; Luttrell 2003; Kelly 2000; Pillow 2004), by adding a specific focus on the tension between social/educational imperatives to prevent teen- age pregnancy and the educational imperative to support school-attending young pregnant and mothering women.

Teen Pregnancy Rates and Sex Education Policy

This article stems from a research project conducted in Ari- zona to learn how to better support pregnant and mothering young women. Arizona is a state bemoaned for high rates of teenage pregnancies, poverty, and educational struggle. The teenage pregnancy rate in Arizona for 15 to 19 year olds dropped significantly between 2000 and 2010 from 79.1 to 48.3 per 1,000 females. Most of these pregnancies resulted in a live birth: 67.6 and 41.5 per 1,000 females, respectively (Arizona Department of Health Services 2012). In spite of this drop, Arizona’s teenage birthrate among 15 to 19 year olds remains above the US rate of 34.2 per 1,000 females—a rate that ranks 13th highest among US states including the District of Columbia (US Department of Health and Human Services 2012). During this 11-year period, Arizona data indicates that Hispanic/Latina2 teenage pregnancy rates for this age group have been highest with an average of 109.7 per 1,000 females compared to African Americans (82.8), American Indian/ Alaska Natives (76.5), white/non-Hispanic (36.7) and Asian/ Pacific Islander (31.2). Reasons for the comparatively high rate of teenage pregnancy among Hispanic/Latinas have been explored in the media and by researchers (Afable-Munsuz and Brindis 2006; Davila 2005; Garcia 2012; Rickert et al. 2002; Rocca et al. 2010; Russell and Lee 2006). In breaking down these rates, we mean to sketch the context of Arizona as one in which the high rates of teenage pregnancies and births are

often broadly reported as a problem, with much attention paid to ethnic disparities in the rates.

As with most states that report high teenage pregnancy and birth rates, Arizona has a high rate of poverty, economic inequality, and problems with education—specifically high school graduation rates. These issues are highly interdepen- dent; together, they support claims made by researchers who argue that it is actually these issues that lead to the negative outcomes faced by women and children, not the age that women first give birth (Furstenberg 2007; Geronimus 2003; Kearney and Levine 2012; Luker 1996; Males 2010). In 2011, 19 % of Arizonans lived below the poverty line (Bishaw 2012), and 27 % of Arizona children under the age of 18 lived in poverty (National KIDS COUNT Program 2013). Economic inequality intersects with ethnic disparities as 36 % of His- panic residents lived below the poverty line as compared to 13 % of white residents (The Henry J. Kaiser Foundation 2011). With regard to education, Arizona’s overall 4-year high school gradu- ation rate in 2010 was 78 %, ranking 28th out of 47 states reporting. There are variations in Arizona’s rates with Asians at 86.9 %, whites at 82.9 %, African Americans at 73.9 %, Hispanic/Latina/os at 68.0 %, and Native Americans at 60.0 %. Data also indicates that a higher percent of females (79.5 %) compared to males (71.4 %) complete high school within 4 years (Arizona Department of Education 2012).

Amidst the context of poverty, ethnic disparities, and strug- gles to complete high school shaping the experiences of pregnant and mothering young women, it is also important to describe the state of sex education in Arizona public schools. AZ State Legislature, R7-2-303, strictly limits what can be taught and does not require the inclusion of information on contraceptives or condom use as a way to protect against sexually transmitted diseases or unintended pregnancy. And, passed in 2010, AZ SB 1309 imposes further restrictions including the need for parental consent for students to “opt- in” sexual education courses, even abstinence-only courses, as well as any course where sex and sexuality might come up as a relevant topic. As a result, some students in Arizona do not receive any sex education through their school (Stevens et al. 2013). Nationwide, most schools have been subject to policies that require sex education to be at least “abstinence-based” or “abstinence-only,” the latter severely limiting the topics that can be discussed, emphasizing hetero-normative sexuality, and fostering a moral rather than a health approach to the topic. If students in publicly funded Arizona schools do re- ceive sex education, it must “stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are mature adults,” “pro- mote honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual mar- riage,” and explicitly discuss “consequences of preadolescent and adolescent pregnancy” (AZ R7-2-303). Our study did not gather information on the type and amount of sex education that our participants received. However, in the context of AZ R7-2-303—along with negative views about teen

2 We use the label Hispanic/Latina to reflect the terms used by the sources we are drawing on. We recognize that these terms are often contested.

324 Sex Res Soc Policy (2014) 11:322–336

pregnancy and child rearing transmitted through larger and oftentimes subtle cultural channels—we presume that the participants in this study, along with other young people attending Arizona schools, are instructed that preadolescent and/or adolescent pregnancy is a terrible outcome.

Method

The My Pregnancy Story Project (MPSP) utilized a mixed- method research design to gather young pregnant and moth- ering women’s perspectives in order to learn about how to improve services and support for pregnant and mothering teens. Over a 4-month period, October 2011 to January 2012, we asked 27 young women for their stories about pregnancy and motherhood. Through a brief questionnaire and focus group discussions, we learned directly from partic- ipants about their lived experiences. This article describes findings and recommendations in regard to what the partici- pants shared about their experiences at school.

Selection of the Sites

Through past research projects and community work, we developed some familiarity with each of the four sites from which young women were recruited for the MPSP. Two of these sites are traditional public high schools that have teenage-parent programs (hereafter TAPP) offering pregnancy and parenting-related services for students including on- campus daycare. We chose these schools because they each offer a different student demographic. One school is located in an urban area with a student body comprised of mostly Hispanic/Latino/a students. The other school is located in a rural area and has a primarily white student body. The third site is one of the Arizona Department of Juvenile Correction’s “safe schools.” This correctional facility offers rehabilitative services such as counseling, substance abuse recovery, and educational programs for male and female offenders under the age of 18. A Head Start program was established at this school to provide parenting education, assistance and support for a few pregnant and mothering inmates and their children who were staying with family members or guardians. Head Start is a state-funded program that helps low-income families and their children (under the age of three) prepare for school. The fourth site is a non-profit organization that provides health resources, social support, and material goods for pregnant and parenting people aged 21 and under in the Tucson community who are primarily referred to the organization by local schools and OB/GYN doctors. The young people served by this organization are, on average, 18 years old and are primarily white and Hispanic/Latino/a (H. Friedman, personal commu- nication, June 26, 2012). Recruiting participants from these different sites diversified our sample, helping us to avoid

unfair generalizations and leading to new insights into how a variety educational institutions shape young women’s experiences.

Participants

After obtaining approval from each of the sites as well as the Human Subjects Internal Review Board, we distributed flyers at each site to recruit participants.3 For the purposes of this study, we only recruited female participants because (1) we wanted to better understand how the pathologization of teen- age pregnancy and parenthood—which most often stigma- tizes young women—affected the lives of young pregnant and mothering women; and (2) the chosen research sites most often—if not exclusively—serve pregnant and mothering women. Although the potential reasons for the inequitably gendered representation at the research sites are too numerous and complex to fully explore here, one possible explanation is that many fathers of “teen pregnancies” are not teenagers (Males 2010); thus, they may not have access to a school or community program focused on the needs of teen parents. Another possibility, as one research site administrator sug- gested, is that young men may not want to render themselves visible as teen fathers considering the obligations and stigma associated with that choice.

When recruiting young pregnant and mothering women, we emphasized the opportunity to share their story. We re- cruited a total of 27 participants who ranged in age from 15 to 20 years old. Table 1 shows information about the partici- pants’ average age, ethnicity, and pregnancy status. At the time of the focus group, six participants were currently preg- nant with their first child, two participants were currently pregnant and raising an additional child, and 19 participants were not pregnant but mothering. Of the 19 mothering partic- ipants, two had two children while the rest had only one child. Data from the questionnaire indicates that most MPSP partic- ipants were attending school when they became pregnant with their first baby (93 %; n=25). Moreover, many were attending school at the time of the focus group (85 %; n=23).

Data Collection

Prior to the focus groups, the authors developed focus group protocols, detailed potential discussion probes, established facilitation procedures, and reviewed the methods with col- leagues. The authors, trained and experienced in qualitative data collection methods, facilitated the focus groups. A total of four focus groups were facilitated, with three focus groups conducted over multiple sessions to fit the research site’s scheduling needs (e.g., meeting with student participants

3 All flyers were printed in English because the targeted participants were literate in the English language.

Sex Res Soc Policy (2014) 11:322–336 325

during lunch period). The focus groups were conducted in English given that all participants reported English fluency. English language proficiency was also confirmed by the teacher and/or program staff at each site.

Prior to the start of each focus group, the authors adminis- tered a brief (3-page/10-min) questionnaire that asked partic- ipants about their background demographic, family and edu- cational profile, support systems, and pregnancy. The ques- tionnaire did not ask for any identifying information. Partici- pants completed the questionnaire on their own unless they needed help understanding a question. Once all participants completed the questionnaire, the authors collected the ques- tionnaires, placed them in a sealed envelope, and, later, transported the questionnaires to the authors’ university office for data entry and analysis.

The focus group immediately followed the administration of the questionnaire. With each group, the authors asked a total of nine questions; however, the conversation often shifted as new topics were introduced by participants. Through attentive listening practices and informal commen- tary between participants and facilitators, the authors aimed to create an open and vibrant conversation during which the authors and participants could learn from each other. The focus groups were audio-taped and later transcribed by the authors and undergraduate research assistants. Since partici- pants preferred to use their first names during the focus group (which were often conducted with their good friends/peers), the researchers later deleted all identifying information during the transcription process and assigned each participant a letter- number combination to maintain their anonymity in the final report that was shared with the research sites and local com- munity (Vinson and Stevens, 2012). For the purposes of presenting quotes from the transcriptions for this article, this letter-number combination has been replaced with pseudonyms.

The authors used a grounded theory approach for data analysis (Pope et al. 2000). This allowed for the identification of common responses to the planned focus group questions as well as other issues not specifically related to these questions. The authors independently reviewed the transcriptions and documented emerging issues along with supporting narrative. Rather than developing a data dictionary of words or word phrases, a larger thematic coding construction of the major

issues was developed in which words, phrases, and larger verbal segments provided support for each of main issues that emerged. For example, all words, phrases and segments that mentioned “school” were pulled for content analysis that informed the data and findings reported in this paper. The authors, along with a student researcher, reviewed the coding. Inter-coder agreement was 100 % for content directly related to focus group questions. Inter-coder agreement for issues not specifically related to the focus group questions was initially at approximately 80 %. Upon discussion of divergent coding, the three coders eventually came to 100 % agreement.

Results

Several issues with regard to schools emerged from the data including (1) students being pressured to leave their schools, (2) controversy about providing services for young pregnant and mothering women, (3) schooling options desired by par- ticipants, (4) experiences of teacher hostility, (5) experiences of peer hostility, (6) limited opportunities to respond to stigma, and (7) concerns about promoting fair treatment of pregnant and mothering students. We address these topics below and offer research findings from both the quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (focus group) data.

Pregnant and Mothering Students Are Pressured to Leave Their Schools

Three participants said that they were encouraged by school administrators to transfer to schools with special services for pregnant and parenting students. Salma explained:

Yeah, like, I went to a [school] right there and, like, when I had told them I was pregnant—cuz I was, like, using the bathroom a lot and they asked me, ‘is there something wrong with you?’ I’m like, ‘no.’ And like my grandma told them I was pregnant so they were like, ‘oh well we don’t really have any programs and your best alternative is to leave this school and go to [another school].’ They told me that and I was like, ‘ok.’ So like I told my grandma and my grandma was like, ‘oh well we’ll get you there right away so…’

Table 1 Participant information

a Overall 26 % (n=7) were multiracial

Research site Urban school Rural school Community-based Corrections-based

Participants n=8 n=9 n=6 n=4

Average age 16.3 17.0 19.3 16.5

Ethnic minoritiesa 100 % 44 % 50 % 100 %

Currently pregnant 0 % 56 % 25 % 50 %

326 Sex Res Soc Policy (2014) 11:322–336

Salma’s reluctance to tell the administration about her pregnancy was well-founded as the administration responded to the news of her pregnancy by recommending that she transfer schools. Salma describes that her grandmother was the one who took action to get Salma into the “best alterna- tive.” Salma seemed to think it was a decision made for her. Another participant, Frieda, related to that experience by sharing her observations: “Yeah, they just kicked my sister out recently because she found out she’s pregnant.” When asked whether it was the same school Salma had attended, Frieda said yes, “a lot of girls from [that school] come here.” Salma clarified, “They don’t kick you out, but they refer you to here. Like, ‘oh you should go to [that school] because we don’t have any programs for you.’” Whereas Frieda saw the administrative gesture as a clear push out, Salma interprets it as the administration seeing that the pregnant student no longer fits—there are no programs for her. Although this may certainly mean there are not programs to help with pregnancy and motherhood, it could also convey the message that the school officials do not want pregnant and mothering students to attend the school. Participants who attended schools without programs for young pregnant or parenting students noted that they did not see many visibly pregnant students there, but commented that they thought students who become pregnant often leave before the administration finds out.

Controversy About Providing Services for Pregnant and Mothering Students

During one focus group, the conversation about transferring to different schools turned into a discussion about why some schools do not offer services such as daycare for pregnant and mothering students. Salma suggested the school may be con- cerned that the public would perceive the school as “ghetto.” Sasha explained that certain schools do not provide accom- modations or support for pregnant or mothering students because the school does not want to suggest that they condone teenage pregnancy or parenthood. Sasha commented, “Like other schools are just like, ‘get out if you don’t like it. I’m sorry but we don’t have anything here for you.’” The partic- ipants’ comments surface a troubling sentiment: it appears to be more acceptable to refuse to help pregnant and mothering students than to provide them education or support their ability to attend school. Sasha explained the tension between providing needed services and sustaining the stigma tactic of teenage pregnancy prevention initiatives: “I just think that more programs like this especially like these groups, the TAPP program here, that would be great. But, then again, that’s when it’s really hard to because if you make more programs like this then people could be like, ‘oh it doesn’t matter if you get pregnant because we have a nursery at my school.’ So then

again it’s kind of like, I don’t know, it’s a tough thing to say.” Sasha expresses the challenge of accommodating the needs of pregnant and mothering students when the difficulties of young motherhood are packaged as a way to persuade young people to practice pregnancy prevention.

However, Sasha later critiqued this perspective because the daycare at her school is “a community nursery and a commu- nity daycare. [This daycare], it’s not just for us. Teachers bring their babies here, counselors, you know, other moms if they’re working, and they live close to here they can bring their babies here too. So it’s not just for us but we do have priority so that’s, I think, that’s a good idea—a cool idea. It helps out a lot of people.” Thus, Sasha sees the potential of on-site daycare services to assist many parents with much-needed child care, therein making school a more inclusive environment for all. Belinda, who hoped to return to school after leaving the correctional facility, lamented that schools with helpful ser- vices for parents are difficult to find and/or find transportation to.

The lack of school-based child care is unfortunate given that the participants who attended schools or institutions with multiple pregnancy and parenting-related services on campus appreciated having everything in one place. Participants from the correctional facility particularly admired the Head Start program and wished that all young women who were pregnant or mothering had the opportunity to take part in such services. In addition, students at schools with pregnancy and parent- hood programs commented specifically about the efforts of individual program teachers and school counselors who shared information about local non-profit agencies, state food assistance, and federal financial assistance. School-based child care and parenting programs help participating students identify and sign-up for the social services available to them.

Schooling Options

During the focus groups, participants talked about the school- ing option they thought pregnant and mothering students might prefer: staying at their regular high school, attending a school designed only for pregnant and parenting students, or attending a traditional high school with an established pro- gram and services (like a daycare) for pregnant and parenting students.

Interestingly, all participants at the correctional facility said they prefer a program that included only pregnant and parent- ing teens because of the built-in support system and unlikeli- hood of being judged by other students. Belinda explained, “You [would] have understanding with the other pregnant girls. And, you know, you can talk about what is going on with how they’re doing with their babies [. . .] you can show them what to do. [They] all can, I don’t know, all can do things, with their babies outside of school—go somewhere. You know, be supportive.” Belinda’s comment suggests that a

Sex Res Soc Policy (2014) 11:322–336 327

school designed specifically for young mothers could help to facilitate friendships and mentorship among the students.

All participants who attended traditional schools with established services for pregnant and parenting students said they preferred this option because it allowed them to continue at their original school and feel “normal”—not like pregnancy changed everything about them or that their life is all about pregnancy and motherhood. For example, during the follow- ing exchange at a school with a daycare and parenting pro- gram for students, participants discussed the benefits of these on-campus services at traditional schools:

Sara: [The teachers] encourage us to graduate. And then, yeah, we have a nursery and we are able to come see our babies during the day. I think this is like the best. Sasha: And it gives us a break too. Salma: Away from them. [Laughs] Sasha: We are still with them for a certain amount of time—for a year or whatever. And we can come see them at lunch and stuff like that. But it also gives us a break, like, and we have a sense of like normalcy, like okay, “I am going to go school, I am going to be around friends, I am going to be around normal teachers, I am going to go to a regular school, oh but at lunch I am going to go see my baby.” So it is good. It is not like, “Oh crap I had a baby.” Like, “oh I guess I am going to go to a school with all babies and all moms.” Facilitator: What would be the problem with that? Frieda: You would go nuts! [. . .] Salma: It’s just, like, you won’t feel like normal. Sara: We are still like the kids out there. Like others. We are still going to class; we are taking the same classes as them. It’s just that, we have a baby.

Sasha further explained what she saw as the problem with a school devoted to just pregnant and parenting teens:

It’s like they are kind of making it to where your life has totally changed and it is so different now and it is all about your kid. Like, you need stability; like, you need it to be like . . . with me, when I got pregnant, it was never an issue of, “Oh you are not going to school; you are not going to do sports.” It was the same thing. Like, the same goals that I had for myself, the same goals that my family had for me, it was the same; it was just it is going to be a little bit more difficult and you might have to take a different route to get there but. . .you are still gonna do it.

The participants at schools with TAPP programs often stressed the importance of stability and a sense of normalcy at school in contrast to the stark shift of transferring to a school just for parenting teens.

However, there are also potential drawbacks to attending a school with on-site pregnancy and parenting services. Two participants explained that they chose to stay at their original schools without established services because (1) they were skeptical of the quality of the daycares at the local schools with TAPP programs and (2) they did not like the idea of attending a full school day. For example, Magdalena said that schools with programs for young pregnant and mothering women required them “to be in the classroom all day.” Tina explained, “Yeah, it is my senior year so I only have four classes so it’s quick. I go home for two hours and I go to work. It’s a very busy schedule, very stressful, but I get it done.” Since most teen pregnancies occur with women who are 18–19 years old, many pregnant and mothering students may be seniors who may have only a few credits to finish up. A traditional high school may allow young pregnant and mothering women more time for work and family because they are not required to have a full school schedule if they have enough credits already.

In addition to full school-day schedules, attending a school with a campus child-care center can mean students have less time for studying and work with the added pressure of school staff monitoring/disciplining their parenting practices. An ad- ministrator of a high school with child care and a parenting program told us that mothering students are required to come to the child-care center to feed and diaper the children during the mothers’ scheduled study hours. At one of our research sites—a school with a TAPP program—participating students (all female) must eat lunch with their children with the added requirement of making sure that their child’s nutritional needs are met before their own (i.e., they must feed their child before eating their own lunch). Considering these constraints, tradi- tional high schools may offer more freedom in terms of studying, working, and caring for their children.

Participants explained that high schools without designated programs for pregnant and parenting students provided support by (1) letting students leave the classroom for pregnancy or lactation purposes when and if needed, (2) counseling and supporting pregnant/mothering students when peers or teachers harassed them, (3) excusing tardies or absences related to preg- nancy and mothering, and (4) sending work via email when the student needed to remain at home or in the hospital. Both students who preferred the traditional school option commented that specific teachers and administrators stood out as especially helpful in negotiating the demands of motherhood and school- work. Despite the differences in the participants’ opinions about school structures, many emphasized the importance of quality, affordable child care because “a lot of girls they wouldn’t come to school because they don’t have nobody to watch [their kids].”

Table 2 synthesizes what the participants expressed, during the focus groups, as important factors regarding schooling options available to pregnant and mothering women and what they identified as important features of their high school environments.

328 Sex Res Soc Policy (2014) 11:322–336

Hostility at School: Teachers

One recurring issue that surfaced in the focus groups was judgmental or dramatic comments directed at pregnant and mothering students on school campuses. As one participant stated, “School kind of sucks when you’re pregnant because no one knows how to talk to you; it’s like, ‘oh my god you’re pregnant!’” Another participant in this focus group agreed, “Or the whole conversation is about your pregnancy.” When asked if the pregnancy-focused interaction was with teachers and peers, participants explained it was both. For example, Michelle said, “one of my History and Government teachers, because I’ve had him for like 2 [or] 3 years now, when I told him he was kind of like ‘no, you’re not. You?” At times, it is expressions of disappointment or shock that consistently re- mind pregnant and mothering students that peers, teachers, and staff think that they have made a mistake. At other times, it is explicit hostility directed at pregnant and mothering students from school staff and students.

When asked about the support of teachers and staff at the school, participants seemed to generally approve of how they were treated at their schools. Many had attended their schools for multiple years prior to their pregnancy, so although some teachers expressed a little disappointment at the news of their

pregnancies, most supported them as students trying to com- plete their education. However, at each focus group, we learned of incidents with teachers and substitutes who were not supportive and who would make negative remarks about students’ pregnancies in front of the other students.

For example, Tina explained that she was “kicked out” of a class because the teacher did not approve of the fact that she was pregnant at 16 years old. When asked about how the teacher could expel the student from the classroom, Tina replied, “Legally, no she can’t do that, but she did it anyways.” Tina later explained, “That teacher, she would sit there and [say] ‘We’re going to have a conversation on teen pregnancy today’ . . . and just totally humiliate me in front of the whole class . . . and I got to the point where, I would just, like, stand up and I would be like ‘Seriously?’ and end up getting kicked out of class and get a referral. So they just kicked me out of that class because they got tired.” The administrators decided to transfer Tina to another class in order to cease the ongoing conflict between Tina and her teacher. Not only does this situation demonstrate the kind of uncomfortable experiences young pregnant and mothering women may experience at school,butitalsoraisesaninterestingpoint about prevention initiatives: talking about the negative consequences of teen- age pregnancy and child rearing in a classroom that includes

Table 2 Pros and cons of different schooling options

Alternative Traditional w/services

Traditional

High school pros

Provides daycare services X X

Provides an opportunity to bond with other pregnant women and mentor/support each other X X

Creates a safe haven from fears and realities of harassment based on their teen pregnancies X

Assists with getting needed social services X

Allows mothers a rare break from child-care responsibilities to focus on schoolwork X X

Allows young women to participate in “regular” school activities with their original peers (e.g., prom and graduation)

X X

Encourages graduation from high school and beyond X X

Allows part-time schedules for students with enough school credits X

Relies on individual teacher/administrator attention to and accommodation of pregnancy and child-care matters

X

High school cons

May make students feel abnormal to be at a “different” school. X

Less quality education (e.g., no AP or college credit courses) X

Potentially problematic daycare (e.g., too many rules or uncleanly environment) X X

Requires a full schedule and helping at the daycare X

Includes extra rules for program participants who must sign a contract X

Exposes students to peer and teacher harassment X X

No daycare or on-site services X

No built-in cohort of pregnant and parenting students X

This chart reflects participants’ perceptions; it does not reflect our research into the curriculums, policies, or structures of these school types. For instance, some alternative schools for young parents may “assist with getting needed social services,” but this was not discussed when participants talked about this schooling option

Sex Res Soc Policy (2014) 11:322–336 329

pregnant and mothering young women may make them feel like they are being berated for their reproductive decision— especially if the conversation occurs out of the expected context of a scheduled lesson on sexual health. Frieda de- scribed a class period in which a teacher “was like, out of nowhere, like right when we started school, she started say- ing that ‘oh’ when she was in high school there was only one pregnancy. And I was like [confused], ‘Okay?’ like. . . But she didn’t even know I had a baby yet. . . And there was nobody pregnant in the class. And she says that. I was like, ‘Ok, do you not realize like there’s people in here that have kids?’” Frieda’s classmate, Sara, rationalized the teacher’s statement by pointing out “there [are] more girls pregnant this year than . . . there is a lot.” Sasha chimed in, “But it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter! It’s their life.” Sara contin- ued with her explanation of what she saw as the teacher’s main concern and reason for making the statement in class: “It is so hard taking care of the babies.” Sasha explained her point of view, “Like I do not have a problem. If you are going to raise your kid and you are going to be there for your kid. And, you know, yeah, you need help. Like now I understand when it says, ‘It takes a village to raise a kid,’ or something like that. Now I understand that. You can’t do it by yourself but at the same time . . . there’s no judgment.” Frieda agreed with the importance of not judging other young women’s reproductive decisions and emphasized what she thought should be the teacher’s main role with students: “Yeah, instead of judging you should like try to help and support that student to graduate.” These stories suggest that moral castigation of teenage pregnancy in the school context can contribute to an uncomfortable and unwelcoming school environment for pregnant and mothering students at the school who want to feel encouraged to be successful and graduate.

Along with direct comments from school instructors and other staff, some preventative strategies may make pregnant and mothering students (who embody the “issue” more visibly than fathering students at school or in the community) feel judged. For example, at Salma’s school, students receive a lesson on the physical demands of pregnancy that includes wearing pseudo-pregnant bellies. Salma, who was visibly pregnant at the time of this class exercise, felt upset when another student wearing the fake belly next to her exclaimed, “Oh God! I would never! Like, who would want this?” Salma responded by quickly walking away from the student. Educa- tional tactics, like the pseudo-pregnant belly exercise, that encourage students to reject the idea of pregnancy in their teens may encourage horizontal hostility among students, as Salma felt impelled to move away from the student making that comment.

As another example, Sasha reflected on a recent encounter with a substitute teacher at her school. When she requested to go to the nursery during free time (an option available to

students attending schools with TAPP programs) the substi- tute teacher questioned this request: “For what? What are you going to do in the nursery?” When she explained that she needed to see her baby, he asked, “Oh! So you have a baby? How old are you?” Sasha’s peers were astonished that the substitute would ask judgmental, personal questions in front of her entire class. Students in the class supported Sasha by explaining to the instructor that she had a baby and was allowed to check on him in the nursery. Later, they checked up on Sasha by telling her they could not believe what the teacher had said and the rude tone he used when he said it.

As Sasha’s example demonstrates, both student peers and (in other stories) administrators seemed to actively respond to these incidences. For example, Tina explained that she, too, had a judgmental substitute who “hated the fact that I was pregnant. She was like, ‘I look down on you because you’re pregnant’ and I just got up and walked out of the classroom. I just got up and walked out. . . went into the principal’s office, told the principal what happened and he immediately went into the classroom and he was like [to the substitute] ‘you can leave now, I’ll sub the class.” Administrator’s acknowledgment of their complaints of mistreatment by teachers or substitutes appeared to help partic- ipants recognize supportive figures at school.

Hostility at School: Peers

Participants also reported uncomfortable exchanges with peers. Negative peer reactions typically reflected the peers’ assumptions that pregnant and mothering students were sex- ually deviant and irresponsible. For example, pregnant and mothering students at a school that positions its child care at the back of the campus said that they often experience stares and rude comments as they walk across campus. One visibly pregnant participant, Maria, explained that she would often see parents staring at her as she walked through the parking lot. Molly explained that male students would yell “MILF” (slang for “Mom I’d Like to Fuck”) at her as she strolled her infant to the school daycare. As another example, Miranda was told by a fellow student passing by her that she “shoulda wore a condom!” At her school, Salma said, “Some students look at you like ‘Eew.’ Like, when I was pregnant, I’d walk if I was late, I would walk across the [campus] and [other stu- dents] would be like staring.” Belinda called such peers “enemies”:

You know, they be like, “She wrong, having that baby, she’s young.” You know? People that just be hating you, that say something about you, so. That’s what I had in school. People just looking at me while I am in there. [I am] like “What you all looking at?”

Such comments from “enemies” may lead to situations in which pregnant women hide their pregnancies, leave school to

330 Sex Res Soc Policy (2014) 11:322–336

avoid such treatment, or feel discouraged from claiming their rights as a pregnant or mothering student. Indeed, Belinda hid her pregnancy from family, teachers, and most students for the majority of her pregnancy. This led to an unexpected and dramatic start of her labor at the school nurse’s office. Megan explained that she left her original high school because “the kids, you would just want to knock them out. . . . They would say dumb stuff because they were dumb and they would ask in front of the whole class if you were fat or [if] you were pregnant.” Although Megan emphasized that one teacher was very supportive of her, many of the students were exces- sively mean.

Whereas Megan attributes these comments to the “dumb” disposition of some non-pregnant and non-parenting students, participants in her focus group also discussed the possibility that the majority of these comments come from freshman students who do not know the pregnant and mothering stu- dents personally and who may only see the pregnant teen body as indicative of deviant sexuality—perhaps like the bodies of young mothers used in teenage pregnancy prevention mes- sages. Sasha explained that she had not experienced stares or rude comments from peers and she believed it was due to the fact that she had attended the school with those same students most of her life: “I don’t know. I have known pretty much . . . not everyone . . . but mostly everybody here, I mean I went to school with them since I was little and stuff. And, like, my nana worked in the district. Like, I know a lot of, like, the people working in the district and stuff so I never got like looked down upon.” Together, these participants’ perspectives suggest that teachers and peers are less judgmental when they know the student personally. This is important to consider when thinking about the pres- sure young pregnant and mothering women experience from administrators who want them to transfer from their original high school to a school with specialized accommodations—a school at which they may not know the teachers or other students.

Limited Opportunities to Respond to Stigma

Participants’ stories suggested that responding to peers and teachers is tricky for young women who are part of programs with special rules about their behavior and conduct. For ex- ample, on her first day at the detention center, Belinda was stopped in the courtyard by a peer.

Somebody asked me “You’re pregnant?” and I was like, “Yeah, this is my second one.” [She] was like “You’re serious? How old are you?” It’s like, “What do you care?” You know? I was like, “Uh, 17.” And she was like, “Dang, how old did you have with your first one?” I was like, “14.” She was like, “Damn, you’re young, that’s crazy.” I was like, “Okay, whatever.”

Facilitator: Is that what you said “Okay whatever” and rolled your eyes and walked away? Belinda: I walked away; I was like, I don’t care. It’s my responsibility not yours. That’s what I said in my head though [laughing]. But, it’s kinda weird. It’s like, “Dang, she’s judging me already!” Facilitator: Were you happy with how you responded? Just to walk away and then say that little retort in your head, you know? Belinda: Well, if I would have kept talking somebody would have called me. The staff—they wouldn’t have allowed us to keep talking.

Since this school had strict rules about talking in the hallways, peers’ persistent questions were especially frustrat- ing. Students at a school with a TAPP program mentioned that enrolling in the special program required signing a contract with special code-of-conduct provisions. Thus, when students yelled hurtful things at them, they felt like all they could do was walk away. Miranda explained, “You can’t be in fights and you can’t be in like altercations and stuff. . . We get kicked out—like one fight or anything we get kicked out” of the program and have to find other accommodations for pregnancy- and parenting-related services, including child care. This would prove to be a difficult challenge for parenting students at this rural school located miles away from other child-care providers.

Peers’ explicit scrutiny of teenage pregnancy and mother- hood often causes pregnant and mothering students to feel anxiety and anger. This can potentially distract students from coursework and the other positive aspects of the school. In a culture that defines teenage pregnancy as a moral problem that is associated with societal ills, many young women already experience shock, fear, and disappointment upon learning of an unintended pregnancy. Although participants explained that their feelings changed over the course of the pregnancy, a common theme in our focus group discussions was the anxiety they felt in response to discovering the pregnancy and telling others about it. One pregnant participant explained that as her due date neared, she feared that she will not be a “good mom.” Belinda said that when peers, teachers, and others make negative comments about her pregnancies, “I was like, ‘Oh, yeah. You’re right. What am I going to do?’” Participants at another focus group agreed. Sara explained that after receiving many negative comments about her pregnancy “it kind of gets to you.” Another mother in the group, Salma, chimed in: “[It] kind of makes you have like a second thought.” Sara agreed: “Makes you have a lot.”

When discussing the pressure young pregnant and mother- ing women face at school, focus group conversations often turned to the dual standard for young mothers versus the fathers of teen pregnancies who may not attend the school, who do not visibly “embody” the problem, and who,

Sex Res Soc Policy (2014) 11:322–336 331

presumably, do not receive as many judgmental comments. Silvia explained, “It’s not on the guy. It’s like if they want they can walk out whenever they want and we can’t.” Sara agreed, pointing out, “It’s assumed that the mom is there for the baby, and that if the mom’s not there it’s like really bad. But the guys . . . it’s like something that is normal.” Silvia nodded, “The pressure’s not on them!” These comments suggest that when students and school staff make disparaging comments to young pregnant and mothering students they are (perhaps unwittingly) supporting a gendered hierarchy that designates women to blame for sexual behaviors and reproductive choices that stray from stated societal norms.

Concerns About Promoting Fair Treatment of Pregnant and Mothering Students

The final focus group question that was asked was “how can people be supportive of pregnant and parenting teens?” Often, participants suggested that people could promote fair and respectful treatment of young pregnant and mothering young women at school. However, it is important to note that partic- ipants at the rural school voiced concern about promoting fair treatment of young pregnant and mothering women as it might bring more attention to their position as “teen moms.” Miran- da explained that the scrutiny she and the other pregnant and mothering students at her high school experienced was “just how it is supposed to be.” Although 26 out of the 27 partic- ipants’ pregnancies were unintended, some participants thought pregnant and mothering students should accept such comments as a consequence of their “choice” to be pregnant. Mia said, “We might of not all been like ‘hey let’s get preg- nant,’ but we chose to have a child.” Miranda agreed, “We did what we did and put ourselves in that situation.” Mia even wondered if a campaign to treat young pregnant and mother- ing women better might “make it more noticeable” that she and her peers had made a mistake.

In another focus group discussion, Magdalena expressed her belief that an effort to inform teachers and staff of the misinformation that circulates about teenage pregnancy and/or the negative effects of scrutinizing attitudes toward pregnant or mothering students was unnecessary because she believed people already knew about those things:

I think they are informed, I think they’re just ignorant and they’re kind of stubborn about [it]. You know, in their time it was very inappropriate or kind of a taboo to be pregnant at such a young age or, you know, to be sexually active and it wasn’t talked about; it wasn’t, you know, in the 60s or whenever [. . .] they were [going to] send you away or give your baby up for adoption. It was the parent’s choice of that 16-year-old girl; she was sent away and the boy had no responsibility and then she came back and it’s like, “oh she just got back from

vacation”. . . So, I think now people are so open about it, you know? I think this generation itself is very—I don’t want to say sexual—but it’s very open about it. And, um, and I think people are just too stubborn to get over it.

Magdalena’s comments suggest that for some “stubborn” school personnel and students, a way to respond to young pregnant or mothering women—who visibly embody “sex” and “teenage pregnancy”—is to express shock, disappoint- ment, anger, or sex education sound bites (e.g., “shoulda worn a condom” or “we’re going to talk about teenage pregnancy today”).

Discussion and Policy Recommendations

Although some participants expressed their belief that nega- tive attitudes and behaviors toward young pregnant and moth- ering women are just “the way it is supposed to be,” we believe that there is much that school personnel, educational policy makers, and sex education policy makers could do to support young women who are balancing school, pregnancy, and/or motherhood. Based on the stories of pregnant and mothering participants, we offer the following discussion with policy recommendations for prioritizing: “support[ing] that student to graduate” (Frieda, MPSP participant).

Overall, participants in this study articulated a desire for a flexible, welcoming school environment. Their stories about hostile or otherwise inappropriate comments about their preg- nancy or motherhood suggest that school administrators should promote general awareness among school personnel and students regarding the need to curb judgment and be respectful of pregnant and mothering students. One partici- pant, Miranda, explained, “the thing is, people just automati- cally assume ‘oh well, you know, their life is screwed.’ They don’t think, ‘Yeah, well they’re trying to get a good life.’ They don’t recognize that people are trying.” Megan later added, “I just think we should, I don’t know if you guys feel the same way, but just being told, like, ‘You’re doing a good job. Keep it up.’” School personnel should be challenged to think criti- cally about how young pregnant and mothering women as “screwed” in pregnancy prevention discourse and should challenge students to think about this as well. As a way to open up this discussion, schools could have students talk about the dual standards for women and men in regards to sexual activity and reproductive outcomes. As mentioned in the Results, this was often a vibrant topic for discussion and may be a great opportunity for schools to promote inclusivity while educating students and staff in issues of gender inequality.

However, in many ways, schools are positioned by sex education mandates and prevention initiatives to discourage

332 Sex Res Soc Policy (2014) 11:322–336

anyone from recognizing pregnant and mothering students as young women who are doing a “good job.” Schools may struggle to balance efforts to prevent teen pregnancies, by socializing students to think negatively of teenage pregnan- cies, while also supporting pregnant and mothering students’ efforts to continue their education. After all, visibly pregnant and mothering students have clearly not “abstain[ed] from sexual intercourse” and are living the “consequence of ado- lescent pregnancy” (AZ R7-2-303). The framework of teen- age pregnancy prevention campaigns encourages school per- sonnel to see pregnant and mothering students as “preventa- tive subjects” (Vinson 2013); that is, young women whose lives serve as a model to prevent other students from having sex or becoming pregnant. Within this framework, a pregnant student in the classroom may be seen as a reason for the teacher or other students to speak about the problem of teen- age pregnancy, as specifically noted by focus group partici- pant Tina. Furthermore, young pregnant and mothering stu- dents are often encouraged to speak about their hardships and struggles in order to prevent other teens from becoming preg- nant (Kelly 2000, p. 110), but not about their needs or expe- riences of harassment at school. In their ethnographic study of young mothers and youth-serving practitioners in British Co- lumbia, Chabot et al. found that young mothers’ experiences were considered parables useful in persuading non-pregnant or parenting teens to consider the consequences of sex. Chabot et al. argue against using young mothers as parables in sex education contexts because this approach is “more likely to demonize young women’s sexualities and further alienate young mothers from other teens” (2010, p. 201). Although some argue that it is important to stigmatize teenage pregnan- cy and child rearing as a prevention approach (Goff 2013; Reeves 2013), these participants’ stories encourage us to think about the risks of negative representations for young women who find themselves pregnant.

A pregnant or mothering student in the classroom should not be an example of deviant sexuality or poor reproductive decisions. Widespread discourses about teenage pregnancy pressure school personnel and policy to reflect this attitude, but school personnel can reject this approach and re-focus policy on what Pillow has called “a school equity issue” (2006, p. 60). Schools should consider educating both teachers and students alike in the importance of supporting all students in school—regardless of differences in class, race, age, ability, or pregnancy/parenting status so that negative interactions between staff and students are less likely to occur. Specifically, school personnel should be informed of the po- tential harm that their skepticism, confusion, or even expressed disappointment can be to young pregnant and mothering students in the classroom as well as the way that these responses are often inequitably focused on female stu- dents. Efforts to prevent teen pregnancy should not come at the cost of making pregnant and mothering students feel

ashamed and potentially unmotivated to come to a school where they are made to feel inferior.

Importantly, schools should implement sexuality education and prevention efforts that empower all students—including pregnant and mothering students. Framing sex education as “teenage pregnancy prevention” carries the implicit argument that teenage pregnancy/parenthood is always a terrible thing. This can make pregnant and parenting students feel uncom- fortable in the classroom and among peers—recall Salma’s discomfort during the pseudo-pregnant belly educational ex- ercise. Although schools have a responsibility to educate students on the demands and tasks of pregnancy and parent- hood in general, they should avoid pedagogical strategies that stigmatize pregnancy at the school. Aiming for sex education that is focused on information about sexual health and the challenges of pregnancy and parenthood at any age can be a way to avoid pathologizing young pregnant and mothering women while still teaching important content.

Participants’ comments about continuing pressure on preg- nant and mothering women to transfer to different schools also need to be further researched and addressed. The discovery of a student’s pregnancy should not just be a moment when administrators recommend alternative educational options. Although this might be the right decision for some students, researchers have pointed out that alternative schools for young parents often offer substandard education and little encour- agement to continue with college and career ambitions (Kelly 2000; Lesko 1990; Luttrell 2003; Pillow 2004, 2006; Zellman 1981). In addition, participants reported that they most often received negative remarks from students and staff that did not know them personally; thus, it is important to consider how a school transfer may render a visibly pregnant student vulner- able to more discrimination or hostility as she becomes an anonymous embodied example of “teenage pregnancy” at an unfamiliar school. Finally, our focus group discussions re- vealed that not all young pregnant and mothering students want daycare accommodations or pregnancy and parenting programs on campus (see Table 2). Considering these factors, when a student discloses her pregnancy to school personnel we recommend that educators, administrators, family mem- bers, and the student should discuss all the options available to the student and her family. Educational policy should dictate that schools provide students and their families accessible information about legal and social supports in place for school-attending pregnant and mothering women, so that they can be prepared to advocate for the young woman’s well- being while being informed that a teen-aged pregnancy should not mean the end of her education or career ambitions. A helpful resource for schools and pregnant and parenting stu- dents alike is The National Women’s Law Center’s (2012) recent report called “A Pregnancy Test for Schools: The Impact of Education Laws on Pregnant and Parenting Stu- dents” that includes wallet cards for pregnant and mothering

Sex Res Soc Policy (2014) 11:322–336 333

students that outline their rights and what to do if they need accommodations at school.

Another way to prepare educational staff for interacting with pregnant and mothering students is to ensure that educa- tion and administrative certification programs as well as school-based personnel training policies for administrators, teachers, and staff include training with regard to teenage pregnancy and motherhood as a requirement for continuing education and professional development. As one participant commented, when you are pregnant in school, “no one knows how to talk to you.” Training could also include instruction in (1) federal and state policies with regard to protection and rights, (2) prevalence of stigma and discrimination, (3) re- search that nuances and challenges the statistics that circulates as “consequences” of teenage pregnancy, (4) effects of media portrayals of teen mothers and teen pregnancy prevention discourses, and (5) strategies for communicating and working effectively with pregnant and parenting teens.

Furthermore, school personnel hiring and promotion poli- cies should include assessment of cultural competency, in- cluding cultural competency with regard to teen pregnancy and parenthood. This is important because sustaining flexible accommodations for pregnant and parenting students in tradi- tional schools will, in part, hinge on case-by-case efforts of compassionate individual school personnel (Zellman 1981; Pillow 2006). Establishing ways to recognize such school personnel for these efforts will also encourage more inclusive practices by other educators and staff.

Another way to promote the fair and respectful treatment of pregnant and mothering students is to include pregnant and parenting teens in school policies on harassment and bullying (National Women’s Law Center 2012). Federal anti-bullying laws address discriminatory harassment in schools based on race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, age, disability, or religion which is punishable by the judicial system of the USA, specifically the Department of Education’s (DOE) Of- fice for Civil Rights and the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice (DOJ). The US Department of Health and Human Services (2013) website “Stopbullying Cam- paign” indicates that schools are required to address a hostile school environment that “interferes with or limits a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or opportunities offered by a school” and is based on a student’s race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or reli- gion. According to the Arizona State Legislature (2013), an educational governing board in the state of Arizona is required to prescribe and enforce policies and procedures to prohibit pupils from harassing, intimidating and bullying other pupils on school grounds and in other school-related venues. Arizo- na, and states across the country, could specifically include pregnant and parenting teens in these protections.

In order for such protections to work, schools with services for pregnant and mothering students should not require extra

code-of-conduct requirements that make participating stu- dents feel unable to address the inappropriate and demeaning reactions they experience school. This was evidenced by Molly who felt she could not respond to male students yelling “MILF” as she walked by. Such additional rules may violate Title IX’s insistence on “equal education” for young pregnant and mothering students and interfere with the goal of broader anti-bullying initiatives that seek to empower students to report bullying incidents (e.g., AZ State Legislature 2013).

It is important to also address the fact that child care often came up during our focus groups. After all, many of the participants of this study were taking advantage of child-care facilities at their schools and affordable, quality child care is important to any parent. Pillow (2004) writes that “less than 5 % of [high] schools nationwide provide childcare services to teen mothers” (p. 153). The lack of school-based child-care facilities may be reflective of a lack of resources and other challenges facing school districts including, perhaps, a desire to protect the school’s image and avoid community backlash. Schools wary of establishing on-site child care facilities for fear of community backlash can turn to Sasha’s point made earlier—child-care centers help staff, students, and local com- munity members alike. This study also revealed that some participants did not desire or need child care at their school. Based on the complexity of the issue, we hesitate to make a broad recommendation that all schools have on-site child care. Regardless of whether or not schools have on-site child care, young parents should be provided with information about nearby child-care facilities and financial assistance options for low-income parents.

The issue of child care, along with providing other related supports for pregnant and mothering women, is complicated given that the needs of students are varied based on their particular situations. Some participants in this study needed enhanced understanding of their tardies or absences due to child-care/pregnancy matters or a safe space to use for lacta- tion purposes. Others needed a homework assignment emailed home when it was not possible to be present at school. Many participants stated that they wanted to be able to attend school without their teachers and peers consistently asking about their pregnancies or children. Given the diversity of students and their needs, it is important that school personnel ask pregnant and parenting students what they need, listen to what they have to say, and provide options that best fit their needs.

Conclusion

As interdisciplinary feminist researchers committed to respect and support for all reproductive choices, we contest the stig- matization of young pregnant and mothering women. Further- more, as promoters of information, access, and resources that

334 Sex Res Soc Policy (2014) 11:322–336

empower women and provide them the opportunity to make actual choices about their bodies and lives, we maintain that young pregnant and mothering women are legally and ethi- cally entitled to equal education in a harassment-free school environment, whether the school is designed for pregnant and parenting students or not. We are not alone in this stance (Lawson and Rhode 1993; Lesko 1990; Kelly 2000; Luker 1996; Luttrell 2003; Pillow 2004; Roberts 1997; Rodriguez 2008).

We understand that school administrators may be con- cerned that taking a visible stand in supporting pregnant and mothering women may be received by some students, parents, and community members as “condoning” teenage pregnancy and child rearing. Yet our study participants’ articulation of their experiences and desires offer evidence that they want and need to be supported as students with the same potential for greatness as other students. In response to volatile reactions to proactive policy changes and other inclusive educational ini- tiatives, schools can respond with the claim that they are taking action to support the achievement of all students.

The voiced experiences of these young pregnant and moth- ering women indicate that action needs to be taken so that school personnel and students do not shame, harass, stigma- tize, or push out pregnant and mothering students at school. Providing education to the wider school community, creating specific learning opportunities for school personnel, and attaining needed changes in school, state, and federal policies will contribute to an inclusive and positive educational envi- ronment for all students, including those who are pregnant and parenting.

Acknowledgments We are grateful to the all of the MPSP participants for sharing their pregnancy stories with us and to the teachers, volunteers, and administrators who helped us coordinate the focus groups at each site. This project would not have been possible without the funding and support of the University of Arizona's Crossroads Collaborative and the Southwest Institute for Research on Women.

References

Afable-Munsuz, A., & Brindis, C. D. (2006). Acculturation and the sexual and reproductive health of Latino youth in the United States: a literature review. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 38(4), 208–219.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). (2012). Pregnant and parenting teens. Retrieved from: http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/ pregnant-and-parenting-teens.

Arizona Department of Education. (2012). Research and evaluation: Graduation rates. http://www.azed.gov/research-evaluation/ graduation-rates/ Accessed 27 Dec 2013.

Arizona Department of Health Services. (2012). Teenage pregnancy Arizona, 2000–2010. Phoenix: Mrela & Torres.

Arizona Department of State, Office of the Secretary of State. Arizona State Legislature, R7-2- 303. Retrieved from: http://www.azsos.gov/ public_services/Title_07/7-02.htm#Article_3.

Arizona State Legislature. (2013). General powers and duties; Immunity; Delegation #37. At http://www.azleg.gov/ars/15/00341.htm. Accessed 3 Apr 2013.

Bishaw, A. (2012). Poverty 2010 and 2011. American Community Survey Briefs. U.S. Census Bureau.

Chabot, C., Shoveller, J. A., Johnson, J. L., & Prkachin, K. (2010). Morally problematic: young mothers’ lives as parables about the dangers of sex. Sex Education, 10(2), 201–215.

Davila, Y. R. (2005). The social construction and conceptualization of sexual health among Mexican American women. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice, 19(4), 357–368.

Fessler, K. B. (2008). Reclaiming a spoiled maternal identity: Young mothers’ experiences and rejection of stigma. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Franco, M. (2012). Issue brief: Supporting latina/o youth: Strengthening latina/o young families and communities. Retrieved from California Latinas for Reproductive Justice (CLRJ)’s website: http://www. californialatinas.org/strengthening-latina-o-young-families-and- communities/.

Furstenberg, F. F. (2007). Destinies of the disadvantaged: the politics of teen childbearing. New York: Sage.

Garcia, L. (2012). Respect yourself, protect yourself: Latina girls and sexual identity. New York: New York University Press.

Geronimus, A. T. (1987). On teenage childbearing and neonatal mortality in the United States. Population and Development Review, 13(2), 245–279.

Geronimus, A. T. (2003). Damned if you do: culture, identity, privilege, and teenage childbearing in the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 57, 881–893.

Goff, K. (Interviewee). (2013, March 20). Teen pregnancy ads: Shame campaign? [Radio Broadcast]. Washington, D.C.: National Public Radio. Retrieved from: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/20/174839322/ teen-pregnancy-ads-shame-campaign.

Kearney, M. S., & Levine, P. B. (2012). Why is the teen birth rate in the United States so high and why does it matter? Journal of Economic Perspectives American Economic Association, 26(2), 141–163.

Kelly, D. M. (2000). Pregnant with meaning: teen mothers and the politics of inclusive schooling. New York: Lang.

Lawson, A., & Rhode, D. (Eds.). (1993). The politics of pregnancy: adolescent sexuality and public policy. London: Yale University Press.

Lesko, N. (1990). Curriculum differentiation as social redemption: The case of school-aged mothers. In R. Page & L. Valli (Eds.), Curriculum differentiation: interpretive studies in U.S. secondary schools (pp. 113–136). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Luker, K. (1996). Dubious conceptions: the politics of teenage pregnancy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Luttrell, W. (2003). Pregnant bodies, fertile minds. New York: Routledge. Males, M. (2010). Teenage sex and pregnancy: modern myths, unsexy

realities. Santa Barbara: Praeger. Malone, G. (2013, March 15). I was a teenage mother [Editorial]. New

York Times. Moran, J. P. (2000). Teaching sex: the shaping of adolescence in the 20th

century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Nathanson, C. (1991). Dangerous passage: the social control of sexuality

in women’s adolescence. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. National KIDS COUNT Program. (2013). Children in poverty

(percent)—2011. Data across states. Baltimore: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Retrieved from: http://datacenter.kidscount.org/ data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=43.

Pillow, W. S. (2004). Unfit subjects: educational policy and the teen mother. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Pillow, W. S. (2006). Teen pregnancy and education: politics of knowl- edge, research, and practice. Educational Policy, 20, 59–84.

Pope, C., Ziebland, S., & Mays, N. (2000). Qualitative data in health care: analyzing qualitative data. British Medical Journal, 320, 114–116.

Sex Res Soc Policy (2014) 11:322–336 335

Reeves, R. (2013, March 15). Shame is not a four letter word [Editorial]. New York Times.

Rickert, V. I., Sanghvi, R., & Wiesmann, C. M. (2002). Is lack of sexual assertiveness among adolescent and young adult women a cause for concern? Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 34, 178– 183.

Roberts, D. (1997). Killing the black body: race, reproduction, and the meaning of liberty. New York: Pantheon.

Rocca, C. H., Doherty, I., Padian, N. S., Hubbard, A. E., & Minnis, A. M. (2010). Pregnancy intentions and teenage pregnancy among Latinas: a mediation analysis. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 42, 186–196. doi:10.1363/4218610.

Rodriguez, C. (2008). Beyond today and pass tomorrow: self-efficacy among African-American adolescent mothers. Voices, 8(1), 18–22.

Rowley, C. (2002). The maternal socialization of black adolescent mothers. Race, Gender, and Class, 9(1), 168–184.

Russell, S., & Lee, F. C. H. (2006). Latina adolescent motherhood: a turning point? In J. Denner and B. L. Guzman (Eds.), Latina girls: voices of adolescent strength (pp.212–225). New York: New York UP.

Sisson, G. (2012). Finding a way to offer something more: reframing teen pregnancy prevention. Sexual Research and Social Policy, 9, 57–69.

SmithBattle, L. (2007). Legacies of advantage and disadvantage: the case of teen mothers. Public Health Nursing, 24(5), 409–420.

Solinger, R. (2000). Wake up little Susie: single pregnancy and race before Roe v. Wade. New York: Routledge.

Stevens, S., Thompson, E. M., Vinson, J., Greene, A., Powell, C., Licona, A., et al. (2013). Informing sexuality education though youth generated anonymous questions. Sex education: sexuality, society and learning, 13(5), 84–98. doi:10.1080/14681811.2013. 781020.

The Henry J. Kaiser Foundation. (2011). Arizona: Poverty rate by race/ethnicity, states (2010- 2011), U.S. (2011). Individual state profiles. Retrieved from: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind. jsp?rgn=4&ind=14.

The National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). (2012). A pregnancy test for schools: the impact of education laws on pregnant and parenting students. Washington, D.C.: Egan and Kaufmann.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2012). Births: final data for 2010. National Vital Statistics Reports, 61(1), 72.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2013). Stopbullying campaign. Federal Laws. Retrieved from: http://www.stopbullying. gov/laws/federal/index.html.

Vianna, N. (Interviewee). (2013, March 20). Teen pregnancy ads: Shame campaign? [Radio Broadcast]. Washington, D.C.: National Public Radio. Retrieved from: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/20/174839322/ teen-pregnancy-ads-shame-campaign.

Vinson, J. (2011). More than just a website for young mamas: Girl-mom members’ strategies for countering the dominant perception of teen motherhood. In M. Moravec (Ed.), Motherhood online (pp. 98– 116). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.

Vinson, J. (2012). Covering national concerns about teenage pregnancy: a visual rhetorical analysis of images of the pregnant teenage body. Feminist Formations, 24(2), 140–162.

Vinson, J. (2013). Teenage mothers as rhetors and rhetoric: An analysis of Embodied Exigence and Constrained Agency. (Unpublished doc- toral dissertation). Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona.

Vinson, J. & Stevens, S. with the Crossroads Collaborative. (2012). My pregnancy story project report. Tucson, AZ.

Zellman, G. L. (1981). Title IX perspective on the schools’ response to teenage pregnancy and motherhood, R-2767-OCR. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation.

336 Sex Res Soc Policy (2014) 11:322–336

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.